-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it regularly fails. Do you want to go over some of the failures?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There are none.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Except for all of Genesis,, oh and Exodus. And the big fish story. And striped sticks and striped goats. Advocating for slave ownership. The the ten year differences in the year of birth of Jesus, and quite a few more.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
All just malarkey.
There is no difference in the year that Christ was born.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
False. This has been explained to you and you just ran away (as usual).
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The old infallible his-story con job and you bought it.
Massimo2002
Active Member
Okay now that we know what scientific evidence is do you have any specific scientific evidence of anything on earth being older than 10,000 Years ?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?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Still running away.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Oldest dated rocks - Wikipedia
Massimo2002
Active Member
Thanks I will have a look at that article.Oldest dated rocks - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Stone tools, fossils, rocks, geological formations like canyons, mountains, volcano's, coal, caves, several distinct salt deposits beneath the mediteranian, ice cores showing hundreds of thousands of snowlayers resulting from winter/summer cycles, ... there are even buildings older then 10.000 years.
Massimo2002
Active Member
I'm curious what buildings would be older than 10 000 years ?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Dated by what?
It has a corner stone 9500 BC?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
By the very same tech that you would have no issue accepting if the outcome would be 5000 years which you could fit into your bubble of make-belief.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes. Of course. Why would you even have to ask?
Massimo2002
Active Member
I ask because I have doubts about the world being millions or billions or trillions of years old.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Well it did not have a sign 9500 BC did it?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
