Evidence exists that is more logical for creationist than evolutionist conclusions

PrefaceGiven the nature of this debate, I will only offer one contention in favour of my position, as the negation of the resolution The only way for me to negate is to demonstrate that the notion of creationist conclusions is impossible. Therefore, I will only prove that life existed on Earth more than 20,000 years ago, which falsifies the very possibility of there being evidence in favour of creationist conclusions outright. I will spend the remainder of the debate refuting Pro’s arguments in favour of the resolution.Radioactive Dating Proves Life Existed >20,000 years agoMy job here is rather easy here, since 20,000 years is over 100,000x greater than the age of some fossilised life that is demonstrated by these techniques. Therefore I will establish my argument: 1. Radiometric dating falsifies creationism if they a.) Compute an age >20,000 years and a.) Has sound assumptions 2. Radiometric dating computes ages >20,000 years 3. Radiometric dating has sound assumptions C. Radiometric dating falsifies creationism P1 is a deductive mathematical framework by which substance ages are calculated assuming rates of decay, initial and final amounts of the relevant elements, and also assumptions regarding contamination. P2 us trivially shown by citing a cursory search on Google Scholar for the terms “radiometric dating million” yielding over 38,000 results. The first page of results upon checking do all include dates with results over a million years old. [1]Therefore, if I can uphold P3, then the conclusion follows deductively.Radiometric dating has sound assumptionsThe age of a sample is computed via. a similar method by which a compound interest amount is reverse-calculated. The math indisputably sound, but the assumptions made are the ones Pro can contest:NNow = NOrige-λt 1. NNowis the number of Uranium atoms measured now. 2. NOrig is the number of Uranium atoms originally in the sample 3. λ is the decay rate of Uranium. 4. tis the age of the zircon rock, to be determined NNow is measured directly with modern instruments. Therefore if I affirm the last 2 assumptions, then the dates made from radiometric dating are sound.Original number of Uranium atoms in the sampleThe number of atoms in the original composition of dated material can be calculated from the number of daughter products found. For example, U238 decays invariably to Pb204, IF we can make the assumption that the original amount of Pb204 is zero, then logically all of the Lead (Pb) would come from the decay of U238. If the amount of decayed U238 can be calculated then we have a simple formula for finding out the original amount of U238:Initial Amount U238 = Current Amount U238 + Decayed Amount U238Decayed Amount U238 = Current Amount Pb206This formula makes 1 final assumption however, which is that the quantity of U238/Pb206 is not affected by external factors, such as contamination etc. and also that no other radioactive events also generate Pb206. We know the last is true in the case of Pb206 from an exhaustive analysis of all other natural radioactive elements. Pb206 is only generated from the U238 decay chain.[4]The two assumptions made here, that 1.) the original amount of Pb206 is zero for the sample, and 2.) that contamination is not an issue are both simultaneously controlled for by the use of zircon crystals for radiometric dating (more on this later), as well at other materials. I will concentrate on zircon crystals the purposes of this debate.Radioactive Decay RatesWith the other assumptions affirmed, then this is the only grounds upon which Pro can seriously attack the dates obtained by radiometric dating. Pro would need to affirm that somehow, the radioactive rates were somehow over 100,000x faster in the past than they are now.Radioactivity is a phenomena that probabilistic and determined by quantum mechanics. Such decay occurs via overcoming the strong nuclear force through quantum tunnelling. Given the tremendous proximity of neighbouring protons & neutrons of the nucleus, the events outside of the nucleus are negligible compared to the forces that act within the nucleus. As such radioactive decay rates are virtually unaffected by temperature changes, the chemical bonding of the atom, pressure, etc. since these negligibly affect the environment of the nucleus (the nucleus of an atom is the size of a human fist in St. Paul’s cathedral). As such there are only a handful of studies that actually managed to affect the radioactivity rates of elements.[3]For example, one study managed to increase the rate of 187Re decay, but could only achieve this by heating the sample to over 200 million Celsius (!!). For reference, the temperature of the centre of the sun is ~ 15 million degrees Celsius. Other studies have found pretty much the same thing, such as with 176Lu (also 200 million Celsius). It goes without saying that these conditions aren’t even conceivably possible without sterilising/vaporising the planet into oblivion.[6-9]The only other evidence of possible increased decay rates are from neutrinos, to which some studies have alluded to a seasonal decay rate chance (of ~0.1%). Later studies have shown the opposite however, and the rates measured are highly suspect to systematic errors. Moreover, such perturbations are at least six orders of magnitude lower than would be required to account for the data. An increase on this magnitude would also, certainly sterilise life on Earth, and possibly vaporise the planet itself outright. [10]Zircon CrystalsZircon is a material (ZrSiO4), which naturally excludes trace lead in its crystallisation process. It is possible for uranium and thorium to substitute for zirconium, since they are of a similar size and have similar chemistry. Lead on the other hand is completely different to either. Prof. Bill Composton affirms:“First of all, uranium atoms fit easily into the zircon site in the crystal lattice. They have the same ionic radius as the zirconium, so when the zircon is crystallising, any atoms of uranium that are in the melt will slide into the growing mineral.In contrast, lead doesn't fit well. It has a different ionic radius and a different charge balance. So the mineral zircon strongly excludes lead..” “It is now quite clear that most zircons quantitatively (completely) exclude Pb when they crystallize from magma and that all the Pb contained in the zircon crystal lattice is from the decay of U.” As such, the use of zircon crystals allows for control of the initial amounts of lead, giving zero or near-zero amounts. This observation is unanimous throughout the literature. Note that I do not actually need to affirm perfect exclusion of lead, only that significantly more lead is excluded than uranium, as that is enough with the margins of error being so large for this de bate (fiver orders of magnitude). Hence even if lead was only excluded 10 times less than uranium, it would only lead to ages being ~900 million years older than computed (since U238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years, and some rocks with fossils date to over 3 billion years), however our evidence shows that the exclusion is much more efficient than that.[11-14] Moreover, the use of zircon crystals allows control over environmental factors, due to their exceptional chemical and physical durability: “Also, zircon is tough physically and is chemically stable, so it doesn't dissolve during low-grade metamorphism and it stands up to being weathered out of an igneous rock and trundled down the rivers into beach sands, where it is incorporated in younger rocks”[15] References 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. 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... 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. http://tinyurl.com...