Evidence suggests an Old Earth.

Thanks to my opponent for the response.1. LeakIf it is leaking, then there should be different results every time, even using the same dating method. If so, why are the results always almost the same? 2. ContaminationI concede this as I have adequately refuted both, because if it did happen, the results won't always be similar.3. 0PbMy argument was addressing RD, not Isochronic Dating. If you look at the context of his evidence, it is talking about isochronic dating. Therefore, my opponent concedes the argument in the field of RD. If you read my opening argument, you will find that "The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204. Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time."b) Regarding Isochronic Dating: the evidence brought up is not credible. It was written by Chris Stassen, who is an author for TalkOrigins. I found an article written by him stating his own credentials. "BS Computer Science, Michigan Technological University, 82. (would have had a minor in Historical Geology, if MTU recognized minors)"The article had sources from reliable places, the writer does not have an influene on it's validity.c) Isochron Dating is extremely fallible. My evidence states, "Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave a billion year age the same as the oldest rocks!"Lava is molten rock that is expelled by a volcano.[1] Therefore, when the lava is expelled =/= the age of the molten rock. It is impossible for He to have already escaped from the crystals. It is the same thing as saying, "He might have broken out of jail before he got there." I'm not talking about someone's 2nd visit to jail, but someone who's going to jail for the first time. Helium exists only as a gas except in extreme conditions. [2] Gases escapes quite fast, and you have not given a source to prove that the Helium is impossible to escape nor explained why.The same argument is made against the existence of your brain (meaning no disrespect). You have never seen your brain. You have never smelled, heard, touched, or (hopefully not) tasted your brain. Therefore, if must not exist. This means that you lose the debate. You can see that lack of observation does not rule out the possibility of existence. This leads to Schrodinger's Cat situations. Therefore, lack of observation cannot be ruled out. However, this is not relevent because if it is observed, then the Earth possibly is not old. However, big changes in decay rates have never been observed. (source in last round.) Thus, this is irrelevent to this topic. Which arguments have I ignored? I have refuted everything. You only refuted the erosion, rainfall, etc. You did not refute how that the salt in the ocean fluxuates, and the ocean also loses about the same amount of salt as it gains. [3] Thus, higher elements can no longer fuse. Plus, because of their high mass, current stellar models show that Population III stars would have soon exhausted their fuel and exploded in extremely energetic pair-instability supernovae. [5] Thus, Population III stars can only exist in the early universe. [5][1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://orgs.usd.edu...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...