The Earth is probably greater than 10,000 years old

(ONE) CRITIQUE OF THE ICR(1) It's biased(1A) Everyone is biased to some extent. In the case of the Institute for Creation Research, bias is 100%. However, this bias does not in any way interfere with the accuracy of the research paper I have provided.(2) It lacks reliable scholarship (2A) I would disagree entirely. The Institue for Creation Research has very professional scientists from various fields. In the RATE project, there were seven PhD scientists with experience: i. Steven A. Austin who is a geologist with B.S. in geology from the University of Washington, a M.S. in geology from San Jose State University and a PhD in geology from the Pennsylvania State University.ii. John R. Baumgardner who is a geophysicist with Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. He is the chief developer of the TERRA code, a 3-D finite element program for modelling the earth’s mantle and lithosphere and was with the Los Alamos National Laboratory.iii. Russell Humphreys who is a physicist with B.S. in physics from Duke University and PhD in physics: In 1972, he was awarded a Ph.D. in physics due to his work on cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon–nucleon interactions. Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches.iv. Don DeYoung is a physicists with a B.S. in physics from Michigan Technological University, an M.S. in physics from Michigan Technical University, and a Ph.D. in physics from Iowa State University.v. Larry Vardiman is a meteorologist, he holds a B.S. in physics from the University of Missouri, a B.S. in meteorology from St. Louis University and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. He is a member of the American Meteorological Society and has authored numerous research papers in the area of cloud physics and meteorology.vi. Andrew A. Snelling completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Geology with First Class Honours at The University of New South Wales in Sydney, and graduated a Doctor of Philosophy (in geology) at The University of Sydney, for his thesis entitled A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia. Between studies and since, Andrew worked for six years in the exploration and mining industries in Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory variously as a field, mine and research geologist. he was involved in research projects with various CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) and University scientists across Australia, and with scientists from the USA, Britain, Japan, Sweden and the International Atomic Energy Agency. As a result of this research, Andrew was involved in writing scientific papers that were published in international scientific journals.vii. Eugene F. Chaffin is a physicist with a B.S. from Oklahoma State University, M.S. from Oklahoma State UniversityPh.D. from Oklahoma State University.(3) It does not cooperate with the mainstream(3A) It does not, due to discrimination. See the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" for more on the relationship between creation scientists and the naturalistic darwinian establishment. And by the way, what the 'hell' does that have to do with the research paper? Is not 'independent' scientific research allowed? Seriously, I didn't get that one.________________________________________(TWO) CRITIQUE OF C-14 DINOSAUR BONES(1) The New Geology author has no credentials(1A) The author merely wrote about it, it does not follow that HE did it. If you had read the link which I gave you, then you would have known that it had taken place at a major international meeting and that the people responsible for the testing were a paleonchronology group from Germany with very professional credentials and several U.S. laboratories, more on that in the link I gave you.________________________________________(THREE) REBUTTAL (U/PB) (1) Con's refutation of uranium lead dating is based on helium retention in zircon crystals, that changes decay rate and results in the assumption λ in the formula being unsound. The primary source of information for this is the RATE project. (1A) The primary source of information for this is the research performed by a team of scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.(2) My first critic of the RATE project's usage of helium in zircon crystals rendering uranium-lead dating unsound is a study by Dr. Kevin Henke, which critiques the helium diffusion argument. [3] Henke argues, "The old Earth multi-domain model from Loechelt (2008c) better explains helium diffusion in the Fenton Hill zircons than Dr. Humphreys' young Earth RATE model." (2A) Henke made two rebuttals. First he disputed about % retention, source of helium, and minor issues but the scientists at ICR concluded that effects of all of these issues turn out to be vastly smaller than the factor of 100,000 discrepancy observed.[1] Then he alleged that in situ hydrostatic pressure effect is significant. However, zircons are so hard that pressure or vacuum doesn’t affect helium diffusion significantly.[2](3) First, Dr. Humphreys' RATE model fails to fulfill Quality Assurance or Quality Control Procedures. "Essential QC/QA Concedures include properly collecting, identifying, labeling, storing and monitoring all samples. If the collection site of a specimen is unknown or if it has been improperly stored for several decades, any resulting data are often useless." (3A) I have contacted the ICR regarding this issue and I am expecting their response. However, what I can say right here and now is that this is more important when dealing with more precise measurements and sensitive biological material. They have tested 'rocks' for things that people claim remain the same for thousands of years in the long evolutionary timeline, it's irrelevant in this case, really -- but like I said, I'm still expecting a resposne from them, just out of curiosity. (4) Humphreys insists that most of the Precambrian sections of the Fenton Hill cores are "granodiorites." This is flawed, since they are, in fact, *gneisses.* The entire RATE study assumes that the Precambrian sections consisted of *only one* rock unit. Humphreys admits that if it was not only one rock unit, or if the experiment failed to identify rock types, it would be inappropriate for their modeling efforts. [3](4A) What he doesn’t realize is that “Jemez Granodiorite” is a name the ICR invented (since the literature had not previously named it) to apply to the whole unit from about 700 meters depth down to below 4,310 meters. John Baumgardner, a geophysicist, saw large portions of the GT-2 core at Los Alamos and picked our samples from it. He says: "Yes, there are occasional veins of material other than the coarse-grained granodiorite that forms the vast majority of the core. In making the selections I made of what samples to use, I purposely avoided these occasional veins. In fact I tried to select sections of the core well removed from such veins. So at least from my vantage point, the samples of core we used for the helium diffusion measurements were indeed coarse-grained granodiorite, not gneiss."(5) Conclusion: Con gives us *no reason* to think that Humphrey's model is preferable to Loechelt's model or Henke's own model, both of which *clearly outweigh* Humphrey's model as it fails to maintain proper "peer reviewed" standards, and the data's confusion of rock types prevents its model from being preferable to either of the two models. (5A) Read my answers to your critique and tell me if you have the same opinion then. You have no critiques standing, of course, your only option is to attack the people behind the data due to their beliefs, but that would be an extremely unscientific move on your part.________________________________________(FOUR) REBUTTAL (C-14) (1) Con *concedes* that carbon dating is reliable due to dendrochronology.(1A) I do not, I missed your statement about dedrochronology at first, I apologize. The rings of trees grow at different rates in differnet environments and it's not reliable at all. Some trees happen to contain zero rings. How about that?(2) Con then says carbon dating entails that dinosaurs are young. I could *concede* this, and it would still not impact that the Earth is > 10,000 years old. (2A) I said that in order to show you that C-14 is faulty even in your view, not that the earth is less than 10k years. (3) And carbon dating *has* dated objects to be > 10,000 years old, which is sufficient to affirm.(3A) The reason dates move higher than 10,000 is because the magnetic field is weakening, as I said in my previous post.________________________________________Vote con.