If you want to apply that same logic to the problem of the age of the Earth, then it should be your responsibility to explain how to solve the thermodynmic problems of and explain how uranium decay can be accellerated 10,000 times faster than has ever been observed.
Are you willing to take that on, or do you just sit there and demand that everbody has to work?
“Okay, try your logic on this. If they’re off by a factor of 10,000 and this fossil is only actually 8,000 years old, and they use exactly the same method to date the Earth and it’s off by the same amount then the Earth is still almost half a million years old.”
This “logic” doesn’t work if both the age of the fossil and the age of the earth have been calculated wrong by evolutionists. Your logic assumes that the fossil is correctly date at 80 million years and that you have any idea of the age of the earth. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.
How does “something” like a decay rate change?
Several answers that are based in science are proposed.
1) We don't have a long enough observation of decay to know what the rate of change is - i.e. we just discovered an could measure radioactive decay relatively recently. Since we can't explain “strange” nuclear observations (i.e. there are things like excess heat, the “hardness” of causing fusion, strange particles, etc) then there is OBVIOUSLY some mechanisms still at play we don't understand at a nuclear level....one COULD involve change over time...
2) General Relativity - Time itself has (relative to our physical universe) a change rate.
Just scratching the surface here on radioactive decay there are other theories out there, but I am more of a Fossil guy than particle guy.
My other passion is Chaos Theory/Uncertainty/Quantum Mechanics