Planet Earth is older than six thousand years

Thanks for the rebuttal, Con. Do please stop referring to me as "Mike". This is the third time you've done it. My name is not "Mike". Voters, please take this into consideration. Con has indeed gotten "biblical" on me. First off, I do not see why it matters even if 3.8 billion people disagree with my point. The number of people who disagree with my point doesn't discredit my point. The only things that could possibly discredit my point would be arguments against my point. Statistics pertaining to those who disagree are not scientific facts that discredit findings taken from radiometric dating. My scientific evidence has to be discredited with legitimate scientific evidence to the contrary in order to be considered illegitimate. Just in case there is any indignation over the need for scientific EVIDENCE to be discredited with scientific METHOD, consider what science is- that is, observation of the natural and physical world (1). Anyone can make scientific observations, and humans are limited to scientific observations when observing reality. Humans can only exist within reality. Thus, scientific methods must be used to find scientific evidence that discredits existing evidence. Poll statistics regarding amount of people who believe that Earth is six thousand years old do not amount to scientific evidence against radiometric dating, BECAUSE the current status of opinions of those people and the current legitimate status of radiometric dating are not mutually exclusive. Those people can believe those things and not contradict the validity of radiometric dating. Thus, the mention of those three point eight billion is not an argument against radiometric dating. Con goes on to list a series of events that supposedly occurred according to the Bible. Con's use of the Bible begs several questions: Why should the Bible be used as scientific evidence when it assumes things that are not evidenced by science, such as the existence of God? The existence of God requires an immense burden of proof that has not yet been fulfilled. Con's observations are limited to those taken in the physical and natural world. The Bible is supposedly "the word of God". God is used as the primary source. Because of Con's limited powers of observation, to prove that the Bible is the word of God, he would first need to prove that God exists or existed at the time when the Bible was written. Con has to prove this with observations taken of the natural and physical world. Con is thus reliant on science to prove God. Con's account of God's creation of mankind will only be trustworthy when the existence of God is proven scientifically. But I really don't even need to point out the lack of evidence for the existence of God, though that fact, by itself, does negate Con's argument, which is based on an account that Con supposedly gave. God is used as the primary and only source for this information in the Bible. What if God were lying when he gave this account that Con has listed? Con has, as of yet, given no scientific proof for God's trustworthiness. Radioactive decay constants do not lie. They cannot, because they to not possess the characteristics to do so, as they are merely conceptual and not physical. They are based on observation of radioactive elements, which also cannot lie or feign actions because they do not possess the components needed to think or make decisions- brain cells. The decay constants for ALL of the elements used in radiometric dating do not change based on temperature, pressure, or chemical factors. In short, radiation does not lie because it is not sentient. It does not possess the ability to think; thus, it cannot lie. The Christian God, if he existed, certainly could. The Christian God would be omnipotent, i.e. capable of any action. As to my assertions regarding radiometric dating, they stand unopposed! Con's "rebuttal" is thus not a refutation of the validity of radiometric dating, as it does not even ATTACK the validity of radiometric dating. Con mentions a man, Adam, who supposedly lived over nine hundred years (according to the unproven Christian God). God is used as the primary source; God is not proven to be in existence in the first place, and thus this information, based on its supposed source, should not be considered valid. There is no scientific evidence that shows the age of Adam, or that Adam even existed in the first place (where are Adam's remains)? There was none of the current medical equipment in existence six thousand years ago (hence the word "current"), but according to both the Bible and existing scientific evidence, diseases of all sorts of types existed six thousand years ago. There is a distinct correlation between time and human life expectancy- the closer to the age in which the current medical equipment exists, the longer human life expectancy has gotten. In my sources, I have included two graphs which clearly show this trend (unfortunately, I was unable to post the graphs into the debate). Both graphs clearly show that the life expectancy six thousand years ago was nowhere near nine hundred years. From the website sourced for the two graphs: "For most of its existence, Homo sapiens lived in far-flung hunter-and-gathering communities, each of which was quite small and barely able to reproduce itself. Life expectancy at birth was hardly twenty-five years on average, and those persons who survived childhood often died violently, in combat with other hunters, at relatively young ages. (Robert William Fogel, The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism, 48)" "For much of human history, average life expectancy used to be 20-30 years. By 1900, it had climbed to about 31 years " By 2003 it was 66.8 years. (Indur Goklany, The Improving State of the World, 31)" Adam could not have lived to be over nine hundred, given these data and knowledge of the scientific, especially medical, advancements of the time. According to archaeologists, two hundred years after con claims Abraham lived, civilization began in China. Humans existed before that time. According to scientific findings, anatomically modern humans in Africa about two hundred thousand years ago. The Earth is clearly older than six thousand years. Con leaves us with: "Now the 3.8 billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews that believe in the Old Testament make up a majority of Earth's population (7 billion). And in the scientific world that you are so fond you only need a majority for something to become accepted as true. So if the majority of Earth believes that the Earth is 6,000 years old then it is accepted as true." In the scientific world that I am so fond of, something is accepted as true so long as it is substantiated by scientific fact. The material reality of the world is independent of the number of people who believe it is one way or another. Perhaps certain scientists believe that the Earth is six thousand years old, but, as I have demonstrated and Con has not opposed, the existing evidence is completely to the contrary. But Con's real mistake here is drawing parallels between specific religious belief and science. Scientific fact is based on observations of the natural and physical world that do not contradict each other. Religion is based on extraneous assumption. The definition of "religion" is: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." (1) There is no evidence, based on human powers of observation, to back up superhuman controlling powers of any sort. I dare Con to find some and present it. Religions see things which are unrelated to superhuman controlling powers and assume that superhuman controlling powers are behind them. Please, Con, show evidence of a superhuman controlling power. Until then, science should be trusted over extraneous assumption. Sources: 1. Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English I will post the rest of my sources used here in the next round