Greetings,I commence open challenge to anyone

[Crossless2.0]

OK I will wait 30 days and respond,to all these

Why on earth do you have to wait 30 days to respond to anything? You don't have to copy/paste to make your points. Put them in your own fucking words! Is that too much to hope? You're Catholic, not Baptist, so stop pretending you don't know how to read and write.

[Cyberman]

See how dishonest these moderator's are they take away,my reasoning of evidence.

You attribute a fair application of the Rules to dishonesty. Yet you were the one who came here with an "open challenge to anyone" as a way of using the forum as a pulpit from which to preach your magic book and regurgitate the contents of other websites. If your mythology is so important to you, I direct you to Romans 13:1-2 ...

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

In other words, you will submit to the Rules of the forum or else accept the consequences.

[Exian]

Dink Dink Dink Dink

We just got a letter
We just got a letter
We just got a letter
I wonder who it's from?- ©Steve from Blues Clues

---

A couple of weeks ago we discussed how some scientists still suggest a flood of epic proportions may have carved the enormous Black Sea basin to the proportions we see it today, even though the geology of the region fails to provide evidence for such a flood.
But what about the Grand Canyon? Because its northern rim, which includes the Kaibab Plateau through which the canyon is cut, is at a high elevation, the Colorado River as we know it today could not have carved the Grand Canyon. (After all, water doesn’t flow uphill, not even if allowed to try it for millions of years!) The Grand Canyon was carved through—not around—the uplifted plateau. However, even secular geologists do not agree on when or how the canyon was formed.
Some geologists seek the canyon’s source in an ancestral, yet-to-be-found river, perhaps in Utah. However, the canyon lacks the sort of erosion debris and geologic formations that would be present if it had formed through a slow process over millions of years, so some geologists believe a catastrophic flood formed it. Some of these—including geologists who accept the biblical history of the global Flood—maintain the Grand Canyon was carved by a sudden release of water dammed up behind the Kaibab uplift (aka Kaibab Upwarp). Creationist geologists believe this water was trapped in the aftermath of the global Flood.
The Bidahochi Formation, the sediment remaining from an ancient lakebed conventionally considered to be “only” 8 million years old, rests on the pink mudstone of the Chinle Formation, conventionally dated at 225 million years. This apparent “missing millions of years” is an example of an unconformity. Biblical Flood geology also makes sense of this enigma. Image credit: National Park Service and LiveScience.com through .
A study in December’s issue of Geosphereattempts to refute the idea that the Grand Canyon was carved through an uplifted plateau by trapped lakewater breaking through the high Kaibab Upwarp. TheGeosphere study focuses on an analysis of the sedimentary remains of Hopi Lake. The author ignores that which biblical creationist geologists believe held most of the water that catastrophically broke free to carve the canyon in the years after the global Flood. This map shows the locations of three former lakes on the Colorado Plateau. The lakes were likely formed in the aftermath of the global Flood as some of the water running off of the uplifted plateau was trapped behind naturally forming dams. See chapter 18 ofNew Answers Book 3 for a more complete discussion. Image credit: page 103 of Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, edited by Dr. Steven Austin (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1994) through .
Quote:
ARIZONA GEOLOGY PROFESSOR, WISHES TO DISCREDIT THE FLOOD-ORIGIN THEORY
William Dickinson, a University of Arizona geology professor, wishes to discredit the flood-origin theory of the Grand Canyon’s origins. “I don't think it's a valid story, and my main purpose is to dismantle it,” he says, referring to his latest study, published December 13, 2012, inGeosphere. Dickinson reports that analysis of the sediment remaining from Lake Hopi (aka Lake Bidahochi) shows it was the size of Utah’s Great Salt Lake but was too shallow to have produced sufficient floodwater to have breeched the ridge and carved the canyon. He says, “There's no evidence from sedimentology that it was ever a deep lake.”
Geologist Richard Young adds that the sediment remaining from Lake Hopi also indicates the lake is too young to have carved the canyon. He says, “There's no way the lake could have been there for 20 [million] or 10 million years.”
While Dickinson is now certain that the flood-from-a-lake theory is now laid to rest, he isn’t prepared to say where the canyon-carving-river he posits was. Describing the direction he’d like to see research move in, he explains, “One of the hardest things to hindcast is to know how big a river you're looking for in Grand Canyon country. What was the river like up in Utah? I hope that if people would just abandon the Hopi Lake spillover game, their thoughts would lead them on to worrying about Utah.”
Quote:
HAS THE FLOOD GEOLOGY MODEL ... JUST TAKEN A DIVE?
So has the Flood geology model, which explains the geology of the Grand Canyon, just taken a dive? No. Dickinson only considered Lake Hopi, which—based on the geology of the region—was not the only source of bottled-up post-Flood lakewater for canyon-carving. Biblical Flood geologists implicate the much larger Canyonlands Lake as the main catastrophic agent that broke through the Kaibab uplift and sliced through the barely hardened Flood sediments of the Colorado Plateau. Creationist geologist of Answers in Genesis explains, “What Dickinson conveniently forgets is that the Flood geologists don’t rely on Lake Bidahochi for carving the Canyon. He conveniently ignores the very much bigger Canyonlands Lake.”
The dating of Hopi Lake sediments that Young mentions are based on unverifiable assumptions, but based on biblical history the lakewaters don’t need to have been there for 10-20 million years to have had a minor role in carving the canyon. If these sediments were the result of subsequent deposits in lakewaters left by the global Flood, they are in fact less than 4,500 years old.
Furthermore, as the journalist from “Our Amazing Planet” mentions in her article, the sediments of the Bidahochi Formation rest atop a great unconformity, “a missing period of geologic time, with the 8-million-year-old lake silt blanketing the 225-million-year-old pink mudstone that forms the Painted Desert.” Biblical flood geologists don’t need to explain these “missing millions of years.”
The formation of the Grand Canyon defies the explanations offered by evolutionary geologists. It was carved through a plateau that had already been uplifted by some sort of geologic process. If this plateau was lifted up at the end of the global Flood, then floodwaters rapidly draining off of it scoured away what secular geologists believe to be millions of years’ worth of sediment. Some floodwater was trapped to form a huge lake system. During the post-Flood years, water levels eventually grew and breached the natural dams to carve the canyon, a monument to catastrophe. Dickinson’s study does not lay this scenario to rest.
For more information:
Feedback: Grand Canyon Elevation
The Grand Canyon
What Is Unique About the Colorado River?
The Case of the ‘Missing’ Geologic Time
Geologic Column
See chapter 18 “When and How Did the Grand Canyon Form?” in New Answers Book 3 for a thorough discussion of the geology and origin of the Grand Canyon.
And be sure to check out the Creation Destination feature on the Grand Canyon to learn more about this and many places where you can take your family to get a powerful glimpse of the evidence affirming Scriptural truth.

