"Evolutionists", consider radioactive decay for a moment?

You are making a category error.

There are all sorts of natural processes that, when interpreted by intelligent beings, can be used to measure time. I would put the movement of springs, the vibration of crystals, the seaping of sand, the decay of nuclei, etc. into that group.

But while the fundamental processes themselves are natural, all of those time-keeping systems do involve machinery that has to be designed and engineered by man: the hourglass, the watch, the mass spectrometer. There's a difference between the natural process that makes time keeping theoretically possible and the machinery that makes it practical.

The sundial would seem to be a case of a time -keeping system that is almost totally free of technology. In fact, other animals do use the movement of the sun's rays to keep time.

Isn't the science of radiometric decay part of physics, not evolution?

it's certainly not a watch in the sense you mean, as the decay is a natural process, not a result of a specifically designed mechanism.

It's also different in that a watch is designed to signify the passage of time, while using radiometric dating establishes a time between a start point and the present.

To accurately mark the passage of time like a watch, the best methods involve excitation levels of electrons, emitting microwaves. This is a very different process from radioactivity, and requites deliberate human intervention to enable the process.

So no, radiometric dating can not be regarded as a watch or timepiece, just a dating method. The two are not the same.

Australia and Canada would be glowing masses too. Miller, the only mistakes in C-14 testing are caused by the reservoir effect, (look it up). Deceitful creationists use this as an excuse for discrediting radiometric testing without mentioning the reservoir effect. And the decay of radioactive material like uranium is a basic natural process and unless the physical laws of the universe keep changing the decay rate will remain constant.

also in the article:

The precision of a dating method depends in part on the half-life of the radioactive isotope involved. For instance, carbon-14 has a half-life of about 6000 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years, so little carbon-14 is left in it that accurate dating has not been established. On the other hand, the concentration of carbon-14 falls off so steeply that the age of relatively young remains can be determined precisely to within a few decades.<>< <>< makes one ponder on what happen 6,000 years ago-huhhhhh

It's an over simplification of a complex, and I'm sure well studied process/phenomenon.

I don't honestly know enough about radiometric dating to respond properly. But I bet if you talked to a scientist who specializes in this area, they would give you a more detailed explanation that Wikipedia can.

No, they are the result of predictable nuclear processes, just as the very predictable process of water evaporating, cooling in the upper atmosphere, condensing, and returning to earth as rain is a predictable process that is driven only by thermodynamics-not a designed process but a result of the interactions of matter and energy.

Yup. Perfectly fair.

I also recommend cdk007's video on YouTube on the topic of evolving watches, given watch components and reproduction with variation.

Ah, I...See I could never understand the "logic" of "Creationists" you guys clearly 'think' way differently than I do.

"A watch without a watchmaker"? Just what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Taoist/Atheist

heh. radioactive decay is also an event without any apparent prior cause, something else that creationists claim doesn't exist.

The watchmaker would be the weak and strong nuclear forces. I don't think the physical laws of the universe are god.