Replies

The scientific process did not exist a million years ago, so there is no way to test accurately a million year old subject as there was no one there to observe it, but I don't suppose you thought of that as your one objective is not to consider all facts, but merely to attack the concept of creation.

So you presume to know my "one objective"? Actually, I have many objectives, one of which is to point out the inconsistency of certain arguments I see being put forth. For example, you *once again* bemoan the fact "there was no one there to observe it" with regards to a million-year old subject, while glossing over the point I made about scientists drawing conclusions about a murder scene of which they were not observers.

The principle, you see, is whether or not we can draw conclusions about events which have had no observers, using "just" the evidence available. There are so many examples of this (forensics being but a single one) it is impossible to list them all. Some situations have more available evidence, some less. But the principle remains.

tests can be run on a week old corpse, knowing for a fact that it was a week old, the ability to observe something in that span of time readily exists, though we still have no way to observe the reaction over millions of years once again I state there is no millions of years old standard to use all we can do is assume, I know for a fact there is a way to test "in actual time and conditions" the affects of time for a week, a month, or even a year, but what way do we have to test whether the effects change after a hundred, thousand, or "million" years, there is no way to effectively test this. certainly not in our life times, nor our children, or their children.....there is a far cry of difference between forensics under testable conditions, within a testable time range, and assuming that certain conditions existed, "millions" of years ago, or assuming the condition of the ground before the subject was buried, assuming the components, and surrounding elements, assuming weather the subject was buried, naturally or unnaturally, assuming that there is no significant reason that this particular fossil has existed for "millions" of years though most have long since decayed beyond recognition.but for now I'm done with my rant, I hope you can understand where I am coming from, it is after all somewhat common sense.