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.

[Dan From Smithville]

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

The Earth and the universe are just billions of years old. 4.6 and 13.7 billion respectively. Trillions would be really old. Like Donald Trump old.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Hah, refuted you again.

They used radiocarbon dating that you don't understand and reject when it shows you wrong and accept when you think it shows you correct. Odd how that double doesn't seem to bother you.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Hah, refuted you again.

They used radiocarbon dating that you don't understand and reject when it shows you wrong and accept when you think it shows you correct. Odd how that double doesn't seem to bother you.

C-14 dating is not valid beyond 3500 years.
You have assumed the C-14 and C-12 concentrations beyond that.
You have failed to meet the challenge.
Remember no one has.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

The irony is that a sign with a date would be less reliable then a dating measurement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The irony is that a sign with a date would be less reliable then a dating measurement.

Only if creationists were running the tests. Luckily they had real scientists working on that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 extra funny when you consider that dating measurement would far more reliable then a sign with a date written on it.
A human could write any date while a proper dating measurement would be based on the actual composition of the material of the thing being dated.

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

lol idd

 

[John53]

Remember no one has.

I have, I went and looked at a cliff face.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Yes.

Well, that is to say... there's no "absolute certainty" about anything. Including factual things.
But all this stuff is true beyond reasonable doubt, yes.

We long passed the moment where any reasonable doubt could be rationally put forward that the earth is old.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 ?

It has to do with intellectual honesty.

Absolute certainty doesn't exist. About anything. Both scientific as well as otherwise.
To have absolute certainty, you would need to be able to disprove ANY alternative you can imagine, including unfalsifiable ones. And that can't be done.

For example: is reality actually real or can you prove that you are NOT a brain in a vat hooked up to some kind of matrix?

I know this sounds ridiculous and is an extreme "alternative" to reality, which is why nobody takes it seriously.
However, to claim "absolute certainty" is just as extreme. So you would need equally extreme validation for it. And when looking at such extremes, you can't provide it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Classic argument from incredulity.

And one that is easily blown out of the water.
For example: consider the bazzi-gillion-trillions of water molecules that make up the earth's oceans.
You can't wrap your head around that number either. Therefor, do you believe the oceans aren't as big as they are?

Just because you have dificulty wrapping your head about X, doesn't make X false.
The evidence is what it is. Regardless of how uneasy it makes you feel.

I can't wrap my head around how time slows down relative to an observe as speed / gravity goes up.
But it still happens.

I mean you almost might as well say that the earth is eternal.

Why would you say that? There is no evidence to support that any more then there is evidence to support a young earth.

All evidence says the earth is 4.5 billion years old. That's the number. Not young, not eternal. Just 4.5 billion years old.
Life is at least 3.8 billion years old (= that 's the oldest evidence we have, so it might be older, but it's at least 3.8 billion).

You can either accept the facts of reality or pretend as if your "gut feelings" or a priori beliefs supercede them.
But if you choose the latter, all you will end up doing is believe false things.


As I always say: when the evidence of reality disagrees with your beliefs / gut-feelings, it's not reality that is incorrect

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Forget about electrons... just look at your own body.
It is made up by around 36 trillion cells.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

C-14 dating is not valid beyond 3500 years.

You're incorrect by a margin of about ~55.000 years.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Many people in various countries are homeless, sometimes they sleep on the streets. Why isn't the government giving them shelter, food and clothing?

 

[YoursTrue]

Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That isn't proof. It is simply saying that's what the researchers believe the evidence they looked at and tested says.

 

[ratiocinator]

C-14 dating is not valid beyond 3500 years.

False.

Radiocarbon dating - Nature Reviews Methods Primers

Radiocarbon dating is a common and reliable tool for measuring the age of a range of objects, from trees to historical artefacts and human remains. Hajdas et al. outline best practices for selecting and processing samples, as well as obtaining accurate measurements and age ranges. Ethical...

www.nature.com

"Radiocarbon dating uses the decay of a radioactive isotope of carbon (¹⁴C) to measure time and date objects containing carbon-bearing material. With a half-life of 5,700 ± 30 years, detection of ¹⁴C is a useful tool for determining the age of a specimen formed over the past 55,000 years."

You have failed to meet the challenge.
Remember no one has.

Comical. Your absurd 'challenges' were all easily met.

[edited for typo]

 

[ratiocinator]

That isn't proof.

 

[John53]

That isn't proof. It is simply saying that's what the researchers believe the evidence they looked at and tested says.

Nobody said it was proof. It is evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody said it was proof. It is evidence.

And you and the scientists doing the research believe the evidence is interpreted correctly insofar as dates are concerned, right?

 

[John53]

And you and the scientists doing the research believe the evidence is interpreted correctly insofar as dates are concerned, right?

I can't speak for people I've never met but I have no reason to suspect they are lying or wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody said it was proof. It is evidence.

Definition of proof: "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages