|
The problem is not in the cites, it's in how they're used.
Your post #485, for example, uses cites to determine the nature of a small part of the entire big picture of geology, and then makes a massive, UNCITED leap in paragraph three.
That's not science, it's dumb people trying to understand things without looking at the overall picture because the overall picture doesn't fit their conclusions.
It's as if one took measurements of the rate of cars driving down the highway between 8 and 9am, and made a massive leap to say that more cars drive east than west which proves that there is a car deficit in the west.
So they say they have shown sediment of dirt rolling into the sea. Where, then, are their cites which show how other geologic processes create MOUNTAINS of dirt OUT of the sea?
Duh?
It's all about your starting presuppositions and the way the evidence is interpreted. If you throw away some of the evidence, or just prefer to ignore it, you can come to any conclusion you like. Probably the wrong one though.
|