So let me get this straight. Your only rebuttle to actual peer-reviewed work is to quote attacks based on non-peer-reviewed criticism?

Right. Its become increasingly clear that this isn't an argument over science, its an ad hominem argument. Its really rather sad to see some intelligent people proposing such ignorant ideas when their theory is made foolish.

Humphreys responds, at length, about the absolute lack of any problem with using less pressure to test the results. Furthermore, if pressure was producing results with differences of a factor of 100,000, how would it just happen to match up with the 6,000 year age. Looking at Humphrey's biography, he seems like quite a genius. I'm inclined to believe him over you and Henke, who not only seems to not know what he's talking about, but used irrelevant arguemnts to 'refute' the findings.

Furthermore, RATE research was posed in other scientific venues. I just quoted the most easily accessible. Why shouldn't I pass off Nature because, its only reviewed by biased evolutionists? That's stupid, and you guys know nothing about who these publications are reviewed by. I would be surprised that Henke wouldn't mention at length that these results were ignored by the mainstream scientific community if he could. Right.

Quote:

---

According to their belief, God somehow "accelerated" the radioactive decay in minerals by a factor of several millions to make them look much older as they are.

---

This is nonsense. You should try actually researching what creationists have to say before making comments.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, any first semester physics student could tell you that such an "accerelated decay" would convert any innocent radioactive mineral into a considerable nuclear reactor!

---

Which I'm sure is a fact four collaborating scientists with Ph.Ds in the various fields (including physics) just happened to overlook.

Quote:

---

And if you read his desparate answers on the rebuttals, you'll see that they didn't contain anything new, just a repetition of his arguments and an attack on the person who debunked his idea

---

Not only did Henke use irrelevant research, but I'm wondering....why not submit it for peer-review? He's making himself look like what you guys claim creationists are. Non scientist hacks who run their ideas on websites because you can say anything you want on the internet.

Quote:

---

hahaha yeah really respectable.

---

Ok. Well if this is how the debate on evolution works then there's no point in even discussing it. You guys consistently try and stack the deck in your favor. The only way evolution can be disproved is if each and every single evolutionist says there's no reason to believe it.