SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The flood was not volcanic ash, so your analysis is faulty.
-
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!
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.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
You just refuted yourself again.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
No not at all.
Here are some photos of the Grand Canyon.
That was made by the worldwide flood.
57,300+ Grand Canyon Stock Photos, Pictures & Royalty-Free Images - iStock
Search from Grand Canyon stock photos, pictures and royalty-free images from iStock. For the first time, get 1 free month of iStock exclusive photos, illustrations, and more.
www.istockphoto.com
Your stock photos refute your claim.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
They prove the flood as an analysis of the Grand Canyon shows.
Your logic is faulty, and reading comprehension fails miserably. I never said the flood was volcanic ash. You compared lake varve deposits with a volcanic ash eruption, which is faulty. .
The evidence of hundreds of thousands of lake varves in geologic history with a thin seasonal pollen layer that eliminates any possibility of a world flood or a YEC view od a young earth in recent geologic history more than 100,000 years. Some geologic varve deposits contain millions of years of varves.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No they don't.
You keep forgetting that picture that I posted. That picture alone refutes your version of the Flood.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There are countless examples that how there was no flood. I also like the Castile Formation of western Texas and eastern New Mexico. It is an evaporite sequence. I do not know if it has seasonal pollen, but it does show that the flood must have dried up over a hundred thousand times.
Yes you are correct but there are many sedimentary and volcanic features of recent geologic strata that make any sort of regional or world flood impossible. The clincher in lake varves is the distinct annual seasonal pollen layers.
Actually what you propose is impossible concerning the Grand Canyon, It has been determined that the strata were solid rock such as Metamorphic rocks, Volcanic basalt, limestone, slate, and hard sandstone, The gravel and boulders in the alluvial deposites and deltas of the Colorado river are wearhered from solid rock.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Wrong. that is just the false assumptions of evolution and billions of years.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. It is supported by scientific evidence. A concept that you appear to be afraid of.
ChieftheCef
Active Member
World’s Oldest Pyramid Was Built 25,000 Years Ago Inside This Mountain
Gunung Padang was long thought just a hill. Was it actually made by humans?
www.iflscience.com
No assumptions at all, it is acctual objectively verifiable evidence of the rock starta of the Grand Canyon which contains volcanic bassalt and metamorphic rock that have never been soft sediments. The limestones in the strata formed in shallow seas as percipitates of carbonates and coral growth and were never soft rock. Your assertion of the washing away of soft sediments is impossible.
You can fo to the Grand Canyon like I have several times and see the rock strata thae physically has never been soft sediments
Last edited:
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Wrong. that is just the false assumptions of evolution and billions of years.
Then why do you maintain the lie and engage in the hateful deception - not just in relation to evolution and science which I could care a less, but about scripture and the teachings of Jesus - blaspheming the holy spirit pretending this is the Truth, the Way, the light.
The OP is a lie - based on the falsehood that something can be proven without assumptions -- then going around making all kinds of assumptions about God and Jesus and making defacto claims on this basis in a deception of others and self. Preaching salvation by Lord Martin .. and the worship of Idol Martin ..
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
There is no lie by me. Sorry that you feel that way.
The reason for this challenge is to prove that it would be an assumption that the universe or anything in it is more than 6000 years old.
As for me, I only have one assumption - that God the Creator of all things exists. And so I proved that one assumption with several infallible proofs,
One proof uses the law of non contradiction where you assume no God. That leads to many contradictions. So, by the law of non contradiction, the initial assumption of no God must be false and its opposite must be true. So God the Almighty Creator exists.
Another proof used mathematiCal induction, with x being the number of intelligently created objects and I being the number of intelligent creators.
You continue to lie to yourself -- this post a deflection from that lie -- no one asked you what your assumption was .. but you did extend and add to the lie by claiming you have proven that "God" created all things that exist. You have not even defined this God or told us this Gods name .. and how you came across this information .. because it is all a big lie, and when I asked you these things previously you deflected and went to hide.
You then further extend the lie by claiming to have proven something mathematically - but when asked to provide the "Assumptions" made in your calculation .. again you run and hide, because your calculation is a lie .. the fact that you have a valid calculation is a lie.
and obviously -- this OP is a lie ..asserting something can be proven without assumptions - one which contradicts your reliance on assumptions - in this game of deception and self deception you play.
but I told you I care not about these things ..you want to believe in your own lies .. go right ahead. My issue with the decepticons is blaspheming our lord and savior .. the name of God and the Holy Spirit. Why have you dodged yet again in this deflection and deciet .. the question of blasphemy put your direction.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There are multiple lines of evidence that show that many things are much older, including from all the evidence for evolution, cosmology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology, archaeology, genetics, and statistics.
When these are pointed out, you just run away.
Which is utterly baseless.
In your dreams. Even the phrase "infallible proofs" shows profound ignorance of logic and science. Every single one of your supposed 'proofs' is comically absurd and shows ignorance of the subjects you claim to use.
Utterly absurd and baseless claim.
All that proved is that you know nothing about mathematical induction or how to use it to prove anything. It was utterly and laughable inept. It didn't even look like it might be a valid mathematical induction proof. Even its supposed conclusion was not the existence of a god, just that there are intelligent designers. Nobody disputes that. Quite clearly humans are intelligent designers.
No, the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates that our earth and universe is billions of years old
No that is not your only assumption. You assume the universe is no more than 6000 years old, based on ancient mythology. You have rejected and not responded to many references that demonstrate beyond any doubt that that our earth and universe is far older than 6000 years.
You have proved nothing as demonstrated to you many times. your logic and math is attrocious.