The Earth is not 4.5 billion years old - But is young

"Argument #1 - The Earths Magnetic Field" I understand how the dynamo theory is supposed to work, but I actually disagree with the idea of the dynamo theory for planetary magnetic fields because of the horrible predictive power of the model. I hold to what is called the rapid decay theory put forth by Russell Humphreys, and when you compare the two models" well there is no comparison. The reason most don"t accept the rapid decay model is because of the implications it has on the age of the earth. But if it is the correct model, we should not reject it based on that. Here is a quick comparison of the two models to give you an idea: Rapid Decay Theory, and the Dynamo Theory, both attempted to predict the magnetic strength of planets Uranus and Neptune. The Rapid Decay predictions were around 100,000 times the Dynamo predictions, and in 1986 and 1989 Voyager 2 flew by the planets and took the measurements. "The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune were just as Humphreys had predicted." (Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, http://creation.com...) Uranus and Neptune are not the only examples of planetary magnetic fields that have been blindly predicted, planet Mercury was also accurately predicted by the Rapid Decay Theory before the measurements were taken. The Dynamo Theory predicted Mercury would have a very weak magnetic field because it rotates 59 times slower than the earth, the field turned out to be far stronger than the Dynamo theory predicted. But that"s not all! Not only does this model predict the strength of planets that have magnetic fields, it can predict which planets/moons had a magnetic field in history and no longer do! Dr. Humphreys predicted "Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remnant magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do. "Natural remnant magnetization" means rock magnetization caused by Mar"s formerly strong (and now non-existent) planetary magnetic field" It was originally thought we would have to wait for a manned expedition to bring back rock samples to be tested in the laboratory, but it turns out the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft had the capability to measure this magnetism soon after the predictions were made. The spacecraft orbiting low over mars surface has measured this magnetism inside crustal rocks, showing that mars had a planetary magnetic field at some point in its history, just like the Rapid Decay Theory predicts. The theory also predicts that the moon had a magnetic field in history that has since decayed away (which has been confirmed.) The Dynamo Theory fails at predicting the planetary magnetic fields of other planets in our solar system, ""you would have thought we would have given up guessing about planetary magnetic fields after being wrong at nearly every planet in the solar system." (Bagenal, F. "The emptiest magnetosphere," Physics World, (October 1989), 18-19) However, even if we accept the dynamo theory, can you explain to me where enough tidal heating is coming from to keep the magnetic field going strong? And why is it decaying so quickly today but wouldn't have been 10,000 years ago? "Argument #2 - Helium Diffusion in Zircon crystals" I do agree with you that the radioactive dates for the Zircon crystals were in the billions of years, which was the entire point of the study in the first place. The fact that this method gives us a young age means that either this method or the radioactive decay method is significantly wrong, and because of this (and other evidences) I would argue the radioactive decay rates are incorrect. There is no error in the helium dating method, which means the error must be in the other contradicting method. The assumption that the earth"s temperature had not changed is very insignificant, but also shows the generosity they showed to the opposing side in their study. First off, they don"t accept the earth is 400,000 years old (because of other evidence) so they would reject the heat charts produced assuming those ages, but also those heat charts that are produced by the opposition show that the temperatures would have been higher on average! That would cause the Helium to escape from the zircon faster, making the date younger, not old like you need it. In response to your second objection which I believe came from Gary Loechelt (As sourced below) I am going to just copy the response from Dr. Russell Humphreys (Directed at Dr. Loechelt) "In September 2008, Gary Loechelt, who has a Ph.D. in materials science and engineering, posted a two-part criticism on a "progressive creationist" website, along with a technical article which apparently has been neither peer-reviewed nor published (though perhaps rejected by a journal).34 His main claims were: (A) One or two percent of the helium in a zircon is not tightly bound in the crystal, but rather loosely attached in the crystal"s cracks and defects. This "loose" helium can therefore diffuse out of the zircon very easily in a laboratory measurement. (B) The loose helium, he claims, caused the laboratory measurements to make the zircons appear much more leaky than they actually are. Loechelt is right in claim (A), but wrong in claim (B). He overlooked part of one of his own quotes, in which an expert pointed out that loose helium would only affect the initial steps of the laboratory measurement, because after the initial steps the loose helium would be gone. That is one reason diffusion experts recommend ignoring the initial steps. Our experimenter recommended that, and that is exactly what we did.35Thus he felt free to tell us that the rates he measured were accurate depictions of the leakiness for the other 98% of the helium. Ironically, our expert is one of those that Loechelt cites in his section about this issue. Loechelt either completely misunderstood the experts, or he deliberately distorted their meaning. If leak rates were really much lower than measured, the past temperature history of the zircons would become much more important. That"s because colder site temperatures would make Loechelt"s low leakages even lower, giving him a chance to retain the helium for billions of years. But even on temperatures, Loechelt shows a remarkable ability to misunderstand the experts. He fails to grasp the essence of the published Los Alamos heat flow models, which is that due to nearby volcanic activity in the past they imagine, temperatures in our borehole would have been higher than today for hundreds of millennia. Instead, Loechelt insists, temperatures were always lower. But even assuming (for the sake of argument) his lower temperatures, a few hundred thousand years of the laboratory leak rates would wipe out essentially all the helium from the zircons " in contrast to the high amounts observed. That is why, in addition to assuming a cooler site, Loechelt must deny the laboratory measurements and imagine much lower leak rates. Loechelt also whacks away at some of my calculations. If he were correct, my calculations might have to be adjusted by a factor of two or so. But that would still be within the error bars of the models. Worse for him, it would still be far short of explaining the factor of 100,000 discrepancy between the uniformitarian model and experiments!" "Argument #3 - Lunar Recession from the earth" Before I make an argument against the capture theory of the moons origin, are you saying you hold to that view? I haven"t come across someone who holds that view in a long time. Also, please explain how that prevents the problem (because it doesn"t) unless you think the moon was captured less than a billion years ago? That"s the only way you are going to get around the problem.