Changes

It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]].<ref>Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in court.</ref>  As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule.  If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, '''these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of at least 93%'''. (this is baffling in its complete lack of logic.  Just because you suggest a series of examples, it does not mean that ANY of them have a chance of being true.  I can list 100 ridiculous possibilities and still have a 0% chance of any of them being factual.  You use this argument time and time again and it simply has NO merit)

It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]].<ref>Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in court.</ref>  As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule.  If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, '''these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of at least 93%'''.  

== Counterexamples ==

== Counterexamples ==