Oh dear... I see that you've fallen for the anti-science propaganda. Let's look at your claims one at a time and see how well they stand up, shall we?
Evo science has no way of testing these assumptions, like the original ratio of decay elements,
Actually, real science (what you call "evo science") does indeed have ways of testing original ratios of decay elements, and does routinely test them, which is why these are not mere "assumptions" as you incorrectly assume they are. See for example isochron dating methods. For a discussion about how carbon-dating specifically is verified and calibrated, see for example http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/929494/posts?page=247#247.
Sources which have told you that science can not and has not repeatedly verified its "assumptions" is bearing false witness to you. By their fruits you shall know them.
changes in the speed of light, etc.
Actually, real science (what you call "evo science") does indeed have ways of testing for changes in the speed of light, and does routinely test for it, which is why this is not mere "assumption" as you incorrectly assume they are. The speed of light is fundamental to numerous physical processes, and if it had ever changed this would have produced very obvious effects which would be unmistakable and impossible not to notice. For example, it would have resulted in the light spectrums from distant quasars to be different than they actually are, among countless other methods of detecting a non-constant speed of light. However, vast numbers of measurements which are dependent upon the speed of light at a given time all show that the speed of light has indeed remained constant throughout the life of the Universe.
Sources which have told you that science can not and has not repeatedly verified its "assumptions" is bearing false witness to you. By their fruits you shall know them.
Similarly, since I'm sure you'll try to bring it up next, real science (what you call "evo science") does indeed have ways of testing for changes in isotopic decay rates, and does routinely test for it, which is why this is not mere "assumption" either. Like a change in the speed of light, any past change in isotopic decay rates would have produced clear and unmistakable effects which would have been impossible to miss or overlook. These effects are not observed. The decay rates have not changed.
Real science is meticulous about examining and testing its premises. It does not just adopt an "assumption" and then never validate it. Anyone who tells you otherwise is bearing false witness. By their fruits you shall know them.
and when the radio-isotope tests are applied, 100% properly and as they were intended, to brand new formations (like at St. Helens), they give ages showing they're millions of years old.
Oh my, you fell for the false propaganda of the RATE project... No, sorry, they most certainly did *NOT* apply the tests "100% properly and as they were intended".
Here's a post I wrote about this on another thread:
Now, "WondrousCreation", I'm curious to know whether you've learned anything about the reliability and honest of "creation scientists" from this experience. And I'm curious to know if you're in any way upset that they lied to you.In layman’s terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986—less than 20 years ago—were “scientifically” dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!
No, in layman's terms Austin the creationist is either a fool or a charlatan (perhaps both).
"In layman's terms", here's what he did wrong (I'll leave it to you to decide whether he did so out of dishonesty or incompetence):
1. He chose an analysis lab which CLEARLY STATES that its analysis equipment is not sensitive enough to correctly measure samples less than two million years old. Read that again until it sinks in.
2. Austin then took the first set of measured results, WHICH INDICATED LESS THAN TWO MILLION YEARS OLD, and rather than doing what an honest scientist would have done (which is say, "ah, these results are below the lower bounds of the testing equipment, thus they're just reporting equipment noise"), instead Austin ran around in circles and tried to ridicule K/AR dating for giving him out-of-bounds results that made perfect sense.
3. As for the 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya sub-sample, Austin sort of "forgets" to inform the reader that almost without exception lava rock contains what are known as "inclusions", which are bits of older crystalline mineral mixed in with the fresh lava flow. A volcanic eruption is a violent and hardly "clean" event and pulverized (but unmelted) minerals are incorporated into the lava as it flows up and outward from the volcano. These inclusions will produce K/Ar dates older than the date of the lava flow because they are, indeed, *older* than the lava flow. A real scientist (unlike, say, Austin) will take a great deal of care to extract inclusions from his sample before sending it to a lab to determine the date when the lava itself flowed, and/or hand-pick a "clean" lava sample which has relatively few inclusions compared to the flow as a whole. That's because they *want* to get as valid a date as possible for the lava flow. Now, guess what Austin didn't do? Gee, now guess *why* he didn't do it? Can you say, "*trying* to get an apparently invalid date so as to have a cheap, dishonest excuse to allege that there's something 'wrong' with K/Ar dating"?
