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.

[Subduction Zone]

C-14 proves that long ages are false, as things that are supposedly millions of years old are not C-14 dead.
But C-14 dating beyond about 3500 years are not accurate as the world before the flood a low C-14 to C-12 ratio.

No, we went over that. And you keep losing the argument when you use the word "prove" improperly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just because the age is assumed to be old does not mean it is old.
Just C-14 date them.

There are no such assumptions. And C14 cannot date old material.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

There are no such assumptions. And C14 cannot date old material.

But they are not old because they are not C-14 dead. There are lots of these too.
Date all the fossils and anything that is supposed to be over 6000 years old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But they are not old because they are not C-14 dead. There are lots of these too.
Date all the fossils and anything that is supposed to be over 6000 years old.

You don't know that. You keep forgetting the obvious. Your guys are either liars or brain dead incompetents. They did not follow proper guidelines and protocols for sampling. They lied to the company dating the material. The numbers they got indicate that they contaminated their samples. In fact one sample has two different "dates" over five thousand years apart from each other. That indicates contamination, not age.

 

[Valjean]

He claimed that he could disprove the flood because he claimed it violated physical laws.
I doubt he proved that but that is not the point.
God is Almighty and can and has violated physical laws.

Why do you believe that?

 

[Valjean]

The premise of his argument is based on a false assumption and circular reasoning.
That leads him to a false conclusion.

What evidence do you have that it's false?

Here. Try another argument:

 

[soulsurvivor]

C-14 proves that long ages are false, as things that are supposedly millions of years old are not C-14 dead.
But C-14 dating beyond about 3500 years are not accurate as the world before the flood a low C-14 to C-12 ratio.

Evidence for the earliest structural use of wood at least 476,000 years ago - Nature

Wooden artefacts from waterlogged deposits in Zambia dating back 477 ka indicate hitherto unknown sophistication in woodworking at an early date.

www.nature.com

Uses luminescence dating (whatever that means)

 

[Valjean]

That just because the laws have nature are violated it is impossible.

If God does anything he chooses regardless of the natural laws He supposedly created, then nothing is understandable, nothing predictable, nothing true or false, no logic or mathematics, and no rational arguments for anything. Anything can change in the blink of an eye at any time. We live in a swirling maelstrom of chaotic unpredictable change.

Even atheists admit that they cannot prove that there is no God.

Can't prove there are no pink unicorns either, so do you believe in them? Why not?

Here's how rational assessment works. There is objective evidence for some things. They can be seen, measured, or tested. These are the things rational people believe in. Then there are things for which there is no objective evidence. These cannot be detected, measured or tested. They exist only in yourimagination. These are the things rational people withhold belief in.

Arguing the likelihood that an undetectable thing exists because it hasn't been shown not to exist, is not rational.
Do you understand what's meant by "burden of proof?"

Why don't evolutionists admit the same and admit that the no God assumption is just an assumption.

What does evolution have to do with God? Why would "evolutionists have any assumptions about God, one way or the other?

Assuming something with no evidence of existence doesn't exist is not just an assumption. It's rational.
Why don't you admit the no leprechaun/Superman/Pegasus assumptions are just assumptions?

 

[Valjean]

Not me. It is just that evolutionary and billions of years scientists are wrong because they have used false assumptions and circular reasoning.

Yet you either refuse to or can't explain these errors. Why should we pay any attention to an unfounded claim?

But they are not old because they are not C-14 dead. There are lots of these too.
Date all the fossils and anything that is supposed to be over 6000 years old.

Why do things containing no carbon radiometrically date to >6,000 years old, as well? Why do tree rings and ice cores exceed 6,000 years?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yet you either refuse to or can't explain these errors. Why should we pay any attention to an unfounded claim?

Why do things containing no carbon radiometrically date to >6,000 years old, as well? Why do tree rings and ice cores exceed 6,000 years?

They should not be 4500 years old for the flood to be true but about 30,000 years.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at least 20 times 1960 levels.
Also the amount of C-14 would have been less.
So the c-14 to c -12 would have been about 1/30th of 1960 level.
That is about 2^5 times less which is 5 half lives.
The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years
5x that is 28,650 years of extra age,
4500 + 28,650 = 33,150 years
The average of the dates in this link is about 30,000 years.
Bingo.
They are from the flood.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

 

[soulsurvivor]

The average of the dates in this link is about 30,000 years.

Are you saying the Earth is only 6000 years old, but the flood was 30,000 years ago?

 

[Kenny]

Sorry but the evidence that the Genesis story is not literally true is one of the most certain conclusions in all of science. It is falsified by evolution, cosmology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology, archaeology, genetics, and statistics (just off the top of my head).

As you can tell… not every cosmologist, physicist, astrophysicist, astronomist, geologist et all agrees. I’m none of the above and am fine with the differences of understanding.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, of course if one keeps oneself blind it might not seem to be air tight. But some of us cannot willfully blind ourselves.

Yes!! Within the knowledge you have, which is infinitesimal to what is out there, one can think one sees and yet is blind.

Reminds me of a quote from a wise person: "Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? "

 

[YoursTrue]

That actually is a correction of your claim, so unfortunately, no.

Ok. Take care again.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Are you saying the Earth is only 6000 years old, but the flood was 30,000 years ago?

No. Earth about 6000 years old flood about 4500 years ago.
There are many things which are supposedly millions of years old but not C-14 dead.
That proves that they are not millions of years old,

Not many things are C-14 dated about 30,000 years old.
They should not be dated as 4500 years old for the flood to be true but about 30,000 years.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at least 20 times 1960 levels.
Also the amount of C-14 would have been less.
So the c-14 to c -12 would have been about 1/30th of 1960 level.
That is about 2^5 times less which is 5 half lives.
The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years
5x that is 28,650 years of extra age,
4500 + 28,650 = 33,150 years
The average of the dates in this link is about 30,000 years.
Bingo.
They are from the flood.

 

[YoursTrue]

As you can tell… not every cosmologist, physicist, astrophysicist, astronomist, geologist et all agrees. I’m none of the above and am fine with the differences of understanding.

You know, the book of Job really goes into it. Can men know what God knows? (Only to a whisper... I'm sure you remember the phrase...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes!! Within the knowledge you have, which is infinitesimal to what is out there, one can think one sees and yet is blind.

Reminds me of a quote from a wise person: "Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? "

You do not seem to realize that you are the one that has been keeping your eyes shut.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Earth about 6000 years old flood about 4500 years ago.
There are many things which are supposedly millions of years old but not C-14 dead.
That proves that they are not millions of years old,

No it doesn't. Contamination could yield the same result. And you keep forgetting that you are relying on known liars for those figures. They all lied when the items were dated.

Not many things are C-14 dated about 30,000 years old.

That is because there are not many things that are datable with C14 when they get that old.

They should not be dated as 4500 years old for the flood to be true but about 30,000 years.

No, you were never able to justify this claim.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at least 20 times 1960 levels.

No, once again you were never able to justify this. You referred to a Wiki article that showed the results for 500 million years ago. 500 million years is not 6,000 years. You do not get to pick and choose when it comes to the sciences.

Also the amount of C-14 would have been less.

You cannot even begin to make this claim until you justify your YEC nonsense and that has been refuted to such an extent that you are calling God a liar since he would have had to have planted endless false evidence.

So the c-14 to c -12 would have been about 1/30th of 1960 level.
That is about 2^5 times less which is 5 half lives.
The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years
5x that is 28,650 years of extra age,
4500 + 28,650 = 33,150 years
The average of the dates in this link is about 30,000 years.
Bingo.
They are from the flood.

No, you do not know how logic works. You do not know how science works. And you show that you know it almost every day.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is the correct information.

Fini

 

[YoursTrue]

You are demonstrably wrong about a lot of things.



You forgot to answer the question. If you are wrong, how could you find out?

Etc and etc. take care.