Toon <toon@toon.com> wrote in message news:<pf7up0l8e89c79joukg53d87kp51ahe3ie@4ax.com>...
> On 19 Nov 2004 13:20:15 -0800, lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955)
> wrote:
> 
> >Thorsten Schier <Finrod_Felagund@gmx.de> wrote in message news:<419D5D26.A2437352@gmx.de>...
> >> Brett Robson schrieb:
> >> > 
> >> > You want the Bush II to make a decision about science? That's funny.
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> Er, no. What Mr. Conrad talks about has _nothing_ to do with science ...
> >> 
> >> Thorsten
> >
> >And never has. Most of the people he's posted to have dismissed his
> >evidence cold. I've asked him several times how there can be *two*
> >veins of coal and even if these specimens *are* fossils, (and that
> >alone is debatable) isn't it more likely that the older vein of coal
> >slid *over* the younger specimens? He has managed to avoid responding
> >to me in each and every post he's placed!
> 
> Couldn't the Evoluntionists just got the years wrong?

In what way? You would have to have a period in which coal is
developed, followed by a period in which no coal is developed followed
by another period in which coal is developed again! I ask you, doesn't
it simply seem more reasonable to assume that there is only ONE bed of
coal, and that one end of it has cracked at some point and slid over
the other end with the specimens (I won't go so far as to call them
fossils because Ed seems to be the only one who's sure that's what
they are.)