|
Author
|
Topic: Carbon 14 in fossils?
|
d_yankee
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 12 of 40 (221030)
06-30-2005 11:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by JonF
02-27-2004 12:29 PM
|
|
Re: part of article
Perfect example of being in denial, dogmatic, and close-minded. Face the reality....the theory has to go. All the "PRE" historic nonsense has to go. Nature confirms History. Do you want truth or fantasy...it seems that you are more interested in fantasy than reality. The fact that any 14C is there "PROVES" the millions or billions...as the theory changes all the time to fit a new model...LOL!!!!....is nothing more than an "IDEA" that we have tested to be false. Next...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by JonF, posted 02-27-2004 12:29 PM | | JonF has not replied |
|
d_yankee
Inactive Member
|
Re: part of article
Yes...but it would still show up as a message to the intended poster's email like it does mine. Uh, instead of harrassing me so much...why don't you pay more attention...as I stated that if carbon 14 is present as it decays in "MUCH LESS" than millions of years...that is evidence that they are not millions of years old. And by the way, reading up and down this "SCIENCE" forum I have come across many offensive statements by those who refuse to discard the evolution theory. And many posts I might add with "NO BACKING WHATSOEVER". Instead of being so BIASED...why don't you show more NEUTRALITY as an Administrator/Director should?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-01-2005 12:09 AM | | AdminAsgara has not replied |
|
d_yankee
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 16 of 40 (221245)
07-01-2005 6:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Jack
07-01-2005 6:48 AM
|
|
Re: part of article
My point exactly. LOL!!!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 07-01-2005 6:48 AM | | Dr Jack has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 17 by edge, posted 07-02-2005 10:51 PM | | d_yankee has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2