The Earth is probably greater than 10,000 years old

== Overview == The BoP in the debate was shared. Con has *no* offense at all -- I assumed the "age of dinosaurs" part was an offense, but it is merely an attempt to refute carbon dating. As such, presume Pro while voting. (1) Sources (A) While I concede that many sources are biased, the ICR's bias is such that it has frequently used red herrings while attacking evidence against its position, and *pre-holds* its position before seeking evidence to demonstrate it. While, per the scientific method, one should be agnostic to all positions till evidence is found, the ICR already had a position, and cements it with (flawed) evidence. That is bias. As for reliable scholarship, the RATE project, as mentioned, was *highly unscientific,* and failed to fulfill various necessary requirements. (B) We have no reason to believe that it *actually dates dinosaurs* to such an age, or that it was taken under reliable conditions, etc. and that source's word cannot be taken. (2) Uranium-lead dating The Oak Ridge National Laboratory study *only shows* that helium could be retained in zircon, not that it would have significant impacts on the accuracy of dating. That goes to Humphrey's study. I attacked Humphrey's study on the basis that (1) it is unscientific, and (2) fails to account for *other* models which have better ranges of Q/Q-0 values for samples of rock. First, that it is unscientific is *dropped* by Con. Con merely says that he has contacted the ICR regarding this, which *plays no impact* in the debate. Discredit this, and presume Pro already due to the studies. Don't allow Con to bring up new arguments from the ICR's data, since that would be a violation of standard debate convention. Con says that Humphreys picked those parts of the sample that were unnamed and named them "granodiorite" -- but this *violates* basic scientific rules, and there was *no record* made that a new form of rock was discovered at all. [1] This is rather misidentification of gneisses. Detailed information from Laughlin, et al. suggests that the samples used by Dr. Humphrey and others were actually gneisses and *not* unidentified. [1, 2] As mentioned, Dr. Humphrey *fails* to obey the scientific method. Humphreys virtually *concedes* he commits a God-of-the-gaps fallacy, which Prof. Henke accuses Humphrey of doing. Additionally, Dr. Humphreys generates "dates" from studies using false assumptions. Assumptions used by Humphrey are "constant temperatures over time, isotropic diffusion in biotites and zircons," and similar flawed assumptions that disobey the scientific method. [1] Finally, Con drops the models of Loechelt and Henke. Even answering the critique doesn't affect this, since Con *fails to establish* why Loechelt's model and Henke's model are inferior to Humphrey's. I argue that Humphrey's model is weaker since it does not have good ranges of Q/Q-0 values for samples of rock. Henke writes, "[D]ata from Gentry et al. (1982b) provide better ranges of Q/Q0 values for samples 1, 5 and 6 than the values used by Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys." [1] He continues with regards to sample 3, saying his range of Q/Q-0 "values was derived from data in Zartman (1979) . . . [who] analyzed a zircon taken a few meters from sample 3." [1] Therefore, uranium-lead dating is not unsound. (3) Carbon dating "Miss[ing] . . . dendrochronology" is not an excuse for a dropped argument; judges can disregard this argument simply because, per standard debate convention, silence is compliance. A dropped argument is still *dropped.* The argument is, anyhow, unsound. It is a straw-man of dendrochronology -- if tree rings are present, the elaborate methods of dendrochronology *can* adequately date trees, and this has not been disputed deeply. Variance of tree rings only means "counting the rings" is flawed. Dendrochronology uses various calibration curves to support it. [3] This can, successfully, calibrate carbon dating and ensure that it has sound assumptions. [4] As for the fossil age argument, it doesn't invalidate carbon dating, since the study used wrong application of carbon dating -- carbon dating is only reliable to 50,000 years, and not more than that, which dinosaurs age to, per radiometric dating and other dating methods. Finally, Con *assumes* that the magnetic field is only decaying, and not restoring or repairing itself. Research suggests that magnetic fields are in a state of flux, so decay is supplemented by strengthening of the magnetic field. [5] Therefore, carbon dating is sound and computes ages > 10,000 years. For all these reasons, Vote Pro. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] Laughlin, A.W., A.C. Eddy, R. Laney and M.J. Aldrich, Jr., 1983. Geology of the Fenton Hill, New Mexico, Hot Dry Rock Site [3] Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, "Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice," p. 144. [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...