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]

No, the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates that our earth and universe is billions of years old


No that is not your only assumption. You assume the universe is no more than 6000 years old, based on ancient mythology. You have rejected and not responded to many references that demonstrate beyond any doubt that that our earth and universe is far older than 6000 years.


You have proved nothing as demonstrated to you many times. your logic and math is attrocious.

There is no proof of anything over 6000 years old.
And the Bible is the record from God Almighty who did create everthing. It is an eye witness account By God who did it.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no proof of anything over 6000 years old.
And the Bible is the record from God Almighty who did create everything. It is an eye witness account By God who did it.

Stoic intentional ignorance is not comprehensable. Your making assumptions. Remember NO ASSUMPTIONS.

No eye witnesses.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no lie by me. Sorry that you feel that way.

The reason for this challenge is to prove that it would be an assumption that the universe or anything in it is more than 6000 years old.
As for me, I only have one assumption - that God the Creator of all things exists. And so I proved that one assumption with several infallible proofs,
One proof uses the law of non contradiction where you assume no God. That leads to many contradictions. So, by the law of non contradiction, the initial assumption of no God must be false and its opposite must be true. So God the Almighty Creator exists.
Another proof used mathematiCal induction, with x being the number of intelligently created objects and I being the number of intelligent creators.

The lake varves document the earth is at least hundreds of thousands of years without a world flood and you are unable to respond.

Remember NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no proof of anything over 6000 years old.

Rational people do not consider anything about reality can be 100% proved. However, there is endless evidence, from many disciplines, that many things are are much older that 6000 years, so much, in fact as to prove it in the legal sense of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Your endless assertions on the matter are just a bit silly really as you have never presented any valid evidence at all, or any understanding of basic logic or of any of the subjects you make assertions about.

When these things are pointed out to you, you just run away. What are you so afraid of?

And the Bible is the record from God Almighty who did create everthing. It is an eye witness account By God who did it.

Utterly baseless and unargued assertion.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Rational people do not consider anything about reality can be 100% proved. However, there is endless evidence, from many disciplines, that many things are are much older that 6000 years, so much, in fact as to prove it in the legal sense of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Your endless assertions on the matter are just a bit silly really as you have never presented any valid evidence at all, or any understanding of basic logic or of any of the subjects you make assertions about.

When these things are pointed out to you, you just run away. What are you so afraid of?


Utterly baseless and unargued assertion.

There is no evidence of any thing older than 6000 years. In fact all evidence shows that it is only about 6000 years old.

 

[McBell]

There is no evidence of any thing older than 6000 years. In fact all evidence shows that it is only about 6000 years old.

Still with this song and dance?

 

[shunyadragon]

Still with this song and dance?

No, a dog any pony show.

 

[McBell]

No, a dog any pony show.

I completely disagree
a dog and pony show would be more interesting...

 

[jes-us]

Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

Space

 

[McBell]

Space

I was going to say God.
But, you know, no assumptions allowed and all.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no evidence of any thing older than 6000 years. In fact all evidence shows that it is only about 6000 years old.

Baseless, unargued assertion. Every time anybody explains one of the many, many reasons why we know this claim is false, you either run away, post total nonsense, or just more baseless assertions.

There is endless evidence from (for example) evolution, cosmology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology, archaeology, genetics, and statistics. You just ignore it all and post silly assertions like this.

What do you think is actually happening here that make pretty much everybody involved in all these disciplines wrong? It's not like they're all atheists. People accept these who are from pretty much every religion, including most denominations of Christianity. The people who don't are almost all from your tiny cult of young earth creationism, who all have an obvious vested interest.

If you could actually falsify any of this, you'd be claiming a Nobel prize, not desperately and blindly clinging to the dogmas of your tiny cult on an internet forum.

Your claims are sad and comical.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Baseless, unargued assertion. Every time anybody explains one of the many, many reasons why we know this claim is false, you either run away, post total nonsense, or just more baseless assertions.

There is endless evidence from (for example) evolution, cosmology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology, archaeology, genetics, and statistics. You just ignore it all and post silly assertions like this.

What do you think is actually happening here that make pretty much everybody involved in all these disciplines wrong? It's not like they're all atheists. People accept these who are from pretty much every religion, including most denominations of Christianity. The people who don't are almost all from your tiny cult of young earth creationism, who all have an obvious vested interest.

If you could actually falsify any of this, you'd be claiming a Nobel prize, not desperately and blindly clinging to the dogmas of your tiny cult on an internet forum.

Your claims are sad and comical.

So can you show anything that is over 6000 years old without an assumption?

 

[ratiocinator]

So can you show anything that is over 6000 years old without an assumption?

Radiometric dating, geology, light that has taken billions of years to reach earth. I could go on, but you never properly respond to anything, so what's the point.

Also, everything you claim is riddled with endless, and mostly obviously wrong, assumptions.

 

[shunyadragon]

So can you show anything that is over 6000 years old without an assumption?

This has been done many times simply based on physical evidence,

 

[shunyadragon]

So can you show anything that is over 6000 years old without an assumption?

CN you show God exists without the assumption that God exists,

Remember NO ASSUMPTIONS.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no evidence of any thing older than 6000 years. In fact all evidence shows that it is only about 6000 years old.

All evidence?!?!? What specific objective verifiable evidence are you referring to. Remember NO ASSUMPTIONS

 

[YoursTrue]

Not me.

Why is the sea urchin being called the cousin of people? Why that particular species?
Please give the blow by blow account through all the intermediary species with all the genes and with special attention to how this happened with sexual reproduction. I want times, places and names.

Surprise! Your Cousin's a Sea Urchin

They lack eyes, ears and a backbone, but sea urchins are more closely related to humans than once thought.

www.livescience.com

Not only can a person not give a blow-by-blow account but when asked such questions some will call the questioner uneducated, ignorant, tell them they need to go to school, and perhaps give a link to a diagrammatic explanation blithely and quickly covering millions, if not billions of years of unseen changes as if they know. Yup, I've learned a lot from these boards and answers. (I'm not making light of it, just saying what I've seen.)

 

[YoursTrue]

So can you show anything that is over 6000 years old without an assumption?

(I'm not going to get into this one...) now anyway. Have a good evening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. that is just the false assumptions of evolution and billions of years.

If you want to claim that the burden of proof is upon you. We have endless evidence. Assumptions are not made of an old Earth, that is the conclusion drawn from the evidence.

Too bad that you do not understand how science works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not only can a person not give a blow-by-blow account but when asked such questions some will call the questioner uneducated, ignorant, tell them they need to go to school, and perhaps give a link to a diagrammatic explanation blithely and quickly covering millions, if not billions of years of unseen changes as if they know. Yup, I've learned a lot from these boards and answers. (I'm not making light of it, just saying what I've seen.)

If you do not understand some aspect of evidence then you should ask questions. You have claimed many many times to understand and now you are admitting that you do not understand the science.

There is no shame in admitting that you do not understand something. but one should be ashamed if they falsely claim to understand something that they did not.