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.

[beenherebeforeagain]

Give anything that is more than 6000 years old.​

Bishop Ussher showed that the world was created in 4004 BCE.
The current year is 2023 CE

Simple math tells us that the world is therefore 6,027 years old. This is MORE THAN 6000 years old

 

[Twilight Hue]

How did they determine the age?
Did you notice that the age given is not a scientific number at all?

A multimethod dating study of ancient permafrost, Batagay megaslump, east Siberia | Quaternary Research | Cambridge Core

A multimethod dating study of ancient permafrost, Batagay megaslump, east Siberia - Volume 105

www.cambridge.org

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You can question things, but if you want to challenge them you need more than denial.

I already proved God Almighty exists and created all things using the law of non contradiction. There are more proofs that do the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you say you are a believer, what do you mean.
I am glad you said that you believe and not no. That would require assumption.

This is just a preliminary list, more is coming.
How does one explain polystrate trees?
How does one explain soft tissue and blood vessels in dinosaur tissue?
How does one explain dinosaur tissue with DNA and other biomolecules still being intact?
How does one explain dinosaur tissue, and diamonds that are not C-14 dead?
Why is there too much C-14 in some samples of coal and fossilized wood?
How do you explain parentless polonium 210 radiohaloes in granites?
How do you explain elliptical polonium 210 halos in the same strata with circular halos?
There is a great deception in some of the ages that are quoted by evolutionists. Why the deception?
There are inconsistencies in the radioactive dating results of many things. So isochron dating has been used. But even then, there are many large discrepancies. Why?
The inconsistencies in the dating of things and in all “clocks” used to set the age of things can be simply explained if some miraculous events occurred. These would be 6-day creation, the fall of man and the curse on creation and the worldwide flood about 4500 years ago.
There is a lack of a 50-50 racemization of amino acids in fossils. Why?
There are discontinuous fossil sequences in the fossil record. Why?
Oil, coal, and opals can be formed rapidly under certain conditions. Why the deception?
The evidence is that the coal beads and fossilized wood were formed rapidly. Why?
There are missing layers representing millions of years. Why?
Why are there ephemeral markings at the boundaries of layers? That shows rapid deposit.
If intelligent man was around for 100,000 years or so, why did he not figure out how to drop a seed in the ground and farm?
History is too short. Why?
The Great Barrier reef is only 4200 years old; the oldest tree is only 4300 years old. Why?
The age of the Sahara Desert is only 4000 years old. Why?
There is too much helium in radioactive rocks. Why?
There is helium in old zircon crystals. Why?
Thick sedimentary rock layers bent beyond the fracturing point, yet not fractured. Why?
The Mississippi river delta and deltas around the world show the result of one large flood like the worldwide flood. Why?
The arms of spiral galaxies should no longer exist, but they do. Why?
There is not enough helium in the earth’s atmosphere to support an old atmosphere. Why?
There is not enough sediment at the bottom of the sea to support an old earth. Why?
High speed objects in globular clusters show that they are young. Why?
Living fossils invalidate not only the age and origin of the sedimentary rock but refute evolution over eons.
The natural direction of life is degeneration not evolution.
The genetic load in all creatures means they would have ceased to exist after so much time. They have not. Why?
The DNA, RNA, and proteins with some of these being enzymes is a triply interconnected irreducibly complex system. Evolution could not be the mechanism to produce these.
There are depictions of dinosaurs from ancient cultures. Why?
Job 40:15-19 describes a plant eating dinosaur, probably Brachiosaurus. Why?
Almost all ancient cultures have a record of a worldwide blood and a remnant saved on a great boat, sometimes 8 people. How do explain that?
All population growth statistics invalidate mankind being around for more than 6000 years old but match only 8 people being saved in the ark. This matches the world at the time of Christ and today.
It does not seem that there is enough force for the Indian sub-continent to have crashed into Asia and raised the Himalayan Mountain range with just plate tectonics. Why?
The dim young sun paradox invalidates long ages for the sun, evolution, and life on the earth.
The rate of recession of the moon from the earth limits the age of the moon.
The rapid decline of the Earth’s magnetic strength limits the age of the earth. Why?
The salt content of the oceans is too low for an old earth. Why?
The concentration of various minerals in the ocean limits the age of the oceans. Why?
The rock layers show no signs of erosion between layers. Why?
There is no time between rock layers for slow deposition. Why?
There is not enough erosion of continental plates for an old earth. Why?
Earth is not cooled enough for it to be old. Why?
Earth’s rotation rate is slowing for it to be old. Why?
Haeckel’s drawings were not accurate, yet his drawings are still used for evolution. Why the fraud?
Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?
The Milken experiment is a disaster for evolutionists. Why the deception.
Beware of the old con “the building blocks of life”. Why the deception?

Oh my! A Gish Gallop.

That is inherently dishonest. As a result all that it takes to refute all of them is to refute one of them. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already proved God Almighty exists and created all things using the law of non contradiction. There are more proofs that do the same.

No you didn't. You only "proved" that you don't understand logic.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Oh my! A Gish Gallop.

