yes, shimrod...still here, and a previous post didn't appear.
did I say ...I don't believe in speciation....well I suppose I may have mistakenly misused the wrong word, but as you are claiming that, I leave that to you to substantiate........just in case it might be YOU who is confused!

of course you can name the constituents of a substance, troubadour.-it is observational science. what happened in distant past is not. it leaves evidence that is interpreted according to the presuppositions of the researcher.
this may be a strong religious position, such as most of you,[and more obviously-creationists] or the secondary influence.
in a recent study of peer review ,the phenomenom known as ..herding..is described
which "subjects the scientific community to an inherent risk of converging on an incorrect answer and raises the possibility that , under certain conditions, science may not be self correcting"
nature.com,4 dec13.
how science goes wrong, economist.com 19 oct 13.
for one with such superior qualifications it seems that you are not able to identify the meaning of my words. sure science may correct in light of new data, but my point is that evolutionary dogma don't change till it has to, and the deep time position is non negotiable, just as much as the biblical creationist position.
and when creationists say dating is wrong , examples of diverse datings are given. that is not irrational but reasoned objection, but still evolutionists trot out the tired idea that eons of time are proven despite evidence to the contrary from testable, repeatable, observable science.