Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original 'daughter' elements ...
There are methods which do
not assume this. Since they agree with other methods that do this is NOT a valid argument.
Evolutionists have also assumed that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved
Same as above
and you have yet to supply a method for there to be highly selective "leakage" into something like a zircon
crystal
There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change. If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly 'date' as being old rocks.
Then please supply this evidence. Note that the evidence has to allow for a rate of decomposition on the order of a MILLION times faster than measured. Also note that the scientific literature discussing changes in decay rates has been presented by some creationist sites in a way that is dishonest.
In addition explain where the heat produced at a MILLION times faster went without melting the globe. Show your calculations.
In addition explain away the quantum mechanics that suggest that the rates should be constant.
And, finally, explain that we have measured rates much, much further back. We can see the result of the decay rates back at least 160,000 years in supernova 1987A.
Then, after that, explain the agreement between all the methods when they overlap. Then explain the agreement with historic dates when they are available (eg. Vesuvius' eruption).
When you have explained those things you might have the barest beginning of an arguement. Right now you have zip but wishful thinking. Go back to your sources that are supposed to be "scientists". See if you can get the details from them instead of deliberately misleading nonsense.
(added by edit)
Then when you have done all that, get back to the real topic. Not a bunch of might be, coulda stuff. Go back to why they MUST be invalid not why they MIGHT be if your wishes were granted.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-16-2004 01:52 AM
™ Version 4.2