[voltaires_zit]

> Pretty good for a "bull**** artist", I'd say.

I would drop the "for a", but at least it appears we can agree on that.

We can also agree that none of the current hypotheses put forth regarding abiogenesis are "well established" observations.

We might even agree that common descent, while clearly and far and away the best going explanation for the diversity of life, isn't in the same class as the age of the earth, or the non-existence of the Noachian deluge as far as well established observations go.

> The discussion, as it had evolved to the point at which
> you responded to my post, was not about the article per
> se, but the feasibility of evolutionary theory,...

I interpreted it to be: at what point does an observation become well established enough that relying on literal interpretations of mystical books of bed time stories for bronze age goat herders over them constitutes psychosis?

I think it's clear that many creationists are well past that tipping point.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

We might even agree that common descent, while clearly and far and away the best going explanation for the diversity of life, isn't in the same class as the age of the earth, or the non-existence of the Noachian deluge as far as well established observations go. Well, we wouldn't. But, the problem is that instead of reasonably discussing areas of difference, you prefer to take the adolescent route.

I am wondering, and this is a serious question that I hope you'll be able to be mature enough to try to answer, but how do evolutionists explain apparent young-Earth observations ranging from the excessive presence of helium in zircon contained in deep Precambrian granitic rock to the rapid decay of the earth's magnetic field to the almost complete lack of cosmic-ray induced dust on the Earth's moon?

I interpreted it to be: at what point does an observation become well established enough that relying on literal interpretations of mystical books of bed time stories for bronze age goat herders over them constitutes psychosis?

I don't know. At what point do evolutionists stop believing in fairy tales that are based upon nothing more than the psychosocialogical need to believe them?

[presently no screen name]

I think it's clear that many creationists are well past that tipping point.

Your 'observation' tells you that - therefore, it's set in stone. Believe half in what you see - because there is another half you have not observed (yet).