The Earth is probably greater than 10,000 years old

You: The BoP in the debate was shared. Con has *no* offense at all -- I assumed the "age of dinosaurs" part was an offense, but it is merely an attempt to refute carbon dating. As such, presume Pro while voting.Answer: I was on the defensive, I agree. However, helium in zircon crystals is not only a rebuttal of uranium / lead dating, it was also an indicator of young age, less than 10,000 years, that is what the study indicates. I have many evidences to present of it's age, but I believe there is not much time left, I'll have to refute what you say and be happy with that.___You: While I concede that many sources are biased, the ICR's bias is such that it has frequently used red herrings while attacking evidence against its position, and *pre-holds* its position before seeking evidence to demonstrate it. While, per the scientific method, one should be agnostic to all positions till evidence is found, the ICR already had a position, and cements it with (flawed) evidence. That is bias. As for reliable scholarship, the RATE project, as mentioned, was *highly unscientific,* and failed to fulfill various necessary requirements.Answer: It does not matter whether or not the ICR is looking for evidence to back up it's existing beliefs, it does not matter that they are biased, what does matter is that the data they provide is correct, and so far I have seen no actual rebuttals of the study that I mentioned, and that is one among many. I would also like to add that the secular establishment is biased as well, extremely biased. Watch the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" for more on that.___You: (B) We have no reason to believe that it *actually dates dinosaurs* to such an age, or that it was taken under reliable conditions, etc. and that source's word cannot be taken.Answer: Yes you have many reasons to believe that. It was performed by an actual paleochronology group, in various laboratories across the U.S., and signed by one of the world's foremost carbon dating technicians. The group has also listed the measures taken to prevent contamination, and this process has been performed on not only one bone, but on about 10 bones, which makes contamination entirely unrealistic. You can see my debate where I state that 'carbon dating says dinosaurs are young' for more on that.___You: The Oak Ridge National Laboratory study *only shows* that helium could be retained in zircon, not that it would have significant impacts on the accuracy of dating. That goes to Humphrey's study. I attacked Humphrey's study on the basis that (1) it is unscientific, and (2) fails to account for *other* models which have better ranges of Q/Q-0 values for samples of rock.Answer: What it does show is that helium IS retained in zircon crystals. And the scientists at ICR have not made up the idea that it woudl affect radiometric dating, people knew that a long time ago, but the ICR was the first to perform actual calculations to show that, through actual mathematics and measurements. And I don't know what other models you are talking about, the model they have provided and plugged the data inside fits perfectly, it's clearly seen on the temp | diffusion image in their article, and the evolutionary model is way off by a factor of 100,000.____You: First, that it is unscientific is *dropped* by Con. Con merely says that he has contacted the ICR regarding this, which *plays no impact* in the debate.Answer: What I contacted the ICR about is the QC/QA Concedures, I never asked them if their research is unscientific, because it's clearly not, there are zero rebuttals online, and you have of course, not given any that have not fallen after my answer. The QC/QA Concedures may or may not have been performed, but I believe it has, and the reason I believe it has is because the opposition said they misidentified rocks and therefore have not applied these concedures, but then I responded that they themselves named the rock because no previous literature had named them and dr. Baumgardner clearly responded to that critique as well.____You: Don't allow Con to bring up new arguments from the ICR's data, since that would be a violation of standard debate convention.Answer: What new arguments? We were talking about helium in zircon crystals all along in this ICR conflict. ___You: Con says that Humphreys picked those parts of the sample that were unnamed and named them "granodiorite" -- but this *violates* basic scientific rules, and there was *no record* made that a new form of rock was discovered at all.Answer: I never said they found a new type of rock, what I said was that they invented the name. And no, they did NOT invent the name granodiorite, they invented the name Jemez Granodiorite, which is what I said earlier.