Originally posted by ColettiShould we accept the theory of plate tectonics only when Africa collides with Europe? Do we have to wait until the Alps are weathered down to a flat plain before accepting mountains can be eroded away?
I'm leaning towards a sort of Creationism then post-Creation/Evolution view so I wouldn't rule it out. In general, I'd say it would be difficult unless science comes up with a way of speeding up the process without inadvertently directing the process.
Maybe will find something that is a pseudo-vertebrate. But then the question that is still difficul ...[text shortened]... new thread off track. I am looking forward to what kinds of answers you get to your challenge)
We don't need to 'speed up science" or the process. We can observe what happens over a short time, and then look for evidence of the same process occuring over millions of years.
Originally posted by steerpikeWhat are you going on about? I never said anything about plate tectonics or erosion rates. But your also ignoring how math works. The farther you project a line, the more unreliable it becomes. And you missing a lot of data that shows the which direction the line is going in, and how to draw the line between vast points of data. It's a huge guess. It doesn't come even close to the kinds of projections we can do make for plate tectonics. And even some of those are very loose estimates.
Should we accept the theory of plate tectonics only when Africa collides with Europe? Do we have to wait until the Alps are weathered down to a flat plain before accepting mountains can be eroded away?
We don't need to 'speed up science" or the process. We can observe what happens over a short time, and then look for evidence of the same process occuring over millions of years.
So even if you assume the same processes occurred in the past - your still assuming that you can connect them, and the connections are like a kid playing connect the dots. And the dots are not numbered - so it's often a guess how to connect them.
