The list of extinctions compared to the list of 'evolved' organisms

[lucaspa]

no - but unlike modern science I admit there is a lot I do not know or understand

LOL! Oh, we admit there are LOTS of things we do not know and some that we know we do not understand. We really don't understand quantum mechanics, for instance.

BUT, there are some things we do know. Those are the negative statements, the positive statements we have disproved:
1. The earth is less than 10,000 years old.
2. The earth is flat.
3. Geology is explained by a world-wide flood.
4. Each species was specially created and remains constant thru time.
5. Proteins are the hereditary material
6. Phlogiston is involved in combustion
7. Articular cartilage will regenerate
etc.

The problem is that some of the things you want to believe we do not understand are on the list of the disproved.

There are other statements that we accept as provisionally true. The earth is 4.55 billion years old and evolution are 2 of those.

 

[Orogeny]

Actually, there are not an "infinite interpretations for any data set". Data sets disprove some interpretations. The ones that get published are the ones where we have disproved all the interpretations that we can think of except the one getting published.

I disagree. First, there are infinite interpretations for any data set, but the vast majority of those are not valid- clearly there are finite valid interpretations. Second, publications need not disprove ALL differing interpretations, merely show that the favored interpretation fits all available data as well as or better than opposing interpretations. It is quite common to offer several interpretations, all of which fit the data, while noting that the favored interpretation may fall out of favor with the acquisition of new data.

 

[sfs]

Scientists have adopted a POV. And you seem to be presenting a foregone conclusion, rather than an open mind. I think if the "school of one" you refer to here is legitimately trying, he should be allowed to fail. Thomas Edison did. Over and over.

Of course I've adopted a point of view. My point of view is that the best explanations for natural phenomena are the ones that best let us predict and control nature. By that standard, which is the standard science in general uses, creationism is failing quite badly. No one is trying to stop Wood -- he can go on trying for the rest of his life. I just don't see any reason to give any credence to his efforts as long as they're failing so badly.