“the rate of radioactive decay ~ constant”
So please explain the blind radio-isotope dating from the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption that showed ages greater than a million years old. Isn’t the heat and pressure from a volcanic event supposed to reset these atomic clocks? Did you ever stop to consider they used the term supposed b/c they have no scientific instruments to measure atomic decay rates within the magma - the heat and pressure are simply too great. What is the beginning ratio of father/daughter elements?
If you approach evolution as a skeptic the more rocks you uncover the less any of their supposed claims hold true. When has macro evolution ever been observed? Where are the thousands upon thousands of missing links Darwin envisioned or his theory completely falls apart? What is your explanation for stasis or better yet polystrate fossils?
There are loads of evolutionary believers on these threads but they never have even the beginnings of an explanation for these simple questions. I won’t hold my breath for your answers either though.
Those claims have been thoroughly debunked. Among other things, they submitted their samples to a lab that explicitly said their techniques were no good for rocks younger than 2 million years.
You know, I once watched con-man Kent Hovind "debate" some college professor, and bring up exactly that "argument." Did you get that "fact" from Answers in Genesis? Institute for Creation Studies? Some other creationism website?
I suppose, if I really felt like it, I could do a little digging and find out where that particular "fact" came from, and what the actual facts are. Not that it matters, really. Radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate, whether the radioisotopes are mixed into molten lava, or frozen solid.
If you approach evolution as a skeptic the more rocks you uncover the less any of their supposed claims hold true.
Yeah, right. Without taking evolution into account, there is no way I could do my job as a research scientist. Trying to work as a life scientist while remaining willfully ignorant of evolution would be like trying to work as a physicist while remaining willfully ignorant of the theory of electromagnetism. It just doesn't work.
There are loads of evolutionary believers on these threads but they never have even the beginnings of an explanation for these simple questions. I won’t hold my breath for your answers either though.
That is because your "simple questions" are not based on any genuine desire to learn about the physical world you live in. For the most part, your "simple questions" are lifted directly out of creationism literature, and are meant to be "gotcha" questions. If I answer the questions, you will simply refuse to accept any answer, no matter how well I document it, and you will deluge me with even more "gotchas" from your favorite creationism sites. Frankly, I do not care to engage with people who want to remain willfully ignorant.
BTW, you can go ahead and copy-paste reams of nonsense from a creationism website, but I will not answer or try to debunk it.