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

I guess Con changed his mind about saving rebuttals for later, lol. That's fine. 1. Bible Con says the Bible is my only evidence, but my Supernova argument also proves my case. My Helium & Magnetic Field points show my position to be most likely, and the rest lend support. Back to the Bible: Con says this point relies on the assumption the Bible's a credible record, but Con's case relies on the assumption that naturalism is correct. If you worship the Triune God, the Bible must weigh heavily on the scale Con previously described. There aren't conflicting accounts of Creation in Genesis.(9) God cursed the creature Con refers to by removing it's legs; Con offered no reason why God couldn't also remove it's vocal cords. Con claims there's not enough water to cover earth, not realizing the Flood transformed the land into how it looks today. Here's a map of earth with the same amount of water, but flatter land: Con's skull argument is a non-sequitur; I could put my grandparents' skulls on a chart below a skull from a recently dead person from the other side of the world and argue just as convincingly that this proves my grandparents are the ancestors of this dead person from China. Con's claim that Exodus is wrong is an argument from ignorance; he says since we haven't found archeological evidence proving Exodus, Exodus must be false. Con's claim Kings got the value of pi wrong, because they rounded ~3.14 to 3, fails because “[w]henever we work with pi we are [always] rounding it to some number of digits, so all such calculations are incorrect.”(10) Today's best mathematician cannot express pi as a decimal without rounding, so to demand the Bible do so is special pleading. Racemization Amino acid dating is not reliable: “it is highly temperature dependent( … ); depends on the state of the amino acids( … ); and it is highly dependent on environment( … ).”(Blender, 1974) Con claims samples have been dated via the amino acid isoleucine, but inspection of his source reveals those dates were actually based on radiometric dating, which I've already refuted (see my Helium argument). Continental Drift To get his 200myr date, Con assumes the rate of drift has always been constant, but it was actually much faster in the past.(Mitchell et al., 2012) Mitochondrial Eve Con claims 'Eve' lived 200kyrs ago, but his cited study relied on the assumption she lived in “deep time” from the outset.(11) This makes Con's study a great example of methodological bias. My claim, on the other hand, made no such assumption, so it's more parsimonious and credible. Dendrochronology In Genesis, fully-grown trees were created in 1 day: “The land produced vegetation:( … ) trees bearing fruit with seed( … ).” So mature trees were created with numerous false rings, which may account for Con's supposed 11kyr record. However, Con's record is based on Bristlecone Pine rings. This species of tree has been demonstrated to grow false rings due to dry conditions in as little as 2 weeks.(Lammerts, 1983) As Con's study is based on a population of Bristlecone Pine trees growing in extremely dry conditions, and doesn't account for Lammerts' data, it's not credible. Erosion I'm dismissing Con's “granulated sugar” argument as blind assertion. Con's dating of the Grand Canyon relies on radiometric dating, which I've already refuted. The same goes for his Fission Track Dating, Radioactive Decay, and Cosmogenic Radionuclide Dating arguments, as they are all simply various types of radiometric dating. Ice Layering Con's claim of a 160kyr old ice layer cites talkorigins.org, which then cites itself. I request my opponent provides a more credible source for his claim before I spend time rebutting it. Nitrogen In Diamonds Con says a 200byr age of Nitrogen in diamonds is based on “recent research,” but only cites a 30yr old paper. I request Con cite the “recent research” he bases his claim on before I spend time rebutting it. Coral Con claims that “scientists found coral with a growth rate that would have required a year with 400 days in it”, but his own source doesn't dare make so bold a claim: “Few fossil corals are sufficiently well preserved to show clearly the supposed diurnal growth-lines, and it is not easy to determine the annual rate( … ) Diurnal and annual growth-rates vary in the same individual, adding to the complexity( … ) [Fossil coral has a # of rings] ranging between extremes of 385 and 410.” Second, Con's 370myr coral dating fails to take into account the fact that a coral growth rate has been observed that could explain the growth of most coral in the world within a timespan of less than 10kyrs.(Morris & Whitcomb, 1961) Young Earth Predictions In 1984, Physicist Humphreys employed a model of a solar system younger than 10kyrs to make several predictions about the magnetism of planets.(Humphreys, 1984) His model took into consideration the Genesis account of God creating heavenly bodies out of water. Here are some of those predictions: Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do. Mercury's decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8 percent smaller than its 1975 value. The upcoming Voyager 2 encounters with Uranus and Neptune should show planetary magnetic moments less than the k = 1.0 limit: 8.2 x 1025 J/T for Uranus and 9.7 x 1025 J/T for Neptune. [T]he present dipole moment of Uranus would be of the order of 1024 J/T. [W]e would expect Neptune to have a( … ) magnetic moment, of the order of 1024 J/T. By 2012, NASA had confirmed all five. The success of Humphreys' young earth model, in contrast to the failure of the mainstream Dynamo Theory (which demands a much older earth), demonstrates that the earth is most likely under 10kyrs old. (9) Genesis (10) http://mathforum.org... (11) http://news.rice.edu...