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.
Nevertheless, you should know that what I am saying is true, and that is, that:
(1) Scientists have not observed or measured these long decay curves, and
(2) Scientists have only witnessed a very, very small portion of these long decay curves and are making educated guesses about the remainder of the curve, and
(3) Scientists are working under the assumption that nothing affects the rate of decay.
The reason I am skeptical about blindly accepting what scientists say about these things is because we have all been lied to for so long about so many other things. I learned after entering this field (and before, being in the political field) that information is distorted, lied about, and invented all the time to achieve some end that is in the interest of big business.
When I say "all the time", I mean daily.
Because you don't share this experience, you are where I was 25 years ago, that is, you are blinding having faith in people and agendas that you know nothing about.
For example, someone may say that this dating method says that rock "A" is 6 billion years old, but you don't know that person. You don't know their interests or their agenda. You don't know if they have integrity.
Furthermore, I have heard lectures from numerous paleontologists and scientists from other disciplines that tell it like it is. They say that numbers related to the dating of rocks has been severely manipulated to make things look older than they are.
I have personally witnessed corruption and have heard numerous first-hand accounts, even from a mainstream nightly-news producer, that corruption and lies are the norm today in politics and science.
You see, to believe what you believe, you are having a lot of blind faith in people you don't know and in things you know nothing about.
I prefer to have strong evidence backing up what I believe in.
God never expects anyone to put faith in Him with first observing the evidence of His ability (strength) and reliability (purity/integrity).
I agree that these are the assumptions of the physicists studying and utilizing radioactive decay.
Excellent. So we agree here.
You have not provided any compelling reason for those assumptions to be considered false.
(1) They are unobserved, and
(2) They assume that all decay curves are identical, and
(3) They assume that no external conditions affect decay rates.
My unwillingness to blindly accept their conclusion is because it contains too many assumptions.
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?
They show close alignment because:
(1) We are measuring only a very small part of the decay curves. If there is even a minute variation, the long-term affect of the curve will be profound.
(2) We are blindly believing that these values are in alignment. Some scientists have stated that measurements and data are being fabricated. Who is telling the truth?
If ever there was a time in history that we should be thinking critically, it is now."From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
