Changes

: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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:21, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

: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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:21, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

::Things like the rate of movement of continents (which is pretty close to constant), the rate of burning of suns (which is pretty close to constant for any given star), and the rate of recession of planets are all large-scale phenomena which are much more subject to entropy and to small variations of the environmental conditions involved than the rate of radioactive decay of an element, because radioactive decay rate is inherent in the structure of the element in question.  If Uranium-238 didn't have a half-life of 4.47 billion years, than it wouldn't be Uranium-238.

::Things like the rate of movement of continents (which is pretty close to constant), the rate of burning of suns (which is pretty close to constant for any given star), and the rate of recession of planets are all large-scale phenomena which are much more subject to entropy and to small variations of the environmental conditions involved than the rate of radioactive decay of an element, because radioactive decay rate is inherent in the structure of the element in question.  If Uranium-238 didn't have a half-life of 4.47 billion years, than it wouldn't be Uranium-238. [[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 22:27, 24 June 2009 (EDT)