[CottShop]

sur3 they've been rebutted- anyone can take a theory that measured by incidents can't be observed and rebutt anything- why? simply because the knowns are not infact known- You failed to mention they have not been succesfully rebutted-

[CottShop]

your 'science' relies as heavily on specualtion as does creation science- yet- somehow, because your 'science' leaves God out of the equasion- you think it's more 'fact'? sorry- but you NEED a heapiong amount of faith to trust in something that delves into unknowns- for instance the coinstants or -non constants- that can not be determined. dating steps outside the element of science and goes straight to the beleif system- science studies knowns and observables- If you are going to discount creation science, then you also have to discount secular science as beingh a 'priori of dogma' as well-

[Coyoteman]

You have shown you are unwilling to consider scientific arguments. Each of your links or arguments that is rebutted leads to, "But wait! There's more!" Then you furiously cut and paste more fluff from creationist websites.

At this point, I'm going to let my posts, particularly post #237 stand until you can come up with better arguments.

Bye