Originally Posted by Russ
Likewise, common sense says that the extrapolation you believe is accurate (have faith in) has not been observed. It is based on two obvious assumptions:

(1) All elements follow the same decay curve, and

(2) The decay rates of all elements cannot be affected by external conditions.

As much as you want to accept these as truth, the fact is, you can only accept them by faith because they have not been observed.

Not only that, but these beliefs are based on huge extrapolations.

For example, we have witnessed very tiny portions of the decay curve below drawn in red and highlighted by a red circle, yet, your extrapolations predict that the curve looks like the on drawn in black.

[Linked Image]

The extrapolation may or may not be true. We don't really know, and since we don't really know, we should be honest about the fact that we don't really know.

The extrapolation of the curve is based on the observations of short-lived isotope decay curves and the statistical analysis of how radioactive decay works.

Your contention that we cannot know anything about what has not been observed is problematic.

What do we do about unwitnessed crimes? If we cannot assume that the laws of physics as we see them now applied 50,000 years ago, then we cannot assume that they applied 5 days ago.

Also, how can we know that we can trust the witnesses, if we cannot verify their story in some other fashion, such as physical evidence?

Quote
(1) All elements follow the same decay curve,...
Can you give me an example of one that does not?

Quote
(2) The decay rates of all elements cannot be affected by external conditions.
Can you provide an external condition that will appreciably affect the decay rate of any radioactive element?

I agree that these are the assumptions of the physicists studying and utilizing radioactive decay. You have not provided any compelling reason for those assumptions to be considered false.

Here is another reason for you to consider them to be good assumptions. All determined half lives for long lived isotopes yield approximately the same age of the earth when the analysis is performed on old volcanic rocks. If the decay rates of long-lived isotopes may not follow the same decay curve and the rates may have been different in the past, why do the repeatable experiments show such close alignment in dates between different long-lived isotopes?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke