50 Years of Deafening Silence Confirms Radioisotope Halos Have Destroyed Evolution - It's Time For A Proper Burial

[Phoneman-777]

You would like for me to "solve" the issue? What kind of experts do you think are qualified to "solve" this issue? Because if it matters, I'd hate to attempt an answer and end up committing Epistemological Trespassing. (See the article below)

Ballantyne, N. (2019). Epistemic trespassing. Mind, 128(510).​

Someone who's so sure Dr. Gentry's conclusions are correct ought to be able to show peer-review evidence for why he believes them - as I've done in the OP.

Someone who's so sure Dr. Gentry's conclusions are wrong ought to be able to show the same degree of peer review evidence for why he believes that...or keep his mouth shut.

Right or wrong?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, you're only response to Dr. Gentry's fifty year unmet challenge to publish an alternative explanation for the existence of parent, primordial Po218 radioisotope halos in an elite, peer-reviewed, premier authoritative science journal is to say to him "stay in your lane", right?

And, the fifty years of "stunned silence" continues...

It sounds like you think that Gentry's "little mystery" is some kind of Archimedean point. If that's the case, I'd hate to be the one to disabuse you of it.

So, I'll just do the brotherly, Christian thing and take my leave since I don't really have a dog in this fight. If you need me, you know where to find me, bro!

In Christ

 

[Phoneman-777]

It sounds like you think that Gentry's "little mystery" is some kind of Archimedean point. If that's the case, I'd hate to be the one to disabuse you of it.

So, I'll just do the brotherly, Christian thing and take my leave since I don't really have a dog in this fight. If you need me, you know where to find me, bro!

In Christ

Since the mid-19th century, Christians have had their faith in the Bible shaken, often to pieces, because of that filthy, damnable lie of evolution. How many have turned away from God, having been led to deny the Bible's 6,000 year Creation account due to the "evidence" of millions of years of evolutionary science?

As a Christian, you ought to be rejoicing in my work to restore Christian confidence in Scripture -- so why are you harshly criticizing me, a fellow Christian, and championing the side of the atheists who are militant in their war against the Bible, young age Earth chronology, and Christianity at large?

I have my suspicions, but I'll keep them to myself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Since the mid-19th century, Christians have had their faith in the Bible shaken, often to pieces, because of that filthy, damnable lie of evolution. How many have turned away from God, having been led to deny the Bible's 6,000 year Creation account due to the "evidence" of millions of years of evolutionary science?

Not all Christians have had their faith "sha-sha-shaken" by the idea of Evolution. I didn't. And the only real lie in regard to evolution is the one that extends from Daniel Dennett's thesis that "evolution is the universal acid." It actually isn't and doesn't have to be.

As a Christian, you ought to be rejoicing in my work to restore Christian confidence in Scripture -- so why are you harshly criticizing me, a fellow Christian, and championing the side of the atheists who are militant in their war against the Bible, young age Earth chronology, and Christianity at large?

I can rejoice over the apparent fact that you're a fellow Christian. And you have my apologies if you feel that I'm harshly criticizing you, but for me, evolution has little to do with full-fledged explanations for atheism. Atheism usually comes about for several other reasons rather than simply by evolution alone.

As for Gentry's findings, I'll continue to look at these, but my earlier comment that this one piece of possible evidence isn't enough by itself to controvert the overall Theory of Evolution. That's all. But hey, if you feel that it gives your faith in Christ a boost, then by all means, use it. I'm not going to stop you.

I have my suspicions, but I'll keep them to myself.

Yes, it'd be best to keep those to yourself because I'm guessing that they're all wrong.

Peace!

 

[Phoneman-777]

Not all Christians have had their faith "sha-sha-shaken" by the idea of Evolution. I didn't. And the only real lie in regard to evolution is the one that extends from Daniel Dennett's thesis that "evolution is the universal acid." It actually isn't and doesn't have to be.

How about we don't shake anyone's faith by telling them the Bible account of origins is false - the very thing evolution claims?

I can rejoice over the apparent fact that you're a fellow Christian. And you have my apologies if you feel that I'm harshly criticizing you

Please, apologize to God, not me. I'm not the One Whose truth evolution indicts.

