Sorry, meant to get to this more thoroughly sooner, but got distracted by the holiday weekend...
Not true. There are things that science can demonstrate e.g a spherical earth and a heliocentric solar system. And there are things that science cannot demonstrate like evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang for instance.
The fact that empirical science does not work in proofs is a basic tenet of the scientific method. Until you learn this, your arguments will remain little more than strawmen.
There are serious discussions about the constancy of decay rates in the scientific community. So this sounds like a bald faced lie.
Minute changes in SOME radioactive elements hardly constitutes a controversy concerning the constancy of radioactive decay
in general. There are MANY examples of how we know that many decay rates have indeed been constant for a very long time.
I mentioned the existence of Uranium halos. The diameter of a radioactive element halo is directly related to the decay energy of said element. The decay energy is, in turn, related to the decay rate. In short, if the decay rate of an element is changed, then the size of the halo is different.
Since each decay event produces one atom sized mark of damage in the surrounding rock, it takes a VERY large amount of decay events to produce a halo. Particularly since it is really a sphere of damage, as the halo is merely a cross section of the overall damage.
So how do you explain the observed fact that Uranium halos are the size we would expect from our current observation concerning its decay rate, when it would take many millions of years worth of decay events to produce that damage?
I'd be more than happy for you to show me how I am wrong, if that is so, but do not call me a liar again.
How does this effect radiometric dating?
Over thousands of years or indeed unique catastrophic conditions these and other variables make a joke out of the uniformitarian assumtion.
What about that unique catastrophic event? HOW did it change the decay rate? Why is there no research going into this by Christian Scientists? How is the vast amount of heat and radiation that would have been produced accounted for? Can you EXPLAIN...like....anything about how any of that occurred? Cause until you do, the only joke here is the flood "explanation." It's like saying magic did it.
No you can read impurities in samples or stuff that does not fit with the other stuff. As to whether this was a single, multiple, a contamination that wiped evidence of previous contaminations, or no contamination at all is pure guessing.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. This is word salad. "stuff?" Do you even know what constitutes contamination in one of these samples? Apparently not, since if you did, you would know that your statement doesn't even make sense.
Who's the one guessing here? C'mon, be honest.
It is not a proper audit trail however you paint. The facts are rock layers and fossils and a creationist supernatural catastrophist is a better explanation of how these came about.
What would constitute a proper audit trail? Cause everything you have described about an audit trail so far, we have the technology for when it comes to radiometric dating. All the objections you raise were already thought of, and solved, decades ago by scientists.