Who Has the Most Metaphysical FAITH--EVO or YEC?

Your response is too belabored for me to respond well at this point, too multi-faceted, too absolute (i.e., stating I "completely" left science, etc.), too self-righteously scientific, too condemning, too dogmatic, etc.While containing some scientific truths in your harsh rebuttals, they, too, are tiresome to me and to others I've recently seen you tango with.Dogmatic assertions seem to imply that one fails to understand or appreciate other valid hypotheses.I suggest we try again on one or two points afresh ... as we seem to be boring each other to death; you are not computing to me and I am not computing to you.

Yur response makes no sense. The post I replied to clearly stated that you included stellar evolution as part of the Theory of Evolution - which deals only with biological evolution

quote:

---

Your response is too belabored for me to respond well at this point, too multi-faceted, too absolute (i.e., stating I "completely" left science, etc.), too self-righteously scientific, too condemning, too dogmatic, etc.

---

In other words, when asked to provide specific explanations that would actually require you to say something [B]substantive[/i], you decide to attack my style instead of just answering my perfectly reasonable questions and requests for information.

quote:

---

While containing some scientific truths in your harsh rebuttals, they, too, are tiresome to me and to others I've recently seen you tango with.

---

Irrelevant.

quote:

---

Dogmatic assertions seem to imply that one fails to understand or appreciate other valid hypotheses.

---

More attacks instead of simply answering my very simple questions...

quote:

---

I suggest we try again on one or two points afresh ... as we seem to be boring each other to death; you are not computing to me and I am not computing to you.

---

I strongly suspect that you understand me just fine. My language is quite plain and my requests quite specific.You are correct that I do not understand you a lot of the time.That's why I ask for clarifications of the terms you choose to use as "evidence" to support your assertions about science. Don't blame me for not understanding what you mean if you refuse to clarify what you mean.If you would like to start again with one point, then I sggest the claim you made about dating of the Earth.What is your explanation for the amazing agreement between all of the various radiometriic dating methaods which are used to date rocks?

"What is your explanation for the amazing agreement between all of the various radiometriic dating methaods which are used to date rocks?"
Schraf, this has already been addressed in part about 8 months ago, by myself and others; in sum:
1) Barry Setterfield's c=infinity at the moment of creation/big bang would easily account for your amazing agreements within atomic clocks apparent age ... albeit constricted with respect to a diurnal (planetary) time of 6000 (or so) years.
2) Einstein's special relativistic theory at the moment of the creation/big-bang (E=mcc) would also explain constricted millenia of atomic time into dilated diurnal time, during the decremental fractions of seconds in the beginning.
3) Einstein's general relativistic theory, event-horizons, and unified gravitational effects on light at the edge of a universe, etc., is used by some YECs (more than myself) to explain the appearance of age in stars being millions and billions of light years away: This mechanism does NOT hold much credence to me to explain agreeing isotopic decay in some atoms of rocks. I mention it though because I speculate it might. I've speculated: Gravitational effects on atomic time are consistently unified and/or relative to:
A. An expanding, contracting universe
B. A bound universe containing event-horizon(s).
4) During the creation/big-bang the redemptive-ID created the rocks (1st and 3rd evening and morning of Genesis 1) as well as chicken and egg simultaneously (the 5th and 6th diurnal day). This implies mature rocks and life-forms being created with uniformly mature atomic substrates and their scientific properties. But this also implies acceptance of ID before the ToE came into play as you repeatedly describe.Care for me to elaborate more on 1,2, and/or 4 above to better explain my explanation of consistent atomic clocks for apparent dating?
(Any one else out there wish to help me or rebut me on this?)