Originally posted by MattP
Thank you for responding to my points in a reasoned way, some real progress has been made with the last few posts.
I am afraid that we get back to my old point about any change in understanding just improving our accuracy of measurements. Radiactiviy is very well understood and if we do discover new things about it they must conform to the existing obervat ...[text shortened]... ons (mainly that you are religious and you are a Christian), I apologise if these are incorrect.
"Radiactiviy is very well understood and if we do discover new things about it they must conform to the existing obervations so they will simply be very small changes which apply only in the cases which we cannot observe at the moment. "
They must conform to the existing observations? Really, you discover
something new it must line of with what you think you know or what?
I accept our understanding of this subject has a small window of time
behind it, it isn't like we were measuring this stuff 3000 years ago, so
everything we have seen has been seen of late, we have only really been
observing it in the short time we have been looking into it. My point
in dating is that we know by observations that it always behaves this
way, but our observations have only been going on for how many
years? Does that mean our views about it are wrong, of course not,
but they are still assumptions, we believe it will behave the way we
think over time. I’m limiting this to radioactivity each dating method
must be looked at as a stand alone means of measuring if they are to
be accepted as factual on their own merits.
Kelly