[link to www.sgisland.org]

This image and others like it prove the Earth is young and recently sustained cataclysmic trauma.

Are you going to respond with a bunch of lies to deny this?


It's kinda hard to debunk if you even refuse to tell the theory you have about that picture, where that picture was taken etc.


Why don't approach the problem in a different way?

Why do you hope to debunk what I say at all?

Can you not see that those rocks were formed suddenly, while wet and under great pressures?

Doesn't empirical science preclude any other explanation for them?

Why must you try to avoid what is clear?

Instead why don't you accept that your theories must be wrong?


I will when I see convincing evidence.

For example a god in the skies telling people the Bible is real and hence the earth 8000 years old, but nooo god is some fucktard that aparently likes to see people burn in hell for all eternity and doesn't want to do that. But instead demand us to follow some 2000 year old book which contradicts itself and hold claims that go entirely against what logic and reason tell us.

Problem is there isn't enough evidence. Besides you where asking for a bunch of lies in your first question. Hence I am expecting a totally retarded explanation such as *poof* god did it or da flood did it.

But anyways why don't you respond to the article I just posted?