Evidence exists that is more logical for creationist than evolutionist conclusions

Radiometric Dating Proving radiometric dating conclusively shows life is significantly older than is possible with creation falsifies the creation model. A falsified model cannot gather evidence in favour of it as the model itself in incoherent with reality. Comprehensiveness Virtually any measurement needs to account for external factors for it to be reliable, and this is done in practice when establishing virtually any scientific tool of measurement. I have explained in detail how radiometric dating has painstakingly cleared all these hurdles, however Pro clearly has not done the same thing with his five proposed routes of demonstrating a young age of life.Pro has significantly sacrificed quality for quantity, and this shotgun approach has left his case full of holes. Hence we should prefer my case outright for making a detailed consideration of the factors the affect reliability of the measurementsCherrypickingIt’s Pro’s burden to prove that a systematic rejection of discordant dates is involved. Moreover if it Pro’s burden to show that these discordant dates are six orders of magnitude off, since there would be no “cherries to pick” if the techniques don’t yield these exceptionally young dates as a norm (since it would be these results that are rejected if Pro’s hypothesis holds up).Pro’s reference leads to a creationist blog, which can hardly be called representative of the geological community. Upon reviewing Pro’s source here [1] I find zero evidence of there being the sort of cherry picking Pro is talking about. Simply asserting something to be true of the entire geological community via one person’s opinion (if it was just a quote Pro is going by) is nowhere near sufficient to demonstrate this takes place.Hence Pro needs to show: 1. That the results generally give results ~six orders of magnitude smaller, AS WELL as the million year dates for there to be any ‘binning’ process 2. Evidence of this cherry picking happening on the scale of the entire community Pro has done neither.Original Isotope LevelsUranium/lead dating of zircon crystals do not require knowledge of the atmospheric concentrations of lead, as they do not affect the formation of the mineral. Moreover 14C dating relies on different assumptions to 238U dating, since 14C decays to 14N, which vents off as a gas, which is the reason why other assumptions are made to calculate the original concentration of 14C. The same is not the case withU/Pb dating of zircon crystals.Pro ignores all my arguments as to how zircon crystals control for lead concentrations, irrespective of how much atmospheric, or even molten lead there is before crystallisation occurs. It’s these arguments he needs to address to have a chance of disputing the original isotope concentrations. The rest of Pro’s argument here is completely irrelevant.Decay RatesI already demonstrated that decay rates are virtually immutable to temperature and pressure changes, and that includes supervolcanoes etc, which have temperatures of only a few thousand degrees celsius. Temperatures exceeding the core of the Sun are required to have any hope of budging these rates. Thus Pro’s theory of catastrophism completely misses the mark, he needs to actually show how these can have been a negligible effect on decay rates, much less one on the order of 100,000+. I have already ruled this absurd by the energy output consequences.Pro ignores my rebuttals from “error bars”, he just reasserts his original rebuttal. Even if life was extinguished by some catastrophic global flood/volcanism, it would have occurred millions of years ago, as that’s what virtually all of the fossils date to.Polonium RadiohalosPro still doesn’t cite the study, and I was unable to access the study from the page Pro gave (which is allegedly by Snelling) and rebut it directly (Pro’s argument should also be thrown out for lack of a remotely credible source). Pro also seems to be combining two claims here. Helium diffusion is a different branch of dating methods to radiometric dating, a major assumption and variable that needs to be considered is the effect of subsurface pressure on diffusion rates, which has been completely overlooked by various creationist studies. Simply put, the greater the pressure the crystal is under, the lower the diffusion rates.[4]I cannot access the study for polonium radiohalos either, but it’s based on the assumption that radiohalos are only possible IF all the uranium decayed quickly. First, it fails to consider internal gas diffusion and nucleation effects. Moreover, IF uranium decayed rapidly and hence halos formed rapidly/instantaneously, then we would expect a plethora of different polonium radiohalo types to form such as 215Po & 211Po (238U decay series products) and 216Po and 212Po (232T decay series products, which also are incorporated into zircon). However in Gentry’s studies, exclusively the 238U products are observed, which is better explained by Radon diffusion.[2]RebuttalsHuman Population Growth RatesPro ignores the fact that biological species reach ecological equilibrium. Moreover Pro ignores the fact that despite relatively poor technological advancement, their technology is still orders of magnitude greater than those of apes, with agriculture. Zimbabwe especially has a significant portion of its economy from farming alone, and its economy continues to grow as farmland is expanded. Humans here are simply not restricted by the holding capacity that would have otherwise affected our ancestors before agriculture, technology etc. existed.Pro concedes that his rate assumption is unsound, and gives no attempt at explaining why it would be different in the past compared to today. Thus we can assume reasons to exist for the population not to perpetually grow.Dinosaur Soft TissuePro ignores my arguments regarding the natural stability of polypeptides (proteins), and the fact that they require hydrolysis to decompose, which requires water, which can be excluded for some fossils. I never raised the argument of iron chelation so Pro is attacking a strawman here, nor am I suggesting any special preservation techniques other than what occurs anyway in the fossilisation process.Living FossilsPro’s argument here now is that evolution predicts “everything will look different between time A and time B”, for which I have seen no argument from Pro to affirm. In punctuated equilibrium theory, evolution doesn’t occur smoothly, but in periods of fast and slow changes. We would expect species that are already well-adapted to their environments and environments which do not undergo much change to not undergo significant changes.[3]In evolution, and virtually any optimisation process, there are trade-offs, since everything has a cost. Maintaining eyes has a cost of increased infections. Maintaining arms has a cost of additional energy to maintain, etc. Thus a well-adapted species and static environment will have already optimised itself with the relative trade-offs.[5] If EVERY species was static in the fossil record (the one that should extend only 20,000 years), then Pro might have an argument that there is evidence of creation. But that is obviously not what is observed. Microevolutionary RatesThis might possibly be true IF these rates were representative of all species. But Pro has only shown specific examples. Moreover deducing an “expected rate” is dubious and oversimplifies the issue. “Macro-evolution” depicts the branching of species into a family tree, with multiple cousin species descending from one parent species (such as lions, tigers, leapoards, etc, then domestic cats etc.). This has very little to do with adaptive radiation.References 1. http://tinyurl.com...... 2. http://www.talkorigins.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.talkorigins.org... 5. http://www.eeb.cornell.edu...