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.

[Soandso]

Well it did not have a sign 9500 BC did it?

Why would anyone look for anything based on written language for something that ancient when the earliest written language found dates to 3100 BCE? I know your comment is just a dismissive "joke" meant to make a "point," but you are being presented hard evidence and in response to that you ask for for standards that don't exist in reality and never will? Eh...

It's like forensic scientists have gathered all this evidence for a murder trial to show how the suspect committed the crime and the judge dismissively says "well did the murderer write a sign that says my name is Michael Jones and I did it?" In response to the evidence. Yikes

 

[Subduction Zone]

I ask because I have doubts about the world being millions or billions or trillions of years old.

We have multiple independent ways to show that the Earth is old. And there is no scientific evidence that supports a young Earth. For example, we have rock formations made of varve deposits. Those are annual lake deposits, one example is over five million years of annual deposits. And that is just one single example. That is the Green River Formation. We have radiometric dating that directly measures the absolute ages of rocks. We have rocks over four billion years old using that. We have strata that could not have been rapidly deposited, such as chalk. And we have erosional features many millions of years old. Why would you believe in a young Earth?

 

[Massimo2002]

We have multiple independent ways to show that the Earth is old. And there is no scientific evidence that supports a young Earth. For example, we have rock formations made of varve deposits. Those are annual lake deposits, one example is over five million years of annual deposits. And that is just one single example. That is the Green River Formation. We have radiometric dating that directly measures the absolute ages of rocks. We have rocks over four billion years old using that. We have strata that could not have been rapidly deposited, such as chalk. And we have erosional features many millions of years old. Why would you believe in a young Earth?

And you are saying that all of those things can be trusted with absolute certainty no room at all for any doubts ?

 

[McBell]

And you are saying that all of those things can be trusted with absolute certainty no room at all for any doubts ?

it is science, not religion.
Science actually relies on doubts.
But then, unlike religion, science alters its view based on the evidence available.
So if new evidence is discovered that changes it, it is changed to confirm with the evidence,

 

[Valjean]

And you are saying that all of those things can be trusted with absolute certainty no room at all for any doubts ?

Nothing can be trusted with absolute certainty, but some things are very well evidenced, and have no contrary evidence. Techniques can be easily demonstrated to work in multiple situations, with the same techniques yielding the same results all over the world, every time tried. Different dating methods applied to a thing will yield the same results, &c.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you are saying that all of those things can be trusted with absolute certainty no room at all for any doubts ?

People do not have to trust those answers. Scientists very often do not believe each other so they will reproduce the work themselves. You could reproduce some of the work yourself. For example the Castile Formation is in eastern New Mexico and western Texas. It is a halite series. It consists of annual layers of salt from a large flat pond that would dry up, sometimes completely, every year. That is only about three hundred thousand years of deposits, but you can see and count them with your naked eye.

Why would you believe any other age?

 

[Massimo2002]

Nothing can be trusted with absolute certainty, but some things are very well evidenced, and have no contrary evidence. Techniques can be easily demonstrated to work in multiple situations, with same techniques can yielding the same results all over the world, every time tried. Different dating methods applied to a thing will yield the same results, &c.

What you are saying doesn't make sense. So nothing can be absolutely trusted but yet if you repeat the same thing every time and get the same results that's not enough to be absolutely trusted with certainty ?

 

[Massimo2002]

People do not have to trust those answers. Scientists very often do not believe each other so they will reproduce the work themselves. You could reproduce some of the work yourself. For example the Castile Formation is in eastern New Mexico and western Texas. It is a halite series. It consists of annual layers of salt from a large flat pond that would dry up, sometimes completely, every year. That is only about three hundred thousand years of deposits, but you can see and count them with your naked eye.

Why would you believe any other age?

I would believe in a shorter age because millions and billions and trillions are huge numbers that I don't think any human can really wrap there head around I mean you almost might as well say that the earth is eternal.

 

[ChieftheCef]

How much you want to bet 20-30 thousand of the 50 thousand threads on this are "I challenge this scientific theory because if this faulty proof"

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would believe in a shorter age because millions and billions and trillions are huge numbers that I don't think any human can really wrap there head around I mean you almost might as well say that the earth is eternal.

There is a big difference between large numbers and infinity. The reason that we can communicate here is because of the scientific method. Those numbers of years are almost nothing compared to the number of electrons that it takes for us to post to each other here. Those are much larger numbers, but still finite.

