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.
My position is unchanged. Even your link to the information on half-lives uses much probability language.
Nevertheless, the vast majority of long decay rates have not been observed. We are assuming their shape even though we have only observed a very, very small fraction of their decay.
The extrapolation you mentioned in your previous post is based on assumption. Graphically, it looks like this:
![[Linked Image]](http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/leyurbjogz.jpg)
The part of the curve we have observed in this graph is represented in red. The red circle is merely used to draw attention to the red part of the graph.
In fact, the amount we have observed is much smaller than the red dot you see here, but it's been dramatically enlarged to make it visible in the graphic.
So, in simple terms,
everything beyond the red dot is extrapolation, or, in more accurate terms, assumption.
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.
No, not at all.
We have found over and over again that our scientific beliefs about the world have been wrong. No, not wrong about everything, but wrong about the big things.
The best way not to be wrong is to not assume.
As I've said before, the textbooks that myself and my colleagues were schooled from claimed that the world was a few hundred million years old, and this was just over 20 years ago.
It would have been better and more honest for science to say:
"Some of our current testing methods seem to indicate that the Earth is a few hundred million years old, but some of our other methods conflict with these findings, so in fact, we're really not sure right now."This would have been the correct—and honest—way to make this statement.
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.
No. Actually, I'm simply being intellectually honest.
The fact is, we really don't know. So we can look at the data, draw some preliminary thoughts and ideas, but in fact, we really don't know.
This is much, much closer to the truth than high schools, universities, museums, and mass media are currently teaching.
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.
I have already shown you a whole class of chemical binding processes that are impossible and are a brick wall to evolution:
Amino Acids Do Not Self-Assemble Into Proteins
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0029You also have the innumerable problems associated with symmetry. For example:
How does a mirror image of this knuckle, cartilage, connective tissue, bone, etc., etc. form over on the other side of the body in just the right symmetrical location?How do the rods and cones form perfectly in one eye and then the other in a mirror image and then the skull form symmetrically and then the muscles and connective tissue for the eye form and attach in just the right position to create perfect symmetry, and then the optic nerve form, connect to the rods and cones in just the right way and then the optic nerve grows just correctly to serve its purpose.
These types of examples of the symmetrical complexity are also applied to the reproductive system:
How does a male reproductive system develop perfectly to work with a female reproductive system in separate organisms?
These types of questions draw attention to the sheer absurdity of evolution... Believing that highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing organisms self-assemble.
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.
I am very aware that you believe some intelligence used the process of evolution to "build" human bodies.
Regardless of the person or entity that you believe is at the head of the operation, it's clear that the process was outside the scope of natural law, and therefore, "supernatural".
Evolution believes that the process was based on natural laws.
My position is simply this:
Natural laws are woefully insufficient to assemble highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machines.The better explanation is that evolution is a social control used by global power brokers to discredit the Bible so that personal rights and freedoms—maintained by Biblical law—can be removed, and that this enslavement is necessary for the invocation of the last world government, often coined by the power brokers themselves as "The New World Order".
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."
—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
