Hello everyone

I've made my point well and many times by now and your answers are not answers. The rippled sand is a red herring.My point is about the stack of strata themselves proving that it couldn't have occurred over long ages because of the characteristics I've listed over and over, and especially the fact that the GC and the other formations of the Southwest were all cut into pristine layers after a supposed billion years of their accumulation. But you don't want to know that, do you? It might rock your world to know that the earth is young. You might faint or something.

And you, of course, are not.

You should have. If the Earth is as young as you say they are all wrong too.

Which they prove how? The layers aren't "pristine", that's something you made up. And it didn't take billions of years for them to accumulate, as I have pointed out to you previously.

And what did Jesus say that the Truth was:From Luke 14

quote:

---

26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sistersyes, even their own lifesuch a person cannot be my disciple.

​

27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

​

...

​

33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

---

The separate strata represent millions of years EACH according to every model out there, I don't care how long it actually takes to accumulate them, that's irrelevant, and the entire stack supposedly took a billion years at least. I have not made up any of this, I've described it as I see it and I've asked you merely to look at what is there, with your Old Earth glasses off, and without having to get up close to detect "erosion" etc."Pristine" means they accumulated relatively undisturbed. There is no evidence whatever of normal surface disturbances between the layers of the strata, which is apparent for instance in the Grand Canyon. Normal surface erosion would be apparent in those walls from the opposite rim, and in fact the strata wouldn't be at all in neat layers if any of them had ever been exposed surface. It would be a huge jumble as a matter of fact.They could not exist in their actual form visible to the naked eye now as flat layers of rock if they accumulated in any normal time frame whatever. There is no way such discretely separated different kinds of sediments would have accumulated in sequence in a normal time frame. There is no way living creatures in such huge numbers would have died and been buried and been fossilized as they actually were on a normal time frame. There is no way the strata would simply have accumulated over a billion years before a canyon decided to cut through them, in fact a whole bunch of canyons and "stairs" and other formations for that matter, which didn't think of cutting through them until after they were all there. Again, what you are calling erosion between the layers -- of the Grand Canyon for instance -- is not normal surface erosion, in most cases the slight erosion was probably caused by nothing more than water runoff between the layers.The only possible reasonable explanation for their actual form is that they were laid down in water in relatively rapid sequence but it's enough to point out that the accepted model can't account for it.But the cutting of the canyon is still the biggest proof.Get your old earth glasses off and just look at what is there.I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not chemists and physicists and astronomers, what they do is valid because it's testable. Astronomy implies huge spans of time but at that level time starts to mean something else and I'm focused on this planet in any case.

I don't happen to be making claims that can't be verified. All you have to do is understand what I'm saying about how the strata and the Grand Canyon are evidence for a young earth, look at what I'm asking you to look at, and consideer what I'm pointing out about it. I believe anybody could verify what I'm saying but you have to get your Old Earth glasses off and you have to be honest about it.

Yes there is. Which geologists have seen. By an arcane scientific procedure known as looking at the fucking rocks. Would you care to expand on this fantasy? Actually, more creatures can live and die over a period of millions of years than over the course of a few days.If all the fossils we find were of creatures all living at one time, the prediluvial world would have been standing room only. Hence the erosional surfaces. What a curious fantasy. People who have looked at the rocks disagree with you. Because ... canyons can only cut through rocks ... laid down in an impossible magic flood which didn't happen?

Chemists show that your DNA is 98% the same as a chimp, thus showing that people and other apes are related as predicted by the ToE. Physicists prove that the age of the earth is greater than 4,500 years using radiometric dating Astronomers put the age of the universe at 14bn years Really? You now accept these sciences as valid? Are you sure?

Stop listening to "people who have looked at the rocks" and look at them yourself. Get those microscope lenses off, get those Old Earth glasses off. That erosion is NOT typical surface erosion and even you, yes even YOU, ought to be able to tell that, STAND BACK AND LOOK AT THE CANYON WALL FOR PETE'S SAKE. But I guess since everybody here is Old Earth you know you can get away with saying anything you want, you aren't accountable to anyone. And to ignore the implication of the time when the Canyon was cut, a really BIG sort of erosion that, after all those neat horizontal strata were in place to a depth of two miles, just makes you willfully blind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

NOT WHEN THEY ARE MAKING CLAIMS ABOUT THE PAST. But that's not their normal work.

So they're wrong when they're making claims about the past but right at all other times.What is it, do you think, that makes them so stupid studying yesterday but clever at studying today?No matter, tomorrow your DNA will still look 98% the same as a chimp's, stars will be only a tiny bit older and radioactive isotopes will decay at the same rate and in the same pattern.We can add too, that trees will add another ring, ice will form another layer, diatoms will sink to the lake floor and corals will add more calcite in annual growth patterns.And in a few thousand years time some chemist/physicist/biologist/archaeologist/geologist will look at them all and not be in the slightest bit surprised to find that all the dates agree. Just like they do today.

THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE;
HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE NOT REPLICABLE.
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE;
HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE NOT REPLICABLE.
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE;
HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE NOT REPLICABLE.
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE;
HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE NOT REPLICABLE.
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE;
HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE NOT REPLICABLE.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The cry of the creationist throughout the ages. Sure. Yeah. If I was blind, I wouldn't know what the rocks look like. Oh, and what a beach looks like.