Assuming that the Bible is infallible then the earth is probably around 10,000 years old.

Introduction: This debate has been fun and I hope the following will serve as an accurate reminder as to why you are wrong : p ========= 1. Carbon 14 ========= You missed my point, Sam. Not only is there an answer congenial with experts as to why trace amounts of c14 is present in some coal deposits, but, even if there was not and your facts were accurate, it does not support your conclusion. C14 should be present in ALL the samples. If c14 is not present in all the samples, then it shows that those tested minerals are older than 50,000 years. Moreover, those that did have traces of c14 dated 50,000 years old, not 10,000. Indeed, traces of c14 were only found in samples where uranium deposits existed ("the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals" http://www.talkorigins.org...). The calibration and accuracy of c14 and radiometric dating are formed by using dendrochronology and ice core dating (the minimum age of the earth according to ice core dating is 160,000 years). =================== 2. Galaxies wind up too quickly =================== Actually no, my main argument was that Humphrey used an egregiously flawed model and thus yielded an inaccurate conclusion. Until the model is updated to account for the aforesaid variables, it is useless for determining anything outside of fiction. =================== 3. Biological material decays too fast =================== It seems you have strayed far from your contention. How exactly does the circular nature of the dating of Mitochondrial Eve support your contention that the earth is young? Since you have stated that science presupposes particular things in dating ME, it was your burden to show that such presuppositions are unwarranted. Moreover, my rebuts from R1 still stand. =================== 4. Too much helium in minerals =================== I'm glad that you admit that Humphrey's area of study is questionable. Since his study has not been scientifically replicated and his data originated from a contaminated site, his results must be discarded. Since you have given me no other studies, I am an unable to check the verity of your tenuous assertion that "these results are not unique to just one area." *THE BIBLE* It is obvious that the particular Bible version cited is the KJV. Now herein lies a few problems. Namely that the KJV is not exactly a viable source of accuracy. Your contention against the poetic structure that I have advocated rests on the analysis of one word: firmament. It is better translated as expanse. The fact that the stars were created in the expanse of the sky is in no way deconstructive of the poetic claim. The emphasis is on the light and the fact remains that the existence of day 1 is contingent on the existence of day 4 – insofar as you cannot have light without sources of it. Also, saying that the parallel of day 2 and 5 is not exact is disingenuous. Not only is it an admission that said parallel exists, but it is wrong in its analysis. The whole earth was covered in water on day 2 and God's specific words on day 5 are, "Let the water teem with living creatures..." The distinction of sea is made by the author after the direct quote of God. Moreover, the flying creatures being created on day 5 fits perfectly with the sky that was created on day 2. The more we discuss this, the more obvious the poetic structure becomes. Furthermore, you are really grasping at straws trying to discount the parallel between 3 and 6. Not only are you presupposing that the parallel must be "exact" but your analysis fails to prove that it is not. The emphasis on day 3 is land and subsequently, the emphasis on day 6 is those that live on the land. *Genealogies* My point with the genealogies was that no accurate age can be derived from them. Moreover, since you cannot prove a definite starting point of them, you cannot use them to even gather an estimation. ========== Conclusion ========== Thank you for debating me on this subject, Sam. Though you find some of my Biblical examples to be "laughable," I encourage to review my points and consider whether your estimation of my points is accurate.