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.

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It started when I decided to start it.

What caused it to start?

I did.

Of course, this violates cause and effect.

Causality doesn't apply to me.

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

When I ordered it to.

What caused it to end?

Me.

Of course, this violates cause and effect.

As said already, causality doesn't apply to me.

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

I would, but your head would explode.

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

That is for me to know and for you to find out.

Why have they not found the inflation particle yet?

Because I am concealing it with my noodly appendages.

Ramen.

 

[F1fan]

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?

Why assume a worldwide flood when there isn't evidence for it? In fact, there is evidence against it, like no consistent layer, no genetic bottleneck, civilization elsewhere that hd no flood that wiped them out, and even human genetics that show migration out of Africa to other parts of the world took place ove 12,000 years ago.

So why keep asking about thing that never happened? You haven't been able to show any evidence that your intervretaion of the Bible is factual and correct. We have shown everyone that your beliefs are wrong. And you can't defend it.

And why are you going after people on a debate forum and not going after scientists and universities if you are correct? You'd think with a God on your side you'd have no trouble taking down all of science with your beliefs. But you can't even win here. I's as if your failure is due to the influence of Satan. How would you know?

 

[F1fan]

False accusations because of your circular reasoning .

Every time you write "circular reasoning" we have to drink a beer. Are you trying to kill us?

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

You don't have any answers, do you? And you don't respect science but ask others for scientific answers, so very deceptive and dishonorable.

Even if you ask questions that can't be answered it doesn't mean your interpretation of the Bible is automatically true. You haven't once been willing to show your religious beliefs are true. Even Jews don't interpret Genesis like you do, and it's their stories.

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

Where are your answers? Nothing. And you supposedly have a God on your side.

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

What's it's birth sign, and email address?

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

What's its favorite color, and is it a Taylor Swift fan?

If you can't answer, your God doesn't exist. Must be Satan.

 

[F1fan]

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

We have heard this claim before, that all the various layers seen in layers of rock were laid down by the global flood. Look at the Grand Canyon, how did a mile of sediment get laid down in hundreds of layers? It would have to be several new layres per day, at least. Where did all that sediment come from? That being improbable itself, how would any ship 900 feet long, made of wood, survive such turbulent water? It wouldn't.

Not a single claim made by creationists is plausible. This differes from evolution. If evolution wasn't valid then many other sciences would not work. The massive consistency of all the sciences only worls with evolution being a valid theory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

So I pointed out to you that you didn't respond to what I said and so you just post the exact same thing again?

Learn how to have a back-and-forth conversation please. For Pete's sake.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

No. You need to provide a citation for your "someone dated a fossil" claim.

 

[Sargonski]

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?

A world wide flood would erase Layers .. not add to them. Do you not understand the process here ?! - a world wide flood would cover the ice and melt it .. removing some of the layers. . removing layers .. not adding them .. Probably not too many layers as the earth was not covered for very long according to the Bible .. but it is not adding to them Brother SBTL ..

The Genesis Flood story in the Bible preserves an actual memory of a big flood event .. and the story we read in Genesis is not an Israelite Story. It is everyone's story .. Phoenicians - Philistines - Canaanites - Midianites - Assyrians - Babylonians .. Everyone knows the flood story added to Genesis.. and this flood really happened .. it is just that the Jewish authors writing in during the Persian era put the flood at the wrong time period .. and we can't really fault them for that .. how would they know other than sometime in the distant past? but, this big local flood did not happen 2100-2300 BC -- this is 3000 years too early.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have heard this claim before, that all the various layers seen in layers of rock were laid down by the global flood. Look at the Grand Canyon, how did a mile of sediment get laid down in hundreds of layers? It would have to be several new layres per day, at least. Where did all that sediment come from? That being improbable itself, how would any ship 900 feet long, made of wood, survive such turbulent water? It wouldn't.

Not a single claim made by creationists is plausible. This differes from evolution. If evolution wasn't valid then many other sciences would not work. The massive consistency of all the sciences only worls with evolution being a valid theory.

And not just sediments, well sorted sediments. Creationists have no explanation. They just handwave and shout "hydrological sorting1" So how does it sort these sediments? Are the densest on the bottom? No. Is there an ordered appearance due to type of strata? No. How about the fossils? Are the densest on the bottom, which would be predicted. No, The densest fossils would have been teeth and we do not see them on the bottom. We do see shark's teeth through a good range of the sediments, but mammal teeth should be spread out through all of the sediments too. We see those mostly in the top. Modern ones are see only in the very top. And all fossils show a rather limited range when one gets to the species level, and that is all around the world. We can identify layers by relative dating and that holds all around the world. Something that the flood does not predict at all.

