part of the frustrating thing about this format in general is some kind of unsaid rule that you need to find ways to disagree with as much of your opponents argument as you can.
I think rather than try to convince Arphy of the philosophical correctness that correlating evidence is powerful, perhaps Ned should just drive the few bullet points necessary to destroy the only pseudo-evidence for creationism that was raised which is the RATE project.
Its not just wrong from a scientific philosophy perspective, it is actually and factually wrong. Even if you get past the fact that they chose samples of zircons from a place in NM where they harvest excess helium commercially, talk about their rediculously small sample sizes and other scientific operational dysfunctions, notice that such a massivly groundbreaking conclusion has not been replicated even by the people who believe it is correct, you still have the problem that accelerated decay introduces an unfathomable amount of more problems than it solves.
I find that sticking to the facts leaves creationism in a wholly compromising position.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
™ Version 4.2
