The Earth is not 6000 years old

Thanks to my opponent. My opponent has said "The problem with radiometric dating is that one has to assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it was formed, that is, the initial quantities of both parent and daughter elements (Lead, uranium etc.). Depending on the assumptions that are made, we can obtain any date we like." This is false as this is not an assumption, it is calculated using "the quantity of unstable atoms left in a rock and comparing it to the quantity of stable daughter atoms in the rock."(1) So no, we cannot obtain any date we like if you measure the amount of decay products to the parent then you will get a certain ratio which relates to a date. This date is calculated suing the known rate of decay of the parent material.(2) Regarding the comment by Dr Snelling I think it is important to realize that only igneous rock are dated, while sedimentary rock which is porous and can leach minerals are not dated.(3) Please note that the rocks which are dated are carefully analyzed for cracks etc. With regard to my opponents assertion that there should be no carbon 14 left on the planet is demonstrably false. This statement would be true if carbon 14 is not been produced continuously which is what happens everyday in the atmosphere and through other radioactive processes.(4)My opponent has denied the existence of sea salt capsules which contain DNA, but this denial is based on a faulty understanding of radiometric dating which I addressed above. The Science magazine link my opponent supplied which I think was meant to deny the fact that collagen from a Tyrannosaur was found and DNA was obtained, in fact states the opposite. It says in the manuscript that the mineralization around the bone (which they had to break away before getting to the collagen) is probably what lead to the preservation of the collagen. Indeed, the authors even say "We hypothesize that the porosity of sandstones may facilitate draining of enzymes of decay and suppurating fluids as the organism degrades, whereas organisms buried in nonporous mudstones or clays may be exposed to these longer and therefore may be more completely degraded."(5) Thank you for the reference about the moon. I gather you are saying that the moon has had not geologic activity in the last three billion years according to the statement from the article by DeYoung which states "Lunar geologic activity is thought to have ceased completely about three billion years ago."(6) However, science shows the moon is old, and in fact that the core is still active and seismic activity is happening, so I am not sure why it should have been cooled. Please realize this information is obtained from your reference 5.(7) So in effect the article from creation.com is incorrect as it is neglecting the data provided about geologic activity on the moon. The fact that the moon and the earth have not cooled of is due to decaying radioisotopes and remnant heat from their formation.(8) Additionally I would like to point out the error in my opponents statement "Volcanic activity on the moon has been observed from the 1600"s when telescopes were developed to as recently as 1992". This is wrong as telescopes have been used since 1609 by people like Galileo. (9) I hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...(2) http://www.talkorigins.org... (3) http://www.nature.nps.gov...(4) http://science.howstuffworks.com...(5) http://www.sciencemag.org... (6) http://creation.com... (7) http://news.sciencemag.org... (8) http://phys.org... (9) http://en.wikipedia.org...