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]

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.

First the absolute law that varve Counts equal years.
But wait Mount Saint Helen’s eruption aftermath refutes that.
So the absolute law is an absolute lie,

So you show how to tell can the difference between varves caused by erosion and that caused by volcanic ash.

But the worldwide flood was not caused by a volcanic ash. It would be Mount Saint Helen’s in the sense of many in a short time but would be just like the erosion ones since that is the type of material.

Therefore the worldwide flood would be able to have deposited many ten thousands of varves without the ability to distinguish the varves from annual varves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First the absolute law that varve Counts equal years.
But wait Mount Saint Helen’s eruption aftermath refutes that.
So the absolute law is an absolute lie,

What? No, there is no "absolute law". And you are wrong at any rate since Mt. St. Helens is a special case and we can identify those quasi varves if we see them . Sorry, you still lose. You need proper evidence to show that varves are not reliable.

So you show how to tell can the difference between varves caused by erosion and that caused by volcanic ash.

I did. You spoke too soon.

But the worldwide flood was not caused by a volcanic ash. It would be Mount Saint Helen’s in the sense of many in a short time but would be just like the erosion ones since that is the type of material.

No, we know what flood sediments look like too. Sorry but you still lose.

Therefore the worldwide flood would be able to have deposited many ten thousands of varves without the ability to distinguish the varves from annual varves.

Nope. Because we have other tools besides just varves for dating. We have fossils, which give us relative dating, and radiometric dating. Even varve deposits can have the occasional ash layer if they are near a range. Those give us absolute dates. Don't assume that scientists are as sloppy and ignorant as you are in your "work".

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What? No, there is no "absolute law". And you are wrong at any rate since Mt. St. Helens is a special case and we can identify those quasi varves if we see them . Sorry, you still lose. You need proper evidence to show that varves are not reliable.


I did. You spoke too soon.


No, we know what flood sediments look like too. Sorry but you still lose.

Nope. Because we have other tools besides just varves for dating. We have fossils, which give us relative dating, and radiometric dating. Even varve deposits can have the occasional ash layer if they are near a range. Those give us absolute dates. Don't assume that scientists are as sloppy and ignorant as you are in your "work".

Then if there is no law of varves are counts of years then there could be 10,000 in any year.
Thanks.
And of course Mount Saint Helens is lots of volcanic ash but the flood is not.
So you would not be able to distinguish the multitude from the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then if there is no law of varves are counts of years then there could be 10,000 in any year.

Nope, that is not the way that evidence or logic works. You really need to go over these basic concepts.

Thanks.
And of course Mount Saint Helens is lots of volcanic ash but the flood is not.

Correct, so using Mt. St. Helens as an example was pure foolishness of the creation "scientists" (I have to laugh every time I see that phrase).

So you would not be able to distinguish the multitude from the flood.

Nope, that is a non sequitur again. Water flow and sediment deposition are well understood sciences. We can point to all sorts of activities that tell us that there was no flood. Did you forget your failure with chalk already?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope, that is not the way that evidence or logic works. You really need to go over these basic concepts.


Correct, so using Mt. St. Helens as an example was pure foolishness of the creation "scientists" (I have to laugh every time I see that phrase).

Nope, that is a non sequitur again. Water flow and sediment deposition are well understood sciences. We can point to all sorts of activities that tell us that there was no flood. Did you forget your failure with chalk already?

And no one was there to scientifically measure what the flood did about 4500 years ago,
But they can now study the aftermath.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And no one was there to scientifically measure what the flood did about 4500 years ago,
But they can now study the aftermath.

We do not need to. We can study how water works and see if it whose hypotheses work and whose do not. For example no flood believer has a working hypothesis on how this landform arose, you can try to make one, and I will tell you how it fails:

 

[SavedByTheLord]

We do not need to. We can study how water works and see if it whose hypotheses work and whose do not. For example no flood believer has a working hypothesis on how this landform arose, you can try to make one, and I will tell you how it fails:

View attachment 84467

Go to any young earth creationist site and they can educate you.
The Canyon was carved out in the aftermath of the worldwide flood while all those recently deposited sediment layers were soft.
Simple analysis shows that that is true.
Wow. What a great picture of the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go to any young earth creationist site and they can educate you.
The Canyon was carved out in the aftermath of the worldwide flood while all those recently deposited sediment layers were soft.
Simple analysis shows that that is true.
Wow. What a great picture of the flood.

No, they can't. They have no answer. How was that carved? Give me your hypothesis. I can tell you how you are wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, they can't. They have no answer. How was that carved? Give me your hypothesis. I can tell you how you are wrong.

what canyon is the photo of?

As to the Grand Canyon, all the layers were deposited during the worldwide flood in about 1 year. The Canyon then was carved out in the aftermath as a large amount of water drained off and carved it out while the sediment was still soft.
That is a large spillway.q

 

[McBell]

what canyon is the photo of?

What difference does it make?
Either you can explain it or you can not.
Now since we all know you can not, the only thing that makes sense is you are wanting to look it up and see if one of your lying for jesus sites can give you something to reply with...

