[metmom]

I just love how the evos have to deliberately misread and misrepresent the article in order to attack it.

The article didn’t say that the decay rate of radioactive elements isn’t constant at this present time.

They are saying that it may have changed at one or maybe two different times in the past which would throw off the calculations.

And of course, the evos aren’t even addressing the point of the assumptions of how much parent material existed to begin with.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[editor-surveyor]

"And of course, the evos aren’t even addressing the point of the assumptions of how much parent material existed to begin with."

They dare not! - Lest that house of cards of their belief system come crashing down.
(same reason that none of them study ancient history; especially Alexander the Great. His comments demolish their contentions WRT Dynos)

[count-your-change]

“And of course, the evos aren’t even addressing the point of the assumptions of how much parent material existed to begin with.”

Like the origin of life question, If Darwinism doesn't have an answer they ignore the question. And attack those who have the temerity to bring the subject up at all.

[blowfish]

But if "it may have changed at one or maybe two different times in the past" how on earth can you claim with a straight face that's it's constant now? It's like saying you're a teetotaler because you haven't had a drink today.

Of course, there's not the slightest bit of physical evidence that radioisotopes had measurably different decay rates in the past, but don't let that stop you.