The Earth is not 6000 years old

You say, "This is false as this is not an assumption, it is calculated using "the quantity of unstable atoms left in a rock and comparing it to the quantity of stable daughter atoms in the rock." This does still does not compensate for the lack of knowledge of the original quantity of elements in the rock that was "millions of years" old when it was formed, which means that there is no reference or starting point for a scale from which to calculate an age in the first place. Added to that is the unreliability of radiometric dateing. For example, when radiometric tests have been done on rocks of a known age there can be ages of millions of years in new rocks that are only months old from volcanic activity ("igneous rock solidified from magma" [1]). In fact the very same piece of rock can give ages that are millions of years in difference. [2] There is also the evolutionary assumption that decay rates have never changed. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times. [3] At present, neither the evolutionist nor the creationist can scientifically "date" the earth and universe. They can only interpret the same evidence available to both according to their world view. The creationist has the Bible and its timeline and the evolutionist has Darwin and the belief in deep time. You say, "With regard to my opponents assertion that there should be no carbon 14 left on the planet is demonstrably false. This statement would be true if carbon 14 is not been produced continuously which is what happens everyday in the atmosphere and through other radioactive processes." I did not say planet. My statement actually reads, ""there would be no carbon 14 left in fossils, rock"s etc. and yet we find it in coal, diamonds, fossilised wood and unfossilised dinosaur bone that is supposedly millions of years old." i.e. things that have died. From your article: "When living things die, they stop taking in carbon-14, and the radioactive clock is "set"! Any dead material incorporated with sedimentary deposits is a possible candidate for carbon-14 dating." [4] You say, "My opponent has denied the existence of sea salt capsules which contain DNA" I said there is no evidence for sea salt capsules being able to survive intact for 425 million years. You say, "...moon"has not had geologic activity in the last three billion years according to the statement from the article by DeYoung which states "Lunar geologic activity is thought to have ceased completely about three billion years ago." The article says that those who hold to the billions of year"s paradigm believed that lunar geologic activity ceased about three billion years ago. "Why is it often assumed that the Moon is geologically inactive? Because, if the Moon is truly ancient, it should no longer contain significant heat. This follows from the Moon"s small size, one-fourth the Earth"s diameter and only 1.2% of the Earth"s mass. [But] There is indirect evidence for a small molten lunar core, only 2"3% of the lunar mass." [5] You say, "The fact that the moon and the earth have not cooled of is due to decaying radioisotopes and remnant heat from their formation." We were talking about the moon, not the earth. The moon is far smaller than the earth so it should have cooled by now. From your article: "Sometime billions of years in the future, he predicts, the core and mantle could cool and solidify enough to meet the crust. If that happens, Earth will become a cold, dead planet like the moon." [6] You say, "This is wrong as telescopes have been used since 1609 by people like Galileo." Which is what said, i.e. ""from the 1600"s when telescopes were developed"" [1, 4] http://www.nature.nps.gov...... [2] http://creation.com...... http://creation.com... [3] https://creation.mobi... [5] http://creation.com...... [6] http://phys.org......