I guess the argument should have been 'scientifically supported questions' rather than rethorical questions.
Morris H.M., "The Day-Age Theory Revisited," Impact No. 55, Institute
for Creation Research, January 1978. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-055.htm.
" However, he insists that the rubidium-strontium isochron method eliminates the problem of unknown "initial daughter element" in a radioactive mineral, and thus will give a true age (p. 186). That this is not necessarily the case, however, is now commonly recognized.
One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the rubidium-strontium whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years.10
The problem, of course, is that the initial strontium indicated by the isochron method reflects conditions in the mantle from which the igneous rockmaterial originally flowed, not the age of the rock itself. Data from young volcanic rocks in certain Pacific Islands, for example, indicated an"apparent age" well back in the Precambrian.>>
That does not explain away the old ages found.
Now the ignorance:
"Since all such minerals apparently have their ultimate source in the mantle, it would seem that this problem would render all rubidium dates too old by an indeterminate amount."
Akridge R., "Radiometric Dating Using Isochrons," Impact No. 113,
Institute for Creation Research, November 1982.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-113.htm ,
Wow that is a hilarious one. Bananas and apples <g> Creation science at its best ?
<<The very rock samples that uniformitarians display to prove the earth was formed by natural processes billions of years ago, are actually evidence of the destructive turbulent mixing in the recent catastrophe, the Flood.>>
Proof by assertion. Ignoring both the scientific knowledge and understanding.
Austin S.A., "Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column," Impact
No. 137, November 1984. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-137.htm
Vardiman L., "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth," , Impact No. 301,
July 1998. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-301.htm
Ah Austin's 'data'.... I have seen some interesting rebuttals of 'his data'.
Yes, the YEC do have asked questions about isochron methods but they are the same old 'questions' which lead me to eventually understand how misleading their arguments and how weak their faith really must be.