What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?

Actually the arguement is not difficult, it is only that many are misinterpreting the bible. When God created Adam he was created in a mature state and capable of producing seed. when he created all the life on earth , it was also in a mature state and capable of producing seed.
Therefore all creations of God are mature nad when the earth and the universe were created they were created in a mature state.
you of course will jest at this reply, but it is consistant with the bible, and offers a plausable , reasonable explaination.

1) I would never presume that i know the ultimate will of God, and so on one aspect i could never fully answer this question, but
2)god is consistant in what he does there by all things God creates are in a mature state or
3) Perhaps a galaxy that was younger/older looking would have been inappropiate to allow certian events to happen ( such as non believers asking certian questions ?)

No he stated how would you argue this point
If God is all powerful he could do anything, such as changing tomarrow the scientific laws you hold dear or creating an earth that appears old.
You have faith that what you consider truth is correct, as do I.
I would ask you , have we checked every atom on the earth? No we have not, and therefore your arguement could fold like a house of cards, and yet you claim it as truth. We both have faith, mine in God and yours in "scientism".

Same fallacy as used before- who defines what God should have done and whymost of the problem between Sci's and Cre's is in the definition of truth and knowledge. sci's will state that truth is either arbitrary or ultimately created by self ( humans) ,and (most, i hope) Cre's believe that God is the source of all Knowledge and truth. in most aspects the two are like oil and water, for if God is the ultimate truth, to believe otherwise is to deny God.on the contrary, If sci is to be correct, it cannot have a higher power that dictates truth other than the human experience. anything beyond that is unobservable and thus wrong.
Of course there will be some that will ride the fence, but ultimately they must choose which to place their faith in, man or God.
this is how i view these forums, Those that place their faith in sci-ism and those who place their faith in God.

This is not true. Nothing about this is true. This is the "false dichotomy" the other poster wrote about. Science does nat say that there can't be a higher power or that anything unobservable is wrong. They only say that anything unobservable, unrepeatable, and untestable can't be science.so if it is not science what is it? According to this forum majority it is false, thus you are stating that if GOD is unobservable, science would say he does not exist and is false.
I look at these boards and I wonder if we all agree on Absolute truth.
let us say absolute truth is the fundenmental truth of all the universe, it's laws, and its constants. I will call it A.
Either A = God or A= ScienceIf god exists and is the creator of all then God =A. To say anything less is to deny that God is the creator.If there is no God, then science is used to discover A. but to use science it is assumed that A is observable, testable ,and repeatable. There is a chance however that A is not one of the three, and so science ( as it has been described by you) could not discover A, but it would appear that it had discovered A. Therefore it is possible that Science's A < A. One cannot argue that currently science's current truth does not equal A. in fact every statement about truth in science is a theory created by man.
So I have absolute truth in two context. If you believe the first, than science is only one of many tools to get to A but not A itself. If you believe the second, many argue that that science is the only way to A, which in itself is a faith as we have no proof that A can be reached by scientific method. So you place your faith in either inScience or in God-
thus no false dicotomy[This message has been edited by agrav8r, 01-09-2004]

first off, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and respectful nature your posts show- i have been recieving very little of this, but this may be due to my screen name. That said:
When i speak of fundenmental Truth -I mean the reality of the universe ,whether that be God created the universe, it hatched from a chicken , evolved from nothing, ect.. not the process but the final equation. If you can understand this i would ask that you reread and see if my post makes more of a point. if you come up with the same conclusions, please just state so and i will elaborate, but i have problems communicating my ideas, nad would rather ensure that we are on the same page before continuing.

"If I follow you correctly, you're saying that we could discover a subset of the natural order and be deceived by the illusion that we had discovered it all. As I understand science and methodological naturalism, nothing at all is wrong with this idea and a good scientist would not object. However, they would also ask: if some aspect of "reality" or "A" as you call it does not affect our lives in ways that can be understood via observation, and does not do so with regularity, what good can come of even concerning ourselves with it?
Observation is our ONLY means for gathering information about the universe. The scientific method reduces the effect of errors in observation through repeated testing. If we tried to acknowledge unobservable, untestable, or unrepeatable phenomena and use our knowledge of them to direct our paths through life, we might spend our whole lives waiting for their effects and die disappointed."
An example
there are arguements ( and I am not fluient in them all so I will generalize) for open, closed and stagnate universes in the current scientific theories. A scientist would say it is one of the three and come up with a theory based on the little bit of fact they know- however when the evidence doesn't work correctly they "add" things - again with no actual proof- only perception through what may be faulty observation/logic - this is what I mean by Scientism. There are many theories ( something that may be right, but could very well be wrong) to support- but supporting a theory that may ,if only a 1/10000000000 chance, be wrong is the same as having "faith". You fight for it and will continue to do so.
Your only arguement is that we can see/observe it.
Overly simple example following:
I look at a piece of paper with designs on it. We will say that the paper is the universe.The designs are in such a way as to appear to have depth and to "move". i cannot see/observe the other side and so I will continue to say it has depth. I will argue that it is measurable and come up with theories base on the movement and the way the patterns fall. Then someone comes up and says it is just a peice of paper and there is another side to it. I will argue that they cannot know that prove it to me. I have faith in that all that is observable is all there is. This is Scientism.

But you don't get to believe just anything about how he went about creating it. Well, you can but you have to keep it out of other peoples faces in any free country with separation of church and state.
This is another arguement that i would want to make a differnet thread for, but nowhere did our founders use that term. It has been taken out of context and misused so often that most people believe that it is in the constitution like that. but i digress"But you don't get to believe just anything about how he went about creating it."
My arguement is that in both science and religion you are doing just that. they both use faith in the assumption that their way of looking at the world will lead to A.
If I say evolution exists, and A turns out to really be god's hand touching everything, and not evolution- but it appeared to be evolution, you would have faith that it was a random set of evens despite A.
Now i realize that the arguement can be turned around- but i admit that I have faith, and jsut want to prove the point that basing your beliefs is another kind of faith-
I do this only to set the stage and perhaps open a few closed minds. In my mind we must first discuss the idea of fundenmentals and then we can move on to where truth (or more truth) resides. I may be assuming that minds are closed, and if that is true , i apologize as I don't wish to offend- despite my name sake.