Evidence exists that is more logical for creationist than evolutionist conclusions

Radiometric Dating Con argues that radiometric dating should be considered so conclusive that all the evidence I brought up in round 1 should be written off. However, science should accept all evidence and question existing theories as new evidence comes to light, not cling dogmatically to them. Not even the law of relativity is untouchable, and has come under recent scrutiny.[1] Altering Decay Rates As previously addressed both volcanism and upwelling of ocean water give the appearance of radiometric age. Other cases include: The sun alters radiometric decay rates.[2] Magnetic fields alter decay rates, particular beta decay.[3] Both intense heat and pressure can alter decay rates. Beryllium decay rates have been altered, albeit minimally.[4] Comprehensiveness Con claims I have not accounted for external factors when presenting my original arguments, but my rebuttals last round show otherwise. Con brought up concerns about technological advancement with human population growth rates and preservation of soft tissue, both of which are I’m assuming the factors he refers to, and both were addressed. Cherrypicking John Woodmorappe in his 1978 paper “Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised” presented several quotes showing the scientific community does discard dates that it doesn’t agree with.[5] "In general, dates in the `correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained." (Mauger)[6] "I think the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous." (Curtis et al)[7] "In spite of collection of unweathered samples and precautions taken to discard samples with evident alteration, it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age." (Armstrong and Besancon)[8] "In general, strong discordances can be expected among ages deduced by different methods." (Brown and Miller)[9] Answers in Genesis Con keeps attempting to label Answers in Genesis a “creationist blog” even though it is one of the foremost creationism institutions in the world, and well-known for its creationism museum which recently put on display one of the best-preserved allosaurus skeletons in the world.[10] AiG is no more a blog than TalkOrigins is. Isotope Levels Nonetheless Con did not simply specify uranium-lead dating but referred to radiometric dating in general with his original response, thus my points are relevant that radiometric dating methods can require knowledge of atmospheric concentrations from the distant past. Con overlooks my broader point, that Pb206, the uranium element being dated, is found in the environment, not just the atmosphere but rainwater and petrol as well.[11] Thus the possibility exists that it could seep into the underground lava flows where the zircon crystals form. Geomagnetic Field Reversals The Earth’s magnetic field has reversed polarity several times in Earth’s past, as recorded in the lava flows which Zircon Crystals form.[12] Recently the Earth’s magnetic field has been drastically weakening, and since the magnetic field protects us from the sun’s rays, this is cause for some concern.[13] Now, why is this relevant? Because as previously mentioned, solar flares and magnetism can alter radiometric decay rates. Thus the flips of the Earth’s magnetic field in the past by allowing more solar activity would logically have resulted in decay rate alterations as well. On top of this, because the Earth’s magnetic field is decaying 5% each century (and even faster in recent years), Creationist Thomas Barnes has pointed out that the magnetic field could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years or it would have melted the Earth. Russell Humphreys has since proposed a Dynamic Decay theory positing that the reversals are due to fluid flow within the Earth (for example the magma in which Zircon Crystals form), and predicted based on it that magnetic reversals should be found within lava flows that have cooled in short time periods (days/weeks), a prediction that has been confirmed.[14] Polonium Radiohalos The study referenced is “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay” by Humphreys et. al.[15] I still remain unclear as to why Con thinks helium would still exist in Zircon Crystals if they are as old as is claimed. Counter-Rebuttals Human Population Growth Rates As observed by Don Batten, “If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 10^43 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it... Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history. This stretches credulity to the limits."[16] I have not conceded anything here, even at rates just 1/10th those seen today human population could not be older than 30,000 years. These rates are strong evidence for Creationism. Soft Tissue What Con neglects to mention is if hydrolysis could explain the preservation of dinosaur soft tissue, why has the scientific community been so shocked at said tissue’s existence? It was widely believed until the past few years that such tissue should not exist under evolutionary models. Living Fossils Outside of dinosaurs however, many species have remained generally static as seen from the fossil record, and similar to life seen today. The fossil record contains ancient bats (Onychonycteris), octopi (Palaeoctopus), pangolins (Eomanis), swordfish (Eurhinodelphis), pandas (Ailuropoda microta), cockroaches (Aphthoroblattina), otters (Puijila Darwini), etc. That so many types of life, aside from dinosaurs, have remained substantially unchanged is evidence for Creationism. Microevolutionary Rates Actually in Round 2 I did provide a source referring to microevolutionary rates in general. Source 21 from Yale.[17] Closing In closing I would like to thank Envisage for a thought-provoking debate, for all our disagreement hopefully we presented both sides of an important subject and made each other and the readers think through the evidence involved. Thanks for a good debate!Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com...; http://tinyurl.com...; [2] http://tinyurl.com...; [3] http://tinyurl.com...; [4] http://www.nature.com...; [5] http://tinyurl.com...; http://tinyurl.com...; [6] Mauger R. L. 1977. K-Ar Ages of Biotites from Tuffs in Eocene Rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. Contributions to Geology 15( 1):37. [7] https://books.google.com...; [8] Armstrong, R. L. and J. Besancon. 1970. A Triassic Time Scale Dilemma: K-Ar Dating of Upper Triassic Mafic Igneous Rocks, Eastern USA and Canada, and Post-Upper Triassic Plutons, Western Idaho, USA. GH 63:21, 3. [9] Brown, P. E. and J. A. Miller. 1969. Interpretation of isotopic ages in erogenic belts (in Kent et. al. 1969. Time and Place in Orogeny. GL Special Publicatin No. 3), p. 152. [10] http://tinyurl.com...; http://bigstory.ap.org...; [11] http://tinyurl.com...; [12] http://tinyurl.com...; [13] http://tinyurl.com...; [14] http://tinyurl.com...; http://www.icr.org...; [15] http://www.icr.org...; [16] http://tinyurl.com...; [17] http://environment.yale.edu...;