As I said before, the decay rates have not been observed and are therefore assumed. You referred to this problem in your post using the word "extrapolation".
We can call it what we want, but the bottom line here is that the extrapolation is an assumption, not an observation.
What was observed is that in each case the
observed decay of long half-life materials followed the same exponential curve as the short half-life materials that were
observed for almost all of their decay.
Hereis a paper on half-life.
What I mean when I say a process involves faith is that one does not know the process. Nevertheless, when people choose to accept that which we don't really know as fact, they are actually accepting it by faith.
Some scientists assume that all radioactive decay rates operate according to the formula that you provided. Since many of these curves have not been observed, this is an assumption.
Does this mean you believe that if there is any assumption involved in a conclusion, that the conclusion cannot be used to describe reality or used as evidence for that reality?
Shouldn't there be some sort of hierarchy for assumptions? Perhaps assumptions based of partial observation could be considered more valid than an assumption based on no observation?
If we cannot use any evidence based on assumption then there is little need for jails because you could not convict anyone.
You have a witness that says he saw the accused leaving the murder scene rapidly. You really can't use that as evidence because.
1. The witness didn't see the actual crime so it is assumed that the suspect was there during the murder.
2. You can't use the assumption that the witness is not lying.
3. You can't use the assumption that the witness was not having an hallucination at the time.
You can't do any forensic investigation of a suspected arson because you can't assume that the laws of physics were completely in effect at that location when the fire started. Maybe the flash point of the wood temporarily lowered to 20 degrees long enough for the wood to flash into flame.
I'm surprised that you even make it through a day without worrying that the chemical reactions that digest your food won't suddenly change so that cucumbers are poison to you.
Our records of observations of decay rates only go back perhaps 70-80 years, and even then, records were not kept until well after that. So, as you said, there is an extrapolation that takes place.
The problem is that this extrapolation is based on the assumption that all decay rates follow the same curve defined by the formula.
We don't know if this is true or not because many of them have not been observed, especially those often quoted in relation to evolution.
It is, therefore, an assumption. If this assumption is accepted, it is accepted by faith.
So are your assumptions. So how do we get some kind of feel that a particular assumption is relatively valid because your take on it makes any study of the past invalid. Also it pretty much makes invalid any study of the present in order to develop something that works in the future. You assume that your Immune Stimulator will work tomorrow but that is invalid because you haven't observed it working tomorrow.
Name a condition that could change the radioactive decay rate of an element.
A more pertinent question would be to ask you if you can state with confidence that there are no factors that affect radioactive decay rates.
As you so famously state further in your post, I can't prove a negative. You seem to be stating that since we cannot show that there are no factors that can change decay rates, that they must have changed.
Wow!
I can't show that there are no leprechauns so there must be leprechauns.
I can't show that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn, so there must be one.
I can't show that Young Earth Creationism is not the stupidest idea since the beginning of time, so it must be.
What do you think...should we live our lives believing that every proposed idea must be valid since we cannot show that it is not?
Since there is no such thing as "self-replicating" in the manner which Russ appeared to mean, I saw no reason to answer his question. Besides, he did not state which "rules of chemistry" were violated by assembly of "complex self-replicating machines", despite being asked several times. It was his claim of such that started the exchange, he should support it, I think. However....
You're asking me to prove a negative.
My position is that chemical binding rules do not facilitate the self-assembly of highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual
No I am not. I am asking you which chemical binding rules are violated by "self assembly" of these highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual(different organisms having perfectly compatible reproductive systems), self-reproducing machines.
All you have to do is name one of the "chemical binding rules" that is violated and show how the "self assembly" process required by evolution violates that particular rule.
Since you seem to have studied these processes enough to conclude that they violate the "chemical binding rules", this should be a snap for you.
Even if you do show one "chemical binding rule" that is violated by the "self assembly" process, that doesn't help your case. In order for your argument to have validity you must
assume that the "chemical binding rules" were the same back when life was started. An assumption on that scale would be just like scientists assuming that radioactive decay worked the same in the past as it does now. We all know that you don't accept assumptions about the past, so you shouldn't use them either...it would be unscientific of you.
Darwin tried to break the claim into little pieces, but he did not know or understand even the slightest about the depth of complexity that exists inside a cell. He did not consider symmetry. He did not properly consider sexuality.[quote]So please show us where he is incorrect by complying with the above request.
"It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good;..."
(Charles Robert Darwin, The Origin of Species (1870), 80.)
[quote]Linear has stated that complex reactions to occur within the cell. Indeed they do, but their require the assistance of a vast toolshed of complex machinery to do it.
Shall we then claim that the toolshed of complex machinery built itself?
No.
An external intelligence built the machines that facilitate complex processes.
There is no other logical explanation.
Where did I claim that an external intelligence was not involved? I simply differ with you on the process used by that intelligence in the creation of the Earth that we see today.
