The earth is more than 7000 years old.

Since my opponent is Pro, they have the BOP in this debate. All I have to do is disprove what they say in order to negate this resolution and thus win the debate I will now continue down the flow of the debate. Contention 1: Carbon Dating's flaws My opponent's evidence relies heavily on Carbon dating, but there is several flaws in that said system. s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Ammonite" width="350" /> The above picture is that of a fossil of an ammonite discovered in California. This said fossil according to said system to be 110 million years old, but under further correct analysis the said fossil is only 1,000 years of age. They have also found that If all the atoms on Earth were Carbon14 it would take 5730 years for all of the atoms to decay and vanish. Which would mean that everything would be under the 7000 year limit. (Robert L. Whitelaw, “Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 7, no. 1 (1970): 56–71.) The flaw with this theory though is that the oldest diamonds on Earth have been dated to be 4-5 billion years old, so explain how if the process only works in a very short time does it apply to something that supposedly billions of years old? (John R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, eds. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.) Carbon 14 dating is based on false presumptions that the C14 has remained constant which is incorrect as due to the bombardment of cosmic radiation creates varriations and cannot be compltely constant in terms of the supply which disproves a key part of the process. SImiliar tests have been done with U and Ra and have shown similiar results that as little as slightly changing their envirnments causes a massive change in the result. (http://www.contenderministries.org...) Contention 2: Helium Another key thing is due to Helium defussion it should've all leaked out of the Rocks (Earth) by 100,000 years. It's still here. Geologists examined Zircon rocks which contained a lot of U and He. The He comes from defussion of U. (R. V. Gentry, G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Geophysical Research Letters 9, no. 10 (1982): 1129–1130.) They also found that the hottest rocks should have the lesser amount as the rates will be sped up greatly and they found that even at 387 degrees He was still present. These rocks were pre-Flood rocks (refurring to the Noah's Ark Global Flood) meaning that due to the He, the Earth is only between 2000 and 6000 years old. (D. Russell Humphreys, “Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E. F. Chaffin, eds. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 25–100. ) s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Helium in Radioactive Rocks" width="600" />