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.

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope you used a known lying source again. You are trying to compare very poorly indurated (cemented) volcanic ash that is just hundreds of feat thick to well indurated sandstone and limestone. Those are not anywhere like each other at all.

And of course the Grand Canyon has meanders. Do you remember the picture that you ran away from? There are no meanders in the Mt. St Helens eruption stream. It is nothing like the Grand Canyon at all.

I posted a very clear picture. It refuted your fairy tale. Would you like to see it again?

Wow. So everything and everyone that disproves evolution and billions of years you call them lying sources.
I told you that you have abandoned the scientific method.

Are you saying the pictures are a deliberate fake by them?

But you have been fulfilling many Biblical prophecies on cue,

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. - 2 Tim 3:1-5

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow. So everything and everyone that disproves evolution and billions of years you call them lying sources.
I told you that you have abandoned the scientific method.

Nothing disproves the age of the Earth. You just use lying sources. You are almost totally scientifically illiterate so they have no problem fooling you. They are not lying because they oppose reality. It is how they try to argue that makes them liars.

Are you saying the pictures are a deliberate fake by them?

Not at all. They are merely misleading. I can show you photos of the area. would you like that?

But you have been fulfilling many Biblical prophecies on cue,

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. - 2 Tim 3:1-5

That is pure projection on your part. In other words you are only accusing yourself.

Now can you be honest? That means finding real science sources, not fake ones to support your claims.

I would be happy to discuss the Toutle river at Mt. St. Helens as well.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nothing disproves the age of the Earth. You just use lying sources. You are almost totally scientifically illiterate so they have no problem fooling you. They are not lying because they oppose reality. It is how they try to argue that makes them liars.


Not at all. They are merely misleading. I can show you photos of the area. would you like that?

That is pure projection on your part. In other words you are only accusing yourself.

Now can you be honest? That means finding real science sources, not fake ones to support your claims.

I would be happy to discuss the Toutle river at Mt. St. Helens as well.

Your pet theories have been demolished .

The flood produced the Grand Canyon and Mount Saint Helen’s proved it.
I like how the radiative isotope isochron dating is proven to be inaccurate.

Remembering Mount St. Helens 35 Years Later

The volcano’s main 1980 eruption filled in an entire valley with hundreds of feet of sediment. Another smaller eruption event deposited more material on top of that, and then a third deposition occurred in 1982. Later, a catastrophic flood of snowmelt water and muddy debris tore a gash through...

www.icr.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your pet theories have been demolished .

The flood produced the Grand Canyon and Mount Saint Helen’s proved it.
I like how the radiative isotope isochron dating is proven to be inaccurate.

Remembering Mount St. Helens 35 Years Later

The volcano’s main 1980 eruption filled in an entire valley with hundreds of feet of sediment. Another smaller eruption event deposited more material on top of that, and then a third deposition occurred in 1982. Later, a catastrophic flood of snowmelt water and muddy debris tore a gash through...

www.icr.org

Then prove it by using a reliable science based source. Not a pseudoscience one. You were fooled by a picture taken from a deceptive angle. How about some aerial shots of that river? Check these out yourself:

toutle river north fork - Google Search

EDIT:

Let me add this here:

Do you see those angled slopes? They have a cliff on top? That is the old river walls. The slopes are made of talus. or rocks that fell from the cliffs. There is a layer of ash on top of that. Do you see the bottom of the river. There is another much smaller cliff there. That is the ash. That eroded very quickly. Going around that corner at high speed there was some erosion into the side of the old valley. It looks like a lot of the talus slope was eroded away by the river when it flooded. The talus slope was just loose rock too. It did not do very much to the original valley wall besides taking away the loose rock.

 

[McBell]

It is ironic that those that believe that they use the scientific method, have abandoned the scientific method entirely when it comes to evolution and billions of years.

Not nearly as ironic as a science illiterate claiming science blah blah blah when it is painfully obvious they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[McBell]

Have you met the challenge yet? No.

No one can meet the Kent Hovind challenge you have presented.
Not even you.

Have you refuted the 2 infallible proofs I gave? No.

Since you have not presented even one infallible proof, let alone two...
Back to the Kent Hovind tactic, I see.

Have you any answer to the origin of anything? No.

Bold face lie.
Several people have given you answers.
Your inability to understand them does not negate the fact they were presented.

But God forces you to fulfill many prophecies from the Bible very many times.

really?
List them.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No one can meet the Kent Hovind challenge you have presented.
Not even you.


Since you have not presented even one infallible proof, let alone two...
Back to the Kent Hovind tactic, I see.


Bold face lie.
Several people have given you answers.
Your inability to understand them does not negate the fact they were presented.


really?
List them.

No answers from the all knowing evolutionists.

 

[McBell]

No answers from the all knowing evolutionists.

You know, I am done with your name calling.
Reported

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You know, I am done with your name calling.
Reported

Why do you need so much help.
And I do not name call,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You need to understand that probability and statistics.

Both probability and statistics are 100% useless if you are going to feed them with falsehoods and strawmen.

GIGO: garbage in, garbage out

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?
The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions is way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.
Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.

