My position is unchanged. Even your link to the information on half-lives uses much probability language.
That's because the probability function associated with radioactive decay is what determines the shape of the decay curve.
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.
So, in simple terms, everything beyond the red dot[in the graph provided] is extrapolation, or, in more accurate terms, assumption.
Every single short lived radioactive decay has followed the exponential decay curve that is described by the probability equations.
Every single one All of the observed portions of the long lived decays also follow the same exponential curve described by the probability equations.
Every single one.
So what do you think is the most reasonable assumption?
1. That the elements undergoing long half life radioactive decay, followed the same decay pattern that they do now?
Or
2. Even though we don't know of anything that can cause the decay pattern to change, that it probably did change and any estimate of the age of anything is very likely completely unreliable so we can't know anything about the past 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.
Ok. We can't assume that someone's fingerprint on that knife left in the victim really belongs to the person who matches the print because we haven't fingerprinted everyone on Earth so there might be someone else who matches the print. Case dismissed.
We can't assume that the Old Testament was correctly copied during the time before Christ even though there are records showing the copying requirements were stringent. So, the current Bible is not the document that the inspired authors originally wrote.
We can't be sure that our current mother and father are our biological mother and father even though the DNA tests seem to show it. To accept the validity of the DNA tests we would have to know the DNA of every other person on Earth to ensure there weren't any others with the exact DNA of our mother and father.
At this point I can think of nothing that can not be discarded because everything requires an assumption of some type.
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.
Not if the technology that they had at the time indicated that the world was only a few hundred million years old. All scientific conclusions are considered tentative because of the limits of knowledge at the time. You seem to be suggesting that scientists make no conclusions unless they know everything.
Do you know everything about the products you sell? If not, then perhaps you should draw no conclusions about the efficacy until you do know everything about them. Quick! Stop selling them!!
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.
The teaching institutions are teaching the conclusions drawn from the knowledge that we do have. You want to be intellectually honest as you state then you have to say that your conclusions about how life came about are more lacking in
supporting evidence than evolution. Yours is more of a guess than that of the scientific community.
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/M0029That video is not evidence because the biologist presenting it does not even try to provide a list of chemical rules that are violated. In this particular little snippet, he doesn't say anything except that he doesn't think it can happen. He says his research lead him to believe that amino acids can't assemble into proteins.
He has not done any research to prove or disprove his declaration. He contends (hypothesizes) that amino acids cannot assemble into proteins but makes no effort to test his hypothesis. Why?
You 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?
What chemical rules are violated by this formation of symmetry?
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.
What chemical rule is violated by the formation of 2 symmetrical eyes?
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?
What chemical rules are violated by the formation of male and female reproductive systems?
These types of questions draw attention to the sheer absurdity of evolution... Believing that highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing organisms self-assemble.
Dr Kenyon didn't supply any answers to this so I must turn back to you. What chemical rules are violated by the formation of "highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing organisms"?
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.
Natural laws that are put in place by a creator.
My position is simply this:
Natural laws are woefully insufficient to assemble highly-complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machines.
Which "natural laws" are violated by the assembly of highly complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machines? Please just name one law that is violated and details on how the assembly of highly complex, symmetrical, sexual, self-reproducing machines violates that law.
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 believe that this is unmitigated baloney for which you have not produced a single shred of evidence to support.
If I am wrong in this statement then please point out where you have provided evidence of the social control aspect of the theory of evolution.
