[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

That is all assuming the rate of decay is constant and you cannot know that because you don't know past conditions affecting the element.

Just as with the speed of light being assumed to be constant, we are finding out now it's not.

Same holds true for isotope decay.

[Dominick]

The speed of light is speculated to change one part in 2x10^23 parts IF they can prove the fine constant changed. Even then, at the distances that are in the single paper, this doesn't affect the flow of time and the distances.

The rate of decay of an isotope is not going to change for a sample. I agree leaching can be a problem on the microgram scale, but for large quantities, it doesn't change. It would be similar to 5 moles (6x10^23 atoms) of lead weighing anything other than 14 ounces.

[Dimensio]

That is all assuming the rate of decay is constant and you cannot know that because you don't know past conditions affecting the element.

In other words, even though there is absolutely no reason to assume that the rate of decay has ever changed and quite a bit of evidence that it is constant, you want to assume that it isn't constant because you don't like the implications otherwise.

Just as with the speed of light being assumed to be constant, we are finding out now it's not.

No, some scientists have hypothesized that the speed of light is not constant. It hasn't yet reached the level of "theory", and moreover their hypothesis still does not support the <10,000 year-old universe model that many creationists insist it supports.

As an aside, I do find it interesting that a number of creationists like to repeatedly point out that evolution is "just a theory", and thus any and all doubt in it is perfectly justified, yet they're willing to instantly embrace a notion that has barely reached the title of "hypothesis" when it seems to support their agenda.