What do ever one think of the reasoning shift from BIOTITE to Zircon in the recent ICR A&Fs?? I know that people object to creationism becasue it always seems to be able to re-invent itself etc. But the ins and out of "the debate" seem to me to imply that this is no longer what is simply happening to the participants engaged in its disucsion. HOW can one tell when the re-iteration of either sided as advertised or assumed is not actually an "adaptation" to the involved evolution of society itself?? which for some time had been handed the creationists as a criticism (I am sorry I do not remember where this was writ.)???
The issue of rates of radioactive decay is becoming impossible for me to seperate from Wolfram's notion of computational equivalence with respect to search speed ups in an electronic world but some of us can remember a time when 8-tracks came out and vision was other than the TV but becoming more the computer (with or without the notion that any is a computation of AI promotion etc).
Ya know, I am even less sure now of what is the material response of creationists if Helmhotlz is correct that Riemann may have violated Newton's third law. Certainly post-Weisacker "transfomationists" (term used to refer to elemental change in the periodic table TAKEN from biology explicity) could be materially mistaken if the implications for other than chemicalcality (the use of behavior can be application to Faraday's criticism of contact theory but being much more expensive to test has never been done) be found in outwork of chemical universality to higher levels of organization in a simple program of Wolfram. Because the science of this is SOOOOOoooo much up in the air I had suggested we may think about introducing haptic information transfer in discussions such as this that in the mean time we can still have something other than isolation to afford the functionality to continue. If one was to respond to you from an internal creationist position only the response would be much simpler.
Again I do not have much of an opnion on this matter as of yet for before this became as well funded in a creaton or same like kind association I was aware of Kevran's claim and others assertion that he had been nominated for a Noble (in France) for his position on biological transmutation of elements. Weinberg denied Wolfram's interest in particle physics acutal kinematics which rather than Kervran could COMPUTATIONALLY be proven. Proving that baking bread changes the nuclues of an atom was not even known to have seriously crossed elite scientists minds once I asked in the 80s if anyone had heard of this. Wolfram's will however seems a bit more easy to communicate however. Situation Awareness is my rather not adaquate response at this time.