Planet Earth is older than six thousand years

Thanks, Con. Once again, my name is not Mike (please take this second calling of "Mike" into consideration). This is the first rebuttal round. Con asserts " I would like for you to show some besides what scientists say. After all, scientists get many things wrong." My claims are not just what scientists SAY. They are the best of what scientists have FOUND. Why should I not show scientific findings? Scientific findings are based on all the powers of observation that humans possess... oh, yes, because, according to Con, "scientists get many things wrong." Con, would you care to disprove the scientists in question rather than just dismiss them as inaccurate without evidence? Even if scientists do get "many" things wrong (I do not need to point out that "many" is subjective rather than objective and is subject to personal perceptions. but I will anyway), Con's statement still does not affect the validity of my claims about radiometric dating, as it only addresses the credibility of scientists in general, not the specific scientific facts I discussed. Con also asserts "Scientists have thought that smoking is good for you because it calms your nerves. However, this is thought by today's scientists to be absolutely ludicrous because smoking causes lung cancer. Who knows maybe in another hundred years scientists will say that the lung cancer was a complete coincidence. No matter how unlikely it seems right now it (people used to think it was unlikely for smoking to be bad for you), it still is a possibility. It's kind of arrogant to think that humans have everything figured out." "Arrogant" is subjective, and this opinion of Con's is not substantiated by fact. First off, I never claimed that "humans have everything figured out." I showed scientific evidence for to support my burden of proof that had nothing to do with "humans have everything figured out." Humans certainly DO NOT have everything figured out; if they did, then no human would need to conduct scientific research or experimentation to analyze the physical and natural world! According to the best scientific knowledge, which is considered knowledge because it is confirmed by all other existing observations, cigarette smoking causes many types of cancer, including lung cancer, and the Earth is older than six thousand years. Cigarette smoking's relation to lung cancer does not contradict the validity of radiometric dating, so both are compatible, and both are substantiated by ALL existing scientific knowledge. Con makes an argument from ignorance when he discounts existing scientific knowledge because humans don't "have everything figured out". Humans certainly have the age of Planet Earth and the relation of cigarette smoking to lung cancer figured out to the best of scientific knowledge, which Con fails to discredit by never attempting to. Con has not yet attacked the usefulness or merits of scientific methods of determining facts, so I will not defend those things. Con may or may not think that he is attempting to attack the validity of radiometric dating methods used to determine the age of the Earth, but has not given any evidence against these methods. He seems to be discrediting radiometric dating when he says "Secondly, since either of us was not alive six thousand years ago, neither of us can make the assumption that the Earth is six thousand years old. We only know what we remember, and even that is questionable." Sure, neither of us were alive six thousand years ago (judging by my knowledge and Con's admission), but we have radiometric dating, which is proven to be unaffected by temperature, pressure, or chemical conditions. We know for sure that the radioactive elements used in radiometric dating always decay at certain rates. Thus, we know that Earth is older than six thousand years. Con has not yet attacked the trustworthiness of radiometric dating, so my claims regarding such stand unopposed. "We perceive by looking at the ground that the Earth is flat, when it is actually spherical. However, since we don't perceive a spherical Earth, we don't actually know that the Earth is spherical." Once again, Con dodges radiometric dating, and tries to argue as if radiometric dating never came into the debate. This time, however, he makes the absurd claim that "we don't actually know that the Earth is spherical." We do know the Earth is spherical! How else would the Moon's gravitational field be able to cause bulges in certain bodies of water on Earth while simultaneously causing shrinking in others if the Earth were not spherical? The moon orbits around Earth, and its gravitational field, in conjunction with that of the Sun, pulls on the water of Earth (water is made of free molecules and is thus more easily manipulated by gravity than the land which Earth is made of) and creates areas of more water while creating areas of less water at the same time (1). These phenomena can be easily observed on Earth as tides (1). Furthermore, pictures taken from spacecraft near Earth clearly show a spherical shape (2). The force of gravity is roughly the same across Earth (2). This indicates that the distance across Earth, from left to right and up and down, is about the same wherever the observer observing the force of gravity is. This implies that Earth has a rough diameter, and thus is a sphere. If Earth were a disk, the force of gravity on Earth would be greatest at the edges of the disk on weakest at its two faces. Gravitation is a function of amount of mass (3), and is affected by an object's shape. According to physlink.com: "You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world." (2) I have given evidence against Con's claim that humans do not yet know whether Earth is spherical or not. If Con continues to assert that humans do not know whether the Earth is spherical or not, regardless of how even if it were, the resolution would not be negated, I will give yet more evidence for Earth's spherical shape. It is also worth noting that I disproved Con's assertion that "we don't perceive a spherical Earth" by mentioning pictures taken from outer space. It is obvious that the astronauts taking such pictures perceived a spherical Earth, as both the human eye and still cameras refract light to perceive images. Con needs to actually provide evidence that can be tested if he wants to discredit existing scientific knowledge such as how cameras work, or what the shape of Earth is, or, more importantly, what the age of the Earth is. To summarize: -Con has not yet argued against radiometric dating, and thus has not yet attacked my arguments -Con's counter-argument was an argument from ignorance; he discredits my arguments with the counter-argument that "humans don't know everything" -Con points out the obvious; namely, that scientific knowledge could be disproved and rejected in the future. Obviously, all scientific knowledge could be rejected in the future! However, since the existing evidence only proves that the Earth IS older than six thousand years (many TIMES older), and because no scientific evidence contradicts findings about the age of the Earth, we ought to assume that the current findings are entirely valid. Con asserts that scientific facts could be disproved in the future. Well, that's how scientific inquiry works. I've already established the trustworthiness of scientific methods, which Con does not yet dispute. Con, please feel free to dispute my arguments regarding radiometric dating with scientific evidence, if you want to. Back over to you, Con. Sources: 1. http://home.hiwaay.net... 2. http://www.physlink.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...