(November 24, 2014 at 1:30 am)Creatard Wrote: By my name you probably know my position, but I have a little bit of a beef with radio metric dating because of its presuppositions. Basically there are three:
1) you have to assume the absence of the daughter isotope at the start of process.
2) you have to assume constant decay rates. We have only been able to observe their rates for the past 100-150 years. Before that we can reasonably guess the affects of the earth's magnetic field and other factors would have on decay, but that is all they will ever be: an educated guess.
3) no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added during the process.
I'm going to leave it at that and see where the replies take it. Hope to here from you guys soon.
I can only come at this in a round about manner since I am ignorant regarding decay rates. Even so, perhaps you'd care to explain how positing a creator makes any account of this or any other natural phenomenon any more plausible. Beyond that, even if you could show there are some useful theoretical results of such an assumption, you'd still have to admit that what must be sacrificed to take a god hypothesis tempting is actually much more clarity and confidence that belief in god could ever give you back.
