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.

[chris baron]

Except there is. It’s apparent that you aren’t educated on the facts and science.

This is a claim, where is your evidence and argument?

It’s UV light that destroys paint. Cave art gets protected and preserved because they are in CAVES.

produce an exhibit of an object that can be conclusively proven to be billions of years old, you can't. simple. if there is nothing that proves the world to be billions of years old why do people say it is and why do they teach children that it is so. what dark dark world we live in full of misery, falsehood, loss and malignancy

natural history involving evolution, outer space and vast time periods is a massive deception

 

[The Hammer]

what is there on the face of the earth that is billions of years old? if you make a claim about the age of the earth back it up.

Lots of stuff. Like rocks.

Oldest dated rocks - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Disappearing continents
On the scale of one human life-span, rates of erosion are low. But for those who say the continents are billions of years old, the rates are staggering. A height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. It defies common sense. If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth.

How do you figure that when there is also a process of tectonic plate upheaval (creation of new earth/ground)

sedimentologists have researched many of the world’s rivers and calculated how fast the land is disappearing. The measurements show that some rivers are excavating their basins by more than 1,000 mm (39 inches) of height in 1,000 years, while others move only 1 mm (0.04 inches) in 1,000 years. The average height reduction for all the continents of the world is about 60 mm (2.4 inches) per 1,000 years, which equates to some 24 billion tonnes of sediment per year (Table 1).5 That is a lot of top dressing!

What's the growth rate? Continents and mountains also grow.

 

[The Hammer]

what is there on the face of the earth that is billions of years old? if you make a claim about the age of the earth back it up.

"A sample of gneiss from the site of the Earth's oldest dated rocks (the Acasta River area of Canada). This sample has been dated at 4.03 billion years old"

 

[Eddi]

what is there on the face of the earth that is billions of years old? if you make a claim about the age of the earth back it up.

Disappearing continents
On the scale of one human life-span, rates of erosion are low. But for those who say the continents are billions of years old, the rates are staggering. A height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. It defies common sense. If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth.

sedimentologists have researched many of the world’s rivers and calculated how fast the land is disappearing. The measurements show that some rivers are excavating their basins by more than 1,000 mm (39 inches) of height in 1,000 years, while others move only 1 mm (0.04 inches) in 1,000 years. The average height reduction for all the continents of the world is about 60 mm (2.4 inches) per 1,000 years, which equates to some 24 billion tonnes of sediment per year (Table 1).5 That is a lot of top dressing!

Every atom that exists is billions of years old

 

[YoursTrue]

I find the Bible was Not originally written in King James English.
How to you explain the word ' unicorn ' found at Job 39:9 KJV
Or explain to us Psalm 22:21 __________ or Psalm 29:6 __________
How strong is a unicorn ? _______ - Numbers 24:8
What about the unicorns found at KJV Isaiah 34:7; 58:8 b ________

When did Babylon become a dwelling place for dragons - Jeremiah 51:37

Please explain to us:
Genesis 25:29
Leviticus 26:16
Isaiah 14:23

Good points, and I'd love to hear from @SavedByTheLord if she thinks the Bible was originally written in English. I like @SavedByTheLord and will ikeep her in my prayers --

 

[YoursTrue]

Exodus 21:7-11​

And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.​

If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no power to sell her to a strange nation, since he has dealt deceitfully with her.​

And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her as with daughters.​

If he takes himself another wife, her food, her clothing, and her duty of marriage shall not be lessened.​

And if he does not do these three to her, then she shall go out free without money.​

​

Holy Bible​

​

How embarrassing for you...

Not really because a person that understands what it means also understands the kindness of God. In today's world there are many who have arranged marriages. And far worse situations than the one described in Exodus. Once a woman generally marries a man, her welfare can be dependant upon that man. And while divorce can be common today, it isn't always fair and equitable.

 

[F1fan]

produce an exhibit of an object that can be conclusively proven to be billions of years old, you can't.

Sorry, we educated people defer to what experts report. Experts report the universe being over 13 billion years old. Our planet is about 5 billion years old. Want to know how they know this? The knowledge is available for free on the internet and in libraries.

simple. if there is nothing that proves the world to be billions of years old why do people say it is and why do they teach children that it is so. what dark dark world we live in full of misery, falsehood, loss and malignancy

So you lack adequate education.

natural history involving evolution, outer space and vast time periods is a massive deception

Who told you this, and why did you believe them? It is contrary to established fact and knowledge.

 

[McBell]

Not really because a person that understands what it means also understands the kindness of God. In today's world there are many who have arranged marriages. And far worse situations than the one described in Exodus. Once a woman generally marries a man, her welfare can be dependant upon that man. And while divorce can be common today, it isn't always fair and equitable.

It means you can in fact Biblically sell your daughter into slavery.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It means you can in fact Biblically sell your daughter into slavery.

