Regarding the circular argument about dating:
There are several methods of dating what you find in a stratum:
1) Going by well-known and common fossils (index fossils) which have been dated several times and can be pinpointed to a certain time. (Famous examples for this are the several thousand species of trilobites and ammonites.) So, if you find a rock with an unknown fossil side by side with a cerartarges trilobite (which is very distinctive), you can say two things about the rock: It's from a certain area in Morocco (which is where that trilobite lived, and that the fossil is from the Middle to Late Devonian which is when said trilobite lived.
2) Going by radiometric dating methods (which cannot always be used to date rock, as you and I already pointed out - see explanation below).
3) In sediments, it's pretty much possible to say which strata came before and which after one certain stratum. It's also possible to estimate from the material of the stratum in which way and in which amount of time it was formed.
So, to sum things up, you did what I've seen many a creationist do: Take a scientific statement and simplify (or, in many other cases, falsify) it out of all recognition to make it sound ridiculous.
Also, your example of the young volcanic rocks is nice, but it only proves what I already stated, that material from the core cannot be dated reliably using radiometric dating methods. Especially K-Ar dating cannot be done with volcanic rocks because magma contains gases, argon among them. So, not all of the argon within the sample must have been produced in situ by 40K decay, which means that the measurements cannot be correct. And just as an aside, K-Ar dating isn't supposed to be used for rocks younger than 100,000 years because of the long half-life of 40K.
Science is not only about how a method is applied to find out something, it's also about when that method can be applied to give a reliable result.
I also looked up uranium once again, and this is what I found:
1) You need to keep track of your zeros - 235U has a half life of 700,000,000 years, not 700,000 years. Still, the ratio of of 238U to 235U is too high (on the 238U part), so there must be other factors at work.
2) Both isotopes of uranium are still constantly produced at distinct rates from other radioactive isotopes. Although I could find some of the rates with the probability of exactly that type of reaction, I was too lazy too look up everything known about all the radioisotopes of the world (which is pretty much what I would have had to do), and I wasn't willing to go through the maths right now even if I had all the facts. It would have been pages of forumlas. Offer: You get me all the numbers and decay products, and I'll do the maths.
Years later, I had my “emperor’s new clothes” moment. I was watching a video showing an artist’s rendition of a small animal up on a tree branch. About the size of a mouse, it had huge round eyes, striped fur, and a long tail. It was said to occupy a position on the evolutionary path leading up to humans, and described as “shy and nocturnal”. Yet, the only fossil evidence available for this particular animal is one solitary tooth, the size of a grain of rice. It was at that moment that the scales fell from my eyes. That was the moment I decided to look with a critical eye at everything I had been taught.
Vicky, believing every artist's impression is like believing every prophet telling you to repent because the world will end tomorrow (at the latest). Also, taking what you see on TV for truth - well, we all have seen a flying man on TV. We've also seen him shoot beams from his eyes (which is according to a theory of how our eyes work that has been formulated by the ancient Greeks, and proven incorrect I-don't-know-when, only that it was waaaay before Superman.) TV is not the most trustworthy of sources at the best of times.
