Evolution

[Abishalom]

I gave you the information you wanted, so any continued pleas to ignorance from you are unwarranted.

What information have you given me (rhetorical question because I read your post)? You would not accept an article from a creationist website yet you expect me to accept a poorly constructed "rebuttal" from an evolution website. I only post information from independent sites and not someone else's argument (that's not evidence) form an extremist website (one who takes a side in this discussion), so I expect the same form any atheists.

Let's examine the actual evidence...

"Radiometric dating is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates." Wikipedia

This method is chosen because the nuclear properties are essentially are unaffected by outside influence (ie temperature, pressure etc). In other words the decay process is not affected by the environment.

But there are preconditions to obtaining accurate measurement...
"The basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation." Wikipedia

In other words we must know the amount of parent/daughter isotopes present at the time of formation of the rock (which is billions of years ago according to them). Of course scientist claim they can rectify possible contamination (gain/loss of parent/daughter isotopes) in several ways.

One way is to check for sign of alterations (metasomatism) which would seemingly render the sample useless. Another way is to take samples from different locations of the same rock body. But it's the same rock, so even if x amount of sample were useless, then how could we even be sure that the "good" samples are any better? If the rock contains different minerals and we assume that they were formed at the same time then we can measure the isochron. In the case of uranium-lead dating we can use a concordia diagram to decrease the problem of nuclide loss. BUT we have to first assume that the rock was in a closed system. Lastly we can use different methods to see if they agree, which would only increase precision not accuracy.

Actually all of these methods could only enhance precision at best, and we must make assumption at every level of the "filtration" process in an attempt to "limit" contamination. Precision would be like going to a gun range and shooting all your shots in the same vicinity but outside the target. Accuracy is when all your shots are hitting the target. We seem to be hitting our shots in the same vicinity, but are we hitting our target? Even if all the dating methods give you precise answers, that does not equate to the true value or age. Especially when you consider that most (if not all) of the parent/daughter isotopes are readily movable by heat and water. Well the earth's core is immensely hot spewing off magma through cracks and about 70% of the earth's surface is water including an underground water table that saturates the rock below it. Oh and not to mention the isotopes are also present in the atmosphere which could easily interact with the rocks or the natural processes (ie floods, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, hurricanes etc) that could easily contaminate rocks over "billions" of years. Well so much for assuming that the rock was in a closed system. Precision is probably the best we could ever do when it comes to the age of the earth (and I have uncertainties about that).