Evolution and radiometric dating.

Evolution of one sort or another was played with by some ancient
philosophers. It is not new. It is however a core plank of the New Age and
the occult philosophy scene, that we are evolving into a higher form, and/or that
some of us are evolving or can jumpstart our evolution into a superhuman form,
here comes transhumanism (as distinct from the technology of robotic prosthetic
limbs and such like, I mean the philosophy that depends on this technology),
and that such become elites who will rule the rest or exterminate them if they
are a problem or just too many of them.

Evolution is supposedly supported by things like radiometric dating, that shows
outrageously long timeframes. Two big problems.

a. the half life of an element is the average of how long it takes half of the atoms
in a chunk of the stuff whatever it is that is radioactive, to decay into something
else, either an isotope of it or another element. Here's the problem.

This means that most of them are decaying slower, and the others faster, than
the average, that's what an average is, the combination of two extremes. So what
makes them decay in the first place? We don't know. Whatever it is, it doesn't
work as fast in some as in others. Is it dependent on triggers like electrostatic
effects of some atmospheric catastrophes? catalyst effects of some other elements
radioactive or otherwise in proximity? We don't know.

This in turn means, since we have only been tracking them for several decades,
maybe 100 years at most, that we only know what the average is NOW, but no
proof it was always this way. It could have been a lot slower or faster in the
past. We don't know, and we can't know. It has not been recorded.

THEREFORE RADIOACTIVE DECAY SPEED COULD HAVE BEEN AT
ONE TIME UNIFORM, OR NOT, AND THE AVERAGE COULD HAVE
BEEN MUCH SLOWER OR MUCH FASTER IN THE PAST, COULD HAVE
VARIED IN THE PAST.

This means you can't trust them for dating.

b. Take two different radiometric systems (different elements) when it is possible,
when both are in a sample, and they will give you extremely different results for
that same sample they are in.

Something is seriously wrong somewhere. This may not be relevant to evolution
in itself, but it does undermine the length of time assumed available for evolution
to happen in. Makes the Bible look a lot more credible. C 14 itself is only reliable
to 5,000 years, and gives differing dates for the same sample, the date accepted
is an average of several tests on the same sample.

Something is wrong somewhere.