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.

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks for the kind words.

Have you met my very simple and required challenge yet?

Try responding to what I said instead of moving onto something else. Thanks.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Try responding to what I said instead of moving onto something else. Thanks.

Well the entire dating of the rocks and fossils is false, deceptive and uses circular reasoning. The rocks are used to date the fossils and the fossils are used to date the rocks, both using the discredited science of Uniformitarianism.

For example, someone dated a fossil as 113 million years ago. Can you see the great deception with a number without an error range. That number is not scientific. it should have an error range AND link to some source which shows the detailed calculation of that range. A lab report would probably get an F if results did not have an error range. This is high school science lab. There are lots of examples to this. These results need to be rejected.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well the entire dating of the rocks and fossils is false, deceptive and uses circular reasoning. The rocks are used to date the fossils and the fossils are used to date the rocks, both using the discredited science of Uniformitarianism.

For example, someone dated a fossil as 113 million years ago. Can you see the great deception with a number without an error range. That number is not scientific. it should have an error range AND link to some source which shows the detailed calculation of that range. A lab report would probably get an F if results did not have an error range. This is high school science lab. There are lots of examples to this. These results need to be rejected.

CC310: Dating fossils, dating strata

www.talkorigins.org

This is not a response to what I said. It's just another claim.

Try again:

"That's a laughable claim.

Wrong.

Nope. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

We know the age of the earth from geology, actually. We know evolution is true because all of the evidence from practically every field of science in existence all points to the same conclusion: that evolution is a fact of life. Biology doesn't even work without it. Demonstrably so. There is no evidence against it, anywhere.

All of the circular "reasoning" is on your end: The Bible is true because the Bible says so. That's about as circular as it gets, man."


You were trying to claim that "evolutionists" are the people assigning geological dates when it fact that would be geologists. And you're wrong about their methodology as well.

And you ignored every point I made in refutation of your claims.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

CC310: Dating fossils, dating strata

www.talkorigins.org

This is not a response to what I said. It's just another claim.

Try again:

"That's a laughable claim.

Wrong.

Nope. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

We know the age of the earth from geology, actually. We know evolution is true because all of the evidence from practically every field of science in existence all points to the same conclusion: that evolution is a fact of life. Biology doesn't even work without it. Demonstrably so. There is no evidence against it, anywhere.

All of the circular "reasoning" is on your end: The Bible is true because the Bible says so. That's about as circular as it gets, man."


You were trying to claim that "evolutionists" are the people assigning geological dates when it fact that would be geologists. And you're wrong about their methodology as well.

And you ignored every point I made in refutation of your claims.

So the rocks are not dated but assumed to be of a certain age?

Someone dated a fossil as 113 million years ago. Can you see the great deception with a number without an error range. That number is not scientific. it should have an error range AND link to some source which shows the detailed calculation of that range. A lab report would probably get an F if results did not have an error range. This is high school science lab. There are lots of examples to this. These results need to be rejected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the entire dating of the rocks and fossils is false, deceptive and uses circular reasoning. The rocks are used to date the fossils and the fossils are used to date the rocks, both using the discredited science of Uniformitarianism.

For example, someone dated a fossil as 113 million years ago. Can you see the great deception with a number without an error range. That number is not scientific. it should have an error range AND link to some source which shows the detailed calculation of that range. A lab report would probably get an F if results did not have an error range. This is high school science lab. There are lots of examples to this. These results need to be rejected.

Citation needed. I have never seen a date from the peer reviewed literature without a margin of error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the rocks are not dated but assumed to be of a certain age?

Nope. They are dated. Using the word "assumption" is incorrect.

Someone dated a fossil as 113 million years ago. Can you see the great deception with a number without an error range. That number is not scientific. it should have an error range AND link to some source which shows the detailed calculation of that range. A lab report would probably get an F if results did not have an error range. This is high school science lab. There are lots of examples to this. These results need to be rejected.

You already used this bogus claim. Citation needed.

 

[Sargonski]

So the rocks are not dated but assumed to be of a certain age?

Someone dated a fossil as 113 million years ago. Can you see the great deception with a number without an error range. That number is not scientific. it should have an error range AND link to some source which shows the detailed calculation of that range. A lab report would probably get an F if results did not have an error range. This is high school science lab. There are lots of examples to this. These results need to be rejected.

You have no clue what you are talking about .. rocks are not "Assumed" to be a certain age .. they are dated to within a range = outside of that range is not an assumption .. nor are they assumed to be within that range. They within that range with 100% certainty.

There is no such thing as a measurement with out some +/- accuracy - no such thing as an exact mile .. and you can not prove that life is but a dream without making assumptions .. and as such .. your claim that you are defacto "Saved by the Lord" .. is absolutely false .. no assumption required for that conclusion

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You have no clue what you are talking about .. rocks are not "Assumed" to be a certain age .. they are dated to within a range = outside of that range is not an assumption .. nor are they assumed to be within that range. They within that range with 100% certainty.

