Quote:
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm


After reading this for the 3rd time I've come to the conclusion that it was only created to cast doubt through dubious assumptions. The one I have the most problem with is the unsupported notion that radio-decay is not constant and without support the author claims that you can not trust the decay of Uranium.

However, all scientific evidence suggests that decay is constant by element. We've built applications based on this vary notion, see Atomic Clocks for one.

In another article on the site I found this sentence; "So far, no known environmental factors have been able to significantly cause the decay rates to vary. For this reason, I will have to bite the bullet and accept that it is reasonable to assume the decay rate is constant .."

Though this article too seems only created to cast doubt, and offers no substantial proof that the process is flawed.

The closest they come is saying, and I paraphrase; "there's room for error so why trust it all?" Which is the same tired argument that has been shutdown time and time again.

I have no problem doing an about-face on any issue, but you do have to meet some sort of burden. Casting doubt through questionable assumptions isn't the same as proof.

Last edited by The Dread Pirate Westley; 2008-08-09 4:51 PM.