Evidence exists that is more logical for creationist than evolutionist conclusions

My thanks to Con for a well-thought-out and well-written response! First of all I have shown evidence that indicates a younger date to life on Earth in human population growth rates, soft tissue, and microevolutionary rates; and reject the idea that radiometric dating can instantly falsify evidence that contrarily suggests a younger date. My points still stand as evidence that is more compatible with belief in a younger creation, i.e. creationism, than the slow, uniform, and gradual processes initially proposed by Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell. The essence of the debate is not which side has greater evidence but whether evidence exists that is more reasonable from a Creationist point of view which I have thus far suitably demonstrated. Indeed, I could argue that my evidence falsifies radiometric dating; ultimately the evidence must be taken in totality or not at all. Con by dropping my points seemingly concedes that evidence exists for a younger date to life on Earth. Nonetheless, in the interest of debate, I will address Con's remarks about radiometric dating and show that radiometric dating is not as definitive a proof against Creationism as is being claimed. Now, does radiometric dating definitively prove life existed over 20,000 years ago? As acknowledged by Con, this will necessarily rest upon whether radiometric dating rests upon "sound assumptions" for if those assumptions can be at all shown to be in question, then radiometric dating is as likely to fall apart as previous attempts at dating the Earth. For example Dalrymple in 'The Age of the Earth' notes that previous efforts failed by assuming constant rates without taking into account all factors; for example De Maillet incorrectly claimed sea level decline could be used to date the Earth but failed to take into account the uplift and sinking of land areas (pp. 26-27), Kelvin incorrectly dated based on cooling of the Earth but failed in accounting for the complexity of Earth's heat sources (pp. 45-46), Joly miscalculated the age of the Earth by assuming constant salinity rates that are now known to be likely invalid and failed to take into account the complexity of erosion and rainfall variance (pp. 57-58), and George Darwin (Charles Darwin's son) incorrectly dated the age of the earth based on tidal friction without accounting for the complexity of Earth's heat loss. (pp. 50-51)[1] At any rate, many previous efforts at dating the Earth are now known to have been flawed due to incorrectly assuming constant rates and presuming that all relevant factors were known. With that said, on to radiometric dating.Radiometric Dating's Faulty AssumptionsRadiometric dating is not as complex as it might seem, in essence one measures the amount of an isotope, for example 238u (a uranium isotope), and what it decays into, 206Pb (a lead isotope). Isotopes such as these actually exist in the atmosphere, 206Pb for example from aerosols.[2] With radiometric dating one must know how much of the initial isotope there was (including what the atmospheric levels were like), whether the radiometric decay rates were constant (and if contaminated be able to prove this occurred), and whether any more of the daughter or parent isotopes were introduced while it was decaying (which would throw off the process). 1. Cherrypicking the ResultsFirst of all it is a major concern to Creationists that Evolutionists discard any discordant dates which do not reach the conclusions they want. To quote Tas Walker of Creation Ministries International, "It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds."[3]Indeed, by throwing out all dates that disagree with their desired conclusions, the Evolutionist community disqualifies radiometric dating as credible, falsifiable science. If one refuses to acknowledge the evidence that disagrees with their point of view then they commit the fallacy of circular reasoning; and have never truly proven that claim at all. 2. Constant Rates?Creationists have long argued in favor of Catastrophism rather than Uniformitarianism, that a mass catastrophe is the primary cause for Earth's geology rather than steady, gradual rates. For example, William Buckland (1784-1856), a famous early Geologist, sought to prove that the most recent catastrophe had been a global Flood.[4] After decades of abandoning Catastrophism in favor of Lyellian Uniformitarianism, the scientific community has in recent years finally acknowledged that a catastrophe did in fact kill ancient life worldwide.[5] However, such a catastrophe would have unprecedented effects on everything it fossilized.As a Creationist I believe a global Flood mixed with underwater volcanism was responsible for much of the fossilization in the fossil record. Evidence of such underwater volcanism playing a role in past extinction has been discovered in recent years. An ancient eruption near modern-day Southwest China produced half a million cubic kilometers of lava, instantly killing and fossilizing marine life worldwide.[6]The major problem for radiometric dating with all of this is that dating of volcanic ash has proved highly difficult in the past. Ash from the 1980s Mount St. Helens eruption produced widely varying dates, some at over 1 million years.[7] TalkOrigins in attempting to refute this has argued that dating young samples is irrelevant, that the laboratory's equipment "cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old."[8] This argument seems self-defeating to me however. After all, for radiometric dating to be viable under the scientific method it must be testable, verifiable, and falsifiable; one must be able to test material whose age is known for certain. If one claims radiometric dating can only be used on ancient sources and not recent ones, how then can one be sure the testing of ancient sources is reliable? How can one verify it without testing it on that which is recent and observable? After all if a recent eruption coupled with a global Flood had thrown off all the radiometric ages, would they not similarly appear young like the dacite from Mount St. Helens? An eruption would have carbonizing radioactive effects and introduce radioactive elements from beneath the Earth's surface of the exact same kinds being measured, giving everything an appearance of greater radiometric age. 3. Daughter Isotope LevelsHow certain can we be what the initial levels of the isotopes were in the distant past? Carbon-14 dating for example is not uniformly distributed throughout life today, and both upwelling of deep ocean water and volcanic carbon dioxide give it the result of "built-in age."[9] Furthermore, one is expected to believe accurate predictions about what Earth's climate was like millions of years ago can be made when they cannot be made today. Al Gore for example predicted the ice caps would be gone now. 4. Polonium RadiohalosFinally the Institute for Creation Research has the RATE Project, an analysis of radiometric dating and specifically how helium in Zircon Crystals per the aforementioned Uranium-Lead Dating indicates a rapid acceleration of the decay rate.[]Sources[1] http://books.google.com...[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;[3] http://creation.com...;[4] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;[5] http://science.nationalgeographic.com...[6] http://www.sciencedaily.com...;[7] http://www.icr.org...;[8] http://www.talkorigins.org...;[9] http://www.britannica.com...;[10] https://answersingenesis.org...