There is no such thing as a measurement with out some +/- accuracy - no such thing as an exact mile .. and you can not prove that life is but a dream without making assumptions .. and as such .. your claim that you are defacto "Saved by the Lord" .. is absolutely false .. no assumption required for that conclusion

Someone dated a fossil as 113 million years ago. Can you see the great deception with a number without an error range. That number is not scientific. it should have an error range AND link to some source which shows the detailed calculation of that range. A lab report would probably get an F if results did not have an error range.

So how do you explain this?
How large are the error ranges?
Please provide a detailed calculation of the error range considering all sources of errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someone dated a fossil as 113 million years ago. Can you see the great deception with a number without an error range. That number is not scientific. it should have an error range AND link to some source which shows the detailed calculation of that range. A lab report would probably get an F if results did not have an error range.

So how do you explain this?

You made it up.

How large are the error ranges?

In what? You need to be specific.

Please provide a detailed calculation of the error range considering all sources of errors.

Nope. You do not get to make unjustified demands. Try again. In fact when you do you just admit that you are wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You made it up.


In what? You need to be specific.

Nope. You do not get to make unjustified demands. Try again. In fact when you do you just admit that you are wrong.

So you are so entrapped by circular reasoning that you do not see that Satan has so deceived you that he is mocking you with such an obvious lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are so entrapped by circular reasoning that you do not see that Satan has so deceived you that he is mocking you with such an obvious lie.

Projection. I asked you questions because your claims needed support. If you cannot support them then Hitchens' Razor applies.

 

[Sargonski]

Someone dated a fossil as 113 million years ago. Can you see the great deception with a number without an error range. That number is not scientific. it should have an error range AND link to some source which shows the detailed calculation of that range. A lab report would probably get an F if results did not have an error range.

So how do you explain this?
How large are the error ranges?
Please provide a detailed calculation of the error range considering all sources of errors.

Finally you are talking sense ... asking some sensible questions .. Kudo's for that and credit where due. You are correct to ask what the error range is .. and correct that without this range .. the number is not scientific .. and frankly stupid .. as you suggest. I have no idea about your 113 million fossil dude .. why he never gave the range .. or described the calculation of which. What I can tell you .. is that in my radiochem Lab .. we did such calculations for various dating methods.

I can give you a detailed calculation .. and partly did this previously to be sure .. and discussed error ranges .. so listen up .. Ice cores are an excellent example .. you pull the core and count the layers .. each representing a year "Except" where the layer contains multiple years .. that for one reason or another happens from time to time.

In this case you have a unidirectional error bar. Suppose the count is 100,000 layers .. 10,000 of those layers are multiples .. which you estimate at 20,000 years instead of 10,000 .. the total number of years then estimated at 110,000

The error bar is unidirectional because it can only be larger than 100,000 years .. 100,000 we know for certain .. the estimate of 110,000 can only be minus 10,000 .. but it could be Plus 20,000 or more ..

Bottom line is we have ice cores where the absolute value is hundreds of thousands of Years .. similar for layers in corral .. they can tell you how warm the Ocean tempreature was 80,000 years ago .. but I digress.

Ice Cores -- hundreds of thousands of years .. Absolute value and Absolute truth is that the Earth is way way older than 6000 years -- by many many many metrics both historical .. archaeological .. paleological .. anthropological .. and a whole bunch more in that store ... and is not even Biblical as told you before .. so no need to hold on to this crucified position.

You know there are much bigger problems yet .. never mind 6000 years since creation being demonstrably false --- having to go with the "Satan moved everything around to trick us" as the only hope for salvation.. What about the Flood .. which by Biblical account -- happened ~ 300 years prior to Abe .. who lived round the time of Hammurapi give or take a few hundred years .. 1800-2000 .. with most weighing in on the 1800 side .. but what ever .. this puts the flood from 2100 to 2300 BC. The problem is we have continuous history throughout that period .. not only in mesopotamia .. but all over the world .. and there was no Global Flood .. Don't have to worry about how the Spectacled Bear got back to South America from Mount Ararat. .. or the Kangaroo to Auzzi land .. leaving no populations or trace anywhere else along its long journy .. nor any other of a whole lot of species.

There was a big Local flood in the region .. round 5000 BC .. when they figure the Black Sea dam broke and black sea was formed .. causing a massive deluge over a large area .. the known world to at least some folks living in the region at that time. ..

but of course .. this is 7000 years ago so that doesn't work very well as the earth does not yet exist according to you.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Finally you are talking sense ... asking some sensible questions .. Kudo's for that and credit where due. You are correct to ask what the error range is .. and correct that without this range .. the number is not scientific .. and frankly stupid .. as you suggest. I have no idea about your 113 million fossil dude .. why he never gave the range .. or described the calculation of which. What I can tell you .. is that in my radiochem Lab .. we did such calculations for various dating methods.

I can give you a detailed calculation .. and partly did this previously to be sure .. and discussed error ranges .. so listen up .. Ice cores are an excellent example .. you pull the core and count the layers .. each representing a year "Except" where the layer contains multiple years .. that for one reason or another happens from time to time.

