According to evolution, man came along much, much, much longer after any coal did. This was found accoring to the layers in which we stop finding human bones, and start finding other things. Well, how is it that, if we came along after the coal has been made [anthracite] has been made, how is it possiable that we are finding fossils of human tools, teeth, and foot imprints within this coal that came long before man?
"We aren't finding such things. Ed Conrad is a fruitcake who has been addressed quite well by Andrew Macrae. Would you care to discuss the specifics?" --I have looked through the link that you gave me, and I found that he does not do a very good job at refuting Ed conrad's findings, I will explain when I give you a response to the last post.
quote:Originally posted by TrueCreation: "We aren't finding such things. Ed Conrad is a fruitcake who has been addressed quite well by Andrew Macrae. Would you care to discuss the specifics?" --I have looked through the link that you gave me, and I found that he does not do a very good job at refuting Ed conrad's findings, I will explain when I give you a response to the last post.
Ed's own site does a great job of refuting his findings. The pictures he has posted are laughable. The "bone" doesn't even remotely resemble bone.
That website is the biggest pile of trash I've ever seen. The pictures don't even closely resemble fossils. The so-called human fossils in the slate just look like a big blob. Even if they were fossils, why does he have to make the automatic assumption that they are human fossils? On the "More Evidence" page, he shows some photos of the fossils at 2000X. I don't doubt that those are bones, but I do doubt that they are fossilized bones, or even hominid bones in this case. He could have split up some beef bones and taken their pictures and pretend that they are fossilized human bones. Has Ed Conrad even studied anthropology? Has he even gone to college? Anyway, the question about human fossils in coal beds: Conrad can say anything he wants on his website. He doesn't have to provide any citations or other proof. He could claim anything about this so-called "coal." There are many explainations. The main, and probably best explaination is that there was already some charcoal in the area where these fossils were found from a forest or brush fire previous to the hominid's death. Even if there was only an inch of faint charcoal residue in the soil, he could claim that it is a coal bed. Another explaintion is that the hominid did actually fall into an oil-rich bog which then turned into a coal bed after a few million years. Ed Conrad shows no proof for his findings. And, because it is the internet, he can say whatever he damn well feels like saying. Photographs can decieve you. Don't fall for his fun and games.