Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you didn't. You even admitted that you did not by running away from a discussion on your errors.
If your God exists you are in big big trouble.
-
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
If your God exists you are in big big trouble.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I found more than one false premise in his "induction" argument. When I tried to explain that to him was when he started running away. Which is of course admitting that one is wrong in a debate. One has to either defend one's claims or they are refuted by lack of support.If a proposition that there is no God is accepted as a premise excludes a conclusion that God exists. also, your initial ASSUMPTION must support your premises
2.6 Arguments and Rules of Inference
math.libretexts.org
An argument is valid if and only if in every case where all the premises are true, the conclusion is true. Otherwise, the argument is invalid.
Your argument violates the law of contradiction: the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.
No proofs are presented since only proofs of Math Theorems are where axioms are universally accepted, and do not violate the law of contradiction. The most you can do is claim prove your own ASSUMPTIONS to yourself what you believe and nothing else.
Present your arguments without making ASSUMPTIONS that are only accepted by those who believe as you do. Remember NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What was it ?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You had a series of false premises. To be a true premise it has to be agreed to by everyone. Now you could always try to justify your premises once you were aware that others did not accept them, but until you do you only have a failed argument.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Please give specifics.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Post your argument. I will show you the premises that I reject.
Astrophile
Active Member
That means more than one varve per hour. Floods are common occurrences. Can you show any example of varved sediments deposited by ordinary floods? They have to be described as varves in a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And that is an easy one. Try explaining this:
Green River Formation - Wikipedia
Six million years of annual varves.
Another favorite example has only 260,000 layers. But they are an evaporite complex meaning that the flood dried up that many times:
Stop II-7: Permian Reef Complex Virtual Field Trip
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Laid down by the worldwide flood.And that is an easy one. Try explaining this:
Green River Formation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Six million years of annual varves.
Another favorite example has only 260,000 layers. But they are an evaporite complex meaning that the flood dried up that many times:
Stop II-7: Permian Reef Complex Virtual Field Trip
geoinfo.nmt.edu
View attachment 84308
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How? Remember, if you cannot support your claim it is no different than you admitting that you are wrong. You need more than handwaving and a magic book to beat peer reviewed science.
I could invent my own God, just as you have invented yours and say "All pooped out by the FSM after one heck of a spaghetti dinner". I would have just as much evidence for that as you have for your beliefs.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Actually Mount Saint Helen’s provided a refutation to the varve theory. So again you are wrong.
Sedimentation in a blast-zone lake at Mount St. Helens, Washington—Implications for varve formation | Geology | GeoScienceWorld
Abstract. Sediment collected in traps in a newly formed lake in the blast-impact area at Mount St. Helens recorded a sediment yield that is about two
Mount St. Helens: a case against Evolution
Facts and Science against Evolution: Mount St. Helens is located in Washington State and is said by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) “to be the most active volcano in the Cascade Range, and it is…
thetruthsource.org
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, I do not read lunatic sites. You need to quote them and defend their claims. Make your case. Make sure that you use proper reasoning. And real science.Actually Mount Saint Helen’s provided a refutation to the varve theory. So again you are wrong.
Sedimentation in a blast-zone lake at Mount St. Helens, Washington—Implications for varve formation | Geology | GeoScienceWorld
Abstract. Sediment collected in traps in a newly formed lake in the blast-impact area at Mount St. Helens recorded a sediment yield that is about twopubs.geoscienceworld.org
Mount St. Helens: a case against Evolution
Facts and Science against Evolution: Mount St. Helens is located in Washington State and is said by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) “to be the most active volcano in the Cascade Range, and it is…
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So all 3 are lunatic sites?
Sedimentation in a blast-zone lake at Mount St. Helens, Washington—Implications for varve formation | Geology | GeoScienceWorld
Abstract. Sediment collected in traps in a newly formed lake in the blast-impact area at Mount St. Helens recorded a sediment yield that is about two
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
My mistake. Thank you for pointing that out. Two nutter sites and one that does not help you.So all 3 are lunatic sites?
Sedimentation in a blast-zone lake at Mount St. Helens, Washington—Implications for varve formation | Geology | GeoScienceWorld
Abstract. Sediment collected in traps in a newly formed lake in the blast-impact area at Mount St. Helens recorded a sediment yield that is about two
McBell
Admiral Obvious
So how much did you pay to read that article?So all 3 are lunatic sites?
Sedimentation in a blast-zone lake at Mount St. Helens, Washington—Implications for varve formation | Geology | GeoScienceWorld
Abstract. Sediment collected in traps in a newly formed lake in the blast-impact area at Mount St. Helens recorded a sediment yield that is about two
Bet you did not know that you have to pay to read the whole thing.
Thats what happens when you merely read the titles.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He probably did not even fully read the abstract. Supposedly there were layers that looked like varves. The problem with that is that geologists very rarely stop at just surface looks. One extremely common investigation technique of geology is to take a rock sample and use it to make a "thin section". That is where one takes thee sample and cuts a piece of the rock that is already fairly thin, attaches it to a glass slide for a microscope and then grinds it down to a very thin sample. For a sedimentary rocks the most common way to do that would be to take a sample that is 90 degrees to the bedding allowing the analysis of multiple layers at once, Though one will probably take one parallel to the bedding as well. But the one perpendicular allows one to investigate the sample using a cross polarized microscope. Different minerals will rotate polarized light in different ways so it is very easy to determine what minerals one is seeing. And the microscope also allows one to determine the source by various visual cues. Sediments from a volcanic source are going to look very different from sediments that are the from the process of erosion.
In other words, a nonexpert could be easily confused by the layers from a volcano possibly. But even a geology undergrad could spot the difference between sediments from a volcanic explosion and from weathering.
What gets me is that he always thinks that he has a refutation and he only makes himself look foolish by relying on Liars for Jesus rather than asking questions. It makes him too easy to dismiss out of hand.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Just to show you how easy it is to spot the difference. I could not find thin sections for the work he linked, but here is a picture that shows various different volcanic ash deposits in thin section:
Please note the various scales. They are from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. We want to keep everything roughly the same. Here is a picture of a varve deposit in thin section at several different magnifications. It is a lake varve:
Now tell me, if you saw those, the top example has very angular sediments. The bottom has very rounded sediments. Without any training at all could you tell the difference between volcanic ash and deposits from natural erosion?
EDIT: Just in case it is needed. In the lower series "C" is at roughly the same scale as the images above. the line on the lower right shows a length of .140 mm.
Please note the various scales. They are from 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm. We want to keep everything roughly the same. Here is a picture of a varve deposit in thin section at several different magnifications. It is a lake varve:
Now tell me, if you saw those, the top example has very angular sediments. The bottom has very rounded sediments. Without any training at all could you tell the difference between volcanic ash and deposits from natural erosion?
EDIT: Just in case it is needed. In the lower series "C" is at roughly the same scale as the images above. the line on the lower right shows a length of .140 mm.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
And that is because the worldwide flood was different than all other catastrophes.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You would have to find evidence for your claims to make them valid and you have no idea of what is and what is not evidence.
I would have asked you for evidence, but since you do not understand the concept you do not appear to have any.
Just an assumption with no evidence to back it up.