Young Earth Creationism is bunk

No actually. This is not about providing an alternative. Providing an alternative implies that both dating methods would be acceptable to reach the age of the Earth, and this is not the case. Improving your argument about C-14 dating and its applicability, it is the understatement of the century come to think of it as well. Carbon-14 is not used to date the Earth because it simply *cannot be used to date the Earth.* Please tell me how you think the Earth is dated to be 4.5 billion years old when carbon dating reaches its upper limits around 45, 000-50, 000 years? And also please tell me how rocks are dated with carbon dating? Technically speaking, there shouldn't be any carbon in rocks, because they're not organic material! Now, does this mean that there will never be carbon in rocks? No. Carbon-14 can enter rocks through contaminations, but there shouldn't be any carbon in rocks, without contamination occurring. These are both rebuttals I brought up in Round 2, and you have actually ignored these glaringly obvious holes in your argument, because they completely refute your misconceptions about dating methods. Even worse is that some creationist sources actually refute your argument (see below quote) [1] "The most well-known of all the radiometric dating methods is radiocarbon dating. Although many people think radiocarbon dating is used to date rocks, it is limited to dating things that contain the element carbon and were once alive (like fossils)." Let me repeat that. Creationist websites even refute your argument. I should point out that I am in no way supporting AiG, because their website is an absolute train-wreck, but when one of the most incompetent websites at discussing science, is able to refute your own weak misunderstandings of how dating methods work, you know your argument is seriously, seriously bad. Uranium Lead dating on the other hand, *is* used to date the age of the Earth, as Uranium 238 " Lead 206 has a half-life of 4.47 billion years [2]. "One major point about Carbon dating, other than conditions being unaccounted for, was that there was no comparative information to prove the findings were accurate. " Please specify what you are talking about in regards to above quote. If you do not give me specifics, I have a low chance of even knowing what you're referring to. Also please tell me that the below quote is a joke: " How can you determine that C-14 has a half life of 5000 years, when we have been studying C-14 for less than 40." I will give you the benefit of the doubt there and say that you're pulling my leg, and you're not actually being serious. Because if you are being serious, then may Stendarr have mercy on me. You have provided plenty of arguments yes, but just because you have given a fair number of arguments, that does not mean said arguments are competent. I also don't think I wasted my round; I sufficiently responded to your arguments and pretty much skewered them. "This is my argument this round. YOU have NO evidence, criteria, or MOtive to assert that ASSUMPTION, that Young Earth Creationism is Bunk - simply because you haven't seen the Proof yet. Because NO ONE can possibly think that something that is not a fact is a fact: IE. Creationism is scientifically debunked by science." Now, in regards to the above quote, I've seen all manners of absolutely ridiculous arguments from Young Earthers. From "polystrate trees," which apparently support a world-wide flood according to many YEC's, to a mass grave of Medusae in Wisconsin to supporting a world-wide flood, to YEC's using "kinds" to classify differing populations of organisms. I would like to remind voters that for me to present arguments that other YEC's have made in the past, that Con has not made, would be misleading and dishonest for me to do so. Therefore I will only present arguments against claims which Con has made. For me to do otherwise would be dishonest, as I don't even know what arguments Con would to support Young Earth Creationism. I would like to remind Con that we are discussing science, not philosophy; I am not talking about a deity in this debate because I really don't care for such discussions anymore. I find them boring now, and as a result, I have found much more interesting topics to debate; such as science. And because Young Earth Creationism has constantly butted heads with science in the past, refuting creationist arguments has become a past-time for me. A discussion about god is therefore not relevant to this topic, and subsequently I would like to see the topic of aliens & God to be dropped from this conversation, as it is irrelevant. Sources: [1] https://answersingenesis.org... (I'm not citing AiG as a credible source; see para. 2 for info). [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...