That is inherently dishonest. As a result all that it takes to refute all of them is to refute one of them. Are you sure that you want to do that?

Actually you have to refute all of them, not one,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually you have to refute all of them, not one,

No, that is not the way that it works. You presented them as a block. Refuting one refutes them all.

**mod edit**

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, that is not the way that it works. You presented them as a block. Refuting one refutes them all.

**mod edit**

No, each one disproves your theories. And the list is only preliminary.
If I show a theory false with one fact, the theory is false forver.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When you say you are a believer, what do you mean.
I am glad you said that you believe and not no. That would require assumption.

Firstly, this entire post is a logical fallacy known as a gish gallop. Why do you feel the need to rely on logical fallacies if you have the absolute truth on everything?

This is just a preliminary list, more is coming.
How does one explain polystrate trees?

It was explained 165 years ago.

How does one explain soft tissue and blood vessels in dinosaur tissue?

Living things have soft tissue and those living things with blood have vessels.

How does one explain dinosaur tissue with DNA and other biomolecules still being intact?

There is no claim in science that dinosaur DNA has been found.

How does one explain dinosaur tissue, and diamonds that are not C-14 dead?

Don't even know what you mean by that and you don't supply evidence for your claims so nothing can be determined. I assume that is how you want it.

Why is there too much C-14 in some samples of coal and fossilized wood?

Is there? You tell me.

How do you explain parentless polonium 210 radiohaloes in granites?

I don't know, but my ignorance does not lead to a win for you by default.

How do you explain elliptical polonium 210 halos in the same strata with circular halos?

Again, I don't know. And again my ignorance of a subject is not a win for you. You have to explain it, support it and defend it with evidence. Can you do that or is just overwhelming large and poor constructed and worded lists your major claim for support?

There is a great deception in some of the ages that are quoted by evolutionists. Why the deception?

Is there? Show me.

There are inconsistencies in the radioactive dating results of many things. So isochron dating has been used. But even then, there are many large discrepancies. Why?

You tell us.

The inconsistencies in the dating of things and in all “clocks” used to set the age of things can be simply explained if some miraculous events occurred. These would be 6-day creation, the fall of man and the curse on creation and the worldwide flood about 4500 years ago.

All claims without evidence. So, they can explain nothing.

There is a lack of a 50-50 racemization of amino acids in fossils. Why?

Show me.

There are discontinuous fossil sequences in the fossil record. Why?

Because fossilization doesn't occur with every dead organism, where it does, some are lost to natural geological processes and we haven't found every fossil that actually exists. Argument from ignorance.

Oil, coal, and opals can be formed rapidly under certain conditions. Why the deception?

What deception? Conspiracy theories? Cool!

The evidence is that the coal beads and fossilized wood were formed rapidly. Why?

Is there? Show me. Explain it.

There are missing layers representing millions of years. Why?

Missing layers of what? Show me.

Why are there ephemeral markings at the boundaries of layers? That shows rapid deposit.

Are there? Show me. Explain it.

If intelligent man was around for 100,000 years or so, why did he not figure out how to drop a seed in the ground and farm?

Is this list just a continuous series of arguments from ignorance. Over 100 years ago, no one would have considered organ transplants seriously, but now they are common. Funny how ignorance doesn't really hold up as a means to successfully get your claims supported and accepted.

History is too short. Why?

History is not short. It just wasn't written down until writing was invented and seriously pursued.

The Great Barrier reef is only 4200 years old; the oldest tree is only 4300 years old. Why?

Actually, there are trees that are older than that. But again, another in your continuous series of arguments from ignorance meaning you win by default. That's the Default Paradigm for ya.

The age of the Sahara Desert is only 4000 years old. Why?

Is it? Show me.

There is too much helium in radioactive rocks. Why?

Is there? Show me.

There is helium in old zircon crystals. Why?

Is there? Show me. Explain what that means.

Thick sedimentary rock layers bent beyond the fracturing point, yet not fractured. Why?

Talk to a geologist or just assume they support I guess. Funny how you get to have tons of assumptions, but others can't. Isn't that rigging the game for your conclusions to be accepted by default.

The Mississippi river delta and deltas around the world show the result of one large flood like the worldwide flood. Why?

Do they? Show me. Explain it.

The arms of spiral galaxies should no longer exist, but they do. Why?

Show me.

There is not enough helium in the earth’s atmosphere to support an old atmosphere. Why?

Show me.

There is not enough sediment at the bottom of the sea to support an old earth. Why?

Show me.

High speed objects in globular clusters show that they are young. Why?

Show me.

Living fossils invalidate not only the age and origin of the sedimentary rock but refute evolution over eons.

Fossils are not living. Do you mean living examples of animals and plants from very old and established lineages? Show us how they would invalidate the ages of sedimentary rocks.

The natural direction of life is degeneration not evolution.

False. Evolution is observed and has been for a long time.

The genetic load in all creatures means they would have ceased to exist after so much time. They have not. Why?

What do you mean? Explain it and present your evidence.

The DNA, RNA, and proteins with some of these being enzymes is a triply interconnected irreducibly complex system. Evolution could not be the mechanism to produce these.

