Then why does the extrapolation in the case of radioactive decay invalidate the conclusion that the age of the Earth is more than 4 billion years.
I believe the honest assessment is that we really don't know the age of the Earth.
Textbooks from 20 years ago, museums, and other sources all stated that the Earth was 200 million years old. Now, 20 years later, it's over 6 billion.
We also don't really know as much as we think about radioactive decay rates and times because so much of it is based on speculation.
To be intellectually honest, it seems that there are good arguments for both old and new universe, but considering that we usually find out that things are more complex than we originally believe, I tend to believe that both have some truth:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020Popular science likes to wrap "truths" up in simple little packages that the public can digest. Unfortunately, this process of wrapping often spoils the contents of the message. Of course, those who have studied have learned that the control of information is the foundation to control of a society.
Other factors regarding radioactive decay are well known by physicists and geologists. That knowledge allows the extrapolation to be more accurate. It is not a wild-a** guess (WAG).
The unknowns are always found in the fringes of science that don't fit the current model. These unknowns eventually become a new paradigm. This is the foundation of String/M-Theory.
The inaccuracy in the extrapolation may not be only tied up on what we don't know, but more specifically, in the fact that the extrapolation is huge and based on only a very small part of the visible curve.
I'm not a young-Earth creationist, but I am very familiar with the vast assumptions that are made to support scientific conclusions. These vast assumptions lead to the evolution of scientific "knowledge" itself:
(1) 1900-2000: Mercury in amalgam fillings does not come out
(2) 2005: Mercury in amalgam fillings comes out but is safe
(3) 2008: Mercury in amalgam fillings is not safe
(1) 1900-2008: Mercury does not cause autism
(2) 2009: Mercury causes autism but we don't know where the mercury comes from
Yet you dismiss the conclusions of these scientists out of hand without any explanation other than they made some assumptions. Since you now say that reliable conclusions can be made using incomplete information, please explain why the conclusions about radioactive decay measurements as evidence of a 4-billion-year-old Earth are invalid.
I don't dismiss the conclusions. I reposition them into the realm of "belief-based-on-assumption" instead of the realm of "known-fact". I do this because it is a more intellectually honest way of categorizing the integrity of the information.
You see, information/knowledge is worth money. Scientists don't get grants or win public acclaim for discovering possibilities. They make their money and get their grants by discovering facts.
To believe that politics does not affect science is fantastically naive.It is sufficient to point out the history of science to realize its current assumptive behavior:
(1) Tomatoes are poisonous
(2) The world is 200-million years old
(3) Phenylalanine in NutraSweet is safe
(4) Food irradiation does not change its nutritional properties
(5) St. John's Wort has not effect on depression
(6) and on and on...
I have to agree that more assumption means more error. However, are those assumptions inaccurate to the point that 4 billion becomes 6000?
Again, I have to remind you that 20 years ago, the Earth was 200-million years old.
10 years ago, amalgam fillings were safe. All dentists knew that. It was taught in dental school.
2 years ago BIS plastics were complete safe.
5 years ago, Teflon was perfectly safe to cook on.
2 years ago, the chlorine in Splenda was harmless.
8 years ago, MSG had no harmful effects on humans.
100 years ago, Piltdown man was a very significant discovery that nearly proved evolution to be true. (Not surprisingly, Wikipedia now downplays this discovery.)
...and on and on...
Is their extrapolation of the long lived isotope decay curves inaccurate enough to account for the 6 orders of magnitude (1 million times) difference that is claimed by Young Earth Creationists? What indications do you have that radioactive decay curves for long lived isotopes are so inaccurate?
It is easy to make large mistakes when extrapolations are made extending observations beyond a ratio of 100-million-to-one.
Lastly, if the stars weren't made until Day Four 6000 years ago, why can we see stars that are more than 6000 light-years away?
Again, I refer you to my belief:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020
