Earth is probably younger than 10,000 years old.

Defending my arguments Tyre Ancient Tyre has never been rebuilt. The retroactively-drawn map from Con's “christian theological paper” is not credible. As I stated before, Ancient Tyre was lost to the sea. I'll back this up with anothersource. In ~1,000 AD, Benjamin Tudela wrote in a diary of his extensive travels: “A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea.”(14) Ancient Tyre has never been rebuilt. In fact, it cannot be rebuilt. It is under the sea in an unknown location. King Cyrus Con dropped this argument. Self-fulfilling or not, the prophecy was successful. Ezekial and Isaiah It does not matter if the dates are in dispute; that's not even a prima faciecase for undermining the Old Testament's credibility. Also, Con cannot just cite passages and claim they are busts. He must actually quote the verses in question, and then demonstrate why they are wrong. The Old Testament's credibility, for the purposes of this debate, has been well established and remains un-refuted. Helium Diffusion Con's first argument is an appeal to majority; just because Humphreys has received “vast criticism” and his experiments “have not been accepted by the majority of the sientific comunity” doesn't mean any of results or conclusions are wrong. In particular, Kevin Henke's criticisms are not credible because 1) Con has not shown how they are valid other than an appeal to authority (which makes no sense since he's just pitting one PhD's word against the other) and 2) they are not published in a peer-reviewed journal, but rather on the website of New Mexicans for Science & Reason, a non-profit organization. If Henke wants to be taken seriously, he must publish his findings in a scientific journal. I see no reason to go out of my way to refute claims which Con did not deem worth spending time nor effort asserting. Young Solar System Con's presents another appeal to majority. I do not understand his other claim, which is that Humphreys' findings “rely on what turned out to be thrust from the spacecraft the readings were taken from.” I'm sorry, how is this even a prima facie case for why Humphreys' findings are wrong? Rebutting Con's arguments Dendrochronology Con's source for his claim of an 11,000 year old tree-ring chronology admits it is based on radiometric dating: “We derived an( … ) age of 11,370 dendroyr BP( … ) by linking the end of the pine series with oak at the 8800 BP 14C [radiometric] oscillation( … ).” As my Helium Diffusion argument demonstrated, dates derived from conventional radiometric dating are based on the false assumption that radioactive decay has always been constant in the past. This means that Con's tree-ring chronology relies on unreliable dates, and is thus not credible. It is refuted. Radiometric Dating Con did not even make a prima facie case for an earth older than 10,000 years here. SUMMARY I established the credibility of the Old Testament by showing how it makes many specific, falsifiable prophecies, many of which have been successful and none of which have ever been falsified. Con did not successfully challenge this point, so the date of earth, which Isaac Newton determined from the Old Testament, stands. Con failed to refute my Helium Diffusion argument, which shows how a crucial assumption behind conventional radiometric fails. Thus, his tree-ring date is not credible because his own source admits it relied on radiometric dating. Con's "Radiometric Dating" argument neglected to even make a prima facie case for his position, so I did not spend time rebutting it. Back to Con. (14) http://depts.washington.edu...