And then there are the erosional features of the Grand Canyon. The canyon has meanders in it. They only form in very slow moving waters. How does the canyon have both very very slow moving waters and fast at the same time?

I could go on endlessly with all of the evidence one would expect to see with a flood that is refuted by real life observations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False accusations because of your circular reasoning .

Once again if you only make claims, as you did above. And do not justify your claims, it only looks as if you are making personal attacks that you cannot justify.

And I edited out your pointless and unjustified questions. You do not respond if someone answers them for you nor can you justify asking them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry People but I am going to use this persons method of operation:

You could not be saved by the Lord, as you keep lying to everyone including yourself. Why?

Anyway I wonder what 'saved' means. How would you or SavedbytheLord define what it means to be saved?

 

[Bthoth]

Anyway I wonder what 'saved' means. How would you or SavedbytheLord define what it means to be saved?

No idea what you are asking for.

Try a wiki and let me know, if I can be saved too.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

Who was this someone? What species was the fossil? Where was it found? What method of dating was used? Where is the reference for the published paper? Where is the link to your claim?

As a second point, Brent G. Dalrymple, in table 5.6 (page 239) of his book The Age of the Earth (Stanford University Press, 1991) gives a list of thirty 'Radiometric Ages of the Oldest Lunar Rocks'. These ages range from 3.90±0.03 to 4.51±0.07 billion years. For each of these ages, Dalrymple gives the Apollo or Luna mission when the sample was collected; the number of the sample; the type of rock; the material that was dated; the radiometric method that was used; the age, with an error bar for 27 of the 30 ages; and the reference to the published paper. There is none of this 'someone dated a Moon rock as 4.23±0.01 billion years ago' that you appear to regard as a typical report of geological dating. Have you any scientific arguments against the accuracy of these ages?

 

[Astrophile]

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.

If the data followed a Poisson distribution, the error range would be ±11 million years. If so, the fossil would be Lower Cretaceous.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If the data followed a Poisson distribution, the error range would be ±11 million years. If so, the fossil would be Lower Cretaceous.

What is lambda and k and show your calculations please?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is lambda and k and show your calculations please?

And my optimistic rating for @Astrophile 's post is confirmed. He is running away again.

 

[YoursTrue]

No idea what you are asking for.

Try a wiki and let me know, if I can be saved too.

OK, you have no idea what being saved MIGHT mean for some. OK.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, you have no idea what being saved MIGHT mean for some. OK.

It is your claim. It is your religious belief, not his. That puts the definition on you and the burden of proof upon you.

If a Muslim asked, or even worse demanded, that you explain some dogma of Islam using Islamic rules and definition would you even try?

 

[YoursTrue]

No idea what you are asking for.

Try a wiki and let me know, if I can be saved too.

OK, you have no idea what being saved MIGHT mean for some. OK.

Who was this someone? What species was the fossil? Where was it found? What method of dating was used? Where is the reference for the published paper? Where is the link to your claim?

As a second point, Brent G. Dalrymple, in table 5.6 (page 239) of his book The Age of the Earth (Stanford University Press, 1991) gives a list of thirty 'Radiometric Ages of the Oldest Lunar Rocks'. These ages range from 3.90±0.03 to 4.51±0.07 billion years. For each of these ages, Dalrymple gives the Apollo or Luna mission when the sample was collected; the number of the sample; the type of rock; the material that was dated; the radiometric method that was used; the age, with an error bar for 27 of the 30 ages; and the reference to the published paper. There is none of this 'someone dated a Moon rock as 4.23±0.01 billion years ago' that you appear to regard as a typical report of geological dating. Have you any scientific arguments against the accuracy of these ages?

I guess we can go into that after we figure how much soil has moved over and throughout the earth over the millennia as well as shifting sands, so to speak, of the techtonic plates. And volcanic eruptions.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And my optimistic rating for @Astrophile 's post is confirmed. He is running away again.

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?
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.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. I am working on that and should post soon. The failure to meet this challenge will reveal why you err in this matter.

By the way, sorry, but I did not read all the many posts here. Did you ever post information showing that the earth is 6,000 years old?