Evidence exists that is more logical for creationist than evolutionist conclusions

Preface I apologise for loss for formatting, as I am writing this round from my phone. Decay Rates I already affirmed how immutable decay rates were in my previous rounds (including to sun, heat and pressure). Pro proposes magnetic fields & best decay could alter them (which was news to me), however checking Pro's source shows it makes no statement whatsoever about any decay rate change at all, let alone magnetic/beta induced chances (I advise voters to check the source themselves if they don't believe me). Hence Pro brings nothing new to the table here when I haven't considered in my opening round. Moreover Pro has not addressed my arguments that assuming decay rates changes enough to account for the data, it would lead to absurd consequences (such as the Earth cooking itself sterile). Note that this increased decay rate would have had to have occurred consistently throughout history, since we have rocks which date to all parts of history (1 million, 10, 100, 1,000, 3,000 etc). All of which have fossils found with them. So positing a one-time decay rate change is not sufficient here, decay rates would literally need to be elevated a constant 100,000x their rates today until very, very recent history. Cherrypicking None of Pro's quotes address the practice of Radiometric dating as a whole. Moreover the one quote I could check is ironically quote mined (cherrypicked in itself!): "After Dr. Curtis's cautious remarks in early 1961 about the age of determininations from Olduvai 'However much of that section is contaminated ... 'I think the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous.' "[2] The other quotes I could not check the original sources, but do not relate to the practice of Radiometric dating as a whole, and hence are irrelevant. Isotope Levels Pro's only argument is possible contamination. But I already addressed this in my opening, where zircon crystals quantitatively exclude lead from their crystal structure. They simply do not chemically absorb lead in any manner. Also the crystals are insoluble in water, so you could chuck a crystal in a bucket of lead-water for years and the lead content within the crystal would remain unaffected.[1] Virtually all studies only consider the effect of Pb loss, since Pb is so readily excluded from the crystal lattice, thus the ages that would be given if contamination occurred would be younger, not older than what they really represent.[1] Furthermore, thick would necessarily have had to happened to *all* crystals on Earth, since they all Geomagnetic Field Reversals I already addressed magnetic and beta decay (they do not affect decay rates), moreover Earth's magnetic field doesn't deflect neutrinos anyway, so the number received on earth with no magnetic field at all is the same as it would be now. The *only* way to increase neutrinos reaching Earth is to have the sun (or a nearby star) increase it's output, but since output is proportional to the amount of heat produced it would mean the Earth would get vaporised (a 100,000 deficit is hard to climb). Also such an output increase would necessarily need to be constant, and not a one-off. Polonium Radiohalos I already explained that helium diffusion relies on an assumption regarding the sub-terrarium pressure (from being squeezes from thousands of tonnes of rock above), and it's affect on diffusion rates. The source I cited demonstrates that this was not taken into account by Pro's source, hence completely invalidating the data as 'evidence' for creationism, Counter-Rebuttals Human Population Growth Rates Pro completely ignores my dilemma: 1. Either the Human growth rates (1%/annum) are constant, or have changed 2. If the human growth rates are constant, then creationism is false 3. If the human growth rates have changed, then the argument makes a false assumption C. Either creationism is false, or the argument makes a false assumption Both horns of the dilemma are bad for Pro. If the growth rates have chances, then they could have been 0% at some point in the past! or even negative with net human loss(!). Pro also ignores my point that virtually all animal species are essentially in population equilibrium (0% growth), so why should humans before technology be any different? I gave positive reasons to this this is true via. The Holding capacity consideration. Pro has ignored this. Soft Tissue Incredulity & surprise is not an argument. Pro does not contest the evidence I gave or reasoning, and thus concedes this argument. I am not at liberty to explain surprise. Living Fossils No source was cited for the various living fossils, and it doesn't even matter. Since Pro's entire argument relies on the assumption of a complete fossil resort (I.e. We have accurate knowledge of virtually all species in the record, as well as population estimates, etc. I already argued this assumption is naive and dubious. Moreover Pro ignores my arguments as to why some species would not undergo many morphological changes (trade offs) and hence drops this point. Microevolutionary Rates I will let Pro's source speak for itself here: "Ecology is being transformed by the recognition that ecological and evolutionary timescales are not easily differentiated. A 1999 review of evolutionary rates by Andrew Hendry and Mike Kinnison (The pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53:1637-1653) provided the striking conclusion that rates of contemporary evolution are much faster than generally appreciated. The fact that genotype frequencies can be expected to change as the environment changes is profoundly important to general ecological understanding as well as our approach to dealing with issues such as global climate change." Amusingly, Pro has two conflicting contentions here, with arguments for evolutionary stasis as evidence for creationism, or rapid evolution as evidence for creationism. Pro drops this argument as he fails to fulfil a key assumption in his arguments (of expected evolutionary rates, and oversimplification of the factors involved). Humanoid Fossils Pro drops this argument, however in any case this contention was turned back on Pro as clear evidence for evolution. Magnetic Field Decay This argument makes the assumption that the magnetic field does not 'replenish', and hence can only decay. However he contradicts himself in citing magnetic field *reversals*, and it is clearly the case that reversal of the Earth's magnetic field leads to an observation (albeit temporary) of decay. Pro would most likely be making this exact same argument but in reverse if we were on the 'replenishing' phase, too, amusingly.[3] Conclusion I hope voters can see the clear contrast here in the level of rigor given in our cases. Pro completely fails to consider external factors, and fails to consider what his core assumptions are in the evidences he provides. Once the core assumptions are challenged, Pro's case has fallen apart at each and every step. The contention was "evidence exists", yet evidence cannot exist if: 1. Your hypothesis already massively contradicts reality (as it does with Radiometric dating) 2. You have not considered the factors/assumptions that relate the evidence to claims about reality I believe I have thoroughly demonstrated both horns of this, and Pro has taken to only rebuttals, rather than positively forwarding a case for why we should think Pro's facts have sound assumptions that lead it to becoming evidence for creationism As such, I encourage readers to vote Con. Thank you Pro for this debate, it has been fun. References 1. http://www.princeton.edu... 2. https://books.google.co.uk... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...