The above was a response (“Scientific evidence does not have to be interpreted. Science is science.”) that I received while in a debate with an evolutionist.
This is how I rejoined in the debate:
Crime Scene Scientists, Paleontologists, and Archaeologists along with probably every other scientist is faced with the challenges of how to best interpret the evidence.
If you were a crime scene investigator, you would come into a house and observe a dead body laying on the ground. You would then have to do whatever methodological science you could (observation and experimentation), then you would have to interpret that evidence using assumptions and extrapolations into the past (you could get into “a bit” of trouble reproducing the experiment aka reenacting the crime).
It is the same thing, when you have a rock – you can do science on it through observation and experimentation, and then you have to make assumptions about how it formed. You have to interpret the evidence to explain the most reasonable conclusion.
What do you think? How could my argument be any better?
By Brian Mariani