Re: The nature of evidence

The following text was in a recent AIG newsletter.
---------
"Many people do not really understand the nature of 'evidence.' They
think that to oppose evolution or disprove an old earth, one has to come
up with totally different or unique 'evidence' and don't understand that
it is not a matter of 'their evidence vs ours.' All evidence is actually
interpreted, and all scientists actually have the same observations-the
same data-available to them in principle. If Christians really understood
that all evidence is actually interpreted on the basis of certain
presuppositions, then we wouldn't be in the least bit intimidated by the
evolutionists' supposed 'evidence.' We should instead be looking at the
evolutionist's (or old-earther's) interpretation of the evidence, and how
the same evidence could be interpreted within a biblical framework and be
confirmed by testable and repeatable science."
-------------
Burgy ( I have seen your photo and Glenn's who looked like a KGB agent!)
How might it best be answered?

Michael; This sounds very good and scientific and in one sense I wouldn't
disagree with it. BUT remember Ham's argument that no one was there to
observe these rocks as a put down on classical old earth geology. What does
it mean by a biblical framework - 6 days a flood, but what about a flat
earth?

Can Craig Rusbult comment?

Michael
Received on Sat Dec 13 17:38:46 2003