With the exception of small deviations in reactions involving electron capture by the nucleus, the constants are constants. That's a perfect example of the quality of "creationist" science. We know that the laws of exponential decay apply to radioactive decay of unstable isotopes. We know why. Yet you people look for any semblance of an argument to create entirely new science for the sole purpose of making it agree not with the observed (and mathematically justified) phenomena, but with your interpretation of the Bible...
So you were there 250 million years ago to KNOW that the rate of decay was exactly the same as it is today. That is evo science for you. You see something happen today and extrapolate it back to the past. It can’t be done unless you believe in uniformitarian views. Do you believe in uniformitarian views? Also you didn’t address the amount of C14 in the organism that died. I suppose you know that too?
“Yet you people look for any semblance of an argument to create entirely new science for the sole purpose of making it agree not with the observed (and mathematically justified) phenomena, but with your interpretation of the Bible...”
I didn’t quote the Bible. I told you the problem I have with your methods. You have to assume that the past is the same as the present. That doesn’t allow for ALOT of variables. I believed that evolution/radiometric dating/ etc. had alot of problems before I believed in a literal 6 day creation. In fact, the problems with your “science” lead me to the belief not the other way around. But thanks for assuming. Of course that is what evo scientists are best at, making assumptions. ;)
I copied your entire post and answered you point for point. You took a small sample out of my post and pretty much made my point for me. I said you assume it was constant and you said it IS constant. You can’t know that because you weren’t there to measure the rate of decay in the past. If you can’t prove something, it is an assumption. You go on to attack my reasoning after you prove my reasoning to be true. I haven’t tried to create an entirely new science. I agree that the rate of decay can be measured today. What I don’t agree with is your assumption that it has always been the same.
Sorry last post in response to this post. The original argument was that creationist were ignorant to evo science. I understand it quite well. The point is, when you get into the past, you are no longer in the realm of science unless you have scientific research from that period of time. I can see the distinction between operational science and historical science. Why can’t you?