Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[SavedByTheLord]

There is no challenge. All you did was present a list and then spend all your time avoiding an in depth support of those points. Seems that it is you that is not up to it. Post after post avoiding your burden is all anyone needs to see that.

All you have to do is provide the evidence and explanation to defend your claims. Not really that big a challenge for someone claiming they are right in toto.

Maybe you should use some technical equipment to get the job done. Might I suggest an EL48.

I asked for 1 thing older than 6000 years old without an assumption.
none yet
round 1 is a loss for evolution

round 2 coming next
just 1 thing falsifies evolution and billions of years forever
and that was not all in that list.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I asked for 1 thing older than 6000 years old without an assumption.
none yet
round 1 is a loss for evolution

round 2 coming next
just 1 thing falsifies evolution and billions of years forever
and that was not all in that list.

You got them. You denied them. You lost. Sorry. I know that stings.

It doesn't matter. Your list is a failure. You can't even support one point on there. Good grief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I asked for 1 thing older than 6000 years old without an assumption.
none yet
round 1 is a loss for evolution

round 2 coming next
just 1 thing falsifies evolution and billions of years forever
and that was not all in that list.

Incorrect. You could not even properly define what you meant by "assumption". You were given several examples. You tried to use your inability to understand as an excuse to claim that there was an assumption.

 

[Viker]

Apparently, the earth.

Give anything that is more than 6000 years old

How Did Scientists Calculate the Age of Earth?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Apparently, the earth.

How Did Scientists Calculate the Age of Earth?

Read the Bible. It is an eyewitness account.

 

[F1fan]

Read Genesis 6-8

Why assume this text is factually correct?

 

[F1fan]

Read the Bible. It is an eyewitness account.

Who says?

 

[Viker]

Read the Bible. It is an eyewitness account.

No it is not. All of the Bible was written after the alleged events within it. It is second, third, fourth hand accounts and beyond. The Bible is hearsay.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Read the Bible. It is an eyewitness account.

The Bible also mentions a talking serpent, a talking donkey, and a man who supposedly survived three days inside the belly of a big fish.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I asked for 1 thing older than 6000 years old without an assumption.
none yet
round 1 is a loss for evolution

round 2 coming next
just 1 thing falsifies evolution and billions of years forever
and that was not all in that list.

Declaring yourself victorious doesn't make it so, but it does make you sound conceited.

You have yet to provide evidence that what you believe is true, as other people have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread and in your other thread.

 

[The Hammer]

I will soon post a thread that will refute billions of years and evolution

You will try and you will fail. But it won't convince you either way. Or us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read the Bible. It is an eyewitness account.

No, very very little of it consists of eyewitness accounts. The gospels are all anonymous and not written by whom they were names for. About half of the epistles were not written by whom they were named for. Almost all of the Old Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, etc. are anonymous. Some of Isaiah was written by him. Not too much else.

 

[The Hammer]

Here is simple challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

I will soon post a thread that will refute billions of years and evolution.

"The oldest known cave painting is a red hand stencil in Maltravieso cave, Cáceres, Spain. It has been dated using the uranium-thorium method[15] to older than 64,000 years and was made by a Neanderthal.[8]"

Cave painting - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Sargonski]

Here is simple challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

I will soon post a thread that will refute billions of years and evolution.

We have all kinds of things more than 6000 years old .. Ice cores for example which are hundreds of thousands of years old ... living creatures such as coral which are hundreds of thousands of years old .. and we can tell you what the Ocean Temperature was 80,000 years ago by the coral analysis.

your claim that you can refute evolution is nonsense .. You have evolved since you were born .. you have had mutations happen in some of your cells .. which is all evolution is .. mutations happen .. and you can not refute this fact.

 

[John53]

the rock layers are from the flood.

Lots of assumption there.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No, very very little of it consists of eyewitness accounts. The gospels are all anonymous and not written by whom they were names for. About half of the epistles were not written by whom they were named for.

I believe the stories of Jesus were embellished or most likely copied from Greek mythology and other ancient myths, as I explained in another thread here.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Declaring yourself victorious doesn't make it so, but it does make you sound conceited.

You have yet to provide evidence that what you believe is true, as other people have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread and in your other thread.

The pigeon declaring victory.

 

[Viker]

My religion has no equivalent to a Bible. I have a direct line of communication to the Gods. My glorious Pantheon strongly recommends that we go with science pertaining to the age of the earth and the methods employed to aquire these ages.

I don't rely solely on unverifiable claims/testimonies of others, especially from the distant past. Why would anyone refute my position? It is as an eye witness account.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lots of assumptions there.
the rock layers are from the flood.

No, they seriously were not. The rock layers refute the flood. Of course creationists know this. That is why there is no clear flood model of geology. They can all be refuted by middle school students.

 

[John53]

My religion has no equivalent to a Bible. I have a direct line of communication to the Gods. My glorious Pantheon strongly recommends that we go with science pertaining to the age of the earth and the methods employed to aquire these ages.

I don't rely solely on unverifiable claims/testimonies of others, especially from the distant past. Why would anyone refute my position? It is as an eye witness account.

But were you wearing your glasses?