I am not having any luck finding links to actual parts of the RATE project report; maybe it is the same as the book they flog: Thousands Not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution?

The Institute for Creation Research has this page and this page about the project.

The quotes I posted quoting the RATE researchers came from the pages here;  I thought this was a farily balanced look at the work since the Christian organization that wrote the evaluation explicitly says they never condone nor denounce YECism in general, but oppose the dishonesty in claims that the results of the RATE research support a young Earth model.

Another very accessible article explaining why said research doesn't support the conclusions RATE reaches is here.

May 2, 2012 -- 1:09AM, McAtheist wrote:

I am not having any luck finding links to actual parts of the RATE project report; maybe it is the same as the book they flog: Thousands Not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution? 

I think it is, if I recall the discussion at the time it was released.

57

Of course your only rebuttle will be to slam the RATE books...and never addressing the scientific issue.

What scientific issue?

I've already quoted (in #7) the part where RATE states out loud and proud that it relies on magic to get its results.

And no possibility arises that the RATE work will even be offered for publication in any reputable peer-reviewed journal of science.  That's because its authors are well aware that they're playing games of religious anti-science.

The only issues here are baseless claims of an irrational faith.

May 3, 2012 -- 11:04PM, McAtheist wrote:

57: The answer to your question has been answered in the RATE books.

I guess we have very different definitions of "answered."  From 57"s first link:   "Therefore we should not be surprised if we find evidence that god has supernaturally intervened, either directly or indirectly, to produce such large changes.  For those who feel that allowing the possibility of God's intervention in the natural world is incompatible with science, let me point out several things which might broaden their definition of "science."  First if God had so intervened then all theories related ot the results of that intervention must take account of it --- if they are to be correct.  It would thus be foolish to exclude a priori the possibility of God causing an acceleration of nuclear decay.  Second, there is nothing preventing us from looking for evidence in the natural world of the scientific consequences of accelerated decay... Third, if we can find hints about accelerated decay in Scripture and Scriptura; reasons for god to cause it then our case is stronger. (334)

Actually, real science will consider supernatural explanations. Science considers any and all useful explanations.  But GODDIDIT provides no beneficial information to mankind that can be acted upon.

“GODDIDIT”, or Rate's “a miracle occurred here”, simply isn’t a useful explanation.

“GODDIDIT” doesn’t tell a paleontologist where to look for the next fossil.

“GODDIDIT” doesn’t tell a geologist where to look for the next oil deposit.

“GODDIDIT” doesn’t predict bacterial drug resistance.

“GODDIDIT” doesn’t help an engineer build a better bridge.

“GODDIDIT” doesn’t predict where the next lightening bolt will strike, or when the next comet or other celestial object will show itself in the sky. 

“GODDIDIT” doesn’t explain Mendelian inheritance.

As soon as the supernatural explanation can be shown to be useful, I’m sure that scientists at Microsoft, or Exxon, or Cargill, or Johnson-and-Johnson will be suing each other to be the first to patent it.

Perhaps 57 can give just one single example where a supernatural explanation has proven to be useful in explaining any scientific or technical endeavor in the last 500 hundred years. Just one example. Anything. Any where. Any subject.

Name one, and explain how the supernatural explanation was useful.

Name one, or quit complaining about Science and admit your supernatural explanations are completely, utterly useless in the real world.

I've noticed none of you evos even tried to answer the accelerated decay with science. 

Not one of you proved the theory is not feasable.  Instead you leaned on "mockery" and other unscientific means to support your post.

How sad.   How typical. 

Psalm 18:7-9 might be an example of this happening...causing the flood and during the flood.