In this case you have a unidirectional error bar. Suppose the count is 100,000 layers .. 10,000 of those layers are multiples .. which you estimate at 20,000 years instead of 10,000 .. the total number of years then estimated at 110,000

The error bar is unidirectional because it can only be larger than 100,000 years .. 100,000 we know for certain .. the estimate of 110,000 can only be minus 10,000 .. but it could be Plus 20,000 or more ..

Bottom line is we have ice cores where the absolute value is hundreds of thousands of Years .. similar for layers in corral .. they can tell you how warm the Ocean tempreature was 80,000 years ago .. but I digress.

Ice Cores -- hundreds of thousands of years .. Absolute value and Absolute truth is that the Earth is way way older than 6000 years -- by many many many metrics both historical .. archaeological .. paleological .. anthropological .. and a whole bunch more in that store ... and is not even Biblical as told you before .. so no need to hold on to this crucified position.

You know there are much bigger problems yet .. never mind 6000 years since creation being demonstrably false --- having to go with the "Satan moved everything around to trick us" as the only hope for salvation.. What about the Flood .. which by Biblical account -- happened ~ 300 years prior to Abe .. who lived round the time of Hammurapi give or take a few hundred years .. 1800-2000 .. with most weighing in on the 1800 side .. but what ever .. this puts the flood from 2100 to 2300 BC. The problem is we have continuous history throughout that period .. not only in mesopotamia .. but all over the world .. and there was no Global Flood .. Don't have to worry about how the Spectacled Bear got back to South America from Mount Ararat. .. or the Kangaroo to Auzzi land .. leaving no populations or trace anywhere else along its long journy .. nor any other of a whole lot of species.

There was a big Local flood in the region .. round 5000 BC .. when they figure the Black Sea dam broke and black sea was formed .. causing a massive deluge over a large area .. the known world to at least some folks living in the region at that time. ..

but of course .. this is 7000 years ago so that doesn't work very well as the earth does not yet exist according to you.

Ok so there are 200,000 layers. But what is the rate of layer creation during an event like the worldwide flood where rates were maybe a million times or more than present day rates?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so there are 200,000 layers. But what is the rate of layer creation during an event like the worldwide flood where rates were maybe a million times or more than present day rates?

Easy. Almost zero. There would be only one well defined layer all around the world. That layer is missing.

 

[McBell]

So you are so entrapped by circular reasoning that you do not see that Satan has so deceived you that he is mocking you with such an obvious lie.

The really sad part here is that you are so deceived by Satan that you can not see that is it is fact YOU who are trapped in circular reasoning.

Even more sad is that you will use this fact to play the martyr, even further tightening the grip Satan has upon you.

So the reality is that we are trying to break Satans grip on you, but you flat out refuse to release yourself from Satans embrace.

Let us all pray for you.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

View attachment 83651

The really sad part here is that you are so deceived by Satan that you can not see that is it is fact YOU who are trapped in circular reasoning.

Even more sad is that you will use this fact to play the martyr, even further tightening the grip Satan has upon you.

So the reality is that we are trying to break Satans grip on you, but you flat out refuse to release yourself from Satans embrace.

Let us all pray for you.

That circular reasoning and deep spiritual delusion is upon you.

Now Inflation is just the Big Fudge Factors so they can try to fine tune their theory to explain major contradictions to the Big Hoax of the Big Bang. So, if inflation is true, answer these required questions.

When did inflation start? The exact timing is crucial as it must meet ALL the facts.

What caused it to start? Of course, this violates cause and effect.

When did inflation end? The exact timing is crucial as it must meet ALL the facts.

What caused it to end? Of course, this violates cause and effect.

Please provide a graph of the acceleration due to inflation vs time graph, as it must meet ALL the facts.

What is the mass energy of the inflation particle or is it 2 particles, one to start and one to end?

Why have they not found the inflation particle yet?

 

[McBell]

That circular reasoning and deep spiritual delusion is upon you.

Now Inflation is just the Big Fudge Factors so they can try to fine tune their theory to explain major contradictions to the Big Hoax of the Big Bang. So, if inflation is true, answer these required questions.

When did inflation start? The exact timing is crucial as it must meet ALL the facts.

What caused it to start? Of course, this violates cause and effect.

When did inflation end? The exact timing is crucial as it must meet ALL the facts.

What caused it to end? Of course, this violates cause and effect.

Please provide a graph of the acceleration due to inflation vs time graph, as it must meet ALL the facts.

What is the mass energy of the inflation particle or is it 2 particles, one to start and one to end?

Why have they not found the inflation particle yet?

Thank you further demonstrating my point.

 

[ratiocinator]

That circular reasoning...

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

False accusations because of your circular reasoning .

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?

 

[ratiocinator]

False accusations because of your circular reasoning .

So long as you can't be bothered to learn what circular reasoning means, yet continue to accuse people of it without understanding, you will continue to bear false witness.

You can choose to educate yourself and learn something, or not and hence show that you don't care about the truth.