The earth is probably less than 10,000 years old.

1. Bible Con conceded to my refutations of his points by not defending them. E.g., I showed the Bible's reference to pi as 3 is an artifact of representing an irrational number in decimal form, like how meaning is lost in translation. Con didn't show the Bible to be unscientific. It'd be unfair to me for him to resurrect his points next turn since I'm unable to respond, and he had his chance. Con's 'Jesus' point is an argument from ignorance; he says as Jesus doesn't prove Genesis is right, it must be wrong. Con claims the Flood can't form mountains and doesn't make scientific sense, failing to realize the Flood (capital F) encompasses catastrophic geological processes in scientific literature.(Austin et al., 1994) Con asserts “Intermediate Homo species also disprove Genesis.” That's a non-sequitur. Con's arbitrary classifications don't make anyone less human or the Bible less accurate, anymore than USA's classification of Negroes as 3/5 human made them less human. My Bible argument's retained it's weight. 2. Helium I request the conduct point for Con's false attribution of a fabricated quote to Dr. Humphreys. Con says there was extra Helium in the zircon because it “diffuses more slowly at [that] temperature and pressure( … ).” Humphrey shared Con's concern, so he repeated Gentry's 1982 experiment a couple decades later. Contrasting the 1982 Helium content with the new one revealed the diffusion rate.(Humphreys et al., 2004) This rate reveals a ~6kyr age for the zircon. This argument doesn't prove a 6kyr age for earth, but it satisfies my burden by showing it's probable, as this zircon is from deep in the earth. If rock as deep as Precambrian is only 6kyrs old, it follows the rest of earth is the same age. Helium didn't enter the zircon from outside, because the zircon contained more Helium than it's surrounding environment. Fick's Second Law Of Diffusion confirms Helium was escaping the zircon, not entering it. Con's source for his claim is bogus; the author claims “Humphreys work is not repeatable by other scientists, thus it is unverifiable.” Humphreys merely repeated Gentry's 1982 experiment, so anyone who wants to verify Humphreys' results can easily do so. The accelerated nuclear decay hypothesis resolves Con's concerns, and does so without “vaporiz[ing] the earth” or “alter[ing] the laws of chemistry.” It's also consistent with String Theory.(Chaffin, 2000) In fact, nuclear decay has been accelerated a billion-fold in the laboratory.(Bosch et al., 1996) Con strawmans my Helium argument by misconstruing it as an example of conflicting radiometric dates. He doesn't realize measuring Helium diffusion isn't radiometric dating, but an independent dating technique which refutes the foundational assumption of radiometrics; namely, that the rate of nuclear decay has always been constant. Thus, all Con's radiometric dating arguments fail. Again, Helium radiometric dating would involve measuring the ratio of Helium to another element, not the rate of Helium diffusion. Con needs to realize this important distinction. 3. Trees Con argues a composite record (that extends far beyond the age of any one tree) can be made by linking trees where they share unique rings. The longest record he can provide is ~11kyrs; any record longer than that relies on radiometric dating. To fit this record into my 10kyr timeframe, I only need to explain 1k rings, which I already did: Lammert showed Pines grow a double ring in as little as 2 weeks, and it's the same species of Pine which Con's record is derived from. As Con's Pines are growing in the same dry conditions which provoke double rings, it's very reasonable to conclude that ~10% of their rings are false. This fits Con's rings into 10kyrs. Con's best rebuttal here is “Experts in dendochronology [sic] can easily distinguish between false and real rings.” This argument relies on the premise that false rings always look different from true rings; your level of expertise is irrelevant if there is nothing to distinguish true rings from false ones. I posit that ~10% of Con's rings are false. At best, I've obliterated Con's tree argument, but even at worst, I've reduced it's weight to that of a grain of sand; misidentification of a mere 10% of his rings would be consistent with an earth younger than 10kyrs. 4. Supernovas I erred; four, not three, supernovas occur every century in the Milky Way.(Ilovaisky, 1972) This strengthens my argument by raising the number of supernovas we should encounter, were the galaxy really older than 10kyrs. Con claims we don't find more because they fade away, but Ilovaisky showed they are recognizable for ~1myrs. That means there should be 40k identifiable supernovae. We've only found 200, and arguing “how hard it is to find supernova remnants” isn't sufficient to excuse the 98% NASA labels “mysteriously missing”.(7) It's baffling Con tries to cite NASA against me. Con's claim of supernova remnants dated at 77kyrs is dismissed because it's based on already-refuted radiometric dating. 5. Mutations Con tries to discredit my Gibbons study by calling it “Creationist” and saying it “starts with the premise that there is a Young Earth( … ).” I'll be generous and assume Con misread; Gibbons is an evolutionist, and for that reason rejected the young earth implications of her results: “Using the new clock, [Eve] would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that's the case( … ).”(Gibbons, 1998) Con's claim that “Eve is 200,000 years old” is dismissed for citing a layperson (Mark Isaak), and I refuted his study last round. The claim Adam lived 200kyrs ago cites a study published right after one that claimed he lived 300kyrs ago.(Mendez, 2013) They can't both be right, but they can both be wrong. At least they're getting a younger date, which means they're getting closer to the actual one: ~6kyrs ago. 6. Population Con argues the growth rate is faster now “due to advancements in science”, failing to realize most of the world's population growth comes from 3rd world nations: “more than 90% of the world's total population growth between now and the year 2025 will occur in developing countries.” Technology is not as correlated to population growth as Con thinks. Con says I “can’t just assume a constant rate of growth” and calls my numbers “absurd”, but I'd do just fine assuming a rate of growth 4x slower than today's, which is 1.1%.(13) To get from 2 people to today's 7 billion in 10kyrs, I only need a 0.25% rate. If Con wants to argue people have been around for immensely longer, he'll have to propose some potent, long-lasting factors to justify an average growth rate of less than 0.25%. 7. Magnetic Field Con refuted himself: “the field actually decays at a constant rate( … ) the magnetic fields decays [gets weaker] then gets stronger, then gets weaker, then gets stronger.” Racemization Con's source describes using racemization to “infer the sources and composition of sedimentary organic matter” and combining it with radiometric dating to measure the ratio of “abiotic racemization” to other racemization sources. It has nothing to do with amino acid dating, and everything to do with radiometric dating, which I've already refuted. The claim “seabed plankton” shows a 54myr age is dismissed as assertion. Continental Drift Catastrophic Plate Tectonics explains continental separation in under 10kyrs.(Austin, 1994) YEC Predictions The success of one theory over a competing theory shows the former theory to be most likely correct. The confirmation of Humphreys' YEC model predictions show the YEC position is most likely correct, in contrast with the failure of the competing old-earth, Dynamo theory, which has been around for decades with no success. Con may not return to any points he conceded last round, for I have no room to respond. Thanks for this debate. (12) https://www.scu.edu... (13) https://www.cia.gov...