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]

Use any petroleum products lately?

Oil formation - Energy Education

energyeducation.ca

lots of assumptions there.
the rock layers are from the flood.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

lots of assumptions there.
the rock layers are from the flood.

No evidence there. Just empty claims.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer

How many evolutionists have committed heinous crime.
are you all of them?
bizarre even for an evolutionist
Columbine?

 

[F1fan]

Except when a Worldwide flood was involved.

Why assume it was global?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No evidence there. Just empty claims

it took 1 year to lay down the fossil bearing rock layers
That rate of over 100 million times faster than the evolutionists say.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is an interesting way to agree that the claims are empty by making an empty post.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The challenge is 101% bogus, because Hovind himself will evaluate the "evidence" produced. If the umpire standing behind the plate at a baseball game happens to be the owner of one of the teams on the field, I can tell you before the first pitch which team will win.

And you would be a fair umpire
It is easy to see you have assumed things

 

[Dan From Smithville]

it took 1 year to lay down the fossil bearing rock layers
That rate of over 100 million times faster than the evolutionists say.

Just more claims. No evidence. Actually it would be what geologists say, but no evidence to establish a rate or comparisons.

I didn't see that coming.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Why assume it was global?

Read Genesis 6-8

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you would be a fair umpire
It is easy to see you have assumed things

And it is easy to see that you just claim things and run off.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Seems to me the only task you have here is to defend this list by supporting and explaining each item in detail.

Since that hasn't happened and doesn't look like it ever will, none of what you do beyond that has much meaning in support of your position.

Exactly, you will need to refute them all.

 

[McBell]

How many evolutionists have committed heinous crime.
are you all of them?
bizarre even for an evolutionist
Columbine?

What does Kent Hovind's legal troubles have to do with his bogus challenge?
Or are you just trying to distract?

 

[F1fan]

How many evolutionists have committed heinous crime.
are you all of them?
bizarre even for an evolutionist
Columbine?

When you say "evolutionist" you must mean "well educated" as opposed to "indoctrinated".

Read Genesis 6-8

Why assume this text is factually correct?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Interesting. Nothing in scripture about that and no published reports. It sounds like speculation masquerading as fact.

So, you use something actual to describe something unevidenced to make it seem that the former speculation is valid by the association. Nice technique if it weren't so obvious.

I wonder why the claim of a global flood cannot stand on the merits of evidence?

So you have no clue how systems respond to things like impulse functions and step functions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly, you will need to refute them all.

No I do not. They are just empty claims that you either need to support and explain or they can be dismissed as the nothing they appear to be.

I see it as a Christian duty to provide that. Why you don't is baffling and doesn't seem consistent with the ethos.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you have no clue how systems respond to things like impulse functions and step functions.

You couldn't get that from what I posted, but it doesn't matter. A fallacious attempt to lend credibility to an empty claim by false equivalence is your flaw. Not mine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly, you will need to refute them all.

If you are correct without question, why do you think you need to present this as you do?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If you are correct without question, why do you think you need to present this as you do?

Why are you not up to the challenge ?
Only one proves your theory wrong.

 

[McBell]

Why are you not up to the challenge ?
Only one proves your theory wrong.

If only one proves the theory wrong, why would present such a long list?
Are you of the thought that it is up to everyone else to figure out which one is the one true one?

And what theory does this only one prove wrong?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why are you not up to the challenge ?
Only one proves your theory wrong.

There is no challenge. All you did was present a list and then spend all your time avoiding an in depth support of those points. Seems that it is you that is not up to it. Post after post avoiding your burden is all anyone needs to see that.

All you have to do is provide the evidence and explanation to defend your claims. Not really that big a challenge for someone claiming they are right in toto.

Maybe you should use some technical equipment to get the job done. Might I suggest an EL48.