I'm not offended. It's just factually incorrect to asert that there isn't enough evidence to make a determination.
This is the problem I have with what you say - you want to contend that your opinions are facts, and that simply isn't true.
It is YOUR OPINION there is enough evidence to make a determination. It is MY OPINION there isn't. Neither is a fact.
There's a ton of credible, peer reviewed evidence of an old earth. There is none for a young earth.
Let's address a few things here.
First, everyone has their own opinion on what is considered credible.
Second, "peer reviewed" doesn't hold nearly the water you seem to think it does. It's not difficult to get people who agree with the current popular theories to agree with your conclusions. If I were going to be more colloquial, I'd say this: "Peer review" in many cases is basically a giant circle jerk of people telling each other what good ideas they have and evaluating the ideas in light of how much it agrees with their own viewpoint on the matter.
You should note that you are just copy and pasting this from a website
I never said otherwise. BL was just being a whiny baby and refusing to actually visit the website (his way of avoiding the issue, which is part for the course for him) or else I wouldn't have even done that.
I wonder what sort of propaganda a website that is based on the "theory of creation", might have on it.
It may have propaganda on it for all I know. I didn't review the entire site. I only looked at one page, which contained the information I need, which isn't propaganda any more than any other piece of factual information.
The only way the half life of an isotope could change over time is if the fundamental laws of physics have changed. Certainly you can argue that they have, but if that's the case then using any scientific argument to date the earth is just silly. So if you're going to argue from a scientific perspective, keep it within the realm of reason. Half-lives are determined by the stability of the nucleus, which for smaller nuclei can be calculated fairly well with modern supercomputers just from our understanding of nuclear particles and forces. With that being the case, it's really impossible for them to change unless the nature of the fundamental particles or the laws governing them have changed. Again, that would basically void any scientific argument.
And what if this IS, in fact, the case? What if much of what we THINK we know from a scientific standpoint is wrong?
If we base our conclusions on information we thought was correct but is in fact wrong, then it follows logically that those conclusions will not be accurate.
Basically I'm quite skeptical of what modern science thinks it knows. I honestly believe hundreds or thousands of years from now anyone who is remotely educated will LAUGH at our "knowledge" of science now because of how many things we have wrong.