, but for me, evolution has little to do with full-fledged explanations for atheism. Atheism usually comes about for several other reasons rather than simply by evolution alone.

Of course! Atheism is chosen as means of rejecting a God Who will eternally torment the wicked or Who gets in the way of our desire to regulate our own behavior, especially sexual behavior, as admitted by atheists.

Evolution is merely the "evidence" for why He may be safely rejected.

As for Gentry's findings, I'll continue to look at these, but my earlier comment that this one piece of possible evidence isn't enough by itself to controvert the overall Theory of Evolution.

Look, I've been studying this issue for years. I know there's a lot of data that suggests "millions of years" is true, OK? What's certain is that none of that data is beyond question.

Cases in point: ​

• Radiometric dating indeed suggests "millions of years". However, the associated assumptions used to quantify variables in the formulas for calculation, as well as competing dating methods like Helium Diffusion which require no such assumptions and absolutely, empirically destroys the "millions of years" idea, drive the "evidence" of radiometric dating far from the realm of "fact" and park it firmly in the realm of mere speculation.
• The fossil record is "not the evidence" for the "evolutionary trees which adorn our textbooks".
• Homologous structures and body segments have been discounted as "evidence" for evolution.
• Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been discounted as evidence for evolution via "fitness cost".
• Petrified forests are claimed to have taken thousands/millions of years to form, but the empirical evidence shows they were formed in mere months via "volcanic fingerprint comparisons".
• The so called "primitive reducing atmosphere" that supposedly spared the first molecules for life so they would have "millions of years" to eventually form life has been shown to be impossible via the "ozone layer" factor.
• The "Artifact Hypothesis" which supposedly explains why microscopic soft bodied "missing links" aren't found in the fossil record has been proven false via discoveries of soft bodied fossils.
• Non-conformity geological formations
• Disproven claims about "millions of years old" varves
• Disproven claims about "millions of years old ice ring core samples"
• Disproven claims about what caused canyons to form via "V" and "U" shaped studies
• Unsatisfactory claims about glacier formation and ice ages
• Inexplicable mixing of separate geological column layers where heat is absolutely not the cause.....friend, the list goes on and on and on and on.

Everything the theory of evolution claims as "evidence" can be formidably challenged.

CONVERSELY, RADIOISOTOPE HALOS ARE ABSOLUTELY UNCHALLENGEABLE BY EVOLUTION, AS THE LAST 50 YEARS HAVE PROVEN - IT'S TIME TO CROWN CREATIONISM VICTOR AND ABANDON EVERYTHING ELSE.

Won't you give Creation science a chance?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How about we don't shake anyone's faith by telling them the Bible account of origins is false - the very thing evolution claims?

Please, apologize to God, not me. I'm not the One Whose truth evolution indicts.

Of course! Atheism is chosen as means of rejecting a God Who will eternally torment the wicked or Who gets in the way of our desire to regulate our own behavior, especially sexual behavior, as admitted by atheists.

Evolution is merely the "evidence" for why He may be safely rejected.

Look, I've been studying this issue for years. I know there's a lot of data that suggests "millions of years" is true, OK? What's certain is that none of that data is beyond question.

Cases in point: ​

• Radiometric dating indeed suggests "millions of years". However, the associated assumptions used to quantify variables in the formulas for calculation, as well as competing dating methods like Helium Diffusion which require no such assumptions and absolutely, empirically destroys the "millions of years" idea, drive the "evidence" of radiometric dating far from the realm of "fact" and park it firmly in the realm of mere speculation.
• The fossil record is "not the evidence" for the "evolutionary trees which adorn our textbooks".
• Homologous structures and body segments have been discounted as "evidence" for evolution.
• Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been discounted as evidence for evolution via "fitness cost".
• Petrified forests are claimed to have taken thousands/millions of years to form, but the empirical evidence shows they were formed in mere months via "volcanic fingerprint comparisons".
• The so called "primitive reducing atmosphere" that supposedly spared the first molecules for life so they would have "millions of years" to eventually form life has been shown to be impossible via the "ozone layer" factor.
• The "Artifact Hypothesis" which supposedly explains why microscopic soft bodied "missing links" aren't found in the fossil record has been proven false.
• Non-conformity geological formations
• Disproven claims about "millions of years old" varves
• Disproven claims about "millions of years old ice ring core samples"
• Disproven claims about what caused canyons to form via "V" and "U" shaped studies
• Unsatisfactory claims about glacier formation and ice ages
• Inexplicable mixing of separate geological column layers where heat is absolutely not the cause.....friend, the list goes on and on and on and on. Everything the theory of evolution claims as "evidence" can be formidably challenged.

