The Earth is > 10,000 Years Old

Introduction I would first like to begin by stating that I fully agree that the math behind radioisotope dating is sound and that the operational methods used to measure ratios of isotopes yield very precise results. What I do not agree with however, as Pro seems to be aware of, is the assumptions behind the process of actually interpreting results as a "date" to determine the age of a rock. I will begin by attempting to explain, for the prospective reader, how radioisotope dating works. I will then move on to forming a positive case for an Earth that is less than 10,000 years old. Basics of Radioisotope Dating Radioisotope dating, or radiometric dating as it is also known, refers to the method by which secular scientists attempt to formulate an age for a given rock specimen based on the ratio of isotopes within the rock. Isotopes are basically radioactive forms of elements which naturally decay in an attempt to become more stable. These volatile atoms will, over time, decay to become different atoms with different numbers of protons and neutrons. By measuring the current rate of decay, scientists can determine how long it would take for a given decay process to occur. By measuring the amount of parent (radioactive isotope) atoms and daughter (more stable element) atoms, an age can then be acquired by calculating how long it would have taken for the parent atoms to decay to the measured amount of daughter atoms. There are of course a few assumptions which must be made in order to interpret the data as a trustworthy age for a given rock which I will discuss in the next round. Positive Case for a Young Earth While there are many lines of evidence which testify of the Earth's relative youth, I agree with Pro that arguing from one line of evidence is better in that you can more readily explain and defend your case. It should be noted that with any historical science, it is not possible to acquire a precise date but rather evidence is used to show that a particular model of origins is consistent with observations. My line of evidence is the well known phenomena of planetary magnetic field decay. s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Magnetic Field" width="400" /> Planetary magnetic field decay describes the process by which Earth's magnetic field, which is produced via current in the metallic core, decays or diminishes in strength over time. This decay is accepted by both secular and creation scientists. "Ever since scientists generated the first global model of Earth’s magnetic field nearly 180 years ago, its strength has decreased by some 10 percent" (https://www.sciencenews.org...). The key issue of whether or not this supports a young Earth is how the magnetic field could maintain itself for more than thousands of years. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000). This means that the field’s energy has halved every 1,465 years or so. At this rate, the Earth cannot be much older than about 10 or 20,000 years. Unless Pro can adequately provide an observed mechanism which could sustain the field for millions of years, my case will stand (https://answersingenesis.org...). Dr. Russell Humphreys, a well known creationist physicist, has provided a model which best represents and explains the phenomena of planetary magnetic field decay. In this model, magnetohydrodynamics accounts for the energy loss of the planetary dipole field: ". . .motions of the conducting fluid in the core should slowly twist the dipole magnetic lines of force into more complex shapes, subtracting from the dipole field and adding to the non-dipole field. Resistive losses then make the non-dipole field decay more rapidly, so eventually the latter type of losses should prevail" (http://www.creationresearch.org...). Basically, Humprey's model proposes that the decay we observe is due to ohmic losses in the dipole-generating current of Earth's liquid core. Both creationists and secularists believe that the Earth was set into motion, and from this motion the planetary magnetic field was produced. But since, physically, the Earth's core provides resistance and turbulence between the inner and outer core. This resistance then in turn slows down the current and thus weakens the strength of the dipole field over time. s://www.sciencenews.org...; alt="" /> For Pro to effectually refute my case, he must provide a reason why we should not accept Humphrey's model and why we should rather accept another such as the dynamo model. The data is quite clear that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying at quite a substantial rate, and if it truly is an exponential decay due to energy loss, then the biblical creation view of a less than 10,000 year old Earth is supported.