One more question please?
What are these for?
(Notice I said, what are they for?)
I'm not going to blame all of science on just "some".
But in the study of the past, the evidence is easily misinterpreted. That's even true often with direct observation, if there's a language barrier. I've done enough recreation of historical skills, plus seeing others do them, to know that historical accounts are often wrong. The person watching an indigenous individual work for example, will misinterpret exactly what he or she is doing, then write down his false information. But I'm supposed to believe they get history right when looking at an old bone? The room for error is enormous.
Of course it is, and paleontologists take care to avoid error. Their work is exacting and requires a great deal of knowledge and experience, sometimes assisted by scientists from other fields.
It is interesting what can be learned from "old bones".
Perhaps--but I just don't care about it as much as you do. I expect there will be errors, but I also expect that if there are they will eventually be corrected. ToE is only a scientific theory just like any other, after all, it's not "absolute truth" and nobody's belief system depends on it being absolute truth. I see no reason not to accept it--provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted. If it's wrong, I'm sure that some enterprising scientists will find their Nobel prizes in correcting it.
If you appreciate death and decay that much, I can give you some better examples than those of animals dying of thirst and being picked at and their bones broken.
At least It keeps him from being an agnostic.But your bible, and more particularly your interpretation of it, are beyond reproach?
That is not the definition of a scientific fact.
We know evolution is a fact that has occurred by observing its results, i.e. modern organisms differ from past forms
When there is consilience of evidence from many fields there is little room for misinterpretation.
That is why science is peer reviewed
History is not forward looking. It does not make predictions.
I would think that a person hired to make observations would be trained well trained in the field they are working in.
Sounds like you are claiming that forensic anthropologists wasted loads of time and money for an education that does not give them expertise in their field.
