The Earth is not 6000 years old

I hope we can have more in the future. Firstly, I want to say regarding the telescope comment I apologize as I misread your sentence. I want to respond to your specific questions regarding the radiometric dating errors. However, the links supplied are to complete websites and not specific cases so I am unable to as I do not know what you are referencing. I will answer a probable question regarding the Mount St Helens eruption and the dating of igneous rock obtained by Dr. Steve Austin at the Creation Research Institute. (1) The problem with this data, is that only Potassium 40 dating was done, and it is well known that Potassium 40 dating should not be done on samples less than 2 million years old as errors can occur. (2) It should be pointed out that the laboratory that did this analysis for Dr Austin even states that their method for samples under 2 million years old is not reliable, yet Dr Austin continued with the analysis. This shows that Dr Austin is not a credible scientist as an inaccurate method is never trusted in science. I think it is very important to point out the following errors in my opponents argument. He says it is an "evolutionary assumption that decay rates have never changed. " Evolution has nothing to do with radiometric dating, it is purely the scientific theory that says "descent with modification. "(3) Also he says "neither the evolutionist nor the creationist can scientifically "date" the earth and universe", and again evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. This discussion is about the Earths age, and has nothing to do with evolution it has to do with geology. My opponent has stated that radioactive decay rates can be increased by billions of times in a laboratory. Again, my opponent has referenced me to a complete website and not a specific article so I am unable to respond to his claims. But I can say with clarity that the rate of radioactive decay does not change as claimed by my opponent, it is constant and there is no scientific evidence counter to this. (4,5) I should also add that any such fluctuations observed would count for an error of about 0.5% (standard error in radiometric dating) and still the age of the earth would be older than 6000 years. (6)Regarding carbon 14 in fossils, of course you will find it in fossils. The radioactive decay rate stays constant and never reaches zero. This means if there is carbon present in a sample then there will be carbon 14. (7)The lunar age question baffles me, as we seem to agree on the same things that the Moon has geologic activity and the science corroborates this. I want to add this is not indirect evidence as stated by my opponent but direct evidence as was noted in reference 7 of my previous round. This direct evidence was obtained from seismometers left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts. (8) I hand the debate back to my opponent for the final round. Thanks again for an interesting debate. (1) . http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...(2) . http://www.talkorigins.org...(3) . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...(4) . http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...(5) . http://www.talkorigins.org...(6) . http://ncse.com...(7) . http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu...(8) . http://news.sciencemag.org...