The Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

1.1 "the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios." - My opponents source also states that this only works; IF the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, Thus my opponent would have to prove that; 1.2 "the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios," Therefore this data is based on Assumptions. And could be manipulated to produce whatever conclusion the researcher is looking for.However, if the above two are true, than the data points will line up in a single line, which it did.[1]note: "duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted." - They also admit to omitting data from the study probably to select the data that agrees with the desired outcome and omit the data that doesn't. (selective dating)Your last argument can be used on this. The above argument is based on the assumption that: 1. The ommitted data is the true data 2. The ommitting is to select agreeing data and not to reduce unnessecary duplicates of the same results. These are based on assumptions, which means that my opponent could be manuplating it to make it agree with his side.You are going to base your data on 70??? This is a clear example of selective science to fit a preconceived hypothesis.Again, you haveposted a self refuting argument that is based on assumptions. Plus, if you are doing a survey, then testing a medium size group will take less time and still giving you a relatively similar result as testing a big oneThis data is tortured, selective, misleading and false. It involves massive assumptions about the early solar system and uses such a tiny percentage of the available data as to be impermissible.This argument is based on trying to refute another's argument by only either taking a part of their source and cut the rest to make it seem like that it fits your side, and trying to refute arguments with bare assertions that these are selective when not providing proof. This is not evidence that the Earth is millions or billions of years old.Your above arguments are self-refuting.- This is neither millions nor billions of years old.By saying this, you ignore the rest of my argument: "160,000 is only the MINIMUM age of the Earth, and testing the ACTUAL age cannot be tested this way because it would be like trying to know someone's age by using the age of their hair. However, this at least, means that the Earth could be millions or billionsof years old, confirming that the radiometric dating results could be true. Therefore, you have not adequtely refuted my claim."the fact that all stars observed have some heavier elements poses something of a puzzle, and the current explanation for this proposes the existence of hypothetical metal-free Population"III stars in the early universe." Thus, by admission these stars are "hypothetical" Please note that that was only a BONUS, because it dealt with the age of the universe, not of the Earth. Thus, this only valid argument in my opponent's entire case did not even refute my side.I have easily and thoroughly disproven my opponents absolute BEST "evidence" for an Earth millions or billions of years in age. No further argument on my part is necessary at this time. I have successfully refuted my opponent's "arguments" by showing how they are based on assumptions, and that the assumptions on my source was true. My opponent has also ignored the fact that my source already refuted his arguments. That means that he might be cropping the paragraph to make it fit his side, a process known as "quote mining". [1]http://www.talkorigins.org...