What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?

If you think that's bad, think about extinct species that have been dead longer than 6,000 years ago. God created the earth 6,000 years ago with the appearance of being 4.5 billion years old. Part of that appearance was millions of species which no longer exist. The earth "looks like" it evolved. In fact, in a sense, it did evolve, since it was created as though it evolved.All those dinosaur fossils? They are really there, so that the earth would appear old, and the earth is made in such a way that it was affected by the age of reptiles. However, those reptiles never really lived! They were just part of making the earth look old when it was made 6,000 years ago!I think the word "preposterous" was invented for just such an assertion.

This is really misplaced in this discussion. If somehow, I feel God spoke to me inside to do something or believe something, and others tell me to do or believe something different, then I have to decide whether to believe man or God. If, however, you, Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, or the Dalai Lama says that God wrote Genesis and meant by it that the earth was created in six days six thousand years ago, and scientists say it isn't true, then I have to decide which men I am placing my faith in--God isn't involved in the matter.Since scientists can present a lot of evidence for their position, and you, Henry Morris, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind (I'm pretty confident the Dalai Lama is not a YEC) can't, then I choose the other men/women over your lot.Actually, in the end, I'll bet you place your trust in scientists, too, unless you're part of a very extreme minority of charismatics/pentecostals. If a person near you suddenly fell to the ground, jerked around some, and foamed at the mouth, would you call your pastor or would you call 911, so that they can call the scientists (doctors) at the local hospital to treat the person's seizure? Almost every Christian I know would choose 911 and the people who studied science to treat an epileptic, not the man who studied the Bible.And I think it's clear to anyone who reads the Gospels that the Bible teaches that when a person falls to the ground, writhes around, and foams at the mouth they have a demon, which should be treated by exorcism, not epilepsy, which can be treated by drugs and diet.Anyway, I wonder if your "trust God or men" applies to epilepsy and seizures. I wonder, too, if you're still upset that pretty much all of Christianity has trusted Galileo and Copernicus instead of God on the rotation of the earth.I've got even a better one. When Jesus said that Abiathar the priest gave David "and all those with him" (Mark 2:26) to eat of the showbread, should we trust him (God) or should we trust the men who wrote Samuel and said that David was alone and got the showbread from Ahimelech (1 Sam 21:1)? This is not true. Nothing about this is true. This is the "false dichotomy" the other poster wrote about. Science does nat say that there can't be a higher power or that anything unobservable is wrong. They only say that anything unobservable, unrepeatable, and untestable can't be science.Of course, it doesn't matter how many times that's pointed out. If I had to, I'd bet my last nickel that you will repeat this false argument the next chance you get. It can be effective rhetoric to the ignorant, so who care's if it's true, right?

I hope that by now you've gathered from everyone else's (the "forum majority") responses what it is (basically unknown or unknowable). But I guess if they say repeatedly that they are not saying that what is not science is not necessarily false, and you don't believe them, there's not a heck of a lot any of us can do about that.A "false dichotomy" means you say, "You must believe A or B," when in fact there are more choices than A or B. Things are not either science or false. That's the false dichotomy Zephyr's speaking of. If you say you saw a floating, glowing orange cloud in your dining room three years ago, and neither you nor anyone else has seen it since, your story really can't be scientifically tested, but that doesn't mean it's false.

Well, this is quite the accusation, isn't it? Can you give examples where this has happened? Where "evidence" has been made up?Or are you talking about speculating about the unknown so that scientists can go test that speculation. Scientists speculate all the time, but part of their speculation is always about how they will test their speculation to see if it is true. They don't just believe it. That's what young earth Christians do, and it is what scientists object to when they do it concerning things that are testable (like the age of the earth). No, fighting for a theory that has only 1/10,000,000 of a chance of being wrong is a great idea, especially if competing theories have a far greater chance of being wrong.What exactly, agrav8r, do you know about the earth, God, religion, or about anything else that has less than a one in ten million chance of being wrong? Very little beyond your own name and address.If something has a 50% chance of being right, and you can continue to test it and continue to use it to test other things, then you should. As you continue to examine, you might eventually find out it's wrong. Then you back up as far as you need to and then go forward again. That's the road to truth, and it works really, really well.Because people who do science look for truth that way, and because Biblical literalists don't, then when people are sick--even Christian people--they call doctors who study science in order to get better. They don't call preachers who study the Bible to get better, EVEN THOUGH THEY USED TO. The reason they don't call preachers who study the Bible is because doctors who study science can make people well. Not 100% of the time. Certainly not with less than a one in ten million chance of error (or even of malpractice), but people go to doctors, anyway, because they are immeasurably more successful than preachers at healing people.Why is that, when the Bible COMMANDS you to take a sick person to the elders of the church and says nothing about doctors? (Unless your a Catholic, where Ecclesiasticus in the apocrypha mentions doctors). It is because scientists do not cheat on evidence, but look at it and adapt their ideas, and thus find what's true and are able to heal.You trust science to be honest, and you trust their speculations and testing when you're sick. Why do you accuse them and reject their search for truth when it concerns earth's history?There is an inconsistency here, but it's not with science.

Another accusation with no evidence to support it. Isn't slander forbidden by your religion? [/qs]Now i realize that the arguement can be turned around- but i admit that I have faith, and jsut want to prove the point that basing your beliefs is another kind of faith[/qs]"prove the point"? That's called slander, not proof.