(October 14, 2010 at 6:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not really what I am saying. Decay rates have changed, we know this because different isochronic methods of dating yield different dates for the same rock.
Archilies heel fallacy, you claim knowledge of examples that are contrary to the expected outcome but provide no examples. What have you got in your bag of tricks here, a silly example about a snail dating to 25,000 years or other examples of creationist mucking of the actual results?
Decay rates have not changed, and the vast majority of experiments have confirmed this. Can you explain why the vast majority of results should be ignored?
.
