Assuming that the Bible is infallible then the earth is probably around 10,000 years old.

=========== Introduction: =========== I am so very glad that I can participate in this debate with you, Sam. Since I fully agree with the inspiration of the Holy Bible, I will allow it as a completely valid and sound source within this debate. In mostly all of my debates, I refer to my opponents indirectly, however, in this debate I will be speaking to you, Sam, directly. =========== Scientific evidence: =========== Most young-earth creationist acknowledge that science does not, in many areas, favor their claim. Instead they place special emphasis on documentary evidence (such as the Bible). Since you have taken the more formidable route (mostly) and decided to present scientific data to support your claim, you are presenting yourself as YEC of a different suit. Now, the question is, are your scientific claims sound? The claims for which you are defending, stem from the work of D. Russell Humphreys. If you wish for the verity of the YEC claim to stand or fall by the merits of one man's claims, so be it. I will take the arguments in numerical order: 1. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata. Essentially the claim is that because things that are supposedly too old to contain any remnants of carbon-14 do, indeed, contain carbon-14, that the earth is actually much younger than claimed. The example of this claim is coal and even "a dozen diamonds." Now I find it odd that you say a dozen diamonds. In order for your claim to be true, carbon-14 must be present ALL the time. If in mostly all the cases c14 is NOT found in diamonds, one must reasonably conclude that the cases in which c14 is present, that they are examples of aberrations, not normative behavior. C-14 must be present in ALL the samples in order for it lend at least a little credence to the YEC hypothesis. Moreover, there is good reason to believe that coal, in many cases, will show traces of c14. New c14 is formed by background radiation. According to Kathleen Hunt, there are quite a few reasons why c14 would be present in coal. A few are as follows: - Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal. - Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces. - Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers. (http://www.talkorigins.org... ) Furthermore, in the cases that c14 was present, the measurements were around the maximum c14 could yield, that is still quite a distance from 10,000 years.(http://www.talkorigins.org... ) 2. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast. Well first of all, stars do not just whirl around a galactic center, this presupposes that stars are not drawn to the gravitational pull of other stars, which happens to be the case. Therefore Humphrey's model is already in error.(http://www.cesame-nm.org... ) Moreover, what is precisely the problem with the dense wave theory? One cannot simply say it is too complex. Until Humphrey's model is corrected to account for how stars ACTUALLY react, it avails to nothing but suspicion. 3. Biological Material Decays Too Fast. There are some errant claims here. First, research does NOT suggest that Mitochondrial Eve is possibly as young as 6,500 years old. In fact, the lowest estimate is 120,000 old (http://www.evolutionpages.com... ). Also, while traces of organic material were preserved, there was certainly no sign of cells and no DNA was retrieved. This point resides on a misrepresentation or false material (http://www.talkorigins.org...). 4. Too much helium in minerals Many things wrong with this, and it all cannot be covered adequatly here. First, Humphrey's decided to study an area with a very complex thermal history and his results mean next to nothing unless they can be replicated – an not JUST in the same region. Humphreys selected a rock core sample from the Fenton Hill site, which, due to faulting and volcanism, has excess helium (which is expected). It is intelleticaually dishonest to study for something in an area that you know will yeild results in your favor (because the results will be contanimated due to the nature of the site). It is a proverbial stacking of the deck. (http://www.talkorigins.org... ) =========== The Bible: =========== 1. They were probably literal days within a larger literary metaphor. Is Genesis chapter 1 to be taken literally? How were there 24-hour solar days if the sun was not created until the forth day? Dictionary.com defines day as: "the interval of light between two successive nights; the time between sunrise and sunset." Moreover, given only 24-hours, it would have been impossible for Adam to name all the animals. The REASON why Genesis 1 does not seem to represent a literal retelling is because the author used a common 7 day literary motif. Moreover, there is a stylistic parallel of the days mentioned, day 1 parallels day 4; day 2 parallels day 5; and day 3 parallels day 6 – leaving the last day to figuratively represent the Sabbath. Furthermore, since even those living during the time of Genesis' authorship knew that the sun was a measurement for days (in terms of day/night and dusk/dawn), the fact that light was created before its source only serves to show that Genesis 1 was never meant to be taken literally. The original readers would have been aware of the common 7 day motif and also the creatively paralleled days, understanding that the purpose of the story was not to represent HOW God created but THAT God created. 2. Don't get me started on the mistranslation "Jehovah." The phrase is remotely accurate if we simply see it to as referring to creation of man, whatever point that may have been. Isaiah, who is fond of using poetic language, did so here. When the Bible says the earth has four corners (Revelation 7:1 or Acts 10:11), how can we take this to be even remotely accurate without understanding the earth to be flat and square? The answer is we must understand the authors use of literary devices. Hyper-literalism leads to egregious error. 3. It is common in the New Testament to say world when referring not too the world itself, but to those who inhabit it. For instance, Jesus died for the whole world. And we are called not to be LIKE the world. So Jesus died for rocks and grass and we're called NOT to be like rocks and grass...? 4. Ancient genealogies, unlike modern genealogies, practiced what is called telescoping. This is where they would leave out names or even entire lineages for the sake of brevity. Moreover, the purpose of ancient genealogies was either familial, legal, or religious. Genealogies for familial reasons were only to show hereditary inheritance. Legal genealogies were used to show hereditary inheritance of particular offices or even land. Lastly, religious genealogies were used to show whether or not one was part of the Levitical or Aronic priesthood. The three listed purposes were concerned more with ancestry than with the actual number of people. The form of the genealogies was largely determined by its function, whether familial, legal, or religious. Furthermore, since you cannot confirm that Adam was present very shortly after the creation of the world, in light of the aforesaid, you cannot show how this genealogy supports anything other than the beginning of man, not the earth. Furthermore, compare Luke's genealogy with Matthew's and you will see that something different must be going on, as they almost entirely do not match up. Conclusion: Thank you, Sam. I await your second round with palpable great anticipation.