Ah, yes, I see how it goes. If someone doesn't agree with our arguments we'll use that good ol' legitimate debating technique of calling them "brain-dead" or "stupid" or "non-intellectual" or some other such terminology. Everyone knows that this technique is an absolutely irrefutable clincher in a debate?My questions about the dating methods you state "prove" evolution are as follows:
1. Do not these dating methods require that we assume the rock began with all uranium (or other substance) and no lead (or other break-down into substance? How can we make such an assertion? Is it not true that tests done using these methods on lava from known historical volcanic eruptions have yielded vastly different and incorrect ages for rock we know? How can they be accurate for rock which as a date of origin we don't know.
2. How do we know that the rate of decay has been consistent throughout the history of the earth? Yet a common evolutionary argument is that things are not always consistent (punctuated equilibrium or the fact that the rate of moon-dust or meteroic dust doesn't fit the "expected"?
3. Must we not assume that none (or at least only a known quantity) of the uranium, subproducts, or lead products (or components of whatever dating method we're using) has escaped from the rock (by leeching, for example)? By what authority can we make this assumption?