CONVERSELY, RADIOISOTOPE HALOS ARE ABSOLUTELY UNCHALLENGEABLE BY EVOLUTION, AS THE LAST 50 YEARS HAVE PROVEN - IT'S TIME TO CROWN CREATIONISM VICTOR AND ABANDON EVERYTHING ELSE.

Won't you give Creation science a chance?
I guarantee, friend, you'll discover it takes far more faith to believe in evolution!

I already gave the Creation Science of Morris and Parker a glance years ago. It was interesting but unconvincing. But that's ok. I still found Christ while being an evolutionist. So no harm was done.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Someone who's so sure Dr. Gentry's conclusions are correct ought to be able to show peer-review evidence for why he believes them - as I've done in the OP.

Someone who's so sure Dr. Gentry's conclusions are wrong ought to be able to show the same degree of peer review evidence for why he believes that...or keep his mouth shut.

Right or wrong?

Somehow I missed this post earlier. You're wrong. But I won't hold it against you.

 

[Phoneman-777]

I already gave the Creation Science of Morris and Parker a glance years ago. It was interesting but unconvincing. But that's ok. I still found Christ while being an evolutionist. So no harm was done.

I ask this with the utmost respect:

The theory of evolution requires a "millions of years" timetable for its claims made therein......so how can evolution continue to be considered viable when "parent Po218 radioisotope halos" have proven beyond all doubt that these rock layers instantaneously formed?

We must remember that Dr. Gentry's conclusions have stood alone atop the highest levels of peer-reviewed scientific debate and open peer-review challenges by Dr. Gentry have gone unmet...also, Dr. Gentry's claims have defeated soundly the "spurious" arguments made to "hoodwink the unwary" at the lower, insignificant levels of debate - internet websites, non-peer reviewed textbooks.

Just asking, my friend

 

[Phoneman-777]

Somehow I missed this post earlier. You're wrong. But I won't hold it against you.

Well, we are free to disagree...but on a platform such as this, are we not compelled to bring forth strong reasons for disagreement?

I like that in Scripture...God challenged the "gods" of this world to "bring forth your strong reasons..." which, to me, means He considers only strong reasons legit reasons.

The atheist scientists who've run away from Dr. Gentry's peer review challenges the last 50 years and taken shelter on the non-peer reviewed internet are able to offer only impotent reasons - reasons that Gentry answers with massive amounts of empirical data - strong data.

My point is that we may not be scientists, but we are capable of reading, comprehending, and regurgitating what far more intelligent men and women have brought to light, are we not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, we are free to disagree...but on a platform such as this, are we not compelled to bring forth strong reasons for disagreement?

I like that in Scripture...God challenged the "gods" of this world to "bring forth your strong reasons..." which, to me, means He considers only strong reasons legit reasons.

The atheist scientists who've run away from Dr. Gentry's peer review challenges the last 50 years and taken shelter on the non-peer reviewed internet are able to offer only impotent reasons - reasons that Gentry answers with massive amounts of empirical data - strong data.

My point is that we may not be scientists, but we are capable of reading, comprehending, and regurgitating what far more intelligent men and women have brought to light, are we not?

That will depend, won't it? Are you a mathematician, a geologist or a physics professional; someone like @sjastro ?

I'm not. I'm just a lowly lil' philosopher will two little pieces of paper that say I know a few things about social life and who's only had College Algebra. (I'll readily admity---My wife and son are the mathematically bright ones in the family... he-he-he!)