So do not be frightened by large numbers. Large numbers are everywhere if you do any looking at all.

 

[Massimo2002]

There is a big difference between large numbers and infinity. The reason that we can communicate here is because of the scientific method. Those numbers of years are almost nothing compared to the number of electrons that it takes for us to post to each other here. Those are much larger numbers, but still finite.

So do not be frightened by large numbers. Large numbers are everywhere if you do any looking at all.

Of course I'm thankful for science and mathematics and engineering for creating Electronics. But is that really true that the number of Electrons in Electronics is more than the number of the age of the earth ? If that is true then that to me is truly fascinating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I'm thankful for science and mathematics and engineering for creating Electronics. But is that really true that the number of Electrons in Electronics is more than the number of the age of the earth ? If that is true then that to me is truly fascinating.

Yes, many, many electrons. An amp is a flow of 6 * 10^18 electrons per second. A milli-amp, a much more reasonable number for electronics is a thousandth of that but that is still six quadrillion electrons per second. When one sees how common large numbers are in the world one can realize that the argument from large numbers is not very convincing.

 

[Massimo2002]

Yes, many, many electrons. An amp is a flow of 6 * 10^18 electrons per second. A milli-amp, a much more reasonable number for electronics is a thousandth of that but that is still six quadrillion electrons per second. When one sees how common large numbers are in the world one can realize that the argument from large numbers is not very convincing.

When you say amp do you mean a speaker or a guitar or instrument amp ? Also I will look into this more because that's a mind blowing number to me quadrillion wow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you say amp do you mean a speaker or a guitar or instrument amp ? Also I will look into this more because that's a mind blowing number to me quadrillion wow.

No, it is short for ampere, just as in the music business amp is short for amplifier.

Ampere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Massimo2002]

No, it is short for ampere, just as in the music business amp is short for amplifier.

Ampere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep I'm definitely learning something new today.

 

[Valjean]

What you are saying doesn't make sense. So nothing can be absolutely trusted but yet if you repeat the same thing every time and get the same results that's not enough to be absolutely trusted with certainty ?

Do you believe germs cause disease, or that the Earth is round and circles the sun? Do you believe in tectonic plates or atomic fission? Why? They're all just theories.

There is a hierarchy of reliability. The reliability of a belief is determined by its supporting evidence. There is lots of consilient evidence for the germ theory and the theory of evolution. There is lots of evidence for the age of the Earth.

I would believe in a shorter age because millions and billions and trillions are huge numbers that I don't think any human can really wrap there head around I mean you almost might as well say that the earth is eternal.

You don't believe it because it's hard to wrap your head around large numbers?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you believe germs cause disease, or that the Earth is round and circles the sun? Do you believe in tectonic plates or atomic fission? Why? They're all just theories.

There is a hierarchy of reliability. The reliability of a belief is determined by its supporting evidence. There is lots of consilient evidence for the germ theory and the theory of evolution. There is lots of evidence for the age of the Earth.

You don't believe it because it's hard to wrap your head around large numbers?

So far he seems to be trying to learn so I would not take it too hard on him. He is lacking an education in the sciences, but he seems to want to learn. That is a positive attribute.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What you are saying doesn't make sense. So nothing can be absolutely trusted but yet if you repeat the same thing every time and get the same results that's not enough to be absolutely trusted with certainty ?

We cannot know anything with absolute certainty. We can know some things with a high degree of confidence.

If I guess 7 numbers correctly in a row, I can feel confident that I will likely guess the 8th correctly, but I cannot know that for certain. If I don't make any correct guesses of numbers after 7 attempts in a row, I would be much less confident that I will get the 8th attempt correct, but it is not certain that I won't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would believe in a shorter age because millions and billions and trillions are huge numbers that I don't think any human can really wrap there head around I mean you almost might as well say that the earth is eternal.

What you are suggesting is basically an argument from incredulity. Finding those estimates for the age of the Earth or the universe as so large you find it incredible that people could grasp them. Perhaps not, but the ability of people to grasp the scope of something isn't an impediment for something to exist in that scope and doesn't make an age estimate false.

I find the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years to be incredible and difficult to grasp from my span of life, but my flaw does not change the age of the Earth. The universe hasn't shown any willingness to bend for me or make allowances.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well it did not have a sign 9500 BC did it?

I get it. You wouldn't believe if the builder had written his name, the date and a photo, so what difference do the facts make to you?