: 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?And where, specifically, did I use these terms? You don't have any background in the science you presume to critique, that is quite obvious. That doesn't mean you're "brain dead" etc., simply that you're unaware of the basics of the fields that you are trying to criticize, and therefore your critiques are not at all convincing.
: 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?
K-Ag "assumes" that potassium, in a liquid state, can not hold argon gas. Therefore the decay of K into Ag is "zeroed" while the K is a liquid (pre eruption/pluton cooling). Only once the K cools to a solid state will any Ag gas be trapped. Therefore K-Ag dates the eruption/pluton event precisely. Similar arguments exist for each of the dating methods I mentioned. Why not go to talkorigins.org and look atthe sites I linked you to? They really do explain this stuff in detail.
: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?
Yes, it is NOT true.
: How can they be accurate for rock which as a date of origin we don't know.
Because physics really does explain the things we claim it explains.
: 2. How do we know that the rate of decay has been consistent throughout the history of the earth?
Because it is an effect of the structure of radioisotopes. There is no question about this at all. It is not possible for isotopes to change their rate of decay, any more than it is possible to mix two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom and get gold. This is a basic property of atoms, and not something that can vary capriciously.
: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"?
You're mistaking organic and inorganic materials. Organisms don't act like inorganic material. That's why biology and physics are different departments.
: 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)?
No, we look at each sample and see if this has happened or not. As I implied earlier (re. forensics) actions leave traces. If isotopes have been leached, we can see it. Besides, this process would make the material appear anomolously young, not older. Whose side are you on? ;-)
:By what authority can we make this assumption?
what assumption? That the evidence right in front of us is real? Well, I suppose you could question the reality of perceived phenomena, but it doesn't seem a particularly effective way of doing science, frankly. (I suspect that it would make the local high streets and freeways more exciting though.) Seriously, somebody has been misleading you. The arguments you present don't hold water, but they are repeated endlessly by creationists. Clearly somebody told you that these were good arguments against evolution. They were either misinformed, or they were deliberately lying to you. You don't have to take my word for it though, you can pick up introductory textbooks in the sciences at your local library or bookstore at reasonable prices and see for yourself. You can actually repeat experiments and see if you get the results scientists say you should get. This is a major difference between science and religion, you can actually test scientific statements and see if they are correct, you don't have to just take someone's word for it.
-Floyd
None.
