Apparently the Jolly Nihilist doesn't, though. I reproduce here an excerpt of that combox:
It is not really an “assumption” that, when a star is one million light years from Earth, it takes one million years for the light to reach Earth; that is basic science.
How precisely did you test that assertion scientifically?
Oh, that's right - you ASSUMED the light beams didn't originally stretch all the way to Earth originally. That's called an ASSUMPTION. I'm sorry you need a refresher on what science covers, but it's not science until you apply the scientific method to it and observe repeated results. If you can give me an experiment that's repeatable by which you could test this whole thing, let me know, but don't call it "science", let alone "basic science", until you do.
with respect to radioactive dating, even on the assumption of non-uniformitarianism, the bare fact remains that, now, with current rates of decay, when radioisotopes occur together, enabling the dates to be cross-checked, the ages invariably agree,
For the 4th time or so, all that tells you is that these tests agree. Then come the assumptions to interp what that means and apply to the age of the Earth.
What on your naturalistic framework makes you think that there's a telos to these decay rates, that they're meant and intended to tell you their age? You don't have one and your worldview doesn't support it. But since you're wedded to finding confirmation for your assumption, that's how you present it.
beggaring all belief and all statistical likelihood, the decay rates have all changed in such a way
1) How is belief relevant? Plenty of ppl believe that God created the world. More than believe evolution, BTW.
2) How precisely did you calculate the likelihood? What kind of probability measurement?
They are frantic inasmuch as, even though the bible provides no genuine astronomic knowledge of which to speak,
It tells us God created the world in an instant and approximately how long ago it was. It's not hard to go from there. I have no education in astronomy, and I figured it out.
It's not as if scientific conclusions are against my position, let's be clear. ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENTISTS are against it, but so what?
It is true that, with enough tortured harmonization, your position can probably account for every bit of data we have found
"Tortured" is an opinion, and it is quickly becoming clear you're not an unbiased arbiter thereof.
And I'd fully expect a worldview that is true to acct for all data. Wouldn't you?
If the bible can be harmonized to ANYthing, it essentially predicts NOthing.
Or the Bible is true.
Maybe you prefer a worldview that DOESN'T acct for all the data. If that's the case, stay where you are - you're in the right place.
Why, in principle, would it have been impossible for both dating methods never to have given us a date older than 6000 years?
It wouldn't be. But I deal in facts and logic, not dreams.