The Earth is not 6000 years old

Firstly thanks to my opponent for giving me some interesting topics to debunk. You ask what evidence I have that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. This was provided in the link I gave in my first round but I will be happy to point out the evidence for this.(1) Radiometric dating has been used to date the earth by measuring the ratio of Lead 207 to Lead 206 in a sample.(2) This ratio changes overtime due to the decay of Uranium 235 and Uranium 238 which have different half lives.(2,3) I think it is necessary to delve further into radiometric dating at this point as my opponent has correctly stated that carbon 14 can only be used to date material up to 50 000 years, half life = 5730 years.(4) However, other elements can be used for dating like Uranium 238 which has a half life of 4.47 billion years, or Rhenium 187 which has a half life of 43 billion years.(3) This information about radiometric dating is important, as remains of animals can be dated using other biologically occurring elements with longer half lives other than carbon. This is why scientists are able to successfully date dinosaur and other fossils from time older than 50 000 years ago. My opponent has mentioned the remarkable discovery of Dr Mary Schweitzer who discovered soft tissue material of a Tyrannosaur in a fossil.(5) He then goes on to say that this should not be the case as even the author has stated that the biological soft tissue should be degraded after millions of years. However, what he fails to mention is that this material can be preserved over much longer time frames by biofilms and iron oxide particles.(6,7) So it has been shown that soft tissue material from fossils up to 68 million years can be preserved and so my opponents opening argument has been defeated. My opponent then gave the following statement "DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age because DNA could not last more than thousands of years." It is difficult to me to respond to this claim as I am not sure what he is talking about, as there is no link to any source. All I could find by doing a Google search was a link to a creation.com webpage which finally led me to the article published.(8) I would ask that my opponent please links me to relevant sources as I cannot do his research for him. This research relating to a time scale of 425 million years, again is due to preservation of DNA fragments inside sea salt capsules.(9) The dating of the material is done by dating the salt surrounding the DNA. I believe this dating was done by analysis of the potassium 40 isotope, half life 1.28 billion years.(10) My opponent has also stated that "Evidence of recent volcanic activity on earth"s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old." Please could my opponent give a link to the published manuscript, as I would like to read it and understand what "recent" means. I am sorry I could not get to all my opponents arguments for creation due to the character limit. However, I would suggest we deal with the rebuttals I gave and then we can at least have a rational and informative debate for the readers. I hand the debate back to my opponent.(1) http://www.scientificamerican.com...(2) http://pubs.usgs.gov...(3) http://www.nature.nps.gov...(4) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(6) http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...(7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(8) http://creation.com...(9) http://www.nature.com...(10) http://en.wikipedia.org...