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

"Argument #1 - The Earths Magnetic Field" Perhaps you misunderstood the point about Mercury? Here it is again: "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." The point is there isn"t a higher rate of rotation, and therefore the magnetic field cannot be explained with the dynamo theory (and was wrongly predicted, like everything else). If you"re a scientist than you should know that predictive power is a big deal for a theory. The rapid decay theory can blindly predict planetary magnetic fields, do you think they just luck out every time? There is not enough room in these posts for me to lay out the entire theory and how it works, but here is a link where the author of the theory (Russell Humphreys) does that for you: http://www.creationresearch.org... "A second fallacy that is allegedly asserted by proponents of the Rapid Earth Theory is that Dynamo Theory would lead to absurdities in nature." You are going to have to show me where they said this and what they mean by this. This is not an argument that I used, and is not a fallacy within the theory. Your point about the decreasing strength of the magnetic field (that it hasn"t been) assumes the accuracy of dating methods that show the earth is old when those are the methods in question here. We have observed the magnetic field for the past 100+ years, and we know the rate at which it is decaying (5% every 100 years), why do you reject the modern day measurements that we have of the magnetic field decay rate? You"re suggesting that the magnetic field of the earth is due to tidal ocean forces? I wouldn"t actually argue that it has some effect on the planet; I"m not sure how this point is relevant then to this debate. "Argument #2 - Helium Diffusion in Zircon crystals" You are going to have to provide some sources for those claims that you are making. There is no logical fallacy, the temperature has small effect on the overall argument" If you want to maintain helium by cooler temperatures over 1.5 billion years to match the radio isotope dates, you have to have a temperature (constant throughout history) of 196 degrees Celsius below zero" and we all know that never, ever happened. But that"s not even the problem; the problem is YOUR heat charts assuming an old earth show that the temperatures would have been higher in the past, which just makes the problem worse for you. They are not ignoring that as evidence, we disagree with the heat charts that are produced with the assumption of an old earth, even though they would just make our point all the more. "Those so-called experts are asserting that part of an experiment should be outright ignored due to a lack of loose helium. As I asserted above, it is a logical fallacy to ignore evidence." No one is doing that, I already replied to that in detail above with the quote from Humphreys himself, you did not refute what Humphreys said, you just are reasserting your original objection which has been rebutted. "Argument #3 - Lunar Recession from the earth" I don"t think you quite understand the argument " The way in which you want to assert the moon formed (or got where it is) has no bearing on the evidence. Point being, every one of those models assumes that the moon has been in orbit around the earth for 4+ billion years, that doesn't work with the recession rate moved back in time (whichever model you use). I do have objections to those theories on the moons formation, but it"s not even necessary to bring up, it"s a non issue in this debate and has no bearing on the evidence.