The earth is probably less than 10,000 years old.

== Refuting my opponent’s points from Round 2 == R1: Bible I refuted this last round. The Bible is not scientifically accurate. My opponent claims the existence of a historical preacher named “Jesus” proves the truth of Genesis, but even if there was a real man named Jesus, his existence does not prove the accuracy of a document written more than 1000 years before his birth [Genesis]. R2: Helium My opponent explains this really unclearly. Basically, scientists dated zircon crystals using radioactive dating based on the decay rate of uranium to lead. They dated the sample as 1.5 million years old. A Creationist named Humphreys said, “Hey wait, helium is a byproduct of uranium decay and this sample has too much helium - it should have all diffused out by now if it’s so old.” Using the rate at which helium normally diffuses, Humphreys calculated that the rock must be only 6000 years old. [1] However, helium diffuses more slowly at the temperature and pressure the zircon was under. [1] In addition, Humphreys still needed to explain why the amount of lead in the zircon crystal was consistent with the sample being 1.5 million years old (it is called “Uranium-Lead dating” for a reason). Humphreys hypothesized that increased decay rates occurred during Creation or the Flood. [1] Not only does this alter the laws of chemistry, the heat from this accelerated decay would have vaporized the Earth. [1] In addition, the zircon crystals are just *one* example. Last round, I cited a source saying that radioactive dating has been used *thousands* of times to date objects as older than 10,000 years. Uranium-lead dating, for example, is one of the oldest and most reliable dating methods; it has dated objects between 1 million and 4.5 billion years old with an accuracy of +/- .1%. [8] R3: Trees There are no living trees older than 5,000 years for the same reason that there are no living human beings older than 123 years – nothing lives forever. But since trees rings from a given year are unique, rings from live and dead trees [from the same region] can be matched up to extend the chronology back to 11,000 years. R4: supernovas My opponent claims that there should be more supernova remnants if the Milky Way is older than 10,000 years. However, the answer is: there are. We simply haven’t found them all yet. As Steve Moore explains, the parts of our observable Galaxy are quite small; our view is obscured by large amounts of dust and interstellar matter. [4] In addition, older supernovas have faded beyond our ability to recognize them. [4] My opponent’s own NASA source proves this. His source says that we discovered a new supernova “hidden in the dust fields of the galactic center” after a “decades-long ‘galactic hunt.’” (see his source 7) His own source proves how hard it is to find supernova remnants. It took a 10-year hunt to find *one.* We also have methods of dating supernova remnants and have dated remnants that are much older than 10,000 years. [4] For example, the remnants of supernova “G69.0 + 2.7 is at least 77,000 years old.” [4] R5: mtDNA [same as my Mitochondrial Eve argument] The Creationist study (Gibbons) my opponent references is flawed because it cherry-picks its mutation rate from the one region of the mtDNA that is known to be highly volatile. [2] The study starts with the premise that there is a Young Earth and works backwards (which is not scientific). [2] The rest of mtDNA has a mutation rate that is similar to normal DNA, and yields the estimate that Mitochondrial Eve is 200,000 years old. [2] Analysis of regions of the X-chromosome confirms that our common matriarch lived approximately 200,000 years ago. [2] In addition, studies of the Y-Chromosome have found that we are all descended from a Chromosomal Adam who lived 209,000 years ago. [3] R6: Population My opponent pulls a number out of his rectum – saying the population doubles every 150 years. However, we all know that population growth rates are going to be affected by: (1) infant mortality rates, (2) availability of food, (3) mass disease outbreaks [like the Bubonic Plague], (4) sanitation, (5) medicine, etc… The claim that population growth rates would be constant throughout history is absurd. Growth rates are faster now due to advancements in science and get slower the further back in history you go. For example, the growth rate between the years 1000 and 1800 was 0.1227 percent, based on actual population estimates [which is a doubling every 565 years]. [5] In fact, the growth rate was negative at many points in history, such as during the Plague [when the population of the world fell from 450 million to 350 million during the 14th Century]. You can’t just assume a constant rate of growth throughout history. If animal populations always grew at a constant rate, there would be no extinct or endangered species. R7: Magnetic field The Barnes study my opponent cites assumed an exponential rate of decay of the magnetic field, but the field actually decays at a constant rate. [6] In addition, the Earth’s magnetic field has actually reversed polarity multiple times, meaning that the magnetic fields decays [gets weaker] then gets stronger, then gets weaker, then gets stronger. [6] We have found evidence of at least 171 magnetic reversals. [7] Because we can estimate how long ago these reversals happened, these 171 magnetic reversals make the Earth at least 76 million years old. [7] == Refuting my opponent’s Round 3 == The Bible The raising of land (into mountains) is caused by tectonic activity, not Floods. My opponent’s assertion that a Flood caused the land to “rise” is absurd. The Flood story makes no scientific sense. It’s almost as if it were written by ancient peoples who did not understand how rain works. Intermediate Homo species also disprove Genesis. My opponent’s grandmother’s skull would not resemble that of earlier species in terms of cranial or brow ridge size. Exodus is also falsified by the “inexorable zero” archeological evidence found to support it. If it were true, we’d expect to find some evidence of the battles it recounts or the three million people who lived in the Sinai for 40 years. Racemization Amino acid racemization is temperature dependent. However, racemization is either done is places with relatively constant temperatures (like the deep sea) or historical temperature data is used in the estimate. [9] Chemical changes in seabed plankton can be used to estimate temperatures going back 56 million years. Continental Drift Mitchell observed that under some rare circumstances, the tectonic plates moved 4 times faster. [11] Even at this speed, the continents would have converged 50 million years ago (as opposed to 200 million). Mitchell, however, states that accelerated movement is not the norm and does not disprove a millions-of-years old Earth. [10] Mitochondrial Eve I have provided independent verification (using mtDNA, X-chromosomal DNA, and Y-chromosomal DNA) that our last common ancestors (male and female) lived about 200,000 years ago. Dendrochronology Experts in dendochronology can easily distinguish between false and real rings. This picture is from a slideshow teaching students how to do so. The lecture calls the problem of false rings a "minor" problem that is easily solved. * * * * Other trees from the region allow scientists to distinguish “stress rings” from real rings. [12] I’ll address my opponent's other arguments next round, but I just want to point out that his "YEC predictions" argument is completely underexplained. Why do these predictions prove a young Earth? [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] Parrish, Randall R.; Noble, Stephen R., 2003. Zircon U-Th-Pb Geochronology by Isotope Dilution [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com...