[allmendream]

That or about a billion other contrary facts, such as the fact that an experimental population not exposed to atmospheric radiation does not experience significantly enhanced life spans, or that an increase in radiation exposure increases incidence of cancer, but doesn't cause premature aging.

The things people read from Creationists sources leave them more ignorant than when they started. Creationists are just not serious people.

[70times7]

That or about a billion other contrary facts, such as the fact that an experimental population not exposed to atmospheric radiation does not experience significantly enhanced life spans, or that an increase in radiation exposure increases incidence of cancer, but doesn't cause premature aging.

Well now, as a "non creationist" and self implied logical thinker, you must be aware that removing the presumed source of the genetic damage would not automatically result in repair, now would it? It would als take time not stated or implied in your scenario. The canopy theory was suggested and removed as plausible by creationists. How is this any different than so many theories regarding evolution that are proposed and later removed?

The things people read from Creationists sources leave them more ignorant than when they started. Creationists are just not serious people.

I have met both "serious" and ignorant creationists and "serious" and ignorant evolutionists. The ignorant of all stripes sometimes expose themselves with broad brush slanders of those with an opposing view. I try to avoid such people.

I would prefer that you not reply, but you probably will.