quote:
1) C14 is assumed to be in equilibrium, otherwise C14 dating is invalid. Measurements contradict this assumption, yet it is used anyway.
This is false. In fact scientists KNOW that C14 cannot be in equilibrium (because the production rate is not constant) and have gone to considerable effort to calibrate C14 against other dating methods to eliminate the problem.
quote:
2) Moon's motion is controlled by precise mathematical equation involving mass and gravity - you have to assume catastrophism, not uniformitarianism, to explain how the moon's path was once different. My point being that you assume catastrophism or uniformitarianism when your model requires it, you don't adapt your model to match either assumption.
No. The interaction with the tides is important - and affected by the positions of the continents. Thus the rate varies over time.
quote:
3) Accelerated nuclear decay would affect all isotopes uniformly, "to the same degree" as you put it. I was not proposing an ad hoc acceleration of various isotopes.
In fact your assumption that all decay rates would have affected equally is one of the things that shows that he whole idea IS ad hoc. There is NO plausible physical mechanism that would do that. It's needed for you to explain away the evidence but there's no other justification for it.
quote:
4) Iron banded formations only indicate oxygen levels prior to deposition were way too low to be breathable if you accept a uniformitarian (i.e. long-time-period) process for their formation (I don't). If the levels are the result of catastrophic occurrences (e.g. the entire layer was laid down during a short period under anoxic(sp?) conditions), it doesn't say anything about global atmospheric conditions.
Wrong. The layers are the result of INCREASING oxygen levels. And since the oxides are so insoluble conditions from the beginning up until that point must have included very little free oxygen.
quote:
5) As I said, if you start with the premise that God would not have created the world as a habitable environment, then to play your game with your rules would have the instruction set of:
"Rule #1: PaulK wins"
"Rule #2: See Rule #1"
Except that I DIDN'T start with that assumption. There is considerable evidence that the early stages of the Earth's existence were NOT inhabitable. Like a child who can't accept losing you're just falsely accusing me of cheating. Which is typical creationist behaviour.