Therefore the radioactive decay law: N(t)=N(0)*e^(-L*t) is shown to apply to all radioactive elements and is only affected by the radioactive decay constant, "L",
I'm not sure you read my response because this is exactly my point.
We really don't know what L is because it has never been observed. This value is based on assumption.
And that assumption is...?
Since L is based on an assumption, the result of the calculation is arbitrary until we really know what L is.
L is the natural log of 2 divided by the half life of the radioactive element. The half life is determined by observation of the decay of the element and documenting when half of the element has decayed into another element. For extremely long lived elements the half life calculation is performed using an extrapolation from a timed observation of decay.
Which part of this process do you consider arbitrary?
The only way to change it is to change the decay constant which changes the rate at which the decay would occur. Even if the decay rate changed, the exponential curve would still be the result. It would just be more steep in the beginning.
Furthermore, we really don't know that the formula is correct. We really don't know that the curve is exponential because it is not based in observation. It is based on faith.
I think this is something you need to provide more depth on. I have explained above how the half life is determined. You need to show how that process involves "faith".
As I keep saying, this is not science, it is broad speculation and I wish people would not insult science by associating guesses and speculation to the name science.
I wish people wouldn't insult science by making guesses about the validity of a particular field of science that they know little about.
I've said nothing to resemble this statement, although decay rates could be affected by conditions that may have existed. We cannot rule this possibility out.
Name a condition that could change the radioactive decay rate of an element.
Show me a quote from a geologist in 1984 that said the Earth is only several hundred million years old. The first estimated age of the Earth was adequately supported by radiometric data occurred in 1953. That age was 4.55 billion years.
I don't have the textbooks that we used back then so I can't show you the quotes. Nevertheless, that's what they said.
I don't believe you are making a correct statement. Perhaps you remember it wrong. I was in high school in the 1970's and I remember the 4.5 billion from my Geology class.
I would suspect that the dating you are referring to in the 50's was also in conflict with other dating which is why it was not used in many/any/some textbooks.
Suspect what you like, evidence is what you need to make a case for your assertion.
If you view the quote reference information:
—James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
You will see that it clearly indicates that it is not a first-reference.
Duh. How about providing the original reference...or is that not important to the imparting of truth that you so revere?
You have found "flaws" with quotes I have cited in the past, I then researched them and found, to date, that none of your objections have been valid.
I'm sure you will never agree....so what? I don't post it for you.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."
—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
Pierre-Paul de Grasse was not a creationist. He was a follower of Lamark's theory for the diversity of life on the Earth. The theory is similar to evolution in that all life came from one ancestor but the mechanism is different than Darwin's theory.
I guess you subscribe to the idea that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"....regardless of what they really believe.
