I was wondering if there was a way to convert Argon-40 into Potassium-40, in a lab.
Are you suggesting that the decay of Potassium-40 is reversible? And that that would call into question the validity of Potassium-Argon dating? If so, pertaining to the topic, how do you explain the correlations with all of the other dating methods? Wouldn't they all have to be reversible at an exactly coincidental rate?
Tree rings are the training ground of radiocarbon daters, and ice core samples is impossibly stupid;
You don't seem to know what you're talking about. The gist of this thread (and its several companions) is that different dating methods, based on entirely different processes, produce the same dates. To show that one method is invalid, you'd have to show that they are all invalid.
We need a reason to think the forces and laws that govern the atoms that make up cells and determine how things exist on earth was the same, if we intend to build all models on the assumption it was.
That's backwards. If something HAS changed, we need evidence to SHOW that it has changed. We can't base our thinking on, "it MIGHT have changed" because we have no way of knowing HOW it might have changed. In the absence of any evidence of change, the sensible conclusion is that there hasn't been a change.
Reality is not constrained to under your nose or your back yard actually. Reality includes the future and past....
That's what we've been telling you. You need to LOOK at reality, not just prattle that reality was different in the past.
... not just the current nature on earth!
Again, if you want to claim that the "current nature" is different from the "past nature", you have to have evidence. Show us some evidence. You can claim that pigs could fly in the past but you need evidence to back up your claim. Unfortunately for you, all of the evidence we have shows that the "past nature" of the earth was the same as the "current nature".
All the so called science fables on origins are made up nonsense. They have no depth.
You have no depth. Pick a topic and discuss it in depth.
Hint: this topic is about age correlations - i.e. it's about a lot of different, unrelated methods that all come up with the same answers. Even if you could shoot down one of them - and nobody ever has - you'd still be at square one. You'd have to shoot down all of them to prove that the conclusion is false.