Young Earth Creationism is bunk

No probs Con. I don"t get your first paragraph. You start off with talking about the age of the Earth, and in the very next sentence, you go on about carbon dating? Why on Earth (excuse the pun), would you use carbon dating as an example when talking about the dating the Earth? Carbon dating is *not* used to determine the age of the Earth. In a perfect world where contaminations don"t take place, there wouldn"t even be carbon in rocks, so that renders your example utterly void. As you said Carbon-14 has a half-life of approx. 5000 years so please tell me why you think carbon-14 is used to date the age of the Earth when it"s half-life is that low? This would mean that when we get into the upper limits of carbon dating (45,000 -50, 000 years), dates significantly higher than that limit would be effectively useless. Uranium-lead dating is what was used to determine the age of the Earth, not carbon dating. Far as I"m aware, samples are sent off to labs where they can be tested. Relative testing can be used to determine the age of a specimen, but that does not automatically mean that is the *only* way to determine the age of a sample. See source [1] for further details on radiocarbon dating. Like I said, I don"t get why we"re discussing this in the first place; if you want to talk about the age of the Earth, discuss Uranium-lead dating, not carbon dating. Another point where you"re going to have to explain further is your continental drift thing; I"ve got no idea where you"re going with that mate; you got a source I could read so I can determine what you"re talking about? If you"re speaking about the human species in regards to raping, murdering, tyranny, cannibalism etc. for millions of years, then you would be wrong, There hasn"t been millions of years of all that because humans haven"t existed for that long. We"re a fairly recent species in stark contrast to others; earliest forms of human life can be traced back to 200, 000 years (see sources 2 & 3) Whilst it is true that most cells do have DNA, there are some cells in the human body which don"t have DNA. Below quote from Wikipedia under heading, "Mammalian erythrocytes" [4] "Because of the lack of nuclei and organelles, mature red blood cells do not contain DNA and cannot synthesize any RNA, and consequently cannot divide and have limited repair capabilities"." The very foundation of your argument is wrong, since mature blood cells don"t have DNA. I"ve also come across the claim that mature hair cells don"t have DNA either, but the websites I came across claiming that, are not even worth bringing up. I"ve got no idea where you"re heading with your dinosaur extinction stuff. Are you really refusing to accept that the Chicxulub crater even exists? Also, if you think dinosaurs lived with humans in the past, you"re kidding yourself mate. Scriptures or not, humans have always been a particularly violent and vicious species, regardless of religious affiliation. You just have to look to Vlad III of Valahia for that. Even defending Christendom doesn"t excuse the Forest of the Impaled. Nor the slaughter of innocents in the Siege of Acre for that matter either. Your paragraph on the development of social phenomena is too wordy; you typed a lot, but really didn"t say anything worthwhile. *Sigh.* Funnily enough, that sea fossils on mountain was an "argument" nearly turned me into a YEC 5 or 6ish years ago, when I was still a neophyte to debating. Sucks to be you though, because I"ve since learned from my mistakes in that time. I"m assuming you"re talking about Himalayacetus for this argument, which was named because it was found on the Himalayas. What you are neglecting to mention is that particular specimen is dated to be 3.5 million years old, and of course that was before the Indian Plate collided with the Eurasion Plate [5], which in turn means that the Himalayas weren"t even there at the approximate time of 3.5 million years ago. This mountain range is recent; only 50 million years old. I really don"t care about aliens either, so don"t know why you"re bringing that up. Too much Ancient Aliens perhaps? Bro, you said you bury people in a debate so because of that, I didn"t bother giving you a warning that I"m fairly competent at discussing science, even though I don"t even work in a field of science. I"m sorry to say it, but you"re most certainly not going to be burying me with these arguments. I didn"t even have to crack out too many journals for this one; I only cited one journal. The rest of your comment can be refuted with even the most basic of Google searches. Even though I am slightly disappointed with the calibre of Con"s arguments, I thank Con for the debate we are having. Sources [1] http://www.radiocarbon.com... [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.nature.com... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://www.geolsoc.org.uk...