Evidence suggests an Old Earth.

1: LeakThe Point that my opponent makes that it is "only POSSIBLE" for U or Pb to leak out. This apparently shows that it will not happen. I have 2 responses to this. a) my opponent misunderstands me; I don't mean to say that this ALWAYS happens, I mean to say that the possibility makes the credibility doubtable. This possibility makes it unreliable. The chance of this happening is not able to be determined (you cannot know what the chance of a crack in a rock being unless you know the specifics of the rock (composition, mass, etc). Because of this unknown variable, RD is unreliable. b) Also, I do not have the burden of proof in this instance. Again, my argument is that it can happen. And, as stated above, it is impossible to prove that this always happens; this just proves that it can happen. That is all that is able to be said reasonably. 2: ContaminationI have 3 responses. a) It does show great ages of time, but, this does not matter. It is possible that all sources have 1 or more of these problems (such as Leaking, Contamination, etc) could have occured. It is very plausible that this is what happens. b) The argument made is that they all have long ages. The Pro has not brought any figures of the range of the long ages. 1 million could be considered a long age. 50 trillion could also be considered a long age. This is not adequate argument. There are no numbers, therefore, the numbers could be over a very large range that is indeed "haywire" to quote the Pro. c) Also, his argument does not address my entire argument. The later part of this argument says that chemical reactions could take place that could skew data even further. This was not responded to, therefore it was conceded by the Pro. 3: 0 PbI have 3 responses a) My argument was addressing RD, not Isochronic Dating. If you look at the context of his evidence, it is talking about isochronic dating. Therefore, my opponent concedes the argument in the field of RD. b) Regarding Isochronic Dating: the evidence brought up is not credible. It was written by Chris Stassen, who is an author for TalkOrigins. I found an article written by him stating his own credentials. "BS Computer Science, Michigan Technological University, 82. (would have had a minor in Historical Geology, if MTU recognized minors)" [1]His degree is in Computer Science. Also, his Minor would have been Historical Geology, but (as stated earlier in the article) his highest education is a Bachelors of Science. Yet, I have evidence from Mike Riddle, who cites Dr. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in Geology (which I will cite in a minute). The Pro's piece of Evidence was written with the last update being September 17, 1998. My evidence is from September 2, 2009. c) Isochron Dating is extremely fallible. My evidence (refered to in the last bullet point) states, "Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave a billion year age the same as the oldest rocks!" [2] My evidence shows that isochronic dating is also extremely fallible. It also points out that the younger rocks were shown to be older than the older rocks by 30 million years. This is obviously not true, therefore, it also undermines the isochron dating method. Additional examples will be given upon request. 4: Decay RateI have 4 responses to this: a) Again, note the date of this evidence: 1972. In Sceintific terms, this is extremely long, as discoveries are being made every day. It was written more than 40 years ago. b) It is impossible for He to have already escaped from the crystals. It is the same thing as saying, "He might have broken out of jail before he got there." I'm not talking about someone's 2nd visit to jail, but someone who's going to jail for the first time. c) You are correct in saying that significant changes have never been observed. But, this is not needed. It has not been observed in the past hundred or so years, but there were millenia before that in which we have no data. There is evidence that can only be explained if the rate of decay was different in the past. d) The same argument is made against the existence of your brain (meaning no disrespect). You have never seen your brain. You have never smelled, heard, touched, or (hopefully not) tasted your brain. Therefore, if must not exist. This means that you lose the debate. You can see that lack of observation does not rule out the possibility of existence. This leads to Schrodinger's Cat situations. Therefore, lack of observation cannot be ruled out. 5: Other Dating Methods 1: You have not given sufficient reasons to believe that evidence has proven that evidence even suggests an old earth. 2: I have 7 Responses to this a) Again, you have not PROVEN that facts point to an Old Earth b) you cannot prove that facts say anything. Facts do not say anything by themselves; they must be interpreted. c) Which arguments have I ignored? I have refuted everything. d) If the Pro meamns to say that I have ignored 99% of his arguments concerning Other Dating Methods, I have not. e) My argument about rainfall, erosion, etc. still stands REGARDING THOSE THINGS SPECIFICALLY. Because this has gone uncontested by the Pro, this particular argument does stand. Mind you, that it is only regarding those areas mentioned (which does include the "etc."). It is not an argument against the argument that the f) Again, this is not the rout which I have taken. I am simply pointing out that your arguments "do not hold any water." g) You have not adequately responded Other Dating Methods. It is simple grammer that says that "Other Dating MethodS. This is not what is done. The Pro has only brought ONE Dating Method, not methodS. 6: Another Dating Method (not methodS) Population III Stars All stars function by fusion of Hydrogen, He, Li, etc. Each one creates larger and larger elements. If this is true, there would be stars that contain heavier elements. These would be known as Population III stars. However, there are none of them in the universe. As for the billions of light-years we can see, none can be found. [3] This lack of Population III stars would be apparent with a young universe (which would include a young earth), but cannot be explained with an Old Universe/earth model. [1]: http://www.antievolution.org...[2]: http://www.answersingenesis.org...[3]: http://www.answersingenesis.org...