Sciencescience

Sun Jul 1, 2018, 03:49 PM

Palo Duro Canyon Rocks Showcase Genesis Flood


BY TIM CLAREY, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 2018

ICR scientists recently led field trips through Palo Duro Canyon near Amarillo, Texas, pointing out many geological features that show clear evidence of the global Flood. The walls of the canyon display over 700 feet of Flood strata.

Palo Duro Canyon is the second-largest in the U.S., behind only Grand Canyon. A bright orange siltstone, the Permian Quartermaster Formation, forms the base of the canyon. Secular scientists claim this layer is about 250 million years old. On top of this are the multicolored Triassic Tecovas Formation (shale) and Triassic Trujillo Formation (sandstone), both claimed to be about 210 million years old. These units were deposited just prior to the layers containing most of the dinosaurs. They contain fossils of phytosaurs (large crocodile-like reptiles) and amphibians up to seven feet in length.1


The rocks show no evidence of the supposed 40 million years of missing time between the Quartermaster and the overlying Tecovas. What are observed are flat-lying rocks upon flat-lying rocks for tens of miles in all directions. These sedimentary strata look like they were deposited layer after layer with no time gaps in between

The cap rock that makes the upper rim of Palo Duro Canyon is the Miocene-Pliocene Ogallala Formation. Composed of a tan cliff-forming sandstone, some siltstone, and a basal conglomerate layer,1 this uppermost unit is thought by evolutionists to have been deposited between 4 to 10 million years ago.2 Evolutionary geologists have recognized this uniformitarian paradox, stating:

You will note a lot of time is missing between the Trujillo and the Ogallala. Either the rocks representing about 200 million years of time were eroded away, or they were never deposited; whatever the case, a great unconformity is represented by the mere line between the multi-colored upper beds of the Trujillo and the lower tan beds of the Ogallala.3

The lack of any visible erosion is strong evidence that there were not millions of years between the deposition of the Triassic beds and the overlying Ogallala. Instead, we see a pattern—much like we see in Grand Canyon—that is best explained by continuous activity. The Ogallala is conformable to the underlying Trujillo all around the canyon rim, with no tilting of the underlying units and no erosional channels carved into the boundary surface.
.

The Ogallala covers about 174,000 square miles from Texas to South Dakota (Figure 1).4 While it is only 20 to 40 feet thick in the canyon, it increases to over 700 feet across much of the Great Plains. Igneous and metamorphic cobbles in the basal conglomerate of the Ogallala are sourced from the Rocky Mountains, hundreds of miles to the west.1

Secular scientists claim these are deposits from rivers, but a receding mega-flood explanation better fits the broad extent of the Ogallala. How else can a blanket sand layer spread across thousands of square miles with no evidence of river channelization? And localized post-Flood catastrophism cannot explain the massive extent of this deposit either, just like isolated regional processes cannot explain the huge deposit of the Whopper Sand in the deep Gulf of Mexico.5


The formation of the Ogallala would have required high-energy conditions over a huge area, similar to sheet-wash off a parking lot, to distribute the cobbles and sands so evenly across vast regions of the Great Plains. Visitors to Palo Duro Canyon can witness a vivid reminder of the rising and the receding stages of the Genesis Flood.

References

Guy, D. F., ed. 2001. The Story of Palo Duro Canyon. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.
Spearing, D. 1991. Roadside Geology of Texas. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company.
Ibid, 385.
Ogallala Aquifer Initiative 2016 Progress Report. United States Department of Agriculture.
Clarey, T. 2015. The Whopper Sand. Acts & Facts. 44 (3): 14.

