The Earth is not 6000 years old

Likewise, thanks for the debate. You say, "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." But there, yourself and proponents of long ages are still putting the cart before the horse since the original quantities of elements in rock when it was formed "millions of years" ago is unknown, and therefore, other than by speculation and assumption, nobody can actually "date" rocks and say whether they are 2 million years old in the first place. You say, "This shows that Dr Austin is not a credible scientist as an inaccurate method is never trusted in science." Even if that was an accurate assessment, the proponents of "billions of years" are in the same boat, since, as scientists, they are also fallible as history and recent scientific discoveries have shown and where many old ideas and theories have had to be discarded or quietly pushed into the background. You say, "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." 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." The discussion about the earth"s age has everything to do with evolution because without the millions of year"s paradigm (as opposed to thousands), the IDEA of evolution, much less its actual reality, could not exist. You say, "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. 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." No one can know this as certainty since there was no one to witness whether changes occurred or not. But as pointed out in my previous post, experiments have been done that have sped up decay rates many times over. You say, "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." Again, the point I was making is that with a half-life of only of 5730 years they should not be finding the amount of carbon 14 that they are finding in fossils that are 65 million year old, if indeed there should be any left at all. You say, "The lunar age question baffles me" The point being, that after the alleged 4.5 billion years of the moon"s existence it should have cooled down by now, which is what deep time proponents themselves expected (rightly) to be the case e.g. the excerpt from http://phys.org..... "Sometime billions of years in the future, he predicts, the core and mantle could cool and solidify enough to meet the crust. If that happens, Earth will become a cold, dead planet like the moon." But now they have realised that the moon"s core is still hot, e.g. "At Long Last, Moon"s Core "Seen" http://news.sciencemag.org...... which draws attention to the very large hole in the idea of billions years for the moon"s age. The moon"s hot core and seismic activity point to only thousands, not billions of years.