The earth is probably more than 10,000 years old.

Radiometric Dating Dr. Plaisted Pro's right: David Plaisted doesn't necessarily represent UNC. But Pro doesn't point out a single instance where Plaisted is wrong, and it's not enough to discredit my source by just pitting Henke's word against Plaisted's, when neither are experts in radiometric dating. Plaisted already posted a lengthy rebuttal to Henke's accusations, which Pro (and Henke) conveniently didn't mention.(31) Pro says Plaisted doesn't cite peer-reviewed literature, but if Pro had read his work before calling it “bogus”, he should have counted over 20 such references.(30) Diamonds Pro doesn't want to concede to a 6byr old earth as this would require him to alter his previous stance by 30%, forfeiting his credibility. So he calls the diamond date an “error.” The only justification implied is it disagrees with his 4.5byr claim. But his 4.5byr claim was also based on radiometric dating! Pro has resorted to circular logic: He says the 6byr radiometric date is an error because it disagrees with the 4.5byr radiometric date. Pro's claim the date was based on material inside the diamond, and not the diamond itself, is a red herring: “The same age has also been determined by ( … ) analysis of four additional diamonds”(7) Pro admits he doesn't have a convincing reason to disregard the 6byr date: “[It's] an unresolved case which scientists are actively trying to explain.” He says a “material cause” for the “error” is a “possibility.” This isn't a valid argument until Pro establishes the date is actually an error, andthat the possibility of the material cause is more likely than unicorns existing. Pro claims I supposed “if even one case of error is unexplained, the whole method is invalidated.” This argument, which seems to be his main rebuttal to everything, appears convincing until you see it for the huge strawman it really is. I didn't argue one, unexplained case of error justifies tossing out the method. I argued radiometric dating is unreliable because it's calibrated against itself; it's accuracy is assumed via circular logic! Dendrochronology For example, Con argued radiometric dating is confirmed via tree-rings. When I pointed out his 11,191yr example relied on radiometric dating, Pro replied: “It's not true that ( … ) 11,919 year old history used radiocarbon dating. The source says it was done using tree rings alone.” Pro is trusting his source, Quaternary Dating Methods. But I pointed out earlier the author is no dating expert. Here's what the source of Pro's source reports: “The dendrochronological match of the two parts of the PPC( … ) is still tentative( … ) At present, the linkage relies on supporting C14 measurements. Based on this link, the PPC starts at 11,919.”(32) The radiometric dating argument, and his tree-ring argument, rely on circular logic. Thus, they are both refuted. Analogy Pro returns to his tape-measure analogy. Last time, he compared radiometric errors to carpentry errors to show both can make mistakes. This time, he's using it to argue carpentry errors actually aren't comparable to radiometric errors! “Carpenters have a rough check on length just by sight. They know a measurement more than [2x] is wrong. There is no comparable sense of the age of a mineral specimen.” Of course you can't compare them, which is what I've been arguing all along. His clock analogy fails for the same reason: When's the last time you checked your watch and got a time several billion hours off? Even a clock displaying military time can only be off by 24 hours. Common Timeline Last round, I posited: “Were you to apply all ( … ) methods to the same sample, you would get wildly different results.” Instead of proving me wrong, perhaps with an example where all his “diverse” methods agree on a common date for a particular sample, Pro proclaims: “Con has no statistics to prove the generality.” This is not sufficient. Pro has the burden of proof. I don't have to cite statistics showing his methods are generally wrong; he has to cite statistics showing they're generally right! Simply asserting “diverse” methods agree with each other is not enough to fulfill his burden, especially in the face of all the conflicting examples I've provided. The closest Pro comes to attempting his burden is when he says, “An example of the consistent accuracy of radiometric dating is in the data on the age of the earth( … )using Ar-Ar, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, and Re-Os( … ) The consistency is remarkable, all dates are near 4.5 billion years.”(emphasis mine) I'm not sure why Pro keeps promoting this idea that “all dates are near 4.5 billion years” after I've proven him wrong. The 6byr dates are supported by both K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating methods,(7) and I doubt the voters consider 4.5 billion to be near 6 billion. Sandstone and the Grand Canyon Pro says I didn't cite a source for “any means that sand could be formed in less than tens of millions of years.” He's right! I didn't have to. My example of a fossilized jellyfish in sandstone was more than sufficient,(20) as there's no way a jellyfish can be fossilized other than very quickly. Pro says “as soon as the sand dries even the short wall will collapse”, but that's not true if it turns to sandstone first! Sediment Layers (Varves) Alternating Densities Pro's own source: “The stratification is related to the occurrence of avalanches; during each avalanche the grains comprising the avalanche spontaneously stratify( … )” Avalanches cause stratification! That's an argument for stratification via a cataclysm like Noah's Flood, not against it. At the start of this debate, I requested a citation for Pro's claim that “pollen fossils provide a climate record.” He ignored this request throughout the debate, yet brings it up again; I'm dismissing it as an unsubstantiated assertion. Rapid Burial Polystrate Fossils Pro asks, “How did a great flood quickly put reptile tracks on [the Coconino] sandstone layer below material from swamps and lagoons, in turn below plant fossils, and all below ocean fossils?” Those tracks had to have been formed by animalsalready under water,according to Geology Today.(33) It follows that swamp material would be present on top of tracks made beneath the swamp. The plant fossils on top were obviously plants growing in the swamp. The ocean fossils on top were clearly dumped there by Noah's Flood, as “the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered.”(34) Fossil Trends I pointed out how fossils aren't strictly time-ordered, and Pro dismissed the argument on the grounds that my source gave “no scientific references.” This is the second time Pro falsely accuses my source of a lack of citations. If he had only bothered to click on it(25), he should have counted 15 scientific references, among them Nature, Paleobiology, and the Journal of Paleontology. Conclusion My opponent had the burden of proof to demonstrate the earth is probably over 10k years old. He failed his burden by failing to provide statistics that show his dating methods are even generally synchronous. I showed the measurements he uses aren't credible because they're wildly inaccurate and rely on circular logic. His analogies undermined his own case. In contrast, I successfully defended the Bible as a credible historical record, and explained that age of the earth of less than 10k years has been independently determined by many scholars. Both our cases relied on some assumptions, but mine survived Pro's attacks. His fell to close scrutiny. Thanks to Pro for such an awesome debate, and thanks to everyone else who read this far! (30) http://www.cs.unc.edu... (31) http://www.trueorigin.org... (32) http://www.academia.edu... (33) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... (34) Genesis 7:19