The evidence does not support theories. The theories either explain the evidence or they do not.
Evidence either support or refute a claim. Saying that "
the theory explains evidence" is the same things as saying "
evidence support the theory" or the "
claims made by the theory is supported by evidence".
The point is, creationist always try to render the meaning with words meaning less by letting them mean everything. Theory = story telling, and if the Bible then tells a story then it follows that the Bible is just as valid story telling as a scientific theory, the Bible can even then be said to be supported by science, and other nonsense like that
That means any good storyteller can theorize anything, as long as it does not run counter to the facts. This is why a good mystery novel or puzzle can throw you off.
Incorrect. A claim supported by evidence is not story telling. It is only story telling when you do not have supporting evidence. I.e. it means that you do not understand what is meant with evidence since you believe a claim based on evidence is story telling, which it isn't.
What you are trying to say, but did not say is that "
facts can be interpreted", i.e. it implies that any kind of story telling is valid about facts, in particular the story telling of the Genesis, which is not true.
Secondly, a theory needs to comply with
all the facts - you are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts! One would thing it would be needless to say, but it isn't, the theory of evolution is supported by
all the facts, the myths in the bible is not.
This is why a good mystery novel or puzzle can throw you off.
I do not see how that can be - unless you exposed to new facts - if you have the facts, how can it then "throw you off"? At most you can look at it from another, perhaps more interesting, angel but to "throw you off" seams to be an exaggeration.
Otherwise it is a very clever way to through in the "interpret the fact" fallacy in this.
