quote:
Origins science is not observable or repeatable -that works for us and for you.
Then explain to me why all of the oldest light comes from one spec. Not observable you say? Why is that we have created the building blocks for organic matter from non-life in the lab? Non-repeatable you say?
quote:
Creationist geology I presume refers to our interpretations of the evidence in attempting to explain what has happened in the past.
Every geologist, creationist or evolutionist, uses the laws of matter for technological advancement. The difference is only in our interpretation of what happened in the past.
Except that your interpretation rejects the long time line that is commonly accepted. It also argues that radioactive rates were different back then. While conventional geology and science has built numerous practical applications based on Old Earth beliefs. XOM, Chevron, Shell, Sinopec, etc all use old earth geology. Why is that no one uses any creation interpretations for commercial applications? The true test for an alleged breakthrough is whether or not it can be used. Why is that
absolutely no creationists breakthroughs have been capitalized on? it is perhaps because those interpretations are completely wrong?
quote:
Just because it is quite feasible that there may have been a burst of more rapid radioactive decay in the past doesn't mean we are going to use those past possibilities in our now technology
Then why is there no evidence for this? Magic? Goddidit? Hocus Pocus? Modern radiology is based on uniformitarianism. Nowhere in the science does it suggest that radioactive rates will change or that any burst if speed will occur. The same principles are built into commercial reactors. Why would states risk massive disasters if your 'idea' was feasible? Changing rates could seriously disrupt the reaction. Just look at the backers of these plants. Usually not atheists.
quote:
You appear to be determined to misunderstand and not differentiate between experimental science and origins science.
Not at all. What experimental science has creationism done? (note you've still refused to define cogenetic.)
quote:
I would think that would be obvious and practical and have nothing to do with the real argument here.
Not at all. You don't want to deal with it because it blows an Arcturus sized hole in your belief.
quote:
Different elements currently decay at measurable rates -that is not an assumption, it is an experimentally verifiable fact. Uniformatarian assumptions about the past have nothing to do with this.
What? Uniformatarian assumptions have everything to do with that fact. They assume that these rates were the same in the past. Commercial application in finding some of these elements depends directly on finding elements that resulted from decay and visa versa. If these assumptions were false, why do mining companies use the assumed rates and go backwards? Clearly you are using a massively wrong belief on what Uniformatarism.
quote:
Everything I say is a massive lie in your book -you repeat yourself. Calm down.Hyperbole is unnecessary.
I refuted every example you gave except for the Australian one, which lacked sufficent information to find any data on. Your sources which I assume to be the foundation for your beliefs are lies. I'm not saying you are lying, but your sources and their authors are. Snelling for example is notorious for using non-cogenetic samples and declaring all dating wrong.
quote:
If I cooked something yesterday and it burned, it does not mean it is going to burn today.
Where are you going with this?
quote:
Different heat, different outcome. Perhaps something happened in the past to cause a rapid burst of decay.
Yet where is the evidence for this rapid burst? Where is the evidence for its cause? Magic? Goddidit? Hocus Pocus? All your rational is based on MAGIC.
quote:
How do you know what the graph looks like? You can't extrapolate into the past according to what you want to believe.
We can based on evidence. You are arguing that historical data graphed from current trends are wrong because something the past may have been different. That's okay. What we are attacking your arguments on and what you have
been repeatively warned about by the mods is your lack of any evidence.
Where is the evidence to suggest different rates? Do you have any or is it all magic?
quote:
We don't know what happened in the past -we weren't there.
Therefore we cannot convict anyone of murder without witness. Oh wait. That example has been used time and time again to refute the nonsense you gave.
quote:
We interpret according to the evidence in the present and lots of assumptions are involved.
And when these assumptions are proved by commercial application, what do you have to say? Goddidit?
quote:
If you're so determined to believe that everything is exactly the same now as it ever was then why do you believe in macro-evolution?
Everything? No. I'm saying that the laws of physics haven't changed. That is very different from the things that the laws of physics act upon. Due to the massive lack of any evidence to suggest any differing rates, I reject your ideas. If you HAD evidence, you would have presented it.
quote:
We both know what an allele is so what's your point?
No, I don't think you do know what an allele is.
quote:
My face has remained straight throughout -it's only you that interprets everything I say as a lie or a deception based on an underlying desire to fool myself and anybody else I can in the process.
That's your response to my refutation of your sources?
Seriously.
quote:
How can you possibly interpret my intentions the way you do? Or is that just a characterization you apply uniformly to all non-evolutionists?
How about your refusal to answer basic questions? Or your running from your refuted posts? I'm
very close to reporting you for using the glish glop.
™ Version 4.2