As the old saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out" and Austin (unlike the honest scientists who *want* to produce valid dates) had no interest in getting a clean result -- the more "garbage" the result, the more he could claim a creationist "success". So he *submitted* garbage as his sample (i.e., a sample with inclusions, to a lab unable to date anything younger than roughly two million years).
As Henry Barwood notes, "Bad measurements, like bad science, reflect only on the measurer (Austin), not on the measurement (the procedure)."
For more details, see: Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals.
Here is a link showing similar problems with the Rubidium-Strontium dating method. Where one set of rocks are dated much older than they are known to be.
Exact same issue (lava rock with inclusions) submitted by the exact same creationist "researcher" (Steven A. Austin). He appears to be a one-trick pony.
Whether such problems have been identified in all radiometric dating methods, I do not know.
"Such problems"? Yeah, if you submit "dirty" samples for testing, you get "dirty" results. So what else is new? Honest scientists clean their samples first. Creationist "scientists" don't, then try to discredit the testing methods when they get bogus results. Go figure.
But it certainly casts significant doubt on it.
The only thing it "certainly casts significant doubt on" is the honesty/competence of "creation scientists".
See also:
Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates": Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable DataRATE Project Turns to Deception
R.A.T.E.: More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research
What a crock.
Yes, false and slanderous attacks on valid science are indeed a crock. By their fruits you shall know them.
If the evo had any shame, they'd declare radiometry, and all the physics and geology that depends on it, as a total sham
Why should they aver such a lie? This is a very well established field of science, validated countless different ways using multiple independent cross-confirming methods, thousands of times over, based on mountains of evidence and vast numbers of experimental confirmations. Why do you want them to deny the facts?
and consult with creation scientists at ICR, AiG, etc. who (obviously) have a much better handle on the science behind dating methods.
Gee, do you really think that people who submit dirty samples to labs and then lie about what the results mean actually have a "much better handle on the science behind dating methods"? Or are they just charlatans who attack valid science using grossly dishonest methods? By their fruits you shall know them.
But the evo has no shame,
Yes, the "evo" has no shame because he's not the one using false propaganda and dishonest tricks to attempt to slander valid science -- that's the anti-evolutionists who are doing that, and here are hundreds of more examples of anti-evolutionist dishonesty. Anti-evolutionists shamelessly bear false witness as easily as most people breathe. BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM.
and doing so conflicts with their mission of poisoning the minds of young people against the Savior in so-called "science" classes.
I see no problem with the presentation of what Creation itself has to tell us, through the teaching of science and its findings. If you do, maybe your notion of the Creator is out of step with the reality of Creation itself. In any case, the ones who are clearly "poisoning the minds of young people" are the ones who are attempting to fill their heads with blatant falsehoods, like the folks who are constantly lying about what science does and doesn't actually do, who are constantly presenting false claims and fallacious arguments in a cheap attempt to undermine confidence in science.
I have spent over thirty years studying both science and all the material that the anti-evolutionists have attempted to marshall against it. The great majority of the science (yes, even in the field of evolutionary biology) is meticulously validated and solid, and without fail the anti-evolutionist material is shoddy, grossly dishonest, fallacious, and/or misrepresented. But when the facts aren't on your side, and you're not willing to face them, I guess you've got no choice but to start engaging in cheap propaganda.
I wish that I had read your post before I had written my (less strongly-worded) post.
I have read the internet legend about the wrong dating of Mt. St. Helens rocks many times. Today was the first time that I nailed down the source. When I read it I was extremely angry. I had to calm down for an hour before making a post.
I'm being charitable and won't claim to guess Austin's motives. However, I will say this: If I were a non-Christian and encountered Austin's work, I would not be inclined to become a Christian.