Not slavery in the KJB but just a bondwoman.

 

[John53]

Not slavery in the KJB but just a bondwoman.

Exodus 21:20-21​

 

[Subduction Zone]

what is there on the face of the earth that is billions of years old? if you make a claim about the age of the earth back it up.

Disappearing continents
On the scale of one human life-span, rates of erosion are low. But for those who say the continents are billions of years old, the rates are staggering. A height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. It defies common sense. If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth.

sedimentologists have researched many of the world’s rivers and calculated how fast the land is disappearing. The measurements show that some rivers are excavating their basins by more than 1,000 mm (39 inches) of height in 1,000 years, while others move only 1 mm (0.04 inches) in 1,000 years. The average height reduction for all the continents of the world is about 60 mm (2.4 inches) per 1,000 years, which equates to some 24 billion tonnes of sediment per year (Table 1).5 That is a lot of top dressing!

You forgot about plate tectonics. And you are using very poor reasoning. Erosion rates are not the same everywhere. There are areas where the rate is close to zero or even negative. There are areas where the rates of erosion are very high. You should try to compare the rates of erosion of the Andes at the equator with the rates of erosion of the area around Fargo, North Dakota. Erosion rates are energy dependent and the amount of energy is dependent upon local changes in elevation.

So yes, some areas are eroding quickly as even you pointed out. But we have areas where the mountains are still growing faster than their current rate of erosion. The Himalayas are still going up. If an event the ended the continuing thrust of India into the rest of Asia, the formation of a new subduction zone would do that, then we would see the Himalayas go from a growing range to a dying one. In 400 million years or so they could look like the Appalachian mountains look today.

As to dating of rocks, we do have radiometric dating and it appears to be very very accurate when done correctly. We do have plenty of evidence for an Old Earth. There is no scientific evidence for a Young Earth.

 

[chris baron]

You forgot about plate tectonics. And you are using very poor reasoning. Erosion rates are not the same everywhere. There are areas where the rate is close to zero or even negative. There are areas where the rates of erosion are very high. You should try to compare the rates of erosion of the Andes at the equator with the rates of erosion of the area around Fargo, North Dakota. Erosion rates are energy dependent and the amount of energy is dependent upon local changes in elevation.

if plate tectonics replaced eroded material then the surface of the earth we see today is not old so there still is nothing on the face of the earth that is billions of years old. you are operating from the assumption that the earth is immensely old and fudging in arguments to support the assumption.

the Mississippi River dumps sediment into the Gulf of Mexico every day if this had been happening for 100s of millions of years much of the river's drainage basin would have been washed out to sea by now. by all appearances the Mississippi river is young. same can be said for the niagra falls. every year they cut back the escarpment, the rates of erosion have been measured and we are talking about 1000s of years not millions.

Radiometric dating is a lot of hogwash. most rocks are not radioactive at all and why would anyone assume that the parent element broke down into the daughter elements in the sample.

what does it mean "appears to be very very accurate". either it's accurate or it isn't and how do you know it's accurate unless you already know the age of the sample? if you don't know the age of a rock and then test it and then you get a date you can't say that the date is accurate since you don't know the date.

the earth is young and God is near, time is short and there is more to reality than the present.

old earthers convince no one, not even themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

if plate tectonics replaced eroded material then the surface of the earth we see today is not old so there still is nothing on the face of the earth that is billions of years old. you are operating from the assumption that the earth is immensely old and fudging in arguments to support the assumption.

Over simplified views are almost always wrong. There are areas where there is very hard resistant rock that is all that is left of ancient mountain ranges. Once you erode to a flat surface erosion becomes extremely slow. Add a material that is highly resistant to erosion and it can hang around for a long long time. Just in case you did not know, new material is usually added to the edges of continents.

the Mississippi River dumps sediment into the Gulf of Mexico every day if this had been happening for 100s of millions of years much of the river's drainage basin would have been washed out to sea by now. by all appearances the Mississippi river is young. same can be said for the niagra falls. every year they cut back the escarpment, the rates of erosion have been measured and we are talking about 1000s of years not millions.

The Mississippi is not hundreds of millions of years old. The modern Mississippi was formed after the ice ages. Before then there may have been a similar river, but even that has not been moving that much sediment for all that long. If you ever go down it you will notice a huge change in the water when the Missouri joins the Mississippi. The Missouri drains the Rocky Mountain states, tell me if you can spot the difference:

And seriously, you need to present numbers from a reliable (not a creationist) source if you want to claim thousands of years. I am sure that real scientist would have noticed that. At any rate the Rockies are 55 to 80 million years old. And before that there was an inland sea across the middle of present day Midwest America.

Radiometric dating is a lot of hogwash. most rocks are not radioactive at all and why would anyone assume that the parent element broke down into the daughter elements in the sample.