---

It seems that everything was designed by God (I mean just look at trees!!!), except the Grand Canyon. That was created by....you guessed it, THE FLOOOD!!!!

[Mystic]

OK I will wait 30 days and respond,to all these
An atheist may not know the truth,but his rebellion of not seeking is a sin
An atheist may know some truth but can chose to ignore and therefore sin
An atheist may not like God's rule's so he can chose not to believe and therefore sin
An agnostic is a person who ignores God who is not seeking properly
No person is innocent therefore an atheist is not innocent because of original sin.genesis
how about this,our heart's will not be able to give out unconditional love,in this world neither can no one in the world can receive,so our heart's no matter what pleasure we may get from this world it will not be satisfactory,soon we would get bored and whatever,but there is a love which is from God that is unconditional Love (the love that does not get tired) that we can receive so our hearts are set to keep seeking,but true happiness will only be found in God.

You said in your opinion,that you believe no one goes to hell but.
God clearly states,in his word 

"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."Revelation 21:8

I think everyone who strives to know God will know God. Not only that, but those who strive in his way, God will guide them in his ways. And I do agree that it's a sin to not know God and live a life without his knowledge. But that does that make them evil people? Does that make them worthy of hell? 

From what I understand, God is forbearing, forgiving, merciful. Not only that, but he is grateful.  I know some people who don't believe in religion but are great people. 

Anyways, who are we to judge. We should judge ourselves foremost, by our knowledge. Do we have a clear proof from God we are following and relying on? How have we dealt with the trusts that God has entrusted us and his covenant etc. Our we sincere to God? Have we embraced his name?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

They come in here like Don Quixote on his imaginary steed, tilting at windmills.

Picturing themselves in bright, shining armor and holding the Crusader's banner aloft, they crash into us, heedless of respect or even our basic humanity: "Kill them all; God will know his own."

They violate forum policy that applies to all then try to claim they are being martyred. They start battles that they have no intention of fighting fairly (as has already been made apparent by the complete lack of reaction to explanations of why a priori arguments are useless), and they just keep slashing away with their imaginary Sword of Truth™ while holding up their Shield of Faiht™ against any replies, just long enough to grab a snippet out of the work we do in replying to their voluminous copypasta, to take it out of context and fling back at us. They are the most annoying human beings I can imagine.

These people are making me seriously reconsider my recent decision to roll up a Paladin for my Pathfinder group.

[Chad32]

See how dishonest these moderator's are they take away,my reasoning of evidence.

You attribute a fair application of the Rules to dishonesty. Yet you were the one who came here with an "open challenge to anyone" as a way of using the forum as a pulpit from which to preach your magic book and regurgitate the contents of other websites. If your mythology is so important to you, I direct you to Romans 13:1-2 ...

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

In other words, you will submit to the Rules of the forum or else accept the consequences.

Someone should recite that to Kim Davis. See how she likes it.

Roll you Paladin. Just don't make him a knight templar asshole. If you're familiar with the Order of the stick Webcomic, don't be Miko. Be O-Chul.

[Grehoman Ebenezer]

See how dishonest these moderator's are they take away,my reasoning of evidence.

You attribute a fair application of the Rules to dishonesty. Yet you were the one who came here with an "open challenge to anyone" as a way of using the forum as a pulpit from which to preach your magic book and regurgitate the contents of other websites. If your mythology is so important to you, I direct you to Romans 13:1-2 ...

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

In other words, you will submit to the Rules of the forum or else accept the consequences.

And this is exactly why I said you are being dishonest.

• 30/30In addition to the advertising rule, new members must make 30 posts and be a member for 30 days before they are allowed to post external content, such as links, images, or videos. This is to ensure that advertising is not the sole purpose for the member joining the forums. Any posts where the sole intention is to link to external content may be removed by staff, and will not count towards the 30 posts requirement. Once the 30/30 requirements have been met, members are free to post external content, however the advertising rule will still apply. An exception to the 30/30 requirements is when external content is used within a discussion or with the intention of discussion. For example, a member who has not yet met the 30/30 requirements is allowed to post external content if they are using it as evidence in a discussion, or if it is relevant to the ongoing discussion.

An exception to the 30/30 requirements is when external content is used within a discussion or with the intention of discussion. For example, a member who has not yet met the 30/30 requirements is allowed to post external content if they are using it as evidence in a discussion, or if it is relevant to the ongoing discussion.

You are clearly,being dishonest.I read these rules that's why I THOUGHT I could add the links and videos.

[abaris]

OK I will wait 30 days and respond,to all these
An atheist may not know the truth,but his/she rebellion of not seeking is a sin
An atheist may know some truth but can chose to ignore and therefore sin
An atheist may not like God's rule's so he/she can chose not to believe and therefore sin
An agnostic is a person who ignores God who is not seeking properly
An atheist may even be a person who does not care about God.
No person is innocent therefore an atheist is not innocent because of original sin.genesis
how about this,our heart's will not be able to give out unconditional love,in this world neither can no one in the world can receive,so our heart's no matter what pleasure we may get from this world it will not be satisfactory,soon we would get bored and whatever,but there is a love which is from God that is unconditional Love (the love that does not get tired) that we can receive so our hearts are set to keep seeking,but true happiness will only be found in God.

That, of curse, doesn't take into account that most of us started out as beievers. Usual arrogance of assumption, same shit, different day.

[Mystic]

You're not discussing though.

[Cyberman]

@Grehoman:

And this is exactly why I said we don't give a shit what you think:

Atheist Forums (hereafter also referred to as "the website", "the site", "the forums", "atheistforums.org") reserves the right to enforce the following rules on its membership according to staff interpretation. This disclaimer is put in place to allow the spirit of the rules to trump any literal interpretation of the rules. The wording of these rules is chosen to decrease the number of misinterpretations, however they do arise and the final determination on how to interpret these rules is left to the staff.