Replies

And how do you know those radio isotopes weren't created at a half-life? How can you be absolutely sure of this?>>

Because we've never once seen it happen EVER in the nearly infinite number of atoms that we've observed. Because it is an observable that the laws that are currently in effect in our reality are very nearly the same laws and constants that were in effect as far back in time as we can detect with instruments.

Please go read David Hume.
I love responses like this. Here we are, with instruments to measure rates of radioactive decay for less than 100 years, and because we have some degree of regularity of data for that 100 year period, we are ready to state that it is a UNIVERSALLY TRUE STATE that potassium has a half life in the six to eight power.
Sheesh, talk about FAITH!!!
You have NO empirical evidence to assume that this is a constant. NONE. All you have is probability.
And probability sucks when you are making comprehensive statements about the nature of the universe.

I love responses like this. Here we are, with instruments to measure rates of radioactive decay for less than 100 years, and because we have some degree of regularity of data for that 100 year period, we are ready to state that it is a UNIVERSALLY TRUE STATE that potassium has a half life in the six to eight power.

Have you studed half-lifes? You are suggesting that the physical properties of the universe are non-constant. If you're going to assume that, then you can't make any inferences from science whatsoever.

Please go read David Hume.

I love responses like this. Here we are, with instruments to measure rates of radioactive decay for less than 100 years, and because we have some degree of regularity of data for that 100 year period, we are ready to state that it is a UNIVERSALLY TRUE STATE that potassium has a half life in the six to eight power.

Sheesh, talk about FAITH!!!

You have NO empirical evidence to assume that this is a constant. NONE. All you have is probability.

And probability sucks when you are making comprehensive statements about the nature of the universe.

It's really simple, so I'll use small words. We have PLENTY of empirical evidence. Instruments looking out in all directions have made direct observations of dozens of spectral lines for hundreds of thousands of objects at ages reaching back to a few hundred million years after the birth of the universe. Those observations show that the physical constants of the universe are not more that a few percent different than they are today. Given those results, it is more than reasonable to agree that any elements created back then behaved the same back then as they do now. Again, realize that all of the dating mechanisms overlap and correlate. It's not like we are depending on one element here, each object is analyzed with a range of elements, to reduce error or an anomalous reading from one element.

We've done all we can to remove error from the picture, as you can see. These dates are not arrived at lightly, like you seem to think they are. Probability has no dog in this hunt, as it has all been removed by the correlative date samples. Why don't you come back when you understand the subject matter better?