I usually just roll my eyes at creationists distortions of science, but the one displayed here takes it to new highs...

[link]ld_Earth&diffrev&oldid=678526

Most of my objections can be summed up sorta by a quote from "The Hunt For Red October" - "that sort of force tends to break things"

Lets start with the basics..
The claim that radioactive decay was constant for all time is presumptively false because there is no reason to expect a rate of decay (or rate of movement of continents, or rate of recession of planets, or rate of burning of suns, etc.) to remain constant over time.--Andy Schlafly 16:21, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Okkkaayy... of course there's no really good reason to expect them to change -either- we know what they -are- we can at this time keep records of any changes, as far as I know there's no evidence they -have- changed, but changed, or constant, either side has to show it's proof..

"The burden is on those who claim the decay rate was always constant. Prove it. Given that perpetual motion machines are impossible (do you doubt that?), the claim is implausible. The rates for everything else (as cite above) have obviously changed over time, and there is no reason to think that the decay rate is forever unchanged.--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 25 June 2009 (EDT) "

Well, some of those changes aren't so obvious... and again, the burden of proof cuts both ways..

Lets assume that it does.. and then start thinking about what would be broken if it did...

Entropy is one reason why. Perpetual machines are impossible for the same reason. Lower energy is another reason. Friction is pertinent to continental drift. There are many manifestations of the basic phenomenon. It's silly for Old Earthers to pretend it doesn't exist

It's kinda silly for Young Earthers to assume that Entropy is their friend too. but here's another thing, if it's changed, -which way has it changed-? It might be -slower- in the past after all... What if the decay rate was -accelerating-?

If you look at things philosophically if things move from strong to weak, from perfection to flaw, from higher energy to lower energy, then it's actually more philosophically likely that the decay rate is accelerating.. First of all it would be a sign of the lessening of the strength of the nuclear forces, otherwise the force is behaving in contradiction to entropy. Secondly radioactive decay is an -entropic- process, it's the release of stored energy, the fragmentation of a atomic nucleus, if entropy increases, so should decay rates. Thirdly, in increase in radioactive decay rates, means an increase in radiation levels, this isn't exactingly compatible with paradisaical living conditions at the creation.

There's a few problems with this.. accelerating decay rates would mean that the earth would be even -older- than we think it is.. and -much- older than the Young Earther's think it is, so that option can't really be considered in their book, it -must- be faster, regardless of the implications...

I expect faster motion when the energy is higher and/or the time is closer to the starting point. For example, I expect the velocity of a batted ball or thrown football to be faster just after being hit or released than later in time.

Well, now Andy seems to be showing some positively medieval ideas about physics... things just don't automagically slow down, they -react- with things. in the case of a baseball, mostly air, and gravity... try that experiment on the moon, and you'll get a fun result.. the ball will slow down, at first, and then speed up as gravity accelerates it downward, in fact if you assume the ball was hit at a point just over 3' high, when the ball hits the ground it will be moving -faster- than when it was hit, because of that extra meter of drop, do it at the edge of a canyon, and even on earth it'll hit the ground faster.

North America is 3000 miles from Europe. If the Earth is 6000 years old, that would be roughly a half mile per year, and faster closer to the origin. Something doesn't have to move extraordinarily fast to cover a half-mile a year. How many feet per second is that? Compared to creation itself, it seems pretty tame.

So, to counter a constant rate, Andy offers -another- constant rate, one that hasn't been observed. He doesn't say how much it would have had to be at the -begining- or it's rate of slowdown, mebbe because that would in fact be absurdly high. And he invokes the "god can violate the laws of physics if he wants" Lets think about that rate too. That rate means that you have to be creating a half mile of new crust, at the deep ocean ridges every year, and that much being consumed at the trenches as well. That little thing called "entropy" that Andy mentioned, means this creates a lil bit of heat.

I don't seem to recall the Garden of Eden, or the Pre-Flood world being a radioactive lava covered hell..

Oddly enough, Andy doesn't think to just claim that God could have created the isotope ratios, as is for some unknown reason, or perhaps not so oddly, since that opens the whole Church of Last Tuesday box, and the possibility that God might be a -liar-

As a final note Andy needs to read his Bible more..

Far less challenging of an obstacle than creation itself. Are you seriously proposing that a discontinuity occurred after creation? That seems implausible.--Andy Schlafly 14:31, 26 June 2009 (EDT)

Oddly enough, the Bible says this has happened at least once, at THE FALL, something that a lot of young earth Creationists cite, to explain things. Other "discontinuities" happened during the FLOOD, possibly at the death of Jesus, and quite possibly are foretold for the Endtimes..

The bible says it's plausable, why won't Andy, or is he trying to say that things can be constant now?