Dow Jones hits 15,000 (just short of 26,000 now)

ROFL

They certainly wouldn't have an agenda.

I still won't have 10,000 posts.

Nailed it. 356 to go

I can’t decide what’s better.

The fact that place actually exists.
The fact jjdinosaur actually went there.
The fact he not only admits he went there but cites it as an authoritative source in his Flinstone Theory.

Wait... He's serious?

As a heart attack.

:eek:

I was chuckling when I thought he was joking.

There are threads a plenