The earth is over 1 million years old

I will start by saying that I do not have to touch on radiocarbon dating, as the accuracy and useful span of radiocarbon dating are not needed for this debate. Debunking of supposed "assumptions" 1.Closed system argument (1) One of the great things about many forms of radiometric dating is that they are self-checking. That is, you can see if the sample comes from rocks that have been disturbed (or contaminated) or not just by looking at the results. Now, creationists will claim that scientists are just somehow assuming that if samples show an age that does not fit their preconceptions, the sample must be contaminated or leaky. This is false. To see why, we need to look deeper into radiometric dating methods. A very important tool in radiometric dating is the so called isochron diagram and it holds the key to refuting the central creationist claims about radiometric dating. One of the most beneficial things about it is that it can check itself for accuracy; the method tells you how well the rocks have been closed systems. An isochron diagram is obtained by looking at many minerals from the same rock or from rocks forming from the same parent mineral. Data is plotted on a simple two dimensional graph; the parent isotope on the x-axis and the daughter isotope on the y-axis. Both of these are divided or normalized by a stable isotope of the same elements as the daughter element. So on the x-axis, we have parent/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter) and on the y-axis we have daughter/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter). If the samples have been undisturbed closed systems since formation, the data will fall on the same line (the isochron from which the diagram is named). The slope of this line is a function of the age of the rock. If the rock is older, the slope is higher. The reason scientists normalize with another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter is because most chemical or physical processes that occurs normally in nature does not differentiate between different isotopes of the same element when the difference in mass is as small as it is between isotopes of the same element that is used in radiometric dating. This means that the while different rocks contain different absolute amounts of the two isotopes, the ratio is same. At the time of formation for a rock, the isotopes for an element are homogenized and so the composition of a certain isotope is the same in all the minerals in the rock. In fact, the data I have provided for all of the rocks older than 1 million years has met these stringent criteria, so they have once again proven to be credible. 2.The process rate of decay is assumed to have remained constant throughout billions of years (1,2) In a last ditch effort, young earth creationists exclaim that scientists just assume, without warrant, that decay rate are constant. However, this is not the case. Decay rates have been shown to be constant, despite very high pressure and temperature. Furthermore, by studying supernovas far away, scientist have determined that decay rates have been constant in the ancient past as well. Not only that, different radioactive isotopes decay differently and it is enormously improbable that a postulated difference in decay rates would affect all of them in the same way, yet as we have seen, different radiometric dating methods converge on the same date (within margins of error). Fourthly, decay rates can be predicted from first principles of physics. Any change would have to correspond to changes in basic physical constants. Any such change would affect different forms of decay differently, yet this has not been observed. As a final blow to the already nailed shut coffin of young earth creationism, had decay rates been high enough to be consistent with a young earth, the heat alone would have melt the earth. 3.It is assumed that no radiogenic daughter products were present when the minerals were first formed (1,3) A second property of isochron diagrams is that it actually gives the initial amount of daughter isotope as a result of the method. It is just the y-intercept of the isochron line. At this intersect, the ratio of parent/(another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter) is by definition 0 and so no amount of the daughter here is produced by decay of the parent in the rock. The initial conditions are just read off the graph; it is not just assumed. 4.Kaupuleho, Hualalai, Hawaii Lava argument Again, the known age was when the volcano erupted, not when the lava was formed. The dating method gives the date of the creation of the lava, not the date of the eruption of lava. This argument is therefore invalid. Both ages are correct, but they are the time of eruption and the creation, respectively. (Thanks to jh1234l for this argument). There you have it. The age of the earth is now proven to be over 1 million years old. I have used sourced arguments that can be backed up with scientific data, and experiments and my opponent has simply decided to ignore this and continue to base his arguments on a fallacious and unproven "holy book". My opponent has ignored all my previous evidence by not refuting my other arguments, but rather trying to "refute" those using assumptions, which he objected to. According to the shared burden of proof, my opponent loses this debate because they have not posted any evidence that proves the earth is under 1 million years of age, and according to standard debate etiquette, they may not post new arguments where I cannot address them. Vote Pro!!!!! Sources: 1.http://debunkingdenialism.com... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org... 3.http://www.soest.hawaii.edu...