It's decidedly non-scientific to suggest scientific disagreements relate to the "Father of Lies".
kimtom: "Why do you use erroneous proof???
Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science."
Not certain what you intend by the term "historical science", but likely something to the effect of: if you didn't see it happen, then you can never really say what did happen.
But if that were true, then there would be no forensic science usable in courts of law, since according to you: what we didn't actually see we can never prove.
In reality, sciences like geology, paleontology, astronomy, etc., are built on assumptions that physical processes we see are more-or-less the same today as they were in eons past.
Your opposing claim -- hypothesis -- that this is not true, that claim is not supported by scientific evidence.
kimtom: "Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science.
Neither condition is directly observable."
Forensic science is about establishing facts for criminal trials, facts that were not directly observed, but left detectable evidence behind.
Likewise the physical world left evidence behind of what went before, evidence which can be detected and analyzed with scientific instruments.
One confirmation this scientific analysis is correct can be seen in the ability of geologists to predict and find valuable natural resources thousands of feet underground.
Likewise paleontologists search for certain fossils in rock formations similar to those known to produce those fossils.
In short, it is the predictive powers of these scientific assumptions (hypotheses / theories) which confirm their validity.
By contrast, your opposing assumptions have zero predictive powers, except to confirm your pre-conceived ideas about biblical creation.
kimtom: "Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:
1.The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known."
All radio-metric dating starts from the time of last melting, when initial values of various isotopes are set to 100% and zero.
This can be established in laboratories by melting such rocks and determining the resulting ratios.
kimtom: "2.The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay."
The burden of proof here is to show how such "other" processes happened, not just in a few cases here or there, but in every case, such that not a single radio-metric dating was ever even remotely accurate.
Such "proof" has never even been suggested, much less scientifically demonstrated.
kimtom: "3.The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed."
Again, the scientific burden of proof here would be to show how and why not just some, but every radio-metric decay rate has fluxuated over time, such that not a single radio-metric dating could possibly be remotely accurate.
Of course, I'm not saying that no radio-metric result was ever flawed, only that it's never been scientifically shown how or why all of them are -- wildly off -- such that rocks which appear to be hundreds of millions of years old are, in reality, only a few thousand years old.
kimtom: "Fraud does exist."
Sure, and is eventually discovered and corrected by superior science, for example: the alleged Piltdown Man.
Another example is probably "anthropogenic global warming", where government funded, politically motivated scientists dominate a scientific argument with a small minority of anti-AGW scientists -- who must usually find funding from non-government sources.
But in the end, anti-AGW scientist must still win the argument, especially if and when the earth begins its rapid descent out of our brief 10,000 year-long Interglacial and back to more-or-less permanent Ice Age.
In short, the likely results will show that AGW has little, if any, predictive confirmation.
kimtom referring to lack of scientific evidence for a "young earth" hypothesis: "That is not a Fact, but opinion (your opinion)".
No, it's a fact that nobody here has presented scientific evidence confirming a "young earth" hypothesis.
It's also a fact that no study allegedly confirming a "young earth" has ever been accepted as scientifically legitimate.
So "young earth" has no scientific existance.
It exists only in the minds of certain theologians who see it as an essential prop for their religious convictions.
it is evolution that is not scientific. It is a believe system to explain nature with out God. isotopic dates DO NOT converge on an assumed age of 4.5 billion years for earth. even low-temperature fluid processes can cause open systems in dates. This casts serious doubt on the assumption that isotopic systems could remain closed for millions of years. fission--track (FT) dates, most of which are "too young", unambiguously interpreted in terms of annealing caused by geologic heating events, or are such presumed events invented as an ad hoc basis precisely because the dates are "too young'. Your acclamations are incorrect.
"..So "young earth" has no scientific existance. It exists only in the minds of certain theologians who see it as an essential prop for their religious convictions...."
You make false assumptions with these claims. Science has confirmed the Biblical accounts much better than evolution. You can choose not to accept that, I am sorry, you seem very intelligent.
Global warming is a Hoax (man-made) You may cling to your evolutionary beliefs. And I'll stick with mine.
Since we will get no where, if each deny the other, we will stop. You may if you insist, have the last word.
Thank You for the opportunity to discuss these things.