The problem is, as I see it, that the Theory of Evolution is multi-fold, bringing several different fields of science together and offering an explanation of how they relate. Of course, it could be that the Theory is incorrect, but it would take more than one finding of some geo-physical oddity to controvert the sum of all of the diverse "other stuff" that we have data for in all of the other fields of science.

So, while Gentry may have some one or two seemingly solid bits of science (maybe?), his one little slice isn't going to affect everything else or pull it down like a single bottom card from a house of cards.

But let's start with some very basic info, shall we? In the Wiki alone, we find toward the bottom of the Wikipedia entry on Gentry this tiny piece of info:

His self-published book Creation's Tiny Mystery was reviewed by geologist Gregg Wilkerson, who said that it has several logical flaws and concluded that "the book is a source of much misinformation about current geologic thinking and confuses fact with interpretation." Wilkerson also noted that the book contains considerable autobiographical material and he observed that "n general I don't think educators will find it's worth their time to tread through this creationist's whining."[23] This criticism of Gentry's "frequent whining about discrimination" has also been made by fellow creationists, who concluded that "his scientific snubs resulted more from his own abrasive style than from his peculiar ideas", according to critic Ronald L. Numbers, a historian of science.[11]​

​

So, as far as I can tell, Gregg Wilkerson had something to say and apparently, according to Ronald L. Numbers, so have some fellow creationist. As far as I'm concerned, I'm going to start with the low hanging fruit. That is, I'm going to retain ALL of the sources I've thus far accumulated in this thread, including yours, and I'll look for these sources mentioned AND, without utter bias, I'm going to see what other scientific sources, even none peer-reviewed sources, might be available to provide additional directions FOR FURTHER LEADS.

Oh, here's some. I'm starting with these, 'cuz I'm not prejudiced against non-peer reviewd sources, althought I prefer them as much as possible.

1) "Polonium Haloes" Refuted​

​

2) Debunking Gentry's "New Redshift Interpretation" Cosmology​

​

3) Gentry's Tiny Mystery Unsupported by Geology | National Center for Science Education​

​

4) Review: Creation's Tiny Mystery | National Center for Science Education​

I'll be on the lookout for others as well.

 

[Phoneman-777]

That will depend, won't it? Are you a mathematician, a geologist or a physics professional; someone like @sjastro ?

I'm not. I'm just a lowly lil' philosopher will two little pieces of paper that say I know a few things about social life and who's only had College Algebra. (I'll readily admity---My wife and son are the mathematically bright ones in the family... he-he-he!)

The problem is, as I see it, that the Theory of Evolution is multi-fold, bringing several different fields of science together and offering an explanation of how they relate. Of course, it could be that the Theory is incorrect, but it would take more than one finding of some geo-physical oddity to controvert the sum of all of the diverse "other stuff" that we have data for in all of the other fields of science.

So, while Gentry may have some one or two seemingly solid bits of science (maybe?), his one little slice isn't going to affect everything else or pull it down like a single bottom card from a house of cards.

But let's start with some very basic info, shall we? In the Wiki alone, we find toward the bottom of the Wikipedia entry on Gentry this tiny piece of info:

His self-published book Creation's Tiny Mystery was reviewed by geologist Gregg Wilkerson, who said that it has several logical flaws and concluded that "the book is a source of much misinformation about current geologic thinking and confuses fact with interpretation." Wilkerson also noted that the book contains considerable autobiographical material and he observed that "n general I don't think educators will find it's worth their time to tread through this creationist's whining."[23] This criticism of Gentry's "frequent whining about discrimination" has also been made by fellow creationists, who concluded that "his scientific snubs resulted more from his own abrasive style than from his peculiar ideas", according to critic Ronald L. Numbers, a historian of science.[11]​

​

So, as far as I can tell, Gregg Wilkerson had something to say and apparently, according to Ronald L. Numbers, so have some fellow creationist. As far as I'm concerned, I'm going to start with the low hanging fruit. That is, I'm going to retain ALL of the sources I've thus far accumulated in this thread, including yours, and I'll look for these sources mentioned AND, without utter bias, I'm going to see what other scientific sources, even none peer-reviewed sources, might be available to provide additional directions FOR FURTHER LEADS.

