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.

[Sgt. Pepper]

These are the only kind of threads that get comments. When someone new comes along who is a yec. Sad

What I find sad is the hubristic young earth creationist who joins the forum and then proceeds to post multiple threads of nothing but Gish gallop and repeatedly disregards any opposition or genuine queries about their YEC arguments and preferred biblical interpretation. This young earth creationist will attempt to shift the burden of proof by rudely insisting that others must disprove their claims when, as the original claimant, they bear the onus of proof and it is their responsibility to adequately substantiate their claim. Not only that, but the young earth creationist will oftentimes resort to belittling others, childish name-calling, and accusing those who post any kind of opposition to their creationism arguments and preferred interpretation of the Bible. As if that weren't enough to reveal their hubris and ignorance, they pompously declare victory over their opponents, despite being repeatedly informed that the burden of proof is on them, not on those who dispute creationism and the Bible. And, in their arrogance and eagerness to win a debate against those who disagree with and reject creationism, they rehash the same arguments and scriptures over and over, which substantially undermines their position.

 

[Heyo]

Nobody has yet answered satisfactory.
And will they agree to stop the personal attacks like name calling.
Better yet the evolutionist can only have 1 person posting, at a time.

Are you proposing a one-on-one debate? I'm game.

 

[Mock Turtle]

These are the only kind of threads that get comments. When someone new comes along who is a yec. Sad

No they aren't.

And your last sentence should be - When someone new comes along who is a YEC, just so sad.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

My avatar is a modern human skull (cro magnon), it's 22000 years old. It can be seen at le Musee National de Prehistoire at Les Eyzies in France. The dating documentation is available, it has been dated using 3 different methods that all agree within less than 0.05%

Hello Christine, hope you and your family are doing well.

If you can, will you provide those 3 dating methods? I’m curious.

Thank you.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, but one based in logic. If A = A then, given everything else is also equal, we would expect equal outcomes for equal experiments.
That is a principle science is based on, sometime called the Copernican Principle.
Do we agree that an orderly universe is a reasonable assumption based on the law of identity?
Do we agree that in the same environment, experiments should be repeatable?
Do we agree that different outcomes are either a result of random processes or that there has to be a parameter that has to be different?
Do we agree that the one who expects a different outcome should name the parameter and a way to measure it?

@SavedByTheLord: 6 pages of banter with other posters but no answer to these simple questions? Wait, that is an assumption. They don't have to be simple to you. Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Just asking why you avoid my questions. Do you don't understand them? Shall I rephrase? Do you need examples?
Or did you have bad experiences with Socratic questioning? Are you traumatised?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

@SavedByTheLord: 6 pages of banter with other posters but no answer to these simple questions? Wait, that is an assumption. They don't have to be simple to you. Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Just asking why you avoid my questions. Do you don't understand them? Shall I rephrase? Do you need examples?
Or did you have bad experiences with Socratic questioning? Are you traumatised?

So you cannot refute the infallible proof I gave using the law of non contradiction. Why? Because it is irrefutable.
You could not meet the challenge of showing one thing that has existed that is over 6000 years ago without an assumption. Why? Because there are none.
Now you cannot answer or refute all the questions I posted. Why? Because you cannot.
And that was just a subset of questions that I have. And of course real science theories must meet all attempts at disproving them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you cannot refute the infallible proof I gave using the law of non contradiction. Why? Because it is irrefutable.
You could not meet the challenge of showing one thing that has existed that is over 6000 years ago without an assumption. Why? Because there are none.
Now you cannot answer or refute all the questions I posted. Why? Because you cannot.
And that was just a subset of questions that I have. And of course real science theories must meet all attempts at disproving them.

You never did that. You posted some nonsense once but you never posted an "infallible proof". No Christian ever has.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You never did that. You posted some nonsense once but you never posted an "infallible proof". No Christian ever has.

Run and hide from that which you cannot refute.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Run and hide from that which you cannot refute.