___You: This is rather misidentification of gneisses. Detailed information from Laughlin, et al. suggests that the samples used by Dr. Humphrey and others were actually gneisses and *not* unidentified. [1, 2]Answer: Even a three year old can tell the difference between gneiss and granodiorite, and you're telling me adult and professional geologists can't? How laughable... please read the research paper and see for yourself. Then you can google the pictures and see how different they are.___You: As mentioned, Dr. Humphrey *fails* to obey the scientific method. Humphreys virtually *concedes* he commits a God-of-the-gaps fallacy, which Prof. Henke accuses Humphrey of doing. Additionally, Dr. Humphreys generates "dates" from studies using false assumptions. Assumptions used by Humphrey are "constant temperatures over time, isotropic diffusion in biotites and zircons," and similar flawed assumptions that disobey the scientific method. [1]Answer: In no way is it a god of the gaps argument, it's an argument from laboratory measurements and calculations. I don't know form where you're getting this idea. And yes, constant temperatures may have been assumed, but they assumed the Ice Age of the region providing the optimal assumption for evolutionists, due to the fact that less helium escapes in colder temperatures, but as clearly seen, the laboratory where the leak rate was tested took into account different temperatures and measured diffusion rate for these different temperature ranges.___You: Finally, Con drops the models of Loechelt and Henke. Even answering the critique doesn't affect this, since Con *fails to establish* why Loechelt's model and Henke's model are inferior to Humphrey's. I argue that Humphrey's model is weaker since it does not have good ranges of Q/Q-0 values for samples of rock. Henke writes, "[D]ata from Gentry et al. (1982b) provide better ranges of Q/Q0 values for samples 1, 5 and 6 than the values used by Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys." [1] He continues with regards to sample 3, saying his range of Q/Q-0 "values was derived from data in Zartman (1979) . . . [who] analyzed a zircon taken a few meters from sample 3." [1]Answer: This is answered here http://www.trueorigin.org...;-- in fact, everything Henke says is answered there.___You: "Miss[ing] . . . dendrochronology" is not an excuse for a dropped argument; judges can disregard this argument simply because, per standard debate convention, silence is compliance. A dropped argument is still *dropped.*Answer: You missed my explanation of magnetic fields, you did not respond to it in your next post. Therefore, I will assume that you have accepted what I have said and that C-14 is therefore not evidence of an earth older than 10,000 years. ___You: The argument is, anyhow, unsound. It is a straw-man of dendrochronology -- if tree rings are present, the elaborate methods of dendrochronology *can* adequately date trees, and this has not been disputed deeply. Variance of tree rings only means "counting the rings" is flawed. Dendrochronology uses various calibration curves to support it. [3] This can, successfully, calibrate carbon dating and ensure that it has sound assumptions. [4]Answer: Some trees that are less than 2-3 thousand years may very well agree with C-14 dating, because as I said earlier, C-14 dating does work. It works for late history, the effect of the weakening magnetic field is not as severe then. However, many, many trees do not at all agree with C-14 dates, even dinosaur bones do not agree, do they? It's all a game of picking the notes you like and throwing away the ones you don't. It's proven that tree rings are not a constant 1 ring per year. ___You: As for the fossil age argument, it doesn't invalidate carbon dating, since the study used wrong application of carbon dating -- carbon dating is only reliable to 50,000 years, and not more than that, which dinosaurs age to, per radiometric dating and other dating methods.Answer: This positively proves that you do not understand the basics of carbon dating. If carbon dating only works up to 50k years, and you date something older, you'll get infinite or no dates, you will NOT get 20k -- the reason it does not work beyond 50k is that the number of C-14 atoms is too small to measure, therefore, bones that are 70 million years old should contain zero C-14 and date 50k --> infinite, not 20k. ___You: Finally, Con *assumes* that the magnetic field is only decaying, and not restoring or repairing itself. Research suggests that magnetic fields are in a state of flux, so decay is supplemented by strengthening of the magnetic field. [5] Therefore, carbon dating is sound and computes ages > 10,000 years.Answer: You're arguing from ignorance (lack of knowledge). So far, we have ONLY seen the magnetic field decay, therefore, we shall assume that is always the case, until proven otherwise. And yes, I know about the argument that the reversing of the magnetic field is seen in the cracked basalt under the Atlantic ocean, but that's only low and high magnetic strength due to cold water cooling basalt after eruption, it's not reverse -- regardless of the imaginary line drawn between low and high energy.___