44 replies, 1399 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Palo Duro Canyon Rocks Showcase Genesis Flood (Original post)
nolidad Jul 2018 OP
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #1
nolidad Jul 2018 #2
Meowmenow Jul 2018 #6
nolidad Jul 2018 #3
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #4
nolidad Jul 2018 #7
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #10
nolidad Jul 2018 #13
nolidad Jul 2018 #17
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #20
nolidad Jul 2018 #28
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #5
nolidad Jul 2018 #8
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #11
nolidad Jul 2018 #14
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #18
nolidad Jul 2018 #32
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #36
LeeCPTINF Jul 2018 #30
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #31
nolidad Jul 2018 #9
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #12
nolidad Jul 2018 #15
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #19
nolidad Jul 2018 #25
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #27
nolidad Jul 2018 #16
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #22
nolidad Jul 2018 #24
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #26
nolidad Jul 2018 #35
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #38
nolidad Jul 2018 #42
nolidad Jul 2018 #33
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #37
nolidad Jul 2018 #41
SatansSon666 Jul 2018 #44
TheShoe Jul 2018 #21
nolidad Jul 2018 #23
LeeCPTINF Jul 2018 #29
nolidad Jul 2018 #34
Meowmenow Jul 2018 #39
nolidad Jul 2018 #40
Meowmenow Jul 2018 #43

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:00 PM

1. I'm sure he'll be picking up his Nobel prize any day now.



Research associate.
Geology and dinosaurs.
Because they are pretty much the same field of research right?

"Secular scientists" say it was a river..
Wrong... Scientists. Just scientists.
You are the one that needs a prefix Mr. Clarey, you fucking loon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 2, 2018, 06:41 AM

2. Once again

You have no ability to argue against so you resort to the only thing you know

Juvenile ad-hominems!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 2, 2018, 01:47 PM

6. Ridicule is all it deserves.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 2, 2018, 06:45 AM

3. I guess you buy the supposed secularist explanation that

a river 10's of miles wide existed in the past and made those deposits strewn across such a massive area! No evidence, no ancient banks no clues, but the gullible sheep follows the secular shepherds!

You should stick to recipe making!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 2, 2018, 06:48 AM

4. Sorry. You are wrong again.

Rivers absolutely can do that.
Rivers are the only process that can do that.

Floods don't do that. Don't bother bringing up st. Helens, I've already debunked that and I'm not doing it again, since you obviously didn't understand the first time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 3, 2018, 02:46 PM

7. Sorry but that canyon did not exist before Mt. St. Helens

and the subsequent overflow of spirit lake and then the mud flows . All that formed in less than 3 years and is video'd documented. It was not caused by the turtle river! Same with Grand Canyon.

YOU ARE SIMPLY LYING!

Rivers carve out until they meet a substance too hard and then they may carve down. Water always finds the easiest path. If the colorado causded the grand canyon it would be many miles thicker all around because the whole area is sandstones and that would have3 been carved out before it went down.

Grand Canyon:



mt st helens

Yes water caused both these canyons! But not eons of erosion- but massive flows of enormous amounts of water like flood runoffs, breached natural dams and superheated water and pyroclastic material.

At Mt. St, Helens they showed how these bored through solid rock in 3 days!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 04:01 AM

10. No use telling you again.

So i won't bother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #10)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 04:28 PM

13. I suppose you are loony enough to believe all the hundreds of hours of videos

and pictures are all photo shopped by creationist loons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #10)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 04:44 PM

17. Mt. St. Helens created over a thousand sedimentary layers in under 3 years!

Standard geology training said that could be up tpo tens of thousands of years! It even created teh canyon the turtle river flows through in 32 days!!!!! There is enormous video and photographic evidence that proves it. So why should we think different of the Grand Canyon other than a belief in evolution and the whacky unreliable radio dating methods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 06:03 PM

20. Have you been the the Toutle river?

Or spirit Lake?

I have.
I don't need photoshop or loon pics to know what is there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #20)

Sun Jul 8, 2018, 07:55 AM

28. Well then good!

You should know then that the present canyon was not there before the eruption.

You should know that the river did not carve out that canyon by slow erosion.

You should know that the thousands of sedimentary layers were laid out in very very short periods of time and not long ages as standard geology textbooks teach.

You should know that bottom of spirit lake is layered with upright trees in varied stages of petrification. If the lake were to be drained- it would look just like the petrified forest that standard geology said was laid down over tens of thousands of years and represent multiple forests. But this was done by one events over a little over 3 decades!

