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]

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.

 

[Wandering Monk]

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.

You said you were going to start a thread that proved the earth was only 6000 years old. Is this it?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You said you were going to start a thread that proved the earth was only 6000 years old. Is this it?

No. I am working on that and should post soon. The failure to meet this challenge will reveal why you err in this matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You are not in any position to judge as to what is or what is not an assumption. The age of the Earth is not based upon assumptions, it is based upon objective scientific evidence.

So let's lay down some ground work. I can explain to you why the conclusions are based upon evidence and not assumption. To do that you first need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Luckily the concept of scientific evidence is very well defined. Here you go:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,"

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can find many other sources that say the same. That is merely the most convenient one for me. Do you have any problems with that?

 

[sun rise]

I was going to post a joke but then realized that this is a serious thread and an exercise in futility. No amount of facts and reasons will change the mind of a young earth creationist who will reject everything that challenges his belief. No amount of fallacious arm waving ignoring logic and the scientific method will change the minds of those who value truth over science hatred and false logic.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You are not in any position to judge as to what is or what is not an assumption. The age of the Earth is not based upon assumptions, it is based upon objective scientific evidence.

So let's lay down some ground work. I can explain to you why the conclusions are based upon evidence and not assumption. To do that you first need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

Luckily the concept of scientific evidence is very well defined. Here you go:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,"

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can find many other sources that say the same. That is merely the most convenient one for me. Do you have any problems with that?

Science is knowledge.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Science is knowledge.

There more than one definition of 'science.' Funny you should choose that one. Here is another from Oxford dictionary:

Science encompasses the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, and technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is knowledge.

You lack that knowledge. And it is a specific branch of knowledge. You keep forgetting your failures. How are you ever going to learn?

 

[Wandering Monk]

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.

What is your definition of 'assumptions?'

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What is your definition of 'assumptions?'

Something that you assume. No one as far as I know has ever met this challenge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Something that you assume. No one as far as I know has ever met this challenge.

Sorry, but that is circular reasoning. That is a logical fallacy.

And remember, you are in no position to judge yet. I am trying to help you in that regard. You do not understand what is and what is not an assumption.

Speaking of which this should help:

I will be referring back to this.

EDIT: And this:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

 

[Alien826]

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.

This seems so ridiculously easy, that I'm interested to see where you are going. I'll give an example of something more that 6000 years old to get the ball rolling.

The Chinese civilization. This is supported by historical evidence.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Oxford Dictionary. Assumption: a belief or feeling that something is true or that something will happen, although there is no proof.

Now, how do you define proof? Just want to make sure we are all on the same page.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

My avatar is a modern human skull (cro magnon), it's 22000 years old. It can be seen at le Musee National de Prehistoire at Les Eyzies in France. The dating documentation is available, it has been dated using 3 different methods that all agree within less than 0.05%

 

[Shaul]

Look up at the stars. We receive light from stars which are over 6,000 light years distant every night.

 

[Wandering Monk]

My avatar is a modern human skull (cro magnon), it's 22000 years old. It can be seen at le Musee National de Prehistoire at Les Eyzies in France. The dating documentation is available, it has been dated using 3 different methods that all agree within less than 0.05%

I have seen so many of these types of debates, I know exactly where he will go next: dating techniques rely on assumptions.

 

[Secret Chief]

I was going to post a joke but then realized that this is a serious thread and an exercise in futility. No amount of facts and reasons will change the mind of a young earth creationist who will reject everything that challenges his belief. No amount of fallacious arm waving ignoring logic and the scientific method will change the minds of those who value truth over science hatred and false logic.

Is it possible to be both a YEC and a flat earther, or is that one mentalness too many?

 

[Secret Chief]

My avatar is a modern human skull (cro magnon), it's 22000 years old. It can be seen at le Musee National de Prehistoire at Les Eyzies in France. The dating documentation is available, it has been dated using 3 different methods that all agree within less than 0.05%

Yes, but it was put there by a satanist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen so many of these types of debates, I know exactly where he will go next: dating techniques rely on assumptions.

Which is why I try to go over the basics of science, which he clearly does not understand, first. Scientific discoveries are not assumptions. Assumptions are not allowed in the sciences. One may make an assumption early on in research ,but part of the scientific method is to form a model and then to test it. Once an idea has been repeatedly tested and confirmed it is no longer an assumption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it possible to be both a YEC and a flat earther, or is that one mentalness too many?

I would be willing to bet that most flerfs are YEC's as well. If not that it is at the very least a large percentage of them.