Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site islenet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!islenet!bob
From: bob@islenet.UUCP (Bob Cunningham)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 31)
Message-ID: <1371@islenet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 04:36:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: islenet.1371
Posted: Wed Jul 10 04:36:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 03:39:10 EDT
References: <385@iham1.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Hawaii Institute of Geophysics
Lines: 32

>        57.  Any estimated date  prior  to  the  beginning  of  written
>             records  must necessarily assume that the dating clock has
>             operated at a known rate, that the initial setting of  the
>             clock is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed.
>             These  assumptions   are   almost   always   unstated   or
>             overlooked.

I think you'll find that most published radiometric datings discuss both
the possible problems with initial conditions (e.g. crystallization period,
possible capture of included Ar, etc. -- for K/Ar dating).

>        58.  A major assumption that underlies all  radioactive  dating
>             techniques  is  that  the  rates of decay, which have been
>             essentially constant over the past  70  years,  have  also
>             been  constant  over  the  past  4,600,000,000 years. This
>             bold, critical, and untestable  assumption  is  made  even
>             though   no  one  knows  what  causes  radioactive  decay.
>             Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence  that  suggests
>             that  radioactive  decay  has not always been constant but
>             has varied by many orders of magnitude from that  observed
>             today [a,b].

Any serious evidence of the rate of change of nuclear reactions would
likely revolutionize modern physics.  In the case of K/Ar dating and C14
dating, it's only necessary to assume that the rate is constant over the
time of interest.  In any case, only an increase in the rate of decay by
several orders of magnitude would provide evidence consistent with
creationist views (a lower rate would imply longer, not shorter time
spans).
-- 
Bob Cunningham  {dual|vortex|ihnp4}!islenet!bob
Honolulu, Hawaii