Most igneous rocks can be dated. They are "radioactive". They are just not commercially radioactive. In fact in certain areas of the US the rocks are so radioactive that it is required that some houses have radon detectors. Here is an EPA map that shows areas where there are areas of significant radon emissions:

Ten states require them. And perhaps more should.

what does it mean "appears to be very very accurate". either it's accurate or it isn't and how do you know it's accurate unless you already know the age of the sample? if you don't know the age of a rock and then test it and then you get a date you can't say that the date is accurate since you don't know the date.

How accurate do you want it? There is no absolute "accuracy" in the sciences. But we can know that rocks are billions of years old. They may be accurate to within tens of millions of years. They may be more accurate. Do you need links.

And I need to remind you that your inability to understand the science behind something is not a refutation. You can ask questions.

the earth is young and God is near, time is short and there is more to reality than the present.

old earthers convince no one, not even themselves.

No, and now you are actually claiming that God is a liar. There are all sorts of deposits that could not be deposited quickly. We have both modern day and ancient varve deposits for example. In those we can count individual years of deposition. I have two favorite ones right now. They are the Green River Formation. Over 5 million years of annual deposits. You will probably need a microscope for that. But then there is the Castile formation That is an evaporite series. The layers is thicker and can be seen by eye without magnification. They range in from calcite to gypsum to anhydrite to halite very year as a large flat very shallow pool would fill during the spring and evaporate through the rest of the year with the less soluble salts coming out first. That one is only about 300,000 years of deposits.

There there are extremely fine bioclastic deposits such as the white cliffs of Dover. They were formed by the very very slow deposition of coccolithophores. Those guys still are alive today. They cannot be forced to speed up.

For the Earth to be young your god would have had to have planted endless false evidence. Not just in geology. but in biology too. And then there is the problem of the size of the universe. Light has a limited speed. We would only be able to see the stars of the Milky Way if the universe was young and we could not even see all of those.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Mississippi is not hundreds of millions of years old. The modern Mississippi was formed after the ice ages. Before then there may have been a similar river, but even that has not been moving that much sediment for all that long. If you ever go down it you will notice a huge change in the water when the Missouri joins the Mississippi. The Missouri drains the Rocky Mountain states, tell me if you can spot the difference:

View attachment 85399

I've been there a lot. Right on that point that juts out between the two rivers. It's about an hour drive from me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been there a lot. Right on that point that juts out between the two rivers. It's about an hour drive from me.

Shhh!!! Don't tell him that it is photoshop.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not slavery in the KJB but just a bondwoman.

Who are bought and sold and considered possessions that can be inherited by your children. That is called SLAVERY.

Hiding behind the archaic language seems like dishonesty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

what is there on the face of the earth that is billions of years old?

Rocks.

if you make a claim about the age of the earth back it up.

How Do We Know the Earth Is 4.6 Billion Years Old?

We know the Earth is old. But how do we know its age?

www.smithsonianmag.com

Disappearing continents
On the scale of one human life-span, rates of erosion are low. But for those who say the continents are billions of years old, the rates are staggering. A height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. It defies common sense. If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth.

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Continents aren't fixed things. They are dynamic things that are constantly on the move and new "land" gets created every day through geological uplift etc.

sedimentologists have researched many of the world’s rivers and calculated how fast the land is disappearing. The measurements show that some rivers are excavating their basins by more than 1,000 mm (39 inches) of height in 1,000 years, while others move only 1 mm (0.04 inches) in 1,000 years. The average height reduction for all the continents of the world is about 60 mm (2.4 inches) per 1,000 years, which equates to some 24 billion tonnes of sediment per year (Table 1).5 That is a lot of top dressing!

Ignoring everything else that goes on in geology, will only lead to false conclusions.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Rocks.

How Do We Know the Earth Is 4.6 Billion Years Old?

We know the Earth is old. But how do we know its age?

www.smithsonianmag.com

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Continents aren't fixed things. They are dynamic things that are constantly on the move and new "land" gets created every day through geological uplift etc.



Ignoring everything else that goes on in geology, will only lead to false conclusions.

There are many “clocks” which prove the earth is not billions or even millions of years.
And an analysis of almost all sedimentary rocks shows that they were all laid down within a year of each other about 4500 years ago as a result of the flood.

 

[ratiocinator]

There are many “clocks” which prove the earth is not billions or even millions of years.
And an analysis of almost all sedimentary rocks shows that they were all laid down within a year of each other about 4500 years ago as a result of the flood.

More unargued, unevidenced assertions.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

More unargued, unevidenced assertions.

Chimps have 48 chromosomes and people have 46. How can they have descended from a common ancestor.

Just show how this plays out for 20 generations of offspring.
A primate with 48 by some weird event has an offspring with 46.
The offspring then mates with another primate of the same species but of course has all 48.
Now each donates 1/2 and then what?
How many chromosomes from each parent does the first offspring have?
24 from each or 24 from one and 23 from the other?