The earth is only 6,000 years old and the Bible proves it through science.

Good good good. All valid points, and I am glad to be able to continue with this interesting topic. First off, while you say that the Bible proves a 6000 year old universe through science, you have not provided any evidence to back this up. Radiocarbon dating contains much more science than some words in a book. I would like to point out that, if radiometric dating was not accurate in the least, it never would have reached the level of prevalence that it has today. You are completely correct, though, in your list of the four assumptions. However: 1: The amount of carbon initially in the atmosphere does not have much variation. We'll say, for simplicity's sake, that the expected levels were 350 ppm. However, it might have been extra hot that decade, raising levels to 360 ppm. That 10 ppm difference is equivalent to 1/1000 of 1%. Such a difference would fall into normal levels for expected carbon intake. 2: This is the same as the first one. The organic matter will have a predictable amount of carbon 14 in it, otherwise, cellular respiration would not have been occurring and the plant would never have matured. There very fact that a researcher is using a sample demonstrates that it ought to have the correct amount of Carbon 14 in it. 3: Well, to be honest, I think that this is a pretty safe assumption. Once an object is dead, uniform Carbon 14 intake will have permanently ceased. Any saturation of Carbon 14 in a sample's atmosphere will therefore only find residence in the outer layers on a sample. Though a radioactive contamination can give incorrect readings, the errors are so gross that it is obvious that the sample is unnatural. The only reduction is in the form of the radioactive decay, which is uniform. 4: Though there is no way of knowing for certain the exact amount of nitrogen 14 in the sample, plants of the same species have identical genes, and therefore have a certain predictable value. Say a specimen is 50% carbon, 25% Nitrogen, and 25% miscellaneous matter (an impossible living creature, i know). Though after 1 half-life period, the amounts would read 25% Carbon, 50% Nitrogen, and 25% misc. Researchers are not likely to take this 50% value and extrapolate that the original specimen was 100% Carbon. I read that article and it does contain some truth. But the overwhelming fact is that, while you and proponents of your theory belittle radiocarbon and other forms of dating for cherry picking, you do this yourselves. You state that researchers throw out dates that aren't convenient, but you throw away every date beyond 6000 years. If Carbon dating yielded results in the 6000 - 0 BP, you would say that the science confirmed your theory. However, any science that proves a 6000 year old Earth must have more scientific merit than the universal truth of radioactive decay. This leads me to my next contention. You state that God created the Universe and Earth 6000 years ago. Yet, stars exist which are more than 6000 light years away. Light obeys the universal speed limit of 299,792,458 m/s, which means that, if the Universe was created 6000 years ago, we would not yet even see any star more distant that 6000 light years. However, using simple math and precise measurements, astronomers can show the distance to a galaxy who's light took over 31 billion years to reach us. This is an incontrovertible fact: to deny this is to deny basic math. An explanation of stellar parallax: . http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... I understand the sentiment behind your reference to Galileo and him disproving something that the whole world thought was correct. There are theories that rise and fall, to be replaced with new theories. A 6000 year old Earth, however, is one theory that will not have any rise in the scientific community. Though Evolution theory and an immensely old universe aren't facts, neither is the Bible or any religious document. They're just words; the only evidence is repeatable experiments that rely on the natural and unchanging constants of the Universe. My arguments make use of this verifiable evidence. Yours do not. Therefore, for your final round, I would like you to go all out in finding unbiased scientific evidence that proves a 6000 year old Earth. I cannot wait to have out with the final round of this scintillating debate.