Irreducibly complexity has been falsified.

There are depictions of dinosaurs from ancient cultures. Why?

Show me.

Job 40:15-19 describes a plant eating dinosaur, probably Brachiosaurus. Why?

A hippo. Next.

Almost all ancient cultures have a record of a worldwide blood and a remnant saved on a great boat, sometimes 8 people. How do explain that?

No they do not. Flood myths are not found in all ancient cultures and where they are found, they are often about local floods. Sorry.

All population growth statistics invalidate mankind being around for more than 6000 years old but match only 8 people being saved in the ark. This matches the world at the time of Christ and today.

No they don't. No it doesn't.

It does not seem that there is enough force for the Indian sub-continent to have crashed into Asia and raised the Himalayan Mountain range with just plate tectonics. Why?

Show me.

The dim young sun paradox invalidates long ages for the sun, evolution, and life on the earth.

I have no idea what that is. Show me.

The rate of recession of the moon from the earth limits the age of the moon.

Show me.

The rapid decline of the Earth’s magnetic strength limits the age of the earth. Why?

Show me.

The salt content of the oceans is too low for an old earth. Why?

Show me.

The concentration of various minerals in the ocean limits the age of the oceans. Why?

Show me.

The rock layers show no signs of erosion between layers. Why?

Show me.

There is no time between rock layers for slow deposition. Why?

Show me.

There is not enough erosion of continental plates for an old earth. Why?

Show me.

Earth is not cooled enough for it to be old. Why?

Show me.

Earth’s rotation rate is slowing for it to be old. Why?

Show me.

Haeckel’s drawings were not accurate, yet his drawings are still used for evolution. Why the fraud?

Show me.

Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?

Oh good grief.

The Milken experiment is a disaster for evolutionists. Why the deception.

Explain it. Show me.

Beware of the old con “the building blocks of life”. Why the deception?

Show us all of these things with a rational explanation that is more than conjecture and nonsense.

That you might be sold on this is not evidence that the goods are real.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, each one disproves your theories. And the list is only preliminary.
If I show a theory false with one fact, the theory is false forver.

You are the one making claims and it seems you have a list of them to support and explain. Better get busy. Google's awaitin'.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You have made the assertion that the existence of polystrate trees somehow disproves all of science.

Please demonstrate this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I already proved God Almighty exists and created all things using the law of non contradiction. There are more proofs that do the same.

No you didn't. You're failure has been explained on here. Ignoring that or not understanding your failure isn't evidence in support of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, each one disproves your theories. And the list is only preliminary.
If I show a theory false with one fact, the theory is false forver.

No,, none of them do. Most of them are just ignorant errors.

For example, there are no such things as polystrate trees. All of those are found in one stratum. The ignorant fools that you copied that from made up a bogus term. Geologic strata can be of different thicknesses. Vertical fossils are well understood. In fact the drawings that we first used for them was from a science article over a hundred years old explaining them.

When you rely on idiots and liars for your arguments you end up looking like one yourself.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You have made the assertion that the existence of polystrate trees somehow disproves all of science.

Please demonstrate this.

not all of science just evolution and billions of years

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No,, none of them do. Most of them are just ignorant errors.

For example, there are no such things as polystrate trees. All of those are found in one stratum. The ignorant fools that you copied that from made up a bogus term. Geologic strata can be of different thicknesses. Vertical fossils are well understood. In fact the drawings that we first used for them was from a science article over a hundred years old explaining them.

When you rely on idiots and liars for your arguments you end up looking like one yourself.

of course there are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

not all of science just evolution and billions of years

Polystrate trees don't refute the theory of evolution or the ancient age of the Earth. It is a falsified claim of floodists.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

not all of science just evolution and billions of years

Please show all the steps in your reasoning. Step by step.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

of course there are.

Then you will have no trouble crafting a rational argument in support of the claim demonstrating and explaining it. Right? Right.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

not all of science just evolution and billions of years

Of course you didn't actually provide a valid answer to the request. Noted.

Show us polystrate fossils and your evidence they exist and support a global flood.

 

[Alien826]

I like the calendar idea. It is a count and if the count is reliable, then counting years would be without an assumption.
It is about year 4720 in the Chinese calendar. The flood was about 4600 years ago and 8 on the ark. The Hindu - Cush mountains are not far. So Cush probably was in that area not long after the flood.

So the Chinese calendar may have proved the worldwide flood.

The Hebrew year is 5784. That year probably comes the OT with Adam cerated on day 6 and the genealogies with the age of each father and the named son.

Homo Sapiens have supposedly been around for about 300,000 years. Cro-Magnon for about 40,000 years.
No one was smart enough to count years. That makes no sense.

Oops, I should have checked. The documented Chinese civilization is not more that 6000 years old. You raise an interesting question though. If you are right about the date of the flood, then all Chinese people were killed 120 years into their written history, then the population was rebuilt by descendants of Noah moving into the area. How long was the gap when nobody lived there? Is there any reference to that in their records? I would have thought such an event would be noticeable enough to be recorded.