The Earth is probably greater than 10,000 years old

== Con's Sources ==I have a problem with some of Con's sources, which I shall address under this subheading. Specifically, the *entirety* of the RATE project is questionable, as is the source regarding C-14 in dinosaur fossils [http://newgeology.us...]. (a) ICR1. The ICR is biased towards a young Earth. "The ICR adopts the Bible as an inerrant and literal documentary of scientific and historical fact as well as religious and moral truths, and espouses a Young Earth creationist worldview. It rejects evolutionary biology, which it views as a corrupting moral and social influence and threat to religious belief." [1] The ICR has often merely *asserted* the Bible's accuracy, and then looks for scientific means to justify it, without *considering* other facts. 2. The ICR's research lacks reliable scholarship and academic freedom, so there's *no* clear justification for credentials, etc. "In a 1995 review of work published by ICR researchers, Douglas J. Futuyma writes, 'Neither in the creationist literature nor in the scientific literature have I found any reference to Confessional research by these individuals in genetics, paleontology, taxonomy, anatomy, or any of the other fields most relevant to the study of evolution.' He found their work most often published instead by an overtly religious publishing house, Creation-Life Publishers." [1] Confessor Massimo Pigliucci criticizes the ICR for not using Conper scientific framework during research. He cites the example of Harold Slusher resorting to non-Einsteinian and non-Euclidean interpretations of light travel to reconcile light travel and young earth creationism. [2](b) "New Geology"Con's source regarding radiocarbon dating of dinosaurian fossils is questionable, since the author has *no established credentials.* The author of the source is one John Michael Fischer. A Google search of "John Michael Fischer" produces no relevant results. == Rebuttal == Con's offenses here are that the presence of C-14 in dinosaur bone fossils prove a young Earth. I shall refute that while defending uranium-lead dating. (1) Uranium lead datingCon's refutation of uranium lead dating is based on helium retention in zircon crystals, that changes decay rate and results in the assumption λ in the formula being unsound. The primary source of information for this is the RATE project. My first critic of the RATE project's usage of helium in zircon crystals rendering uranium-lead dating unsound is a study by Dr. Kevin Henke, which critiques the helium diffusion argument. [3] Henke argues, "The old Earth multi-domain model from Loechelt (2008c) better explains helium diffusion in the Fenton Hill zircons than Dr. Humphreys' young Earth RATE model." [3] First, Dr. Humphreys' RATE model fails to fulfill Quality Assurance or Quality Control Procedures. "Essential QC/QA Concedures include properly collecting, identifying, labeling, storing and monitoring all samples. If the collection site of a specimen is unknown or if it has been improperly stored for several decades, any resulting data are often useless." [3] Humphreys insists that most of the Precambrian sections of the Fenton Hill cores are "granodiorites." This is flawed, since they are, in fact, *gneisses.* The entire RATE study assumes that the Precambrian sections consisted of *only one* rock unit. Humphreys admits that if it was not only one rock unit, or if the experiment failed to identify rock types, it would be inappropriate for their modeling efforts. [3]Conclusion: Con gives us *no reason* to think that Humphrey's model is preferable to Loechelt's model or Henke's own model, both of which *clearly outweigh* Humphrey's model as it fails to maintain proper "peer reviewed" standards, and the data's confusion of rock types prevents its model from being preferable to either of the two models. (2) Carbon datingCon *concedes* that carbon dating is reliable due to dendrochronology. Con then says carbon dating entails that dinosaurs are young. I could *concede* this, and it would still not impact that the Earth is > 10,000 years old. This argument does not link, simply because even if dinosaurs were young, it doesn't entail that the Earth is young. The Earth could be old while dinosaurs are still young. And carbon dating *has* dated objects to be > 10,000 years old, which is sufficient to affirm. Note: By standard debate convention, silence is compliance, so you can presume Pro. So this argument does not link, and my impacts are conceded. For all these reasons, Vote Pro. == Sources == [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] Massimo Pigliucci, "Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science," p. 46 [3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...