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]

C-14 dating is not valid beyond 3500 years.

Incorrect. You have been deceived.

Refuted again.

You have assumed the C-14 and C-12 concentrations beyond that.

You have assumed I assumed and your assumption is wrong. Refuted again.

You have failed to meet the challenge.

You have failed to meet the challenge. Refuted again.

Remember no one has.

I remember no one has met the burden of proof in refuting the science. Yes. You are refuted again.

I have falsified your incorrect statements. Refuted you again.

Science wins again!

 

[Valjean]

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

And why shouldn't they? Is there some problem with the measurements?

 

[Valjean]

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.

Nobody uses C14 dating to measure the age of the Earth.

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods

Using relative and radiometric dating methods, geologists are able to answer the question: how old is this fossil?

www.nature.com

Is there some other dating method that you ascribe to, that shows an alternate date?

 

[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.

I've often wondered how a person could know that something was eternal. If a being lived 5 billion years, we would think it was eternal, since it definitely would outlive not only this generation of humanity, but 167 million generations. But that being could die the next year and would not then be eternal. Just incredibly long-lived. In a functional sense in comparison to our lifespan, such a being would be seen as eternal, while not really being eternal.

Large numbers may be difficult to grasp, but that difficulty does not make them the wrong answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Don't you listen to your elders and believe what they tell you to believe? And unlike the personal opinions of church leaders, the work of scientists can be reviewed, examined and repeated for verification. What verification system do you use to judge religious opinions? Systems that are not circular I mean or reliant on untestable assumptions.

What you seem to be proposing is a double standard which puts us back to believing things that are personally appealing and rejecting things that are not personally appealing as the basis for accepting something as valid information.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I'm betting that the fact that you have been informed that proof is not a standard of science is well into the hundreds of times by now.

The fact that this has been repeated goes to the evidence for your complaint about not receiving deeper explanations when this evidence says that providing them is a wasted effort.

Again, a double standard seems to be emerging. Positions based on no evidence or proof, existing inviolate to outside information held as the standard to dismiss systems based on evidence, testing and conditional and contextual revision upon new information. One is static and closed and the other is dynamic and grows.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

Science and mathematics deal with large numbers all the time. The numbers here are, in fact, fairly modest. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, so 4.5×10⁹ years. However, if you randomly shuffle a simple deck of 52 cards, the number of possible outcomes is about 8×10⁶⁷, which makes the age of the Earth in years seem tiny. We are talking

4,500,000,000
vs.
80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Science and mathematics deal with large numbers all the time. The numbers here are, in fact, fairly modest. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, so 4.5×10⁹ years. However, if you randomly shuffle a simple deck of 52 cards, the number of possible outcomes is about 8×10⁶⁷, which makes the age of the Earth in years seem tiny. We are talking

4,500,000,000
vs.
80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

But abiogenesis is impossible without God even if the universe were a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years old.

 

[ratiocinator]

But abiogenesis is impossible without God even if the universe were a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years old.

Both irrelevant and false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wouldn't imagine that they were lying, and I cannot speak to them directly right now, but the dating process particularly along with the items they dated are in question.

I submit that the ONLY reason you consider them "in question", is because they don't agree with your fundamentalist a priori belief.
And you have already acknowledged in the past that you will reject at face value anything that contradicts your religious beliefs.

You don't actually have any valid reason to question dating mechanisms. In fact, you likely wouldn't even be able to explain how these mechanisms work even if your life depended on it. So how could you ever have any valid objection to them?

The fact of the matter is that these dating mechanisms are based on knowledge of how atoms work, how stuff wears and tears over time, how stuff erodes by wind and water, how stuff ages over time. All phenomenon that are very well understood and which are very much independently verifiable.
And idd, independent testing of these things using multiple independent methods all yield the same results. That makes them very reliable.

Off course, in scientific circles reliability is established on verifiable criteria and its ability to produce consistent results.
Whereas in your world, "reliability" is established based on "how well does it match my a priori beliefs".

Furthermore, as you probably know, scientists can offer new and differing conclusions about evidence.

Not when it comes to reliable and established methods like in this case, actually.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is saying that's what the researchers believe the evidence they looked at and tested says. to them.

Yes, scientists accept evidence and what the evidence suggests, regardless if it fits their beliefs or not. When it doesn't, they change their beliefs instead of assuming the evidence is wrong.

You only accept evidence when it fits your a priori assumed conclusions. And when it doesn't, you assume the evidence is wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wonder how scientists figure billions of years.

Read the posts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

those researching the site mentioned or any site archaeologically generally test for evidence. However they test for dating. They could be wrong.

Anybody could be wrong about anything. Including you.
The question however is: IF one is wrong, how do you propose to find out?

And please, let's not pretend as if scientists just pull dates out of their behind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is there some other dating method that you ascribe to, that shows an alternate date?

Yeah. He "counts" generations in his bible and adds the ages of people together and that's his "proof".

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

This is the sort of question that looks dishonest to others. It has nothing to do with the topic that we are discussing. Whether evolution is true or not we would have this problem. If your God existed or if he did not we would have this problem. This is a question that is refuted by a simple:

So what?

 

[Valjean]

But abiogenesis is impossible without God even if the universe were a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years old.

Why is it impossible, and why does God make it possible? I believe these are baseless claims.

 

[Kenny]

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.

Hmmm… interesting point. Who knows what the concentrations were beyond that? Were they the same?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm… interesting point. Who knows what the concentrations were beyond that? Were they the same?

Of C-14? They would have been rather similar. Why even ask? It seems like an odd question to me.

 

[Kenny]

Of C-14? They would have been rather similar. Why even ask? It seems like an odd question to me.

I have an inquiring mind.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Hmmm… interesting point. Who knows what the concentrations were beyond that? Were they the same?

Before the flood, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was 1/30th or less than today.
Most of this is from the fact that carbon dioxide levels were over 20x that of 1960.
That would add up to 5 x 5730 years or 28,000 years.