Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by Lynnmn
Hi Linear, ((( Smiles )))

Have you seen the DVD yet?
People in the field do know what can effect carbon dateing.
But they base their findings on an assumption.
On a foundation that may be unreliable.
Thats believed to be unreliable based on the uncertainty of things being constant.
But they are not really certain that it was..
No I haven't seen the DVD, but I've seen the argument and several variations of it.

1. "How do we know the decay rates have remained constant?" is pretty much the crux of the argument. Ok...it's good to question. So let's look at it.
Care to look at the carbon14 assumption that's most commonly questioned by those critical to the technique: That the amount of carbon14 in the atmosphere is constant?

There are other assumptions involved in generating evodates, of course. The absence of a global flood is one of my favourites. It's just so arrogant, and it's contrary to soooooooo much evidence.

Quote
If these folks that know so much more about the problems with radioactive decay dating methods than physicists...
Physicists? What happened to the geologists?

Quote
could show indications that radioactive decay was much higher in the past, then they would have something to criticize those dating methods with. The closest they come to evidence is saying that the decay must have been higher otherwise the Earth would be much older than the Bible seems to say.
Not accurate at all. Grossly inaccurate, actually. I defy you to demonstrate where any creation scientist offers that argument. ANY!
Quote
Just saying that we don't know what it was like in the past because we weren't there is like saying that we can't know anything about what happened last week or in the next room. Forensic science would not be useful if we couldn't say that the laws of physics were the same in the past. Show that they were not, and then you will win accolades as a scientist.
Creation scientists don't generally claim the laws of science have changed. Evolutionary big bangs, however, require that all (or nearly all) the laws of physics were suspended during and after the bang. Come up with a plausible excuse to believe this, and you'll have a good shot at a Nobel Prize. At present, they just make do with "knowing" the big bang happened.

Quote
You can't just say something might have been different, leave it at that and then call that having an open mind.
Why not? They do.

Note how this is shifting the burden of proof. Evodates must be accepted, unless one can prove the assumptions false? There's no need to substantiate assumptions? In that case, it'd be just as valid to assume decay rates vary, wouldn't it? If one is free to just go assuming whatever one wishes, and call it "science", so is another. We have no motive to accept double standards.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson