quote:
Do you have evidence it does not? As far as coming up with an evidenceless fantasy as to whether it might be older or younger, it don't much matter, as both would be nothingness without knowing! To determine something fairly accurate, it seems to me, you would need to know the conditions that existed pre flood, as well as in flood, not just the part of the equation called 'post flood' otherwise our answer will be skewed.
Crashfrog has already listed one fine example of why we have confidence in the constancy of decay rates. We do know what the decay rates were before the date that creationists assign to the flood. We also have confidence in the mass of a proton, mass of a neutron, speed of light, gravity constants, and numerous other constants in the natural world that factor into our understanding of the universe. Unlike organisms, constants in physics don't change in the same frame of reference (some constants, I think, can change between two frames of reference, Relativistic effects). So, it IS up to you to disprove how physical constants have changed over time, when constancy is already evident in the past and in the present.
quote:
To simply measure how something erodes, or decays etc now, without a good understanding is not acceptable. I could take someone to Canada's Trans Canada Hwy (for example)which goes from Atlantic to Pacific, take them to Nova Scotia near where it begins somewhere, at a place where the road happens to be heading North for several miles, and have them speculate whicere it will come out. They could assume that they have been going north for miles, observably, therefore they would be maybe in Moscow in a few days! Unless they have other factors in the equation, their answer is bound to be wrong!
The mechanism IS well understood. Your example does not even come close to describing the amount of knowledge that we have about radioactive decay. Your analogy should be "If we know down speed, direction (in a straight line, no curves), and where the car ends up, we can calculate where the car began." There are no "curves in the road" with radioactive decay (on a log scale). It is a constant and MEASUREABLE phenomenon.
Such things as nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs function because of the knowledge we have, not because of a lack of it. If decay rates were not constant, reactors would either quit or explode suddenly. This doesn't happen. So is it a fairytale faith that keeps reactors from blowing up or is it solid knowledge? If we can observe the decay rates thousands of years ago via supernovae, and those rates are the same then as today, why should we assume that they are not constant? If experiment after experiment kicks out the same numbers, why should we assume that things have changed. What I am trying to say is that there is NO CURRENT EVIDENCE that decay rates have changed, and tons of counter-evidence for change in decay rates. The only fairy tale here is that merely believing in something without evidence causes this effect to happen in reality.
™ Version 4.2