You should know th e1/40 model of the grand canyon now near Mt. St. Helens was not formed over millions of years, but millions of seconds!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 2, 2018, 07:09 AM

5. "Recipe making" as you call it

Made me a lot of money. Enough to retire in my 40s.
Tell me, how exactly would go about making extremely volatile and deadly poisonous liquids and gases?
There in no "recipe". It's a very delicate procedure. It has to be tested several times per day before mass production can resume.
Some are easier than others, but when your employer depends on you to be accurate and consistent, it isn't like throwing ingredients in a bowl and mixing them up.
You try to insult my work and knowledge but you wouldn't know the difference between an acid and a base, how to tell the difference, how they bond, why they work. All the gas laws and thermodynamics and everything else I relied on to work every time and they always did.
In 20 years I made one big mistake. That mistake was letting someone else clean my equipment.
You see, I'd make my own cleaning agents for my equipment. One of my assistants used the wrong one and fucked up a few hundred feet of hoses and caused a chemical reaction with chlorine that could have killed him. He should have known better and I covered his ass so he could keep his job, even though I wanted to strangle him because now everything had to be checked and rechecked and checked again to make sure there was no contamination from the cleaning agent and no damage to any other equipment. Took 14 hours to fix his mistake.
He was lucky he had his mask on though and that nobody else was around, they'd be dead from the gas.
He was also lucky that I test the safety alarms and gas detectors every single day. It was the first thing I did in the morning. If those fail, everyone in that section of the lab could be killed because some gases aren't detectable any other way. It doesn't take much of them to knock you the fuck out, and once you pass out, you aren't waking back up again unless someone gets you out of there. Nobody will though, because they'll be on the floor too.
So you can try to dumb it down all you want in an attempt to insult my work, but the fact is, you'll never understand how any of it works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 3, 2018, 02:54 PM

8. Well as you consistently assume what I do and do not know you can assume

I mock your work because all you do is mock the work of thousands of others in the fields of science.

So as long as you call them loons and other wonderful sweet titles - you shall remain nothing more than a recipe maker with very harmful chemical stuff! Cuz when you get past all teh fancy titles you have to follow formulas very carefully (recipes)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 04:11 AM

11. I'll still sleep at night.

I never expected you to understand chemistry.
Fact is, I know more about radio dating and chemistry than the loons you link to.
Someone having a PhD is geology doesn't qualify them to do chemistry.
Unless they work for loony ICR, then they can be chemists, astronomers or biologists all with a simple masters degree in biotechnology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 04:31 PM

14. Keep telling yourself that!

and a recipe maker doesn't qualify you as a chemist.

So I guess when all those PHD evolutionist loons talk outside of the field of their PHD they are just passing gas?

You don't seem to be able to grasp that sane people know how to ask experts in other fields for help and thus use their knowledge to contribute to an article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #14)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 05:21 PM

18. Six years of training qualifies me.

What I did for work to make a living means nothing. It was fun and paid very well.
There are hundreds of jobs I could have done and still could do today, including radiometric work if I wanted to.
I could research, I could do all kinds of things.
One thing I can't properly do is geology, for example. I wouldn't get hired as a geologist and why would I be hired as a geologist?
However, a loony geologist can't do chemistry or astronomy worth a fuck, but it doesn't stop the loons from hiring them to do those jobs.
You can't see the difference and it doesn't surprise me.
Your petty insults show exactly what you are. Outmatched, outwitted and outsmarted.
Every. Fucking. time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 9, 2018, 02:31 PM

32. Wow! I am almost impressed!

If you only knew what reporting is and does!

You are so obsessed in hating Creationists that you can't see straight.

I would love to see you do radiometric dating! Take one sample, have it tested at three labs- get three different ages and say it's OK!

Gave you a shot to showcase your superior intellect by picking a topic and debating it and you as expected wormed away from it!

Going to an intellectual war with you based on all you have written here to date would be like fighting an unarmed man!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 9, 2018, 02:50 PM

36. I could go to the lab and do the tests myself.

I understand chemistry.
A loony geologist doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 8, 2018, 08:21 AM

30. Jeebus, what do you do?

Sounds like a hellova job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeeCPTINF (Reply #30)

