The Idea that Small changes in Species leads to Large Radical Changes is NOT proved

My opponent has given up carbon dating, saying its only good for 30, 000 years. While he gives no evidence for this, it is an admittance that this dating technique doesn't give him the millions of years required for evolution from fish to mammal, reptile to bird, or ape to man. So he has put his trust in uranium-lead dating, alleging this can take him back into billions of years. I would love to see him try. This is what he needs to show: 1) How do scientists know the half -life in this method? Wikipedia reports that "The uranium"lead dating method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 704 million years." Nobody has observed any sample that long to see it decay, so how do they know it takes this long to decay? Can you give me one example of uranium-lead decay, where you can tell us how much decay scientist have actually observed with their eyes and how long it took? 2) How much uranium decays during the half-life? Half of what, exactly? Half of one single atom of uranium? Or half of a sample which is composed of a certain quantity of uranium? If so, how big is that sample? This is important, because if we only talking about one single atom of uranium taking millions or billions of years just for half to decay, exactly how much of it can scientist even observe decay within a year or even 50 years? Please tell us, how much decays in a day, a week, or a month? And is that figure than multiplied by the total size or mass of the uranium atom/particle to get the total time it will take to decay? 3) Do all the uranium atoms in a fossil decay simultaneously, or do they decay one at a time? These are important questions in determining how this process works, and how evolutionists come up with these figures. I await Con's explanation to show that they can even tell how they know how long it takes for uranium to become lead. But while he's looking for those answers, he should also tell us, 4) How do scientist know for sure that none of the daughter product of uranium (the lead) was not present with the fossil from the very beginning of its being fossilized? No observer was present when the rock was first formed around the sample, so how could they even date the rock? They may ASSUME no lead was present at that time, but that's an assumption without proof. What if lead was there? That would throw off the date of the date of the sample. 5) How do they know none of the daughter product of uranium, did not get out, or get into the sample after its fossilization, or even at the very moment the specimen was encased in rock or other material in which it was fossilized? They assume its a closed system without proof. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be completely sealed off from other rocks, water, chemicals, changing radiation, etc. How is that even possible? 6) Con must assume the rate of radioactive decay is constant throughout all history. How could he even know this? The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it. "Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated: "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'."10 Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation: "The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."11 [Following is actual documentation of changes in decay rates]: Theodore W. Rybka, "Consequences of Time Dependent Nuclear Decay Indices on Half Lives," Acts & Facts, ICR Impact Series, No. 106, (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, April 1982). Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 35 (1971), pp. 261-288, and Vol. 36 (1972), p. 1167. (Includes data indicating that different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean gave results varying from 100 thousand to 4.4 billion years. Results from different methods were contradictory.) K.P. Dostal, M. Nagel, and D. Pabst, "Variations in Nuclear Decay Rates," Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, Vol. 32a (April 1977), pp. 345-361. P.A. Catacosinos, "Do Decay Rates Vary?", Geotimes, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1975), p. 11. J. Anderson and G. Spangler, "Radiometric Dating: Is the 'Decay Constant' Constant?", Pensee, Vol. 4 (Fall 1974), p. 34. Harold L. Armstrong, "Decay Constant: Really Constant?", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1 (June 1974). W.K. Hensley, W.A. Basset, and J.R. Huizenga, "Pressure Dependence on the Radioactive Decay Constant of Beryllium-7," Science, Vol. 181 (September 21, 1973). (Documents that the radioactive decay rate of Beryllium-7 varies with pressure). J.L. Anderson, "Non-Poisson Distributions Observed During Counting of Certain Carbon-14 Labeled (Sub) Monolayers," Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 76, No. 4 (1972). (Shows that the decay rate of Carbon-14 is influenced by the local atomic environment.) G.T. Emery, "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates," Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Vol. 22 (1972), pp. 165-202 (Shows that many radioactive elements, including Carbon-14 and Uranium-235, have had their decay rates altered in the laboratory.) J.L. Anderson, Abstracts of Papers for the 161st National Meeting, Los Angeles (American Chemical Society, 1971)." https://www.google.com... I would hope Con won't tell me ChristianAnswers isn't a scientific site because it gives all the scientific sources from which the information comes. Much more documentation is given even from the US Geological Survey showing 80-90% of the rocks experience leaking that would contaminate samples. Much of the radiometric dating thus must be inaccurate. Geologist Andrew Snelling: "It is special pleading on the part of geochronologists and physicists to say that the radioactive decay rates have been carefully measured in laboratories for the past 80 or 90 years and that no significant variation of these rates has been measured. The 'bottom line' is really that 80 or 90 years of measurements are being extrapolated backwards in time to the origin of the earth, believed by evolutionists to be 4.5 billion years ago. That is an enormous extrapolation. In any other field of scientific research, if scientists or mathematicians were to extrapolate results over that many orders of magnitude, thereby assuming continuity of results over such enormous spans of unobserved time, they would be literally 'laughed out of court' by fellow scientists and mathematicians. Yet geochronologists are allowed to do this with impunity, primarily because it gives the desired millions and billions of years that evolutionists REQUIRE, and because it makes these radioactive 'clocks' work!" [Andrew A. Snelling, "Radioactive Dating Method 'Under Fire'!, " Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Answers in Genesis, March-May 1992), p. 44 (emphasis added).] Con's arguments don't address the fact that while animals give birth to descendants that cannot breed with the parent population, all the descendants we have observed being born were still within the same morphological kind. A horse family, for example, giving rise to mules that are simply "smaller horses" would seem like a huge proof of evolution to my opponent, but this is actually no different from if tall humans were to give rise to pygmies. We don't consider humans to be any more or less human based on their size or color, so why think a horse, mule or pony is on its way to becoming some other kind of creature just because of its size or color? My opponent saw moths having different colors as evidence that moths were once not moths, and that today's moths will one day be something other than moths. Yet, dogs give birth to dogs with completely different colors from their parents and this is no proof they are becoming anything other than dogs. I don't see why such limited variation in color, size, etc, is seen by evolutionists as proof that these creature can become anything other than what they basically are. Just like the E-coli, after 60 000 generations of mutation learnt to ingest citrate, but it was still e-coli. Bacteria remain bacteria. I would like to see an experiment where after 80, 000 generations a bacteria was no longer a bacteria, but something else. No such observation has been made. Con is trying to say that what has never been observed, isn't being observed now, is in fact happening. This is a complete denial of the scientific method which operates by observation, and tests and experiments which hold observable results. Evolution is based on assumption, not facts. Your turn.