Radiometric Dating is Accurate

My opponent's arguments seem to center on minutiae, although there are several well-argued points. 1. Pro claims that I failed to specify what it is about science that is as great a leap of faith as religion. This is false. To quote myself "The average person must assume when learning about RD or any other facet of science that deals with events that occurred before recorded human history that the person who is teaching them is neither misinformed nor deceiving the student. They must have trust in that person. They must have faith in that person. Given the complexities of the subject and the lack of practical use to the average person, such problems are plausible." In simpler terms, you have to trust that you're not being lied to. You have to trust someone's knowledge regarding the origins of the Earth and of Man. In that way, it is exactly the same leap of faith as with a religion. Pro claimed that Religion "never makes verifiable predictions and is never revised based upon contradictions with observation." Allow me to correct a flaw in your understanding of religion (from your arguments, I assume you are not religious). It is absolutely untrue that religion, Christianity in particular, never revises itself. This is where the denominations come from. An idea is revised and the adherents of that revised idea break with the old idea. The only difference is that the old way rarely dies out completely. The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church are another example of religious revision in Christianity. Around two dozen books were stricken from the Bible due to their widely accepted deviance from what we now accept as religious truth (Apocrypha). Also, what happened to the concept of indulgence? For those who are unaware, the Catholic church used to offer it's members salvation and a place in Heaven for unsaved family members for a profit. Martin Luther among others challenged the religious principle behind this, gained significant support and the practice ended. I fail to see the relevance of my opinion of the validity of all religion. All religion requires a similar commitment of faith, as does all but a very narrow subset of readily observable sciences. My assertion is meant to illustrate that, although I concede I could have done a better job in saying so. 2. I brought up the theory of evolution only as an illustration of the point that we don't live long enough to make a 100% confirmation of the accuracy of RD and to pre-empt any attempts to prove radiation decay by other theoretical means. As an aside, it is also an illustration of Science's desperate attempts to supplant religion. To be fair, I did get carried away, as I am prone to do. 3. Pro rebuts "Con argues, 'just because carbon behaves in a certain manner for 41 years or even for 300 years (or however long we've been observing it) doesn't mean that it has behaved that way for it's alleged billions of years of existence.' I stated that there are about two dozen isotope pairs used in radiometric dating." I'm not so simple that I didn't understand that. We call the device I used in my first argument an "example". It is applicable to all of the radioactive isotopes that we observe. Pro continues, "The decay rates of the various isotope pairs cross-check each other. So it's not just carbon that must be behaving erratically, but uranium, thorium, cesium, strontium, and all the others used for dating." Firstly, I already warned against the viability of verifying a theory with another theory. Secondly, my main point is, as I go on to explain in my argument, that our understanding of Atomic/subatomic physics is less than perfect and at times vastly different from classical physics. It's not that they would be behaving erratically, but in a manner that we do not currently understand. I understand the basic principles of RD, but as it hold no significant bearing on my life or job, it is not a high priority for advanced study. Radiation and decay, I understand a bit more thoroughly. There needs not be a change in the laws of conservation of energy for my argument to be valid, just undiscovered concepts of physics. Since you can't rule that out any more than you could have ruled out quantum physics before it's discovery, you can't rule out the possibility that RD may not be accurate. You can ASSUME that it is accurate, but you cannot state it as objective fact. Really, that is the only bone of contention that I have with my opponent's arguments. 4. Pro questions rhetorically, "Has anyone in fact used C14, or any of the other two dozen isotope pairs, 'correctly' as Con supposes?" No, because the only people who care, or have access and technical knowledge for the equipment required for that matter, are the people who lack objectivity. It's tough to get around, because there's no one who's really objective and without leaning on a subject as specific as this. You can say you're on the fence about big things like the existence of God or the relevance of NATO in the post-Soviet Union world, but when you get specific, everyone has an opinion (which is why we're here). Once again, you cannot independently and WITHOUT BIAS verify the accuracy of the process, therefore it cannot be stated as objective fact. Yes, the methods are routine. But they're based on concepts that cannot be objectively verified. My opponent makes the claim "If unbiased users applied rulers, we would find that people are typically only a quarter inch high." in an attempt to illustrate his disapproval of my idea. But I was speaking about atomic/subatomic physics, where the laws are slightly more blurry. His exaggeration does not apply to the argument. But then he posits, again rhetorically, "If that is so, then, in the RD world, who has used RD in an unbiased way to produce the radically different measurements claimed?" The answer is that the scientists who are looking for any answer other than "God created it" MAY HAVE used it improperly and everyone is trying to back them up because it detracts from Creationism. It simply cannot be ruled out, because there are no unbiased observers. I am not implying that all scientists are rabidly anti-Creationism, but such scientists do exist, and they do exist in the RD world. 5. Oh sure, there is the passdown of data among scientists. I haven't forgotten about that. But how long has the field been around? Not all that long, which reinforces my doubts regarding the absolute accuracy of the process. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I wish to disprove RD. I am merely pointing out that because of the possibility of inaccuracies or biased interpretation being fed to an audience that is ignorant of the finer points of the subject, one cannot claim it is objective, absolute fact.