The Earth is not 4.5 billion years old - But is young

I acknowledge that the scientific evidence related to determining the Age of the Earth most supports the theory that the earth is not billions of years old. This is my first debate on here, so bear with me, but I am interested in debating someone on this topic. Not a debate where we only post links (although they are needed for sourcing) but where we can discuss the issues related to the topic. I will give three reasons that I believe the earth is not billions of years old, and while you can give more than that if you'd like, I think it would be beneficial to readers to stick to our best three arguments. Argument #1 - The Earths Magnetic Field The Earth's magnetic field protects our planet from solar radiation. But our magnetic field is slowly dying out at a rate of 5% for every 100 years (Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc. http://www.icr.org...) At this rate the magnetic field will cease to exist around the year 3391 A.D.. If we then take the amount of energy that is being lost from the magnetic field each year, and add it back in time, we can come to the conclusion that the earth must be under 10,000 years old: Dr. Andrew A. Snelling (Ph.D Geology) Earths Catastrophic past " Volume 2 " Page:873 "it was calculated that the current could not have been decaying more than 10,000 years; otherwise its starting strength would have been sufficient to melt the earth. Thus, the earth must be less than 10,000 years old." Argument #2 - Helium Diffusion in Zircon crystals Helium is generated inside zircon crystals through alpha radioactive decay. We can measure how much alpha decay has happened inside a crystal, and how much helium would have been generated over the life time of that crystal. Using those numbers we can measure the rate at which helium is escaping from the crystals, how much has escaped out of the total helium that has been generated, and see how fast it's escaping from the crystal. You put all the numbers together and you find out that rocks formed only thousands (not billions) of years ago. (http://creation.com...) Let me give you an example to help you understand. You have a water bottle (Zircon crystal) with pump (Alpha decay) putting water (Helium) in the bottle. At the same time the bottle has holes in it and is leaking water out. We know how much water has been put in the bottle over time, we know how much water is in there now, which tells us how much has leaked out over time. If 10 gallons have leaked out over time, and we know the bottle is leaking 1 gallon every 3 days, we know it's been thirty days since the bottle started having water put into it. Argument #3 - Lunar Recession from the earth This is probably the simplest of the arguments to understand. Due to tides and gravity exchanges between the earth and the moon, the moon is getting further away from the earth each year. If you rewind the clock, the earth would have been in contact with the earth around 1.2 billion years ago! Dr. Don DeYoung, Iowa State University (Ph.D., Physics) http://www.answersingenesis.org... "The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimeters a year... this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years. That is, extrapolating backwards, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago." Because of these three evidences, I think the best scientific understand of the age of the earth is that it's not 4.5 billion years like many scientist claim today.