Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
I feel like the poster is more focused on validating their own untestable hypothesis of creationism. Than addressing any argument.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So you cannot meet the challenge.
McBell
Unbound
Give real evidence the Earth is only 6000 years old.
NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you cannot find a reliable source that says that.
There are plenty of mistakes that one can make in dating. If one does not know what one is doing one can get wrong dates.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you cannot form a proper challenge. Your "challenge" has been met and refuted just by your inability to make a proper one.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Not without an assumption.
Scientists have looked everywhere. They have used amazing telescopes, even from space, and have peered into the far recesses of the universe. They have probed into matter and living things at the smallest of scales. They have built large particle colliders to smash particles together with enormous energies and analyzed the results. Mankind has been to the moon, landed probes on Mars, sent probes past all the planets, had close ups of comets, asteroids, and meteors. They have searched the very depths of the oceans, been to the mountaintops, drilled into the earth, been to Antarctica, searched deserts, rain forests, and drilled into glaciers. They have studied the sun, moon, earth, the planets, asteroids, comets, stars, galaxies, pulsars, quasars, star clusters, nova, supernova, neutron stars, dwarf stars, and black holes. They have analyzed proteins, enzymes, organs, and DNA from countless creatures. They have dug up many millions of fossils. They have searched for signs of aliens. They have analyzed tree rings, varves, ice cores, sediments, studied all the radioactive isotopes. They have very many equations, even used computers, and now will try AI.
And for all that, the only thing they have proved is that there is nothing older than 6000 years old without an assumption. On the contrary, they have proved that God Almighty exists, that God created all things about 6000 years ago in 6 days, and that the Bible is true. Here are some pertinent passages from the word of God.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
I am always ready for a challenge. However, if you're in denial. Which I am sorry to say I believe you are, because, reasons. There's not much to debate. This planet is not 6000 years old. All the following organisms listed here, are older than that "
- A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea near Ibiza, Spain, is estimated to be between 12,000 and 200,000 years old. The maximum age is theoretical, as the region it now occupies was above water at some point between 10,000 and 80,000 years ago.[30][31][32]
- The sole surviving clonal colony of the shrub Lomatia tasmanica in Tasmania is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old.[33]
- The Jurupa Oak colony in Riverside County, California, United States, is estimated to be at least 13,000 years old. Other estimates place it at 5,000 to 30,000 years old.[34]
- Eucalyptus recurva clones in Australia have been claimed to be 13,000 years old.[35]
- A box huckleberry bush in Perry County, Pennsylvania, United States, is thought to be around 13,000 years old.[36]
- King Clone is an individual creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) in the Mojave Desert of southern California, United States, estimated at 11,700 years old.[37] Another creosote bush has been said to be 12,150 years old, but this is as yet unconfirmed.
- A Huon pine colony on Mount Read, Tasmania, is estimated at 10,000 years old, with individual specimens living over 3,000 years.[38]
- Old Tjikko, a Norway spruce tree in the county of Dalarna, Sweden, is living on top of roots that have been radiocarbon-dated to 9,550 years old. The tree is part of a clonal colony that was established at the end of the last ice age. Discovered by Professor Leif Kullman of Umeå University, Old Tjikko is small, only 5 m (16 ft) in height.[39][40][41][42]"
List of longest-living organisms - Wikipedia
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
The scientific method is not an assumption. It is constructed upon testable empirical evidence. Carbon 14 decays at a constant rate and is only refreshed in living organisms. Thus. There is no assumption when we conclude that the age of dead organic matter correlates mathematically with the ratio of C14 to C12 present in that matter. The older the matter, the fewer C14 atoms present, they have unstable nuclei, they decay into lighter elements and subatomic particles. AT A CONSTANT RATE (known as the half life).
Last edited:
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There is dino tissue that is not C-14 dead. The same with coal, diamonds and other things.The scientific method is not an assumption. It is constructed upon testable empirical evidence. Carbon 14 decays at a constant rate and is only refreshed in living organisms. Thus. There is no assumption when we conclude that the age of dead organic matter correlates mathematically with the ratio of C14 to C12 present in that matter. The older the matter, the fewer C14 atoms present, they have unstable nuclei, they decay into lighter elements and subatomic particles. AT A CONSTANT RATE (known as the half life).
That proofs that the evolutionist timeline is false.
The worldwide flood made a mess of C-14 dating.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Where? Once again you need a reliable source when you make such claims.
And no, the diamonds and coal arguments were refuted over twenty years ago.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
There is no dino tissue. There are only fossils of dinosaur tissues. Fossils are not dated with radiometric dating. They are geologically dated alongside the sedimentary rocks and alluvial material in which they are found.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I think that I know what he is referring to. The odds are that he heard a creationist claim and bought it hook line and sinker.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
I'd imagine if it were true, a million geneticists and their mums, would be clamoring for samples. All looking to start their own Triassic Park.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
What are these arguments out of interest? Piqued...
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I never thought of that, but it would be recent enough that DNA could be found in the fossils.
They have pulled this stunt at least twice. The first time some creationists went to a museum and lied. They claimed to be a research group studying fossils and requested fossils. They were given samples, which were covered with shellac and they dated those. They forgot to look up shellac and see what it was made from:
Is it a problem with radiometric dating that carbon 14 is found in materials dated to millions of years old?
The preferred method of dating dinosaur fossils is with the radiometric dating method. And the result of this accepted method dates dinosaur fossils to around 68 million years old. However: Conside...
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There are soft dino tissue, intact DNA, intact bio molecules.
and of course there are diamonds and coal
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
P
Your diamond and coal claims were refuted a long long time ago.
No, there is collagen that after it was demineralized was pliable. They had to put a fossil in an acid bath.
Your diamond and coal claims were refuted a long long time ago.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Diamonds and coal will only contain C14 if less than 50000 years old or exposed to C14 contamination.
There are no samples of dinosaur DNA known to science, that is a fact. The closest you have to dinosaur DNA in 2023 is the DNA of surviving relatives, the birds and crocodiles/alligators.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
I wish we had samples of Dinosaur DNA. So many questions about their form and biology and behaviour could be answered.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh wait! You bring up a good point. Birds are dinosaurs.
Dinosaur - Wikipedia
Look at the temporal range in the light tan box near the top.