Earlier you seemed to imply that we have tested for these affects here on earth and around earth but that we haven't tested decay rate constants in other galaxies or elsewhere in the Universe. So now you are questioning that heating something up with cause the isotopes to decay differently? We can test for that. Not in another galaxy but within our solar system certainly. I do concede however that yes this conclusion is hinging on the nebula hypothesis being true.
Out of curiosity, if various dating methods kept pointing to 6000 - 6500 years would this not be hoisted as solid evidence that the solar system is young? I mean I know it would be amongst creationist circles in general but would you personally tout that as significant evidence?
You mentioned that archaeology supports biblical claims, did you investigate them to find out if they used radio metric dating so that you could discard the "evidence"? Another words I'm making sure you're not just accepting the science when it's convenient.
By the way I'll take a look at the dating issues you mentioned but it's going to take me a little time.
You seem to be engaging in equivocation here. If you want to use the word "faith" to just mean "what you believe when you don't have 100% certainty" that's one thing. The "faith" that religion engages in is a different animal and I can prove it to you. The scientific community gets knocked because they change their story based on new data. Why rely on science when you can't trust it right? That argument proves that the scientific community is WILLING to change it's view based on new evidence. Tell me now how quickly the church will change it's view based on new evidence. Over and over I've seen religious sites proudly and boldly proclaim that they will not look at secular evidence if it contradicts scripture. It will be by default, a priori, dismissed because it goes against the story line. I don't doubt at all there are individual scientists who have religious faith, but I don't support that approach at all.
It's also irrational to have confidence in something that has the same evidence as something that doesn't exist. I have no problem speculating about the supernatural but answer this for me. When is it a good time to invoke supernatural explanations and when is it not? If you can't distinguish with any confidence what is the use? Even if I concede the supernatural exists, now what? Do you just invoke it when it's handy? I don't demand that there is no supernatural component, but I personally believe that belief in the supernatural can be very dangerous [on top of largely being unwarranted]. Even today we have places in Africa and elsewhere where children who have albinism are tortured or killed because they think they are witches etc. Under your worldview they could be viewed as "rational".
I have no issue admitting that I don't have full confidence in any secular model, including common ancestry or the nebular hypothesis. I don't feel that my "soul" [if i believed in a soul] is bound by my beliefs. I completely reject the notion that I have religious faith. I don't attend science class every sunday in an attempt to "bolster my faith". I don't read science "scripture" that I proclaim is infallible.
I didn't say anything about bias, I used the words "feelings" and "emotions". I concede that bias can be rooted in emotion but that's not necessarily the case. Culture and upbringing can play a large part in bias, how do we combat that? Certainly not by appealing to emotions! Religious faith often employs rituals and rites that invoke human emotion. I'm no stranger to church or Christian practices. When is the last time someone tried to convince you of a scientific claim starting with "Do you know where you're going to go when you die?". Religion definitely tries to tap into the psyche of humanity, not just share cold evidence. So the day that science, or really specifically me since that's who you're addressing, says that secular views are infallible then I would say we're using "faith" the same way.
So you want to invoke the supernatural when it's handy. Got it. If you can't distinguish your supernatural claim against someone elses, you are NOT on equal footing with two people discussing the natural world. You know darn well with the natural world I can't just blow smoke up people's dresses. People can take my claims and study, verify, test etc etc. We wouldn't even necessarily know the difference between advanced alien technology and the supernatural!