Evidence suggests an Old Earth.

I will respond to all of your paragraphs and your bullet points underneath them. PLEASE NOTE: I will only be addressing the arguments made by the Pro for why the evidence points to an Old Earth. Because the Pro has to prove that his position is true, I only have to prove that his arguments are false. This would cause you to vote for the Con. The Arguments1: You claim that the Earth's age is generally accepted as being about 4.5 billion years old. This may be true of many people, but there are still many scientists who are starting to disagree with this number. While the common-man may never believe this, many scientists are.2: The entire argument made by the Pro is based on the validity of radio-metric dating. All I have to do is point out the flaws in it. One analogy for radiometric dating is a sandtimer. A sandtimer has 2 sides; when the top gets smaller, the bottom gets larger, and vice-versa. There are many problems with radiometric dating. a) it is possible for some of the lead or uranium (in this example of radio-metric dating [although it is true of all radio-metric dating]) to leak out. To continue my analogy, the corresponding part of a sandtimer would be the glass being broken. If so, sand can leak out one side without the other side being affected. This would ruin the ratio, therefore rendering the data nill. [1] b) it is possible for the U or Pb to become contaminated. It is the same with RD (radiometric dating). Uranium could leak out without any lead leaking out. This would skew the data. Also, it is plausible that they are contaminated (chemicals could get in the same way the U or Pb leaked out). This might lead to chemical reactions, further skewing the data. Such skewed data makes it not reliable. [1] Also, not only could chemicals contaminate them, but more U or Pb could be added. This still skews data. c) scientists were there to measure the amount of lead and uranium in the beginning. The assumption is that there was 0 Pb, and it was all U, yet this is simply illogical. No one was there to measure the amount of daughter isotopes there were. No one is therefore able to determine how much U decayed. This undermines the whole system. 3: I accept what you say about the exact date of the earth's origin is impossible to determine by any current means (human errors).4: Another problem with RD is that of another assumption. Another assumption made in RD is that the rate of decay (of U) has been the same throughout all of history. This is simply inconsistent with the data. One example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals. [2] This simply does not add up unless the rate of decay of the U is 250,000 times higher than it is now. Either RD is flawed, the He dating was flawed, or the rate of U decay was higher in the past. Other Dating Methods1: you have not proven that the earth is indeed old2:Ocean Salinity is one out of many options. This response is not enough.3: I agree that Ocean Salinity shows a young earth, but it is not the point being made.4: The same argument is made against RD. You say that it is impossible to see into the past and determine the rainfall, erosion, etc. The same argument is made against RD under The Arguments 2c [1]: . http://www.answersingenesis.org...;[2]: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative (a book)