Sun Jul 8, 2018, 09:28 AM

31. I used to be a chemist for a company

That made acids and bases, gas and liquid. Mostly for the pulp and paper industry. They were our biggest clients.
Made other stuff too but 80 percent was for that purpose.
I assembled and ran the lab and did all the testing and formulas. Mass production was done by others but I had to ensure accuracy and consistency. If I'd get a sample back that wasn't up to my standards, had to find the mistake, it was rare, but it happened.
I was the boss in there, but I wasn't really a boss. I didn't hire or fire people Monitored everything and in the lab, I'd experiment with methods and other things but once you have it down pat, there isn't much to change. Just contamination and strength. Making it pure as possibe and diluting liquids to their proper molatiry depending on what the customer wanted.
Most of my time was spent in the lab and ordering chemicals we didn't make, equipment, stuff like that. Checking the equipment for wear and tear, faults, cracks, hoses etc.. every day. It ran 24 hours but only the production phase. If something was wrong, I'd have to go in or they'd have to wait for me to OK production to continue. I shifted from the acid and bases to more complex chemicals around 10 years in. The system I had was almost perfect, mistakes or errors were easily identifiable so I was able to leave it off to an apprentice for some of the lab work. Until he fucked up like I said in my post. After that I double checked his work and still did my own. I left there after 20 years because we hated Detroit.

It wasn't that glamorous of a job but I enjoyed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 3, 2018, 05:51 PM

9. Well if you studied erosion- you would realize that you are the loon

How was the Grand Canyon formed?

The specific geologic processes and timing that formed the Grand Canyon spark lively debates by geologists. The general scientific consensus, updated at a 2010 conference, holds that the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon beginning 5 million to 6 million years ago.

However, recent advances in dating techniques have upended the notion of a uniformly young Grand Canyon. The new approach determines when erosion uncovered rocks in the canyon. The big picture: there were two ancestral canyons, one in the west and one in the east. And the western canyon may be as old as 70 million years.

So geologists formed a consensus (wow science is now by consensus instead of research and observation.

and now physics says these "experts" have been really wrong!!!

And different radio tests routinely produce widely differing dates!

http://rationalfaith.com/2016/10/radiometric-dating-science-or-guesswork/

Rock Source Dating Method Age (Millions of Years)
Bear Mountain, WY Potassium-Argon 1,520 – 2,620
Bear Mountain, WY Samarium-Neodymium 2,886
Bass Rapid Sills,
Grand Canyon, AZ Potassium-Argon 841.5
Bass Rapid Sills,
Grand Canyon, AZ Samarium-Neodymium 1,330

These methods should produce near identical ages but they dont.

Even when testing the naledi find they came up with 35,000 to 800,000 years!



We'll send an IRS auditor to your house and be that "accurate"!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 04:19 AM

12. You still dont understand why they use

Different methods of dating that result in different dates.
Neither do the loons. So they take those numbers and are incredibly dishonest in explaining why they get those dates.
You believe they figured something out, think it's evidence and send them a check.
It's a perfect system.
You get ripped off and spread their lies for them. You pay them to make yourself look bad.
How someone who claims a 162 IQ can't see through them doesn't make sense.
Poor nolidad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #12)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 04:40 PM

15. Well as there are no materials that show why they expect differing ages for the same sample

the only loon appears to be you!

A rock cannot be 50,000,000 and 140,000,000 years old! What do your loons do take the different ages and find the average????

Once again when you rely on a fatally flawed method of trying to establish fantasy ages, you are required to makeupo stupid definitions!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 05:25 PM

19. Sure they can be different ages at the same time.

Not all of them, but certain dating is used for certain types of rocks. Some rocks are made up of differently. Could be half quartz and half sedimentary. Would you expect the quartz to always be the same age as the sedimintary rock?
Would you know what methods to use to determine the age of the formation and all it's parts seperately to ensure accurate results?
No. You fucking can't.
Scientists understand this.
Chemists understand this.
The loons at ICR do not. If they do understand it, they purposely lie to people like you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 6, 2018, 06:45 AM

25. Well yes I do know differing radioactive materials require differing dating methods.

you cannot use U-PB if your material is Potassium or Strontium! But if the rock has multiple radio materials it should still give the near same date.

Also as standard geology texts teach- rocks from the same strata are the same age (approx) unless unconformities are shown.

Are you sure you know any geology???

So Einstein: let me ask an honest question- when you get multiple dates in a cave from various samples- how old is the caves contents?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 6, 2018, 08:12 AM

27. There is no answer for that question without more data.

So give me more data.
Everything in the cave could have been deposited there at any time. The contents could vary quite a bit. How old is the cave?
What materials are present? What actions could have caused those contents to be placed where they are. When did that happen? Is it exposed to air, is it closed off from air? Are there stacactites or stalagmites?
Is there quartz or heavy minerals in the cave?