Oh, here's some. I'm starting with these, 'cuz I'm not prejudiced against non-peer reviewd sources, althought I prefer them as much as possible.

1) "Polonium Haloes" Refuted​

​

2) Debunking Gentry's "New Redshift Interpretation" Cosmology​

​

3) Gentry's Tiny Mystery Unsupported by Geology | National Center for Science Education​

​

4) Review: Creation's Tiny Mystery | National Center for Science Education​

I'll be on the lookout for others as well.

If you could find a critic of Gentry who was confident enough in his criticism to take it to an elite, peer reviewed science journal platform for publishing instead of those non-peer reviewed hit pieces you hyperlink to, I think then you'd have something.

But, if you choose to make equal peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed material, hey, it's a free country, right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you could find a critic of Gentry who was confident enough in his criticism to take it to an elite, peer reviewed science journal platform for publishing instead of those non-peer reviewed hit pieces you hyperlink to, I think then you'd have something.

But, if you choose to make equal peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed material, hey, it's a free country, right?

While a PhD is great, and even the publication of a peer-reviewed article is awesome, these do not guarantee the cogency of any one argument.

So, I'll listen to anyone I darn well please who has an education. The trick is to listen to more than one person (preferably many) and not put all of your epistemological and scientific eggs into one, single basket or group.

Like, for instance, I might even ADD the following source (since it came up)

Wakefield, Jeffery Richard. "The Geology of Gentry's “Tiny Mystery”." Journal of Geological Education 36, no. 3 (1988): 161-175.​

​

Wakefield, J. Richard. "Gentry’s tiny mystery—unsupported by geology." Creation/Evolution 22 (1988): 13-33.​

​

Tiny Mystery Home Page

​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you could find a critic of Gentry who was confident enough in his criticism to take it to an elite, peer reviewed science journal platform for publishing instead of those non-peer reviewed hit pieces you hyperlink to, I think then you'd have something.

But, if you choose to make equal peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed material, hey, it's a free country, right?

Anyway, I'm stopping here, and for two reasons. One, you're a fellow Christian and I'm not going to have an ongoing verbal fist-cuff with a fellow brother in Christ.

Secondly, even though I approach the book of Genesis with Critical Studies in hand, I still think and believe it is prophetic in nature and Sacred Scripture.

So, with those points in mind, whether we're of the mind that the Earth is young or old, we're both a form of Creationists.

I'll be reading the Gentry article again. That's usually what I do when presented with this or that bit of evidence.

Besides, I have some Skeptics/Atheist to battle!

Peace!

 

[Phoneman-777]

While a PhD is great, and even the publication of a peer-reviewed article is awesome, these do not guarantee the cogency of any one argument.

Peer-review is where the buck stops in Science, friend. It's the top tier, most authoritative of all platforms.
The Justice Department has the Supreme Court, the field of Science has the Court of Peer-Review.

When it comes to the charge of "Legit Science Advancement", the Court of Peer Review had more than enough evidence to find Gentry guilty -- while no one's been able to scrape together enough evidence against Gentry's critics to even bring a grand jury indictment, let alone slap them with a charge.

Like, for instance, I might even ADD the following source (since it came up)

Wakefield, Jeffery Richard. "The Geology of Gentry's “Tiny Mystery”." Journal of Geological Education 36, no. 3 (1988): 161-175.​

​

Wakefield, J. Richard. "Gentry’s tiny mystery—unsupported by geology." Creation/Evolution 22 (1988): 13-33.​

​

Tiny Mystery Home Page

​

The one is an educational journal (no peer-review), and the other is an internet website! You keep making my point

May our Lord open your eyes, because the Creation Science crowd could use a smart cookie like yourself on our side, my friend.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

If you've read my OP, then you've seen for the past 50 years not a single critic of Gentry has attempted to publish their bulldookey "smoking guns" (which Gentry refutes on websites like www.halos.com) in any elite, peer-reviewed science journals, nor were they willing to take up Gentry's decades-long challenge to a public, peer-reviewed debate over their criticism of Gentry's findings -- which speaks volumes about their total lack of confidence in their claims.

Therefore, after 50 years of "stunned silence" in the pages of these elite, peer-reviewed science journals, only a stubborn atheist fool or deluded theistic evolutionist will deny that parent primordial Po218 halos absolutely prove instantaneous granite formation - which destroys the evolutionary time table and the entire satanic theory with it, as well.

Now I ask you, how can anyone not conclude from this that Creationism is "the way it was"?

During the years that I was a graduate student at a large secular university, I never heard such horribly insulting language come from the mouth of any of the 200+professors serving in the various departments of science or from the mouth of any of the students. Indeed, since I was living and functioning in the scientific community, I was not exposed to such outrageous behavior until I encountered some young earth creationists who fit the description that the Apostle Paul gave us in Romans 1:29-31 of disgraceful persons

29. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips,
30. slanderers, God-haters, {Or [God-hated]} insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,
31. foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32. They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die--yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. (NRSV)

This is not to say that all young earth creationists fit this description, but that it is true of many young earth creationists that I have personally encountered who enjoy maliciously castigating the 3,200,000+ scientists who know the difference between science and religion and who do not confuse the two.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wouldn't the decay chain of uranium naturally lead to the formation of polonium over time? That is, polonium appears in the rock all the time as a by-product of decay. I see the claim of nothing from further up the chain, so no radium or radon for example? I'd be doubtful of that claim.

Also, what does any of this have to do with evolution?

Peer review is really good, but simply getting published in a journal isn't the be-all and end-all of scientific inquiry. Peer-review means that the findings are open to review, not that "the debate is settled".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Phoneman-777]

During the years that I was a graduate student at a large secular university, I never heard such horribly insulting language come from the mouth of any of the 200+professors serving in the various departments of science or from the mouth of any of the students. Indeed, since I was living and functioning in the scientific community, I was not exposed to such outrageous behavior until I encountered some young earth creationists who fit the description that the Apostle Paul gave us in Romans 1:29-31 of disgraceful persons

29. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips,
30. slanderers, God-haters, {Or [God-hated]} insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents,
31. foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32. They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die--yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. (NRSV)

This is not to say that all young earth creationists fit this description, but that it is true of many young earth creationists that I have personally encountered who enjoy maliciously castigating the 3,200,000+ scientists who know the difference between science and religion and who do not confuse the two.

Murderers are usually silent when they kill - and they smile slyly when they do it. Many of them wear white lab coats and delude themselves by thinking their 3,200,000 numbers are greater than the billions upon billions of angels and inhabitants of unfallen worlds and Bible believing Christians...and smile with contempt at anyone who refuses to believe ridiculous lies about millions and millions of years of what took God six literal days.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Murderers are usually silent when they kill - and they smile slyly when they do it. Many of them wear white lab coats and delude themselves by thinking their 3,200,000 numbers are greater than the billions upon billions of angels and inhabitants of unfallen worlds and Bible believing Christians...and smile with contempt at anyone who refuses to believe ridiculous lies about millions and millions of years of what took God six literal days.

I am a conservative evangelical Bible believing Christian whom God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to bless with an excellent education and a healthy mind so that I could participate in the sharing of the gospel without commingling it and contaminating it with rubbish! Indeed, there is nothing at all in the Bible that even remotely suggests that the earth is less than 4.54 billion years old.

For proof from the Bible itself that the young earth interpretation is seriously incorrect, please see especially the 648-page commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 by Claus Westermann, and the commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis by John Skinner, Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge. For further supporting evidence, please also see the commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis by Ephraim A. Speiser and Gerhard von Rad, scholars who are also internationally known for their in depth knowledge of the Hebrew language.

(For an excellent article on the age of the earth written from an evangelical Christian perspective, please see the following: Radiometric Dating )

CMI and other young earth creation organizations claim that the rate of decay of radioactive atoms is not necessarily constant, but no deviations have been found from the equation for radioactive decay as it relates to geological time [D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)]. Moreover, no young earth creationist has ever explained from physics how it could even be possible for the rate of decay of radioactive atoms to change significantly. For an explanation of the physics involved, please see the article linked to above.