And frankly this ignored the trillions of other miracles to make evolution work.
Evolution is preposterous.

All of this has already been addressed and the false assumptions and strawmen have been pointed out.
Not sure what you are hoping to achieve by doubling down on falsehoods.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Both probability and statistics are 100% useless if you are going to feed them with falsehoods and strawmen.

GIGO: garbage in, garbage out


All of this has already been addressed and the false assumptions and strawmen have been pointed out.
Not sure what you are hoping to achieve by doubling down on falsehoods.

They put people to death for a probability of only 10^18 to 1.
My calculations are vastly larger than that and I was generous to evolution almost to a fault.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you have no proof that any are the ancestor of any other.
And remember, you actually need a chain of missing links.
So you still haven’t found any yet.

Denial in 3.....2......1......

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Proved it by MI and also using the law of non contradiction.

Arguing strawmen does not achieve disproving of the actual theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But they are not the same so the Creator made them different so that you would know they are not related .

Actually our chromosomes ARE the same as the chimp chromosomes.
As I guessed, you completely ignored the post where I informed you of such.

The 2 chimp chromosomes that we humans seem to be "missing" is not missing at all... Instead they are just fused together. If we pull them apart at the fusion site (which we can identify), then we end up with exact matches of the 2 chimp chromosomes that were "missing".

It's called chromosomal fusion. A known genetic phenomenon.

But hey, don't let facts get in your way.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Arguing strawmen does not achieve disproving of the actual theory.

Can you refute either?
Have you met the challenge ?
Can you answer my required questions ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They put people to death for a probability of only 10^18 to 1.

Again, the number doesn't mean anything since the equation was fed with false assumptions and strawmen.

My calculations are vastly larger than that and I was generous to evolution almost to a fault.

To a complete fault. Again, insisting on arguing strawmen will only result in people getting annoyed by the intellectual dishonesty.

You seem to be engaged in an actual game of pigeon chess.
At some point people will simply give up on trying to reason with you.
That's when you'll fly away claiming victory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you refute either?
Have you met the challenge ?
Can you answer my required questions ?

Your questions are based in strawmen.
I have no need to answer invalid questions.
Invalid questions only require calling out.

I even can't answer invalid questions, loaded with false assumptions.

It would be like asking you "what does purple taste like?".
The question is impossible to answer. All you can say is that it makes the false assumption that purple is a thing that has a taste.

 

[Polymath257]

It is ironic that those that believe that they use the scientific method, have abandoned the scientific method entirely when it comes to evolution and billions of years.

Absolutely they have not. The requirements for reproducibility and rigorous testing of hypotheses is still there. The requirement that general laws be thoroughly tested and techniques be calibrated is still there.

Ages over 6000 years are required for a number of geological processes. We have human cave paintings far older than that, and human tools from before that. So even a brief investigation of geology shows the Earth to be millions of years old, at the very least. Getting to billions of years requires a small amount more work, mostly knowledge of nuclear physics.

Evolution is proved by the simple fact that the animals and plants that existed in the past are very different than those that exist now. None of the mammals we see today existed in any way (not even their 'kinds') 60 million years ago. And we can see from the fossil record how the diversity of life changed over very long periods of time. That is quite enough to prove evolution happened.

 

[Polymath257]

Please post anything that met the challenge without any assumptions.

Once again, assumptions are required to even know the past existed last week. You make plenty of assumptions in your posts.

This is why I asked if you allow the assumption that the laws of physics in the past (as long as there was time) agree with those we find today. This is what allows us to say anything at all about the past.

This is also why I asked whether we can learn what happened in the past by considering the evidence we gather today. Again, this is an assumption that is required to know anything about the past at all.

The question is whether the assumptions are testable, have been tested, and have been found to agree with observations.

here is the result of the 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helen’s . Just like the Grand Canyon with multiple rock layers and carved out. All in just a short time.

Remembering Mount St. Helens 35 Years Later

The volcano’s main 1980 eruption filled in an entire valley with hundreds of feet of sediment. Another smaller eruption event deposited more material on top of that, and then a third deposition occurred in 1982. Later, a catastrophic flood of snowmelt water and muddy debris tore a gash through...

www.icr.org

And a geologist that found such a structure in ancient rocks would immediately know it was from a volcanic eruption and not a gradual process. Geology does not deny that *some* processes are rapid. Furthermore, it learns how to tell the difference.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Once again, assumptions are required to even know the past existed last week. You make plenty of assumptions in your posts.

This is why I asked if you allow the assumption that the laws of physics in the past (as long as there was time) agree with those we find today. This is what allows us to say anything at all about the past.

This is also why I asked whether we can learn what happened in the past by considering the evidence we gather today. Again, this is an assumption that is required to know anything about the past at all.

The question is whether the assumptions are testable, have been tested, and have been found to agree with observations.

And a geologist that found such a structure in ancient rocks would immediately know it was from a volcanic eruption and not a gradual process. Geology does not deny that *some* processes are rapid. Furthermore, it learns how to tell the difference.

Almost all rock layers were laid down by the worldwide flood. I doubt those that believe in evolution can tell the difference.