The Earth is not 6000 years old

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. And there is another problem. "Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling has shown that nearly all parent/daughter ratios used in radiometric "dating" can be altered by a number of geological processes, including leaching by hydrothermal and ground waters, diffusion through minerals, and metamorphism. Uranium is especially prone to leaching, lead atoms diffuse easily, and argon, a gas, moves readily."(1) "Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years old. The vast age has simply been assumed. The calculated radiometric "ages" depend on the assumptions that are made. The results are only accepted if they agree with what is already believed... Evolutionary geologists believe that the rocks are millions of years old because they assume they were formed very slowly. They have worked out their geologic timescale based on this assumption. This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks [and fossils] very quickly."(2) And the point I was making about carbon 14 is that if the earth was billions of years old there would be no carbon 14 left (which, as you pointed out, only has a half-life of 5730 years) in fossils, rock"s etc. and yet we find it in coal, diamonds, fossilised wood and unfossilised dinosaur bone that is supposedly millions of year"s old. (3) You say, "This research relating to a time scale of 425 million years, again is due to preservation of DNA fragments inside sea salt capsules. The dating of the material is done by dating the salt surrounding the DNA. I believe this dating was done by analysis of the potassium 40 isotope, half life 1.28 billion years." There is no evidence that a "sea salt capsule" has survived intact for 425 million years. And the problems for radiometric dating have been pointed out above. Your claim that soft tissue in dinosaur could last up to 68 million years by means of biofilms and iron oxide particles (a hypothesis) and that my "argument has been defeated" is simply not true. "The presence of original molecular components is not predicted for fossils older than a million years, and the discovery of collagen in this well-preserved dinosaur supports the use of actualistic conditions to formulate molecular degradation rates and models, rather than relying on theoretical or experimental extrapolations derived from conditions that do not occur in nature." Schweitzer, M.H., et al., Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein, Science316(5822):277"280, 2007.(4) Volcanic activity on the moon has been observed from the 1600"s when telescopes were developed to as recently as 1992 (5) References 1, 3. "A lump of carbon 14 as massive as the earth would have all decayed after less than a million years." Refuting Evolution, by Jonathan Sarfati (Radiometric dating) page 107-112 2. The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating/creation.com 4. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone/creation.com 5. Age of the earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe/creation.com Point 65.Evidence of recent volcanic activity on Earth"s moon is inconsistent with its supposed vast age because it should have long since cooled if it were billions of years old. See: Transient lunar phenomena: a permanent problem for evolutionary models of Moon formation and Walker, T., and Catchpoole, D., Lunar volcanoes rock long-age timeframe, Creation 31(3):18, 2009. See further corroboration: "At Long Last, Moon"s Core "Seen""; http://news.sciencemag.org...