That is you. I asked you to post your argument again. Others did the same. You ran away and hid.

 

[ChristineM]

So you cannot refute the infallible proof I gave using the law of non contradiction. Why? Because it is irrefutable.
You could not meet the challenge of showing one thing that has existed that is over 6000 years ago without an assumption. Why? Because there are none.
Now you cannot answer or refute all the questions I posted. Why? Because you cannot.
And that was just a subset of questions that I have. And of course real science theories must meet all attempts at disproving them.

What a load of bs

The LNC is a logical device, you have not provided any logical proof. On the contrary, you apparently know very little of logic and how it is used.

Several people have shown evidence of items existing that are older than 6000 years. All you have done is stamp your foot and ignore or deny them with no evidence do justify your claims

That's what science is about, and as yet you have done nothing to refute science.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What a load of bs

The LNC is a logical device, you have not provided any logical proof. On the contrary, you apparently know very little of logic and how it is used.

Several people have shown evidence of items existing that are older than 6000 years. All you have done is stamp your foot and ignore or deny them with no evidence do justify your claims

That's what science is about, and as yet you have done nothing to refute science.

I have not stamped my foot.
and it had to be without an assumption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have not stamped my foot.
and it had to be without an assumption.

He says as he stamps his foot again!

 

[SavedByTheLord]

He says as he stamps his foot again!

evolution and billions is just a song and a dance and false.

 

[Heyo]

So you cannot refute the infallible proof I gave using the law of non contradiction. Why? Because it is irrefutable.

I refuted it. You haven't answered to that refutation so I assume you have no answer.

You could not meet the challenge of showing one thing that has existed that is over 6000 years ago without an assumption. Why? Because there are none.

You didn't even bother to answer my example. The only assumption I need for that is that things don't accumulate magically.

Now you cannot answer or refute all the questions I posted. Why? Because you cannot.

Did you ask me specifically? No. And why should I answer your page of questions when you refuse to answer even one of my eleven questions I specifically asked you?

And that was just a subset of questions that I have. And of course real science theories must meet all attempts at disproving them.

Yeah, when you're homeschooled and science was never on the curriculum, people have a lot of questions. And they are also unable to look up the answers in the scientific literature because they wouldn't understand them.
That is why you have been offered lectures on basic science and the scientific method. Take that offer and all your questions will be answered, not exclusively by us but you will be able to read textbooks that answer those questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

evolution and billions is just a song and a dance and false.

Sorry, but that is a positive assertion. That puts the burden of proof upon you. And since you have demonstrated that you do not even understand the concept of science I don't think that you will be able to support that claim.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I refuted it. You haven't answered to that refutation so I assume you have no answer.

You didn't even bother to answer my example. The only assumption I need for that is that things don't accumulate magically.

Did you ask me specifically? No. And why should I answer your page of questions when you refuse to answer even one of my eleven questions I specifically asked you?

Yeah, when you're homeschooled and science was never on the curriculum, people have a lot of questions. And they are also unable to look up the answers in the scientific literature because they wouldn't understand them.
That is why you have been offered lectures on basic science and the scientific method. Take that offer and all your questions will be answered, not exclusively by us but you will be able to read textbooks that answer those questions.

Again just falsely accusing, You are desperat, that is why you use those debate 101 technique.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again just falsely accusing, You are desperat, that is why you use those debate 101 technique.

No. That is projection on your part. You can ask questions on what you did wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No. That is projection on your part. You can ask questions on what you did wrong.

And again you are wrong.
Does God Almighty exists?
Is the God of the Bible the one true God?
yes to both

 

[Subduction Zone]

And again you are wrong.
Does God Almighty exists?
Is the God of the Bible the one true God?
yes to both.

Sorry, but in a debate such claims are assumed to be false if a person cannot support them. You need to do more than to stamp your feet. Even though it is so cute when you do that. My nephew used to do the same when he was five.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Where is the liar, liar, pants on fire frubal when it's needed?