The Earth is not 4.5 billion years old - But is young

"Argument #1 - The Earths Magnetic Field" There nothing but pure correlative evidence that points to no causation whatsoever. Not only that, but your example of Mercury fits perfectly within the Dynamo Theory, as a higher rate of rotation would lead to faster flows, and therefore a stronger magnetic field. Furthermore, I have yet to find any explanation on just how the Rapid Decay Theory even works. Every link that I find seems to just say that since the Dynamo Theory can't predict everything, it therefore must be wrong (which is a logical fallacy by Nirvana), and therefore the Earth must be less than 100,000 or 10,000 years old without ever explaining anything (it states that the "calculations" showed proof without ever showing the math. It is one giant non-sequitur) [1]. A second fallacy that is allegedly asserted by proponents of the Rapid Earth Theory is that Dynamo Theory would lead to absurdities in nature. The fallacy here is that the Rapid Earth Theory proponents fail to take into account that the universe naturally tries to reach equilibrium, and therefore such absurdities wouldn't occur [2]. A major flaw in the Rapid Earth Theory however is that while it asserts that the decay of the Earth's magnetic field is exponential, and therefore it should have decayed long before the 4.5 billion years asserted by science, evidence from igneous rocks and metal components from ancient civilizations show that there hasn't been a significant change in the Earth's magnetic field in at least the past few thousand years (for the man-made metal parts), and probably much greater timescales from the rocks [2]. Lastly on this point, the tidal heating that would cause the magnetic field to exist on Earth is the Moon. I make the point that the combination of the the effects on the Earth's crust from the moon, and the well known tidal (in this case, by 'tidal', I am referring to the tides on bodies of water) effects, that there should be sufficient force to stir up a magnetic field by currents in molten ferrous metals [3]. This tidal effect is reciprocal, as the Apollo astronauts planted seismographs which detected moonquakes caused by the Earth's gravitational pull [4]. This could also explain why Mars' magnetic field is very weak, as it only has small asteroids for its' natural satellites. Your final sentence on this point was refuted in the above paragraph. "Argument #2 - Helium Diffusion in Zircon crystals" There were two major flaws in the helium dating method that I have already asserted in round one. It is flawed, and therefore you cannot asserted that the other method must be flawed since helium isn't. Secondly, you fail to assert why the temperature change in in fact insignificant. You assert that they are just ignoring evidence (logical fallacy by cherry picking). You the contradict yourself by stating that the temperature change is actually significant by stating that it would cause the zircon to escape fast due an alleged higher than average temperature without explaining why (which is a non-sequitur). Those so-called experts are asserting that part of an experiment should be outright ignored due to a lack of loose helium. As I asserted above, it is a logical fallacy to ignore evidence. Next, the alleged heat flow models are claimed to be based on what people imagined [5]. Finally on this point, no explanation is given for the last part, and it is only to be assumed that the calculations were within the margins of error, and that it doesn't explain a 100,000 factor discrepancy. "Argument #3 - Lunar Recession from the earth" While I am in college for an astronomy degree, my interests lie in stellar evolution, and not as much with natural satellites, so I don't hold any particular view on the origin of the Moon, especially since they all seem to be equally viable. It prevents the problem, because according to the young Earth proponents, the impact theory must be wrong, because reversing the recession backwards means that the Moon must have been in contact with the Earth much closer to the present day than the alleged 4.5 billion years. Capture theory avoids this by just saying that the Moon was captured by the Earth, and therefore never needed to be in contact. This would mean a difference in velocity, a difference in initial orbits, and overall means that the recession over time would have been different. It also means that the Moon (as you state) could have been captured less than 4.5 billion years ago, and it still would have most likely been made out of the same aged material as the Earth (which is known to be most likely true as asserted in round one). To further my rebuttal on the young Earth proponents on the point of the Moon, there is evidence to suggest that the Moon's orbit has changed over time ranging from fossil records, sediments, and models of oceanic resonances. A further rebuttal to their calculations is that they assumed a constant Love number and dissipation quality factor, even though such values have changed over time [6]. 1. http://creation.com... 2. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu... 3. http://lunarorigin.com... 4. http://astronomy.nmsu.edu... 5. Quoting your quote: "...due to nearby volcanic activity in the past they imagine,..." 6. http://lasp.colorado.edu...