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.

They all have an assumption.
Like what? If you say what they are we can discuss if they are valid.

Dating as many assumptions.
Saying it twice does not make it so!

These lead to varying results. There are many clocks that limit the age of the universe and the earth.

DNA limits the age of mankind to thousands of years.
And yet mitochondrial eve is dated to about 150,000 years ago.

Permafrost means nothing with the worldwide changes.
The number of layers indicates the number of winters. It is the depth of a layer that varies with climate changes.

All geology agrees with the Biblical timeframe.
No it does not. The early geologists, like James Hutton, where Christians who were forced to abandon their young earth views because of the evidence.

And analysis of starlight has a number of assumptions. Remember God created the light in transit so when He creates the distant objects their light had already reached the earth.
So God is deceiving us.

tree rings do not show what you claim. The oldest living tree are about 4300 years old.
Actually it is about 5000 years, so predates when you think the flood was:

However, we have slices from old trees, and these can be dated back to much early, matching ring sequences between different specimens (i.e., year-to-year variations).
 
Like what? If you say what they are we can discuss if they are valid.


Saying it twice does not make it so!


And yet mitochondrial eve is dated to about 150,000 years ago.


The number of layers indicates the number of winters. It is the depth of a layer that varies with climate changes.


No it does not. The early geologists, like James Hutton, where Christians who were forced to abandon their young earth views because of the evidence.


So God is deceiving us.


Actually it is about 5000 years, so predates when you think the flood was:

However, we have slices from old trees, and these can be dated back to much early, matching ring sequences between different specimens (i.e., year-to-year variations).
Bristlecones can produce more than one ring per year.
 
*Sigh*, but we're not discussing you're position, we're discussing whether statements without justification are claims only. It's a matter of logic, that you obviously don't want to discuss.
You don't believe the evidence for Christianity. I get it.

Howver, I do, as have billions of others throughout history.
 
No one was able to meet the challenge. No one ever has.
P1 It is intrinsically impossible to present any argument for anything, or any evidence for anything, "with no assumptions."
P2 A demand that somebody do something intrinsically impossible is an intrinsically fraudulent challenge.
C. Therefore the demand to present evidence for an old earth or old universe "with no assumptions" is an intrinsically fraudulent challenge.

P3 Nobody is under the slightest obligation of any kind to try to meet a fraudulent challenge.
P4 SBTL's OP is a fraudulent challenge (for reasons given in the previous syllogism).
C2. Therefore nobody is under the slightest obligation of any kind to try to meet the "challenge" in SBTL's OP.

This conclusion could be rebutted by showing that either of the above arguments were invalid, or any of the premises were unsound. For example, P1 could be decisively rebutted by giving an example of an argument for something, or evidence for something, which contained no assumptions.

My precise, specific prophecy is that SBTL will not even try to do anything of the sort.
 
P1 It is intrinsically impossible to present any argument for anything, or any evidence for anything, "with no assumptions."
P2 A demand that somebody do something intrinsically impossible is an intrinsically fraudulent challenge.
C. Therefore the demand to present evidence for an old earth or old universe "with no assumptions" is an intrinsically fraudulent challenge.

P3 Nobody is under the slightest obligation of any kind to try to meet a fraudulent challenge.
P4 SBTL's OP is a fraudulent challenge (for reasons given in the previous syllogism).
C2. Therefore nobody is under the slightest obligation of any kind to try to meet the "challenge" in SBTL's OP.

This conclusion could be rebutted by showing that either of the above arguments were invalid, or any of the premises were unsound. For example, P1 could be decisively rebutted by giving an example of an argument for something, or evidence for something, which contained no assumptions.

My precise, specific prophecy is that SBTL will not even try to do anything of the sort.
Of course he won't. For one thing, he doesn't understand the logic structure of your argument.
 
Of course he won't.
And who can blame him not engaging with posters who put other posters on ignore and support transgender child abuse.
He is doing the right thing.
For one thing, he doesn't understand the logic structure of your argument.
he does.. i should get a grip od observable biology first before you try logic
 
No one was able to meet the challenge. No one ever has.
Because you pretend not to see any post that contradicts your opinions.

I gave yo a list of evidence:
  • Ancient starlight
  • Geology
  • Evolution (eg nested hierarchy, genetics)
  • Tree-rings (they go back nearly 14,000 years)
  • Uranium–lead dating
  • Samarium–neodymium dating
  • Potassium–argon dating
  • Rubidium–strontium dating
  • Uranium–thorium dating
  • Radiocarbon dating
  • Fission track dating
  • Chlorine-36 dating
  • Permafrost
If you think there are assumptions in these, go ahead and say what they are.

So far the best you have to refute any of that is:
  • "Permafrost means nothing with the worldwide changes" which is wrong because the number of layers indicates the number of winters. It is the depth of a layer that varies with climate changes.
  • "Bristlecones can produce more than one ring per year." which ignores the fact that other trees, such as oak, are also used (among other reasons).
You say Satan deceives, but it seems to me you are having a good stab yourself.
 
Because you pretend not to see any post that contradicts your opinions.

I gave yo a list of evidence:
  • Ancient starlight
  • Geology
  • Evolution (eg nested hierarchy, genetics)
  • Tree-rings (they go back nearly 14,000 years)
  • Uranium–lead dating
  • Samarium–neodymium dating
  • Potassium–argon dating
  • Rubidium–strontium dating
  • Uranium–thorium dating
  • Radiocarbon dating
  • Fission track dating
  • Chlorine-36 dating
  • Permafrost
If you think there are assumptions in these, go ahead and say what they are.

So far the best you have to refute any of that is:
  • "Permafrost means nothing with the worldwide changes" which is wrong because the number of layers indicates the number of winters. It is the depth of a layer that varies with climate changes.
  • "Bristlecones can produce more than one ring per year." which ignores the fact that other trees, such as oak, are also used (among other reasons).
You say Satan deceives, but it seems to me you are having a good stab yourself.
Look, the theory of evolution comes from the evidence. Humans haven't initially thought of the theory and then looked for the evidence.
Whilst we can even see evidence of evolution within species, we cant see fish evolve into tetrapods.
For others, even for a few atheists, when they look at evolution they see issues, or they see intelligent design. the notion of intelligent design isnt scientific empirical evidence, but it doesnt mean its wrong or the theory of evolution is entirely right.
 
Back
Top