Extrapolating anything back from recorded human history to 70 million years ago invloves assumptions.
No, it requires testable theories. This is not the same thing as an assumption.
Historical science is inferred, and those inferences cannot be tested emperically. What reasonable today may not be reasonable tomorrow, so its not wise to accpet the claims of historical science with the same relaiblity that we accpet the claims of observational science.
So we should let everyone out of jail who was convicted by forensic science?
One man's clear evidence is another man's conjecture. Past recorded human history, there is no history, only conjecture about history. The exception being God's word.
Why the exception? Isn't the divinity of the Bible assumed without empirical evidence?
One might ask you the same question. Evolution is just materialistic philosophy that attempts to put reason in the straight jacket of self-organizing matter. There is no reason that an indivudual cannot look at scientific data and reach a conclusion that transends materialism, unless of course materialism is your god and faith.
If you intepret evidence outside of methodological naturalism then you are no longer doing science, you are doing philosophy. There are other ways to interpret the data, but only a few of those interpretations are scientific. Creationists claim that the global flood and a young earth are scientific facts and should be taught in secular science class rooms. If that is so, then creationists must confine themselves to this "straight jacket" for their claims to be consistent.
God exists, this is as plain as the nose on your face.
It may be obvious to you, but it is not to me. The existence of God is a subjective matter, not an objective matter which can be investigated through the scientific method.
Since God exists,
Pretty big assumption, isn't it?
Then, a list of creationist canards that have been repeatedly shown to be incorrect. I have looked at these claims and found them wanting in the extreme:
The decay rate of the earth's magnetic field suggests its no more than 100k years old.
The magnetic field has flipped numerous times and it's strenght has oscillated in the past. Why is this a problem?
Measurable C14 in supposedly old organic material such as coal and oil.
Created by nuclear decay in the rocks where you find coal and oil. If a nuclear reaction 93 million miles away can create C14 in our atmosphere, then why can't nuclear reactions in near by rocks do the same within the earth?
Soft Tissue in dinosaur bones.
Again, show me why soft tissue can not survive for 70 million years. To do this you must have absolute knowledge of fossilization and decomposition. Do you have that absolute knowledge? I sure don't.
Helium contained in zircons
This is on the Index as well:http://www.talkorigi...c/CD/CD015.html
Lack of the helium in the earth's atmosphere that should be there from 5 billion years of radioactive decay.
Only works if you ignore ionization and stripping by solar winds, both of which have been observed but are not mentioned by creationists.
The evidence is not so overwhelming if you set evolutionary dogma aside.
Um, yes it is. As stated before, scientists come from every world religion. Science works by stripping away dogma and bias.
Constant decay rate over a long period of time.
Supernova 1987a, Oklo natural reactor. Both evidence constant rates 170,000 years ago and 2 billion years ago respectively.
Intitial concentrations of daughter product.
Which can be detected through the Ar/Ar and concordia/discordia methodologies. In fact, with the Ar/Ar method you can actually measure the initial amount of daughter product.
No external influx/outflux of any of the isotopes.
Also detectable through concordia/discordia.
Like I have said, I have looked at both sides and found the creationist claims to be wanting due to their refusal to face refuting evidence, ignoring data, and an unwillingness to use the scientific method.