13,000" Year Old Cretaceous Limestone "empirically Verified"

OH please don't quote that site again IT may prove that giant trilobites were there too!

that site is so laughable I can't believe it isn't a deliberate joke

Check out the civil war pterodactyls....they first appeared in the World Weekly News.....Actual humor sites aren't this funny.

HAHAHAAAAHA. That is really funny thx for the link LOL.

http://www.omniology.com/AnasaziDino.html

^This is hilarious.

Originally posted by blader
http://www.omniology.com/AnasaziDino.html

^This is hilarious.

Click to expand...

lol yeah it is.

This site is ridiculous! Next time get your information from a credible site.

BEAR where are you . we need help

Originally posted by blader
http://www.omniology.com/AnasaziDino.html

^This is hilarious.

Click to expand...

Pareidolia rules.

Freedom777:

This is what Answers In Genesis says:

Which arguments should definitely not be used?

‘There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may be 10,000 years old or even more.’ This is not so. The language is clear that they are strict chronologies, especially because they give the age of the father at the birth of the next name in line. So the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. See Biblical genealogies for exegetical proof.

Click to expand...

So how old do you think the earth is then? Remember that that layer was dated at about 13,000 years old. If you think the carbon dating technique used was inaccurate to try and say that date was too old - maybe it was also too young instead - e.g. it could actually be *more* that 13,000 years old.

Originally posted by chickenman
that site is so laughable I can't believe it isn't a deliberate joke

Click to expand...

Unless it is run by a pro-evolution jerk trying to make creationism look bad, I am quite sure that it is for real.

Look at http://www.omniology.com/Jackalopian-Homo-Erectus.html where the old 10% of the brain being used myth is used in the service of creationism.

And look at there attempt to make to falsify Lucy by claiming that a different skeleton is in the various photos. http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html  The all look like the same find to me: photographs don't have the same lighting and background and the bones were not placed on the table in the exact some way each time. 

And look at this one: http://www.omniology.com/Skullduggery.html It falsely accuses NG of claiming that Lucy and owner of the A.L. 444-2 skull lived at the same time.

Or some nonsense of relativity being violated (it was not): http://www.omniology.com/BrokenSpeedOfLight.html

 

HEH we talked about that

Or some nonsense of relativity being violated (it was not): http://www.omniology.com/BrokenSpeedOfLight.html

Click to expand...

The scientist didn't really break the speed of light, they just went around it I don't think we will be able to break the speed of light only go around it the laws of physics says we can't go faster than light.

I find it kinda funny that any Creation-supporting find is automatically funny, but any evolution-supporting 'find' is always dead serious and shouldn't be doubted

(sarcasm, but I have a slight point in it )

Originally posted by paulewog
I find it kinda funny that any Creation-supporting find is automatically funny, but any evolution-supporting 'find' is always dead serious and shouldn't be doubted

Click to expand...

Not so. There's serious scientific mistakes, and then there's funny.

Only the funny Creation-supporting finds are funny. This is one of them. =)

If someone told me that they've seen a cell give birth to a man, then that would be funny. It's analogous to the link in the original post. =)

Paulewog, when people start to manipulate evidence to fit a theory, then it is laughable.