Why is it so hard for you to accept that evolution is fact?

Also please provide the goverment source that verified what happened 3320 years ago with Moses et al so I may be enlightened
Note: This is an Australian government source, not a U.S. Government source.
https://tfhc.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/252223/nt-judaism-fact-sheet.pdf
https://worldreligions.wordpress.ncsu.edu/judaism/
https://www.science.co.il/israel-history/
The reason I am posting these is to prove my much earlier point that, as a Christian, 3,000 years ago I would NOT be worshiping a pantheon.
Unreliable methods.
Let me guess. Home schooled Christian under 18.
You think so?
Also you haven't showed how the methods weren't unreliable.
I haven"t the time nor inclination to teach science to a denier. Why don't you teach me why it's unreliable
Be my guest, if you will.
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/dating-methods/?aigcb=4497
This explaines it better than I ever would.
Unreliable methods.
Let me guess. Home schooled Christian under 18.
You think so?
Yes
Then think away. However, I am not inclined to give any personal information about myself on a random website. Why, you don't even know my name. All you have to go off of are two words I said.
And just because I hold to a certain set of beliefs and have evidence (see above) to back it, does not make me anything in particular. That is both an ad-hominum fallacy AND a stereotype.
If you read the article, you will see there are more people than just Christian homeschoolers who believe the dating methods now in use have problems.

Then think away. However, I am not inclined to give any personal information about myself on a random website. Why, you don't even know my name. All you have to go off of is something I said.
And just because I hold to a certain set of beliefs and have evidence (see above) to back it, does not make me anything in particular. That is both an ad-hominum fallacy AND a stereotype.
If you read the article, you will see there are more people than just Christian homeschoolers who believe the dating methods now in use have problems.
The online black cat doth protest too much
Oh a religious site! How original.
Yes. Definitely home schooled
With historical context. And what about those archaelogical discoveries they never talk about? Like the time a guy found an alter and copies of the Torah on a mountain dating back to above cited period of time?
But If you ignore what I say, than I waste my time. Bye!
Then think away. However, I am not inclined to give any personal information about myself on a random website. Why, you don't even know my name. All you have to go off of is something I said.
And just because I hold to a certain set of beliefs and have evidence (see above) to back it, does not make me anything in particular. That is both an ad-hominum fallacy AND a stereotype.
If you read the article, you will see there are more people than just Christian homeschoolers who believe the dating methods now in use have problems.
The online black cat doth protest too much
Yes I love my pfp
Oh a religious site! How original.
Yes. Definitely home schooled
With historical context. And what about those archaelogical discoveries they never talk about? Like the time a guy found an alter and copies of the Torah on a mountain dating back to above cited period of time?
But If you ignore what I say, than I waste my time. Bye!
I have studied and discussed the bible longer than you have been alive. It's tiring refuting the same things everytime a new generation of believers comes along.
All I will suggest is for you to spend just a little effort to educate yourself from a non-religious source. You won't be struck with lightning or damned to hellfire but you might realize that theology isn't science. Not even a little bit.
You seem to be a bit biased against religious sources. This tells me you never even bothered to read the article about the different methods of dating past the first 1,000 words.
Here is a random quote from it: "The RATE group has also documented carbon-14 in coal and diamonds that are supposed to be millions to billions of years old. If these items were truly more than 100,000 years old, there should be no detectable carbon-14 present in them. These findings point to the age of the earth being much younger than evolutionary scientists would suggest."
Don't be biased again any source just because it is religious. Next thing you'll be telling me that because Sir Isaac Newton was a Christain, gravity doesn't exist. Or that because Copernicus was a Christian, the earth actually is flat... simply because they were theologist monomaniacs who cannot be believed.
Ok. Maybe not quite that far, but that's the direction you seem to be taking.
You can't win an arguement by simply attacking the other debater and his sources for being religious. You have provided no evidence to counter the multiple sources I carelfully found for you.
You said "I have studied and discussed the bible longer than you have been alive. It's tiring refuting the same things everytime a new generation of believers comes along."
Words, words, words. You haven't given an inkling of scientific evidence. If you are refuting the same thing each time, than you must be using outdated evidence. My evidence is recent and up-to-date.
In light of this, I have no interest in further sparring with a person who ignores everything I say simply because I am a Christian.
So, goodbye.
"Words, words, words. You haven't given an inkling of scientific evidence. If you are refuting the same thing each time, than you must be using outdated evidence. My evidence is recent and up-to-date."
You seem to have the same problem your trying to describe

Smart people do it down so dumb people understand (I'm not calling you dumb btw )
I'm sure God doesn't really do that maybe if God exists he should try to convince people to be better at that lol
