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

Radiometric Dating Potassium-Argon Pro says radiometric is dating is accurate and uses Potassium-Argon (K–Ar) dating as an example. This is easily refuted. During the 1950s, Mount Ngauruhoe erupted in New Zealand.(1) Samples of the lava flows from those eruptions were sent to Geochron Laboratories for Potassium-Argon dating. Geochron Laboratories is trusted by Radiocarbon, “the main international journal of record for research articles and date lists relevant to14C and other radioisotopes ( … )”(2)(3) All samples were dated as millions of years old.(4)(8) These K-Ar dates contradict observed ages of the rocks, which were less than a century old. Now that K-Ar dating has been shown to be hugely inaccurate, there is no reason to trust Pro's 66 million year K-Ar dating of the extinction of the dinosaurs. Common Timeline Pro says ~20 isotope pairs support a common timeline, but his source is not credible. According to it, “On[e] thing to note about [Potassium-Argon] dating is that it will never give an overestimate of the age ( … ).”(5) I just showed K-Ar overestimated dates by several orders of magnitude, so this source and claim is dismissed. Pro says the oldest rocks on earth are 4.1 billion years old. His source got this conclusion like so: “If we know the number of radioactive parent atoms present when a rock formed and the number present now, we can calculate the age of the rock using the decay constant.”(6) In other words, to get that age, they have to know how many radioactive parent atoms were present when the rock was formed. How do they know how many were there when the rock was formed, though? “The number of parent atoms originally present is simply the number present now plus the number of daughter atoms formed by the decay ( … ).”(6) Sounds like a simple process, until they say “[s]amples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are altered, contaminated, or disturbed by later heating or chemical events.”(6) So alteration, contamination, heating, and chemical events can all cause a false date! How does the paper determine which samples experienced any of these phenomena? It doesn't say, other than carefully. Since the paper is so vague on such an important point, I will explain it myself: If a scientist doesn't like the date, he assumes one of these phenomena corrupted the sample. For example, diamonds have been Potassium-Argon dated at 6 billion years old.(7) The scientists failed to hypothesize a plausible excuse: “One explanation for these data is that the potassium in these diamonds is isotopically anomalous ( … ) [However,] the hypothesis of isotopically anomalous K is not supported. An alternative explanation is that the 40Ar in these diamonds is a trapped or 'excess' component, but this would require [an] unusual circumstance ( … ).”(7) Pro's claim of the oldest rock dating being 4.1 billion years is false. Therefore, his 4.54 billion year estimate for the age of the earth is not credible. I'm dismissing the “natural nuclear reactor” argument because I don't have room, and the only source for it is Wikipedia. As for Pro's argument that testing of samples by multiple laboratories ensures accuracy, this is also easily refuted. Fossil wood from the Tertiary Age was C14 dated as being 35,620 years old by Geochron, but 44,700 by ANSTO.(9) The real conflict, though, is that the rock the wood was found in was dated at 30 million years!(10) A fossil cannot possibly be 1 year older than the rock it is fossilized in, much-less millions of years older. Radiometric dating is not credible. Sandstone and the Grand Canyon Given my limited space, I think it's fair for me to dismiss all arguments that rely 100% on Wikipedia. Noah's Flood Pro says Noah's Flood can't account for the Grand Canyon because “there is only enough water on earth to account for a flood 200 feet higher than current sea level.” First, his source doesn't back him up. Second, there's no reason to think that the Grand Canyon would have required a flood higher than 200 feet. Pro says “One could blast a fire hose on granite for 40 days and nothing would happen” but since I doubt he has actually performed this experiment, I'm dismissing this and the other assertions. If Noah's Flood actually happened, it's plausible that the sediment layers of the canyon were laid down, but not yet hardened into rock, when the waters receded. If the waters receded fast enough, it would have cut through these fresh layers like a knife cuts through butter, forming the Grand Canyon very quickly. One possible cause for a quick recession of the water would be the sinking of the valleys described in The Bible, which could have become the oceans.(11) Sediment Layers (Varves) Alternating Densities Pro argues that, were Noah's Flood to have really happened, denser materials would be in the deeper layers, and lighter materials closer to the surface. That's a reasonable objection, but he cites no sources and only provides a vague example: the presence of fish scales and pollen in the same layer as “heavier materials.” Until I know what Pro deems “heavier materials,” attempting a rebuttal on this point is a waste of time. I also request a citation for his claim that pollen fossils provide a climate record. Until he does so, all arguments on this point are just my word against his. I could easily say that that they do not provide a climate record, and it would be an equally legitimate claim. Radiometric Layer Dating I already refuted the radiometric dating argument. I will not do so here. Dendrochronology Pro says that evidence demonstrates that trees were alive 14,300 years ago, but his source only supports a maximum of 11,919 years. I'd like to point out that this conclusion is derived by adding up rings from fragments of multiple dead trees. Nobody has ever found a fossilized tree with 11,919 rings, so some assumptions are involved in coming up with that number. I can't argue against these assumptions, however, until my opponent provides me with a clickable link to his source (I can't find it using Google). There are no living trees with more than 4,800 rings.(12) If trees evolved millions of years ago, you would expect to find at least one tree way older than just 5,000 years. Also, scars can cause a tree to produce multiple rings in a single year. Specifically, scars inflicted by floods. (Source #13, paragraph titled “Problems In Dating Flood Events From Scars”) This would be especially true of Noah's Flood, because what type of flood would cause more scaring than a catastrophic one? Pro's own source admits, “Ring-counting does not ensure the accurate dating of each individual ring. Numerous studies illustrate how ring-counting leads to incorrect conclusions drawn from inaccurate dating.” Pro cites talkorigins.org, saying “[d]ouble rings are rare and are easily detected by their appearance.” I have a more reliable source, the University of Texas, that begs to differ: “"False rings" can make life difficult for dendrochronologists.”(14) I'll build my case for a young earth next round, since my rebuttals took up all my space. (1) http://www.teara.govt.nz... (2) https://journals.uair.arizona.edu... (3) https://journals.uair.arizona.edu... (4) http://www.icr.org... (5) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... (6) http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov... (7) http://www.nature.com... (8) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu... (9) http://creation.com... (10) http://creation.com... (11) Psalm 104:8 (12) http://bio.research.ucsc.edu... (13) http://dendrolab.indstate.edu... (14) http://uts.cc.utexas.edu...