Evidence exists that is more logical for creationist than evolutionist conclusions

Radiometric Dating No Excuse for Dismissing Other EvidenceCon argues radiometric dating can so definitively prove life existed prior to 20,000 years ago that all other evidence can be dismissed. However the debate's premise was simply that evidence exists which is most logically examined from a Creationist point of view. So long as I can show such evidence exists, radiometric dating or anything else is not grounds for dismissal. I address radiometric dating as such simply for the sake of debate, not because it could be grounds for disqualifying evidence for Creationism.ComprehensivenessCon 'would' be correct that "presuming all relevant factors are known" would apply to my 1st round arguments if I was in fact claiming all relevant factors were known - which I'm not. Rather than claiming I know all evidence that exists, and that my arguments are definitive the way Con argues radiometric dating is, I simply argue on the basis of reasonability, that given the evidence which exists, the evidence I raise is most logically examined from a Creationist point of view. I do not present this as a case of knowing all factors the way Con presents radiometric dating. CherrypickingCon argues I am suggesting there's a global conspiracy of some kind, phrasing I never in fact used. I simply pointed out dates which are incompatible with the existing status quo of evolution are excluded from consideration under the methodology of radiometric dating. Nonetheless my understanding is that discordant dates are removed.[1] When a date does not agree with the evolution paradigm it is just a matter of finding an excuse such as weathering or contamination to write it off. Personally I think all dates and methodology should be published, not just those that fit a certain worldview. The argument from incredulity fallacy does not negate the fact that this does indeed appear to be a part of the methodology of radiometric dating. Original Isotope LevelsI brought up the aerosols to point out that the element which the Uranium isotope decays into, 206Pb, can be found in the atmosphere, and that atmospheric levels of these isotopes vary from year to year. Carbon-14 for example is naturally produced in the atmosphere through cosmic rays, and all living beings tend to have the same amount of it in their bodies as is present in the atmosphere.[2] Thus in essence one must know what the atmospheric levels of Carbon-14 were to know how much Carbon-14 was decaying in the first place. In 2011 it was discovered that giant insects roamed the Earth due to oxygen levels 50% higher than today's levels, resulting in gigantism.[3]In essence to believe in the infallibility of radiometric dating, one must believe that the atmospheric levels of isotopes millions of years ago can be known precisely. All radiometric dates are "calibrated" to account for what atmospheric levels were believed to be millions of years ago.[4] However, as I previously pointed Al Gore incorrectly predicted that the ice caps would be gone in 5 years, and instead the Antarctic ice cap has grown in both size and volume.[5] The scientific community was unable to correctly predict what would happen to the ice caps over a 5-year time period, yet to believe in radiometric dating one must believe they can precisely know what the atmosphere was like millions of years ago. Furthermore, in the case of Carbon-14 dating each minute little speck of Nitrogen-14 is measured as 5,730 years, so a few isotopes difference results in being off by tens of thousands of years.Decay RatesI brought up the issue of Catastrophism to point out that catastrophes will have unprecedented effects on decay rates; in the case of a global Flood mixed with underwater supervolcanos, I suspect underwater fossilized material might well see radioactive impact similar to a nuclear bomb. A supervolcano equals the force of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs exploding every single second.[6] And as I pointed out volcanic ash from the 1980s Mount St. Helens eruption was dated at millions of years old. Thus a supervolcano mixed with a global Flood would have thrown off radiometric decay rates worldwide. As I also previously pointed out, evidence of just such an underwater supervolcano extinguishing life can be seen from the fossil record in ancient China. Encyclopaedia Britannica, which I also cited, mentioned that both upwelling of deepsea ocean water and volcanic carbon dioxide produce the appearance of "built-in age" on fossilized material, and both are exactly what would occur from a global Flood.[7]Polonium RadiohalosI was entirely out of room for that section and could only touch on the subject briefly. However, the AiG article referenced mentioned that helium should not exist in Zircon Crystals if the material being dated is as old as is claimed. Furthermore these radiohalos indicate a rapid process rather than gradual. To quote AiG (which is not a blog post), "However, because the daughter polonium atoms are only short-lived (for example, polonium-218 decays within 3 minutes, compared to 4.47 million years for uranium-238), the polonium radiohalos had to form within hours to a few days."[8]Counter-RebuttalsHuman Population Growth RatesCon is correct that human population could not always have grown this fast or human civilization could be only 2,071 years old. (8 survivors of Noah's Ark reaching 7 billion population) Con's problem however in arguing that technological advancement is behind this increase in growth is that the highest population growth rates are seen in third-world countries such as Lebanon (9.37%), Zimbabwe (4.36%), and South Sudan. (4.12%) These are countries with poor technological advancement and short life expectancies, yet their population is growing rapidly.[9] Thus they remain a strong evidence for Creationism.Dinosaur Soft TissueThe discovery such soft tissue existed was highly controversial and completely contradicted conventional thinking in the scientific community.[10] While iron chelatin has recently been discovered to help preserve soft tissue such as blood vessels, as noted by Elizabeth Mitchell of AiG, "But can iron chelation preserve soft tissue and even keep it soft for millions of years? While a 200-fold delay in the decay of ostrich blood vessels is certainly impressive, even that level of preservation can’t hold a candle to the 99,800,000-fold increase in chemical stability needed in the millions-of-years evolutionary scenario. Schweitzer quite reasonably makes a comparison to the fixation properties of formaldehyde. Many variables influence the degree and duration of the decay-delaying properties of formaldehyde. But specimens preserved in formaldehyde are not preserved perfectly or permanently. While burial conditions likely influence the efficacy of iron as a preservative in any given bone, there is certainly no reason to propose that iron could preserve the molecular structure of soft tissue for millions of years any more than formaldehyde could."[11]Living FossilsThe problem living fossils cause is that they managed to escape notice in the fossil record and get written off as extinct, while remaining substantially the same after all this time. This is more logical from a Creationist viewpoint of thousands of years than an Evolutionist one of millions. Microevolutionary RatesThese rates are consistent with life adapting over thousands of years, not millions or billions. They are more consistent with short time scales than long time scales. As with human population growth rates, the evolutionist must claim these rates have sped up for some reason.HominidsNonetheless suggestive. Out of room.Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...;2. http://tinyurl.com...;3. http://tinyurl.com...;4. http://tinyurl.com...;5. http://tinyurl.com...;http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...;[7] http://tinyurl.com...;[8] http://tinyurl.com...;[9] http://tinyurl.com...;[10] http://tinyurl.com...;[11] http://tinyurl.com...;