As to the Grand Canyon, all the layers were deposited during the worldwide flood in about 1 year. The Canyon then was carved out in the aftermath as a large amount of water drained off and carved it out while the sediment was still soft.

Is that your final answer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

what canyon is the photo of?

As to the Grand Canyon, all the layers were deposited during the worldwide flood in about 1 year. The Canyon then was carved out in the aftermath as a large amount of water drained off and carved it out while the sediment was still soft.
That is a large spillway.q

Nope, we know that is not the case. The cliffs that you can get in unconsolidated sediments cannot be very high at all. They tend to slump. And why does it matter what canyon that is? Give an explanation. I will tell you why it is wrong. I will tell you one thing. It is a tributary to the Grand Canyon so its great age also tells us that the Grand Canyon is very old.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope, we know that is not the case. The cliffs that you can get in unconsolidated sediments cannot be very high at all. They tend to slump. And why does it matter what canyon that is? Give an explanation. I will tell you why it is wrong. I will tell you one thing. It is a tributary to the Grand Canyon so its great age also tells us that the Grand Canyon is very old.

It does not matter for most canyons except for those known to be new.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does not matter for most canyons except for those known to be new.

No, they aren't. You need to show that. We know that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old. You are refusing to learn how we know that.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope, we know that is not the case. The cliffs that you can get in unconsolidated sediments cannot be very high at all. They tend to slump. And why does it matter what canyon that is? Give an explanation. I will tell you why it is wrong. I will tell you one thing. It is a tributary to the Grand Canyon so its great age also tells us that the Grand Canyon is very old.

It does not matter for most canyons except for those known to be new.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does not matter for most canyons except for those known to be new.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. What is your evidence? What is your model? If you don't have both you are only lying to yourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And when there is a global flood then they are laid down many 10,000s in a year or so.

Gratz, you fail at geology.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Gratz, you fail at geology.

The rock layers of the Grand Canyon formed by the sediment deposited during the worldwide flood in about 1 year and the canyon was carved out in the aftermath by runoff while the sediment layers were still soft.
This pattern was seen as the result of the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption in 1980.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The rock layers of the Grand Canyon formed by the sediment deposited during the worldwide flood in about 1 year and the canyon was carved out in the aftermath by runoff while the sediment layers were still soft.
This pattern was seen as the result of the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption in 1980.

Which lying website told you that?

 

[McBell]

Which lying website told you that?

Take your pick..
or
Be like the most devout YEC and mix them up...

Grand Canyon Facts

Was the Grand Canyon formed with a little bit of water over a long period of time or a lot of water over a little bit of time? What are the facts?

answersingenesis.org

Grand Canyon: Exposing the Flood

Tim Clarey, Ph.D., and Brian Thomas, Ph.D. Grand Canyon carves a 277-mile-long chasm through northwestern Arizona. Running from Lee’s Ferry to Lake Mead, the expansive landscape reveals some of the most colorful geology in the world and provides strong evidence for the global Flood. Lateral...

www.icr.org

The Flood Matters: The Grand Canyon and the Age of the Earth | G3 Ministries

As I documented in my recent article about the battle for the beginning and the origin of the earth, I recently had the opportunity to travel with a group of Christian leaders on a trip organized by Answers in Genesis to study the rock layers and fossil records in the Grand Canyon. We covered...

g3min.org

Grand Canyon strata supports Noah's Flood · Videos · Creation.com

Did you know that the rock layers in the Grand Canyon provide strong evidence for the Biblical Flood? The Grand Canyon, with its distinctive layers exposed in the canyon walls, has been carved through a high plateau. However, if we follow the layers into the eastern part of Arizona, we see the...

creation.com

Ten Evidences at Grand Canyon for a Global Flood – CEH

crev.info

 

[shunyadragon]

First the absolute law that varve Counts equal years.
But wait Mount Saint Helen’s eruption aftermath refutes that.
So the absolute law is an absolute lie,

The Mount Saint Helen's volcanic eruption did not result in anything resembling lake deposited varves. Lake varves are annual seasonal layers i n lakes each with a pollen layer indicating deposition in the spring, and nothing remotely related to a volcanic ash deposit.

The above is an absolute lie based on your ancient tribal agenda

So you show how to tell can the difference between varves caused by erosion and that caused by volcanic ash.

Yes, as above lake varves each contain a very thin deposit of pollen in each spring. The volcanic ash deposit lacks this and is simply a massive deposit of ash from an erupting volcano.

But the worldwide flood was not caused by a volcanic ash. It would be Mount Saint Helen’s in the sense of many in a short time but would be just like the erosion ones since that is the type of material.

True, but there is absolutely no evidence of a world or regional flood described in the Bible that covered the mountains like Mount Ariate,

Therefore the worldwide flood would be able to have deposited many ten thousands of varves without the ability to distinguish the varves from annual varves..

Actually impossible, because lake varves only occur in lakes where there is an annual spring deposition of a thin layer of pollen.