All those have to be answered before you can get your answer.

Yeah, I know geology, but I'm way better at chemistry.
You've your geology from loons, so I'm better at that than you too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #12)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 04:42 PM

16. Bottom Line

According to USC Berkeley, UC Stamford and USC a rock using differing dating methods should all give nearly identical results!

Unless of course there is none of trhe material being tested. Had to throw that in so you won't create a rabbit trail of looniness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 5, 2018, 04:08 AM

22. The is a reason they use different ones

And there is a reason they get different dates.
You think they don't know what they are doing.
It's hilarious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 6, 2018, 06:39 AM

24. Well then I await your succinct explanation.

For nothing on line from all those respected universities agree with you at all!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #24)

Fri Jul 6, 2018, 08:06 AM

26. Well, I don't have to look online.

I already know how it works I passed that semester with flying colors.
There are new techniques now, but the result is the same, just different isotopes and decay rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 9, 2018, 02:46 PM

35. Well Superior intellect

Explain why these three PHD geologists are wrong seeing as you can do radiometric dating!

https://creation.com/radioisotope-methods-and-rock-ages

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #35)

Mon Jul 9, 2018, 02:57 PM

38. I'm not the one claiming a 162 IQ!



Creation dot Com.
The go to place for Einstein level geniuses everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #38)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 05:18 PM

42. Once again you cannot show any science

So you resort to your usual tactic-- ad-hominems!

Looks like this thread has ended as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 9, 2018, 02:37 PM

33. Well as you seem unable to give a sane explanation other than insult people

you are bereft of knowledge of it as far as we allknow.

But to help you in your superior education- pulling a rock with multiple radioisotopes to date it should yield the same date within a narrow margin.

Pulling differing rocks from the same strata that have different isotopes to date it should yield the same results within a narrow margin unless the rock was planted there due to some unconformity! But you need evidence for that!

But oh superior one- I will give you another chance to shine- Explain why a single rock with multiple isotopes that are testable will produce wildly discordant ages! Balls in your court

You gonna answer or wuss out again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 9, 2018, 02:55 PM

37. Because of how the rock was formed.

Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2018, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

That's how.
You also realize that some strata layers are very old and deposited over long periods of time, right?
It's not like a layer formed in a month and everything in that layer is the same age.
You'll never understand it, it's sad, but that's your choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #37)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 05:17 PM

41. Oh I understand more than what you think.

But we now have empirical evidence that hundreds of stars can form in a day!

Well long time- like approx 4400 years yes! Layers form in different times.

If the rock was formed with different radioisotopes in its overall matrix- then those isotopes should deliver the same age. That is how radio dating works! You are supposed to know that but I guess you don't!!!

And standard geology teaches that everything in a strata is approximately the same age- unless it was deposited there by some action like an earthquake!. or if it was placed there due to a discontinuity or unconformity in the past that the strata gives evidence of! Otherwise standard geology teaches the rocks and fossils are of the same age as the strata or sedimentary layer! but you should know that as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #41)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 06:48 PM

44. Relatively.

It's not meant to be accurate. Just if it's older or younger.
Absolutely is different.

I have to wonder why, sometimes. Why do I fucking bother?
There can't be any rocks more than 10,000 years old according to you.
Might be 8,000, don't know, depends on old Adam was when he kicked the bucket or some shit you said before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Wed Jul 4, 2018, 06:27 PM

21. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheShoe (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 6, 2018, 06:38 AM

23. Ahh! The sum total of your wisdom!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sun Jul 8, 2018, 08:18 AM

29. No they dont

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeeCPTINF (Reply #29)

Mon Jul 9, 2018, 02:45 PM

34. Truly powerful evidence you posted there!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 9, 2018, 07:26 PM

39. About as valid as yours.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #39)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 05:11 PM

40. Well as you reject science fact for fantasy

I am not surprised you say that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #40)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 06:34 PM

43. I know you are but what am I?

 



Bible does not equal science. YOU are the one rejecting science. You embrace fake bullshit and call it science. That don't make it science. Projecting your crap onto me doesn't make you correct, either. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience