The Decay Constant isn’t Constant

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

(2 Timothy 4:3-4) NKJV

The Bible says that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, yet popular science (SciPop) is convinced that it’s dated rock samples and fossils up to 3.8 or so billion years old. How could this be?

Clearly there’s something wrong with the experimental method they’re using, or the theoretical paradigm which it’s part of (or both). In this case the culprit is easy to spot. The only way to derive radioisotope dates older than the Earth is by assuming something called the decay constant. However, there’s a serious problem with it.

If the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, but we only have radiometric data from about the last 120 years, this isn’t a statistically significant sample size from the scope of history from which to conclude that the decay constant is actually constant, or that Earth is 4.6 billion years old. It’s circular reasoning. The process of doing this is called inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.

– Inductive Reasoning, definition (Wikipedia)

For that matter, if the Earth is 6,000 years old, then 120 years of sampling isn’t a statistically significant sample size from the scope of history to be able to verify that decay has been constant either. Radiometric dating is infinitely improbable pseudoscience. Here’s our working definition of the decay constant which, obviously, isn’t constant.

The decay constant is a fictional contrivance necessary for the popular science (SciPop) rationalization of the geological timescale and the age of the Earth. It’s critical to the SciPop claim that there’s no hell.

– Decay Constant, definition

3 Replies to “The Decay Constant isn’t Constant”

  1. The reference to the decay in the speed of light is conversational in a like idea to the model of heat decay. I didn’t intend it to either support or criticize your theory of hell. The intellectual playpen that you place me in would be shared by those who go along with the rest to avoid ridicule and therefore, the speed of light should remain unchallenged. In addition to jeopardizing a scientific career and loosing your credibility by considering change, there is the money to lose. Thinking out of the box one may chance loosing their grant money. if they suggest that C is not constant. So, the padded rail of the intellectual playpen you place me in consists of fear and money; all or any of which places the knee-jerk defenders of the intellectual status quo in your intellectual playpen and new ideas outside of the playpen.
    Rather than ridicule a new idea (to you, information is as old as 1980s and older) you could read a little and catch up. Google “speed of light slowing down” , find CBS News, Science News, Physics.org, Forbes, New Scientist, Smithsonian, and many more. If you are a creationist as I am, then at least read this: http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/225/
    Because of the science community status quo there is controversy associated with an idea like this. It won’t be settled until the community accepts it and even if they do the inbred knee-jerk fear of change will live on to ridicule future new ideas. Certainly, a varying constant is dubious but I’m not the one in the intellectual playpen.
    I enjoy your blog.

    Like

  2. Dr. Chuck Missler reported in his lectures and book, Cosmic Codes, that the speed of light is slowing. If so, then light and time may also follow such a curve as he pointed out.

    Like

    1. It sounds dubious. To be honest, in Matty’s Paradigm the speed of light is irrelevant.
      It’s function is to be the padded rail around the intellectual play pen that modern science wants to keep you in.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: