On 20 Nov 2004 21:15:35 -0800, lensman1955@hotmail.com (lensman1955)
wrote:

>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.)

I see it wrong as in Evoultionists say, man first appeared 500,000
years ago, but in reality it was 750,000.  Because it sounds to me
like Ed is saying he has fossils from even earlier than evolutionists
claim.  he also said they're just about like modern man, meaning,
there's some differences, which would prove evolution anyway.
-- 
SOS - Save Our Shemione.  Help Support And Link To:
http://www.anzwers.org/free/shemione/index.html
--