I wasn't replying because I find it pointless and a waste of time to try to have a discussion with someone who resorts to name calling and profanity to support his/her claim. To me it shows not only a lack of restraint and dignity. But it also shows that one is not really willing to listen and that their position is crumbling.

But I'll have a go at this because it has been refuted.

This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year.

May I point you to the Lost Squadron? Lost during WWII in 1942 then discovered in 1988 under THOUSANDS of layers of ice sheets. 75m deep. So, if only one ice layer forms shouldn't it only be under 46 layers of ice? Well, it's not. It's under thousands of them.

So no, ice sheets are not an accurate way to measure age as more than one can form per year.

Thank you for showing me how unstable you are when it comes to people who disagree with you.

All I've been doing is pointing out how one has made a statement and haven't backed it up with evidence or much less a source. This is my way of "testing the waters" before fully engaging in debate online. And most of those in favor of the billion-year-old Earth view seems to resort to name calling and insults when addressing the slightest mess up.

The article about the 4.4b y/o crystal, I saw the source 1 and source 2. Clicked on both.It took me to a blank page.

I think I've gotten enough of a glimpse of the old-Earthers' temperament to know that I shouldn't waste my time here since half of their replies consist of profanity and name calling - something that doesn't make for a rational debate.

Have a nice day. :)

But you didn't prove they happened. Just asserted they did. But that is a whole new can of worms.

I have seen a lot of petty arguments within the Christian community and I think it's a great score for Satan because he's using that to distract us from the main thing. The Great Commission. Debating whether you're a Calvinist or Protestant, or who's a real or not real Christian. Whether a Christian should be watching Anime or playing games like Call of Duty. These petty scrobbles are ridiculous.

If we all focused on the Great Commission we wouldn't have to worry about such things, because we wouldn't have time for Family Guy.

The average American watches roughly 5.4 hours of TV a day. Based on this, the number of words in the Bible, and the average reading speed you could read the Bible about 28 times in one year! Yet so many Churches are destined to protect their silly traditions, further their building projects, have their family movie nights while people by the millions are out there heading towards an eternal torture!

And the non-believers wonder why God would allow that? No, I think it's the believers' fault. If the Church put more effort into training and "making disciples of all nations" instead of their Christmas play. There would be a revival.

It frustrates and saddens me that the people of the Church worry more about their comfort and careers than they do the eternal destination of the non-believer. But just because someone cries "I'm a Christian" doesn't make them a Christian any more if they were to scream "I'm 3 stories tall."

But I think I've drifted far off topic.

Let's change the name then - Vagina Scouts and Penis Scouts.

Girls have cooties. EW.. (I'm not sure what category this is under I hope it's comedy)

Merely deflecting my question does no good. And since it seems clear you are not serious I will no longer engage with you in this debate on this forum.

But before I go let me just point out that naming things that you find ridiculous doesn't disprove it. It just means you find it ridiculous.

Are insults your only counter? No very rational or stable person when coming in contact with opposing views.

I'll keep my distance.

I looked at the article and saw no proof given for its age - just a number and an assertion "This crystal is 4.4b years old" - I could easily just say the contrary since they did not show how it was dated or even said what they dated it with. (radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating, something else? All equally flawed)

"...its biggest dimension is just a bit larger than a house dust mite or about four human hairs." - However, they dated a crystal that small is beyond me. But of course, that's a bit OT, so we will ignore that.

I would like to see the evidence showing how it was dated and proving its age is 4.4b years old.

Just words. No argument is given. Thus I can just dismiss this easily with "No it's not."