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

I will defend my science in numerical order. Too much carbon in geologic strata. Kathleen Hunt's hypothesis of bacteria producing carbon 14 in inconclusive. First of all it only applies to coal in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air, and furthermore its not clear that these bacteria produce carbon 14 at all. But if we say that carbon 14 is often produced in deep geologic strata then you admit the inaccuracy of carbon data as a whole! How can we rely on dating a such a substance if it is produced in deep strata? This negates a whole lot of evidence for your old earth. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast The main argument you seem to be using is the density wave theory which was invented to solve the "problem" of the universe appearing young. This model is famous for its ridiculous traffic jam analogy and is no more than the more popular theory at this time and will most likely change as soon as more data is available. The theory has only been applied to Saturn's rings but unfortunately 1 planet does not equal 1 galaxy. Biological material decays too fast Not sure if you are aware of how they actually date Mitochondrial Eve but the process includes a few assumptions that take evolution already into account (as do many secular dating methods). The age of ME is calculated with the evolutionist's "molecular clock" which assumes that there is a more or less fixed rate of mutations per year in any population. This "clock" is calibrated by assuming humans and baboons last shared a common ancestor x years ago and if the number of differences between baboon and human mtDNA is y, then the substitution rate per year is y/x. Not enough time to cover the entire process, but it all appears very circular. Too much helium in minerals On Humphrey's study of an area in favor of his claim is indeed questionable, because evolutionists would NEVER do that. But furthermore these results are not unique to just one area (Sarfati, 2005). The Bible. Your main argument for the non-historical reading of Genesis 1 is based in a poetic structure surrounding these scriptures. Firstly, the "correspondences" between the days of creation are not nearly as exact as you have supposed. The sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day as "lights in the firmament of the heavens" (Gen 1:14) are placed not in any space created on Day 1, but in the "firmament" that was created on day two. The Firmament is not mentioned at all on day one, but five times on day two and three times on day four. Also, the parallel between days 2 and 5 is not exact, because in some ways the preparation of a space for the fish and birds of day 5 does not come in Day 2 but on Day 3. It's not until Day 3 that God gathers and the waters together and calls them "seas" (Gen 1:10), and on Day 5 the fish are commanded to "fill the waters in the seas" (Gen 1:22) Again in verses 26 and 28 the fish are called "fish of the sea", giving repeated emphasis to the fact that the sphere the fish inhabit was specifically formed on Day 3. So, the fish formed on Day 5 seem to belong much more to the place prepared for them on Day 3 than to the widely dispersed waters below the firmament on Day 2. Establishing a parallel between Day 2 and Day 5 faces further difficulties in that nothing is created on Day 5 to inhabit the "waters above the firmament", and the flying things created on this day (the Hebrew word would include flying insects as well as birds) not only fly in the sky created on Day 2, but also live and multiply on the "earth" or "dry land" created on Day 3. (Note God's command on Day 5: "Let birds multiply on the earth" (Gen 1:22) Lastly, the parallel between Days 3 and 6 is not precise, for nothing is created on Day 6 to fill the seas that were gathered together on Day 3. With all of these points of imprecise correspondence and overlapping between places and things created to fill them, the supposed literary "framework," while having an initial appearance of neatness, turns out to be less and less convincing upon closer reading of the text. The rest of your answers on certain Biblical verses are very weak, and you honestly can't believe that in every instance that man is placed near the creation of the earth the author is speaking poetically. Your "rocks and grass" comparison is laughable, and citing one metaphor does not make two. Your genealogical approach is flawed, while in some areas groups of people are skipped you can't honestly believe that thousands of years are placed in these gaps. Conclusion Thanks again for your time and i can't wait for your next response.