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]

Beware Bible scholars who do not get things right. The infallible history is a ruse that have been used many times.

I am well aware of the sort of Bible scholars that do not get things right. Real scholars have to be able to support their claims with more than just the Bible.

Remember, you do not get to assume that it is a valid source. I do not get to assume that it is hogwash. One has to be able to go outside of the Bible to support one's claims.

There is no doubt about the differences between the dates. Nor is the reason for a census unknown. You do not like the challenge because the rules are fair and you know that you will lose.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I am well aware of the sort of Bible scholars that do not get things right. Real scholars have to be able to support their claims with more than just the Bible.

Remember, you do not get to assume that it is a valid source. I do not get to assume that it is hogwash. One has to be able to go outside of the Bible to support one's claims.

There is no doubt about the differences between the dates. Nor is the reason for a census unknown. You do not like the challenge because the rules are fair and you know that you will lose.

Again, the infallible history argument is a fallacy.
Usually they do not understand that people sometimes use the same name.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, Wikipedia is a very good place to start when checking such claims. It is very clear in the sources that it used and they are often linked. One can no longer edit willy nilly on Wikipedia. One has to earn the right to edit without your edit going through moderation and once one earns that right it can be lost if one abuses it. People that earn the right to edit do not tend to throw that away on trolling any longer. Especially since troll edits are usually quickly discovered and edited out by others.

So here is a little homework for you:

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Alien826]

You think you can dictate who can and cannot partake in this thread. You cannot "remove" anybody. The pedestal you are standing on is made of ego.

To be fair, I suggested that we pick one of his claims and discuss it in depth. He responded with some conditions that he wanted to be met in order to participate. I don't see any dictating in that. It would be by agreement of the participants, and essentially unenforceable (in an open thread) of course, but perfectly possible given general agreement.

 

[Unfettered]

Here is simple 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.

I will soon post a thread that will refute billions of years and evolution.

If we're talking about "years" as is commonly understood on our planet, I offer: The earth. The sun. The moon. The galaxy. The universe. These are all older than 6,000 years. Granted, I have do admit that I base those assertions off of certain assumptions, not the least of which is that I assume these objects did not come into being mere moments before I became aware of them. If such assumptions are not allowed, I am at a loss.

Also, I haven't read all 17 pages of posts. If the pivotal reveal has already been done, could you point me to it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, the infallible history argument is a fallacy.
Usually they do not understand that people sometimes use the same name.

Not as I used it. When you use history improperly, yes it is a fallacy.

By the way, you do not get to just yell "Logical fallacy". When you make that claim you have to be ready to justify it. You probably do not know how logical fallacies work either.

The use of history is done to show that the claims of the Bible agreeing or being supported by history is false. That is not a logical fallacy. It does not "prove the Bible wrong". But it does prove that your claims about the Bible being "historical" are wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If we're talking about "years" as is commonly understood on our planet, I offer: The earth. The sun. The moon. The galaxy. The universe. These are all older than 6,000 years. Granted, I have do admit that I base those assertions off of certain assumptions, not the least of which is that I assume these objects did not come into being mere moments before I became aware of them. If such assumptions are not allowed, I am at a loss.

Also, I haven't read all 17 pages of posts. If the pivotal reveal has already been done, could you point me to it?

Just bad assumptions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who says?

Not the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be fair, I suggested that we pick one of his claims and discuss it in depth. He responded with some conditions that he wanted to be met in order to participate. I don't see any dictating in that. It would be by agreement of the participants, and essentially unenforceable (in an open thread) of course, but perfectly possible given general agreement.

I have no problem with that. But that being said, this link refutes 90% of the OP at least:

An Index to Creationist Claims

It would be nice if he picked out what he thought was the strongest of claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just bad assumptions.

Sorry, but you have to show that using reliable sources.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sorry, but you have to show that using reliable sources.

You made the claim.
Didn't George Foreman name all 7 of his sons George?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You made the claim.
Didn't George Foreman name all 7 of his sons George?

And I do believe that I supported it. Until you come up with something stronger you have lost.

 

[Unfettered]

Just bad assumptions.

Toss me a bone? What is a "bad" assumption?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Toss me a bone? What is a "bad" assumption?

Who cares?

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?

How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?

Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?

In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?

If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?

What was the energy source for these reactions?

Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years.

How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?

How was it able to divide itself? The protective layer must also divide and then close.

What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself? How did these things move in and out of the protective layer since they must be gated.

Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who cares?

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?

How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?

Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?

In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?

If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?

What was the energy source for these reactions?

Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years.

How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?

How was it able to divide itself? The protective layer must also divide and then close.

What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself? How did these things move in and out of the protective layer since they must be gated.

Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.

Try asking meaningful questions. You started out asking about abiogenesis. Which means that you have conceded the evolution argument. Moving the goalposts is not only a logical fallacy. It is a tacit admission that one was wrong in one's previous arguments. Otherwise why move the goalposts to questions that do not affect the main topic.

 

[Unfettered]

Who cares?

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?

How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?

Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?

In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?

If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?

What was the energy source for these reactions?

Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years.

How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?

How was it able to divide itself? The protective layer must also divide and then close.

What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself? How did these things move in and out of the protective layer since they must be gated.

Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.

I don't think I understand what is going on here. Bowing out. Good luck with the thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have been studying this for over 20 years. I know all the lies of evolution and billions of years.
These false sciences, Atheistic Origin “Science“ (AOS) use the no God assumption in their conjectures.
Please prove that there is no God,

Then how come your talking points are 60+ years out of date?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Then how come your talking points are 60+ years out of date?

Because the truth never changes.

 

[Audie]

I don't think I understand what is going on here. Bowing out. Good luck with the thread.

You don't know a gish gallop when you see one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the truth never changes.

Well that is somewhat true. Those questions were refuted 60 years ago and they are still refuted today.