Changes

I think that the educational value of this page would be enhanced if it was made more thorough. For example, I think detail regarding the processes by which earth came into existence by the old earth model would be a great help to anyone doing research here.  Also, I am confused: how is it a fallacy to assume that radioactive decay rates are constant? Nobody knows of any reason why they shouldn't be, as the rate of radioactive decay of any given element is inherent in its structure. Besides, the vast range in rock ages as measured by radioactive dating shows that however decay rates may have changed, some rocks are billions of years older than others.  Therefore, even if decay rates weren't constant, comparison with other dating methods would still enable adequate dating.  Additionally, the 4.5 billion figure contains a margin of error of up to 500,000,000 years in either direction and has remained fixed for a long time.  With current dating methods the 500,000,00 year margin is a reasonable amount of precision, while not so much as to appear suspicious from a statistical standpoint. As for an explanation of how scientists arrived at that figure, I would be happy to add one as I agree that it would be instrumental in improving the article's quality.[[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 16:16, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

I think that the educational value of this page would be enhanced if it was made more thorough. For example, I think detail regarding the processes by which earth came into existence by the old earth model would be a great help to anyone doing research here.  Also, I am confused: how is it a fallacy to assume that radioactive decay rates are constant? Nobody knows of any reason why they shouldn't be, as the rate of radioactive decay of any given element is inherent in its structure. Besides, the vast range in rock ages as measured by radioactive dating shows that however decay rates may have changed, some rocks are billions of years older than others.  Therefore, even if decay rates weren't constant, comparison with other dating methods would still enable adequate dating.  Additionally, the 4.5 billion figure contains a margin of error of up to 500,000,000 years in either direction and has remained fixed for a long time.  With current dating methods the 500,000,00 year margin is a reasonable amount of precision, while not so much as to appear suspicious from a statistical standpoint. As for an explanation of how scientists arrived at that figure, I would be happy to add one as I agree that it would be instrumental in improving the article's quality.[[User:BlueMoon|BlueMoon]] 16:16, 24 June 2009 (EDT)