To: Coyoteman
Older ontop of layer that not only was 'dated' with faulty CO2 dating, but also is not a few feet, but litterally 1000 miles.. I don't thinks so
Dinos with human prints in them have not been debunked, thirdly neither has the coal, unless you have proof...
Micro has never been verified to prove macro...
33 posted on
07/10/2006 1:41:37 PM PDT by
JSDude1
(www.pence08.com)
To: JSDude1
Still ignoring the "global" flood I see.
Why are you so relucatant to address that issue?
I'll be out a few hours. I check for your reply this evening.
34 posted on
07/10/2006 1:43:38 PM PDT by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: JSDude1
Dinos with human prints in them have not been debunked, Please post a link to the site where dinosaur prints with human footprints in them, if you could. Likewise the coal deposits with human artifacts in them. You *are* aware of how coal is formed? Soft artifacts could not survive this process.
35 posted on
07/10/2006 1:47:18 PM PDT by
blowfish
To: JSDude1
Older ontop of layer that not only was 'dated' with faulty CO2 dating, When you can show why this statement of yours makes no sense, I will give you credibility. Until then, I suggest you educate yourself on radiometric dating techniques.
40 posted on
07/10/2006 2:00:13 PM PDT by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: JSDude1
Older ontop of layer that not only was 'dated' with faulty CO2 dating, Ye-hah!
70 posted on
07/10/2006 7:33:28 PM PDT by
Oztrich Boy
(Make peace with your Ann whatever you conceive Her to be -- Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson