My question was meant to be rhetorical.
And the non creationist scientist was spot on.
As I have mentioned on numerous occasions religion and science don't mix and neither does atheism and science as the existence or non existence of God is unfalsifiable in science.
On the contrary the evidence must not conflict with your interpretation of the Bible, what makes your interpretation for the creation date superior to that of Isaac Newton. Newton was every bit of a creationist as well although he believed in Arianism which was considered heretical.
When asked what caused gravity which is still relevant to this day Newton replied he didn't know, making references to the Bible or "God is responsible" is not an answer.
Newton was being a good scientist who is an individual that does not allow their personal beliefs or the lack of them to impact on their works.
Your video provides a snapshot of what happens when religion and science are mixed, the question of decay rates being different in the past is not born out of scientific enquiry by 'YEC scientists' but a very poor substitute for the lack of evidence of a 6000 year old earth.
The expert on mass spectrometry posing as a 'YEC scientist' offered the explanation decay rates could change many orders of magnitudes under extreme temperature conditions which is so profoundly wrong.
This is not science by any stretch of the imagination.
Upvote
0
