Feedback about reliability of dating

Actually, it is a good reason not to believe anything that the creationists dredge up and put on their websites. You should read the responses to the OP, DB. It turns out these "problems" aren't really problems at all.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Well, it certainly can be "proven", at least as "proven" as anything else can be in science. Namely, one can figure out what we should observe in the real world if the decay rates were not constant and then see whether we actually do observe those effects. If after constant investigation we never see these effects, and we cannot think of why we shouldn't see these effects, then we can say that the constancy of decay rates have been "proven", or, in more correct scientific lingo, the constancy of decay rates have been established to a high level of certainty.- Exactly, just like I said above. And you know what? Creationists never do this. I have never seen a creationist source make a prediction of as yet unobserved phenomena that would exist if her theory of non-constancy of decay rates were correct. That's because creationists don't do science -- they make up ad hoc excuses whenever reality contradicts their beliefs.But this question has been investigated -- by actual physical scientists. Like the idea of a non-constant speed of light, people have looked for definite signs that decay rates may not have been constant. They have never found such signs.So you are correct. Good scientists have questioned basic assumptions, and tested whether the basic assumptions are valid or invalid. Sometimes basic assumptions have been overturned. But in this case, it appears that the speed of light and the decay rates of radioactive elements have been constant over the life-time of the earth. If they have varied, they haven't varied enough to leave definite signs, and so not enough to give the creationists an out.- It is well within the spirit of "true science" to criticize research -- that is the point of peer review, to allow other people to examine your methodology, your data, and your conclusions. It is well within the spirit of "true science" to point out serious errors in a scientific project that casts doubt on the validity of its conclusions.Disregarding sloppy methods, inaccurate data, and fallaceous conclusions are not "suppression".Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein