So who or what created the universe and set natural laws in place to prevent chaos according to you?
God. Not empirically provable or demonstrable in the slightest, however, and I'm fine with that. I wouldn't exactly expect anything else from something that needs to be decided on faith.
Oh boy.
Firstly, dating is but one facet of the evidence for evolution - and even if the dates were incorrect there's still plenty of genetic evidence to show we evolved from previous lifeforms and share common ancestry with other primates.
Let's blast through this shockingly-designed website:
Firstly, I notice that generally all the "corrected" radioisotope dates quoted still have the Earth way older than YEC predicts. There's also a shocking tendency to assume that showing radioisotope dating to be wrong proves evolution wrong (it won't), and thus prove creationism right by default (it doesn't, but of course if creationists actually had data this would be a whole different matter entirely).
Secondly, this website should have come to end at the comment from the user about not using the correct radioisotope dating method, or using them incorrectly. If I want to measure the position of an atom, I use a specialised microscope. I do NOT use a ruler, as I can't narrow the location of any one atom down to anything greater than a millimeter, which is about seven orders of magnitude bigger than the atom itself. This is not about cherrypicking your data, this is about using the right tool for the right job.
Thirdly - the section entitled "30,000 year limit to Carbon dating" is deliciously ironic, not least because the same canard used in other parts of this article is funnily enough NOT applied to his argument here, namely - how does he know that the rate of change of C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant? All of the objections he raises with this argument are regularly taken into consideration when taking measurements, he is most definitely NOT the first person to think them up - conversely, he is unlikely to have applied the same diligence to his own argument here, and when creationists try and pull these kind of linear extrapolation arguments with any system, be it C-14 equilibrium, lunar recession rates or whatever, they always get it wrong for this same reason.
Fourthly - the section entitled "God cursed the ground" with no sense of irony whatsoever, starts with the massive assumption that
Genesis 3 verse 17 "..cursed is the ground for your sake"
When this happened there was a burst of radioactity that made the rocks appear older than they were.
And this is somehow meant to be LESS of an assumption that the decay rates of rocks have remained constant etc?
Fifthly - dating living material. Um....WHAT?
Yeah, that must have been the mistake we made, us scientists are clearly so much less intelligent than this goon with an angelfire website and too much time on his hands that we forgot to check whether or not that T-Rex skeleton we dug up from miles underground was trying to bite our heads off or not,,,,,
Sixthly - section entitled "Has the rate of decay remained constant?"
Just what the bible, and a Devolution and degenerating model of the earth would predict.
Which I'm guessing refers back to the blue quoted text earlier on that website:
Look at biological breakdown everywhere, it proceeds at different rates. Look at the world from a devolutionary viewpoint and see how perfection has been lost and breakdown has proceeded in spurts and stasis periods. Some of us have lost more information than others, that's why some are at Harvard, but others, more unfortunate, [the same] age struggle with debilitating genetic degenerative diseases like Lupus, MS, ALS, Crohn's and many other autoimmune diseases. The keys of which are locked in the "vault of degeneration knowledge" that evolutionists are unwilling to open for fear that we creationists might be correct."
Jack Cuozzo 3/02
This statement is simply incorrect as is not an analogous system to radioactive decay. Biological decay does usually not happen on an atomic scale, whereas radioactive decay is a statistical quantum mechanical process which operates at well-defined rates. I could be wrong on this, I'd need to look it up, but tweaking decay rates would require at least one change in the fundamental constants of the universe, which I think we would notice in multiple other areas of science if there were.
There are other errors in the link you posted, but quite frankly, this is getting wearying.
