Evidence exists that is more logical for creationist than evolutionist conclusions

PrefacePro has somehow succeeded in ignoring my entire argument in his rebuttal, and misses the point of me affirming radiometric dating. If I can definitively prove that life existed on Earth over 20,000 years ago, then we can dismiss the very possibility of there being any evidence for creation out of hand. I specifically chose radiometric dating because of it’s conclusive dating power of old samples, and extreme tolerance to environmental conditions of its fundamental principles.Completeness of knowledgeNote that Con undermines his own arguments by arguing that “presuming all relevant factors are known” is unsound, as that’s exactly what all his first-round arguments do. However I explained at length how all relevant factors have all been examined one by one, and the consequences of altering these have been shown to be absurd as it relies on fundamental physical principles.Cherrypicking ResultsPro appears to be arguing for a global conspiracy of all geologists that report dates of millions of years. Pro first needs to argue there is an extant variation within the results of nearly six orders of magnitude from which cherry picking is even possible (otherwise there would be no results to ‘pick’ from the bucket), and second he needs to make this claim for all 38,000+ papers I cited last round that include dates of millions of years. Every. Single. One.The claim that Pro is making is comparable to 9/11 truthers, or the hoaxed moon landings, and as such this argument cannot be taken seriously.Original number of Uranium/Lead atoms in the samplePro argues that 206Pb exists as aerosols, but fails to mention how this is relevant to my argument, note I argued at length that the use of zircon crystals controls extremely powerfully for non-radiogenic sources of 206Pb, as they exclude Pb upon crystallisation, after which lead can no longer be incorporated. Pro makes some arguments against 14C dating, but this is irrelevant to U/Pb dating.Radioactive Decay RatesPro argues for catastrophism, but fails to show how it’s relevant to my radiometric dating whatsoever, let alone my arguments for it. If anything it would date fossils even more recently, which helps refute creationism even further.Pro argues that measuring samples less than 2 million years old is somehow a problem for radiometric dating, if one analyses the calculation used:NNow = NOrige-λtThe smaller the t measured, the smaller the NNow: NOrig ratio, and this is limited by the precision by which Pb can be measured, as well as other margins of error. To give a real-life example, it would be impossible to use a meter ruler to deduce distances of less than a millimetre apart, since the margin of error of measurement is too large compared to guaranteed level of resolution. At larger neasurements however, this margin of error (+/- 1 mm) becomes negligible compared to the measurement.The same principle applies to any measuring method, including radiometric dating. The technique has an effective range of billions of years, hence will contain an inherent margin of error roughly proportional to it, depending on the precision by which lead can be controlled and measured for.Moreover, we can be sure of its reliability BY assessing it’s assumptions, which I have provided evidence for in the previous round.Polonium RadiohalosPro fails to actually provide an argument here. Moreover his link isn’t to a scientific paper, but to a blog post, and hence can be dismissed out of hand. Moreover his blog post doesn’t even show the data or argument either, hence I will rebut this in later rounds IF Pro brings forward the evidence and argument.RebuttalsHuman Population Growth RatesPro’s argument here relies on the absurd assumption that human population growth is constant and has always remained constant. Given that virtually all species on Earth are roughly in equilibrium in population (no net growth or decrease), Pro needs to consider the carrying capacity of the environments involved.The difference for humans in recent history has been the tremendous technological developments made recently which have massively increased the carrying capacity of urban environments, by no longer making scarcity of food a significant factor as it does in the wild.[1] Moreover assuming a 1% growth rate gives a date of 2,000 years, which falsifies Pro’s position anyway. His position is hence self-defeating.Dinosaur Soft Tissue Pro’s entire argument here rests on the assumption that it’s impossible for any soft tissue to last more than 100,000 years, but he gives no reason why we should believe this. Proteins are known to be highly durably chemical species (polypeptides) which can only be broken down in fossils by hydrolysis. However hydrolysis is impossible if water is excluded, which is indeed the case for a handful of fossils, and is a partial side-result of the fossilisation conditions. [2] Moreover, even in the presence of water peptide bonds are known to be highly durable.Living Fossils and Lazarus TaxaI have no idea how this is supposed to be evidence of creation instead of evolution. The fact that these species are millions of years old essentially defeats creationism outright. Furthermore there are an estimated 8.7 million eucharitic species on earth, of which more than 80% remain undiscovered. Hence these “living fossil” discoveries are unsurprising. [3]Also assumes a perfectly complete fossil record, which is in naïve ignorance of the very specific conditions required for the processes of fossilisation, not all species will fossilise, and fossils of each species are relatively rare.[4]Microevolutionary RatesTwo words. Adaptive Radiation. This phenomenon is well understood in adaptive radiation, where the presence of a new niche environment, and every single one of Pro's examples demonstrates this. When a new niche becomes accessible, adaptive radiation to fill that niche occurs.[5]This in no way predicts that we would 'observe macroevolution', given that macroevolution IS microevolution but on larger and longer timescales, with a larger degree of branching and higher-tier generations of 'cousin families', adaptive radiation isn't something that entails this.Pro has not demonstrated how this is evidence at all of creation, or even evidence against evolution, as opposed to just individual instances of rapid adaption. Pro would need to demonstrate reasons why we would expect changes above the species level to occur on human-timescales before making an argument from it.Oldest Hominids BipedalDemonstrating bipedalism in a Human ancestor =/= evidence demonstrating humans are descended separately from apes.Arguably the biggest things that separates humans from apes is our brain size and bipedalism. Given that the Ardipitecus had a brain size of only 300-359 cm3, which is comparable to our cousin apes, AND had bipedalism as humans do, this in fact makes for a remarkable example of a “transitional species” between humans and their primate common ancestor if it was one. [6] Bipedalism is thought to have evolved before intelligence did in humans.If creation is true then the Ardipitecus would be neither a human, nor an 'ape', as it both walked upright like a human, but had a chimp sized brain. If evolution is true then it would just be another primate, to which humans are more closely related (or directly descended) to than humans are to the extant apes.Given that these clearly blur the lines between humans and primates, it is clearly evidence in favor of evolution, and not creation.References 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Mason, Kennith A., Susan R. Singer, Peter H. Raven, and George B. Johnson. "Peptide Bonds." Biology. By Jonathan B. Losos. 8th ed. N.p.: McGraw Hill, n.d. 46-48. Print 3. http://www.nature.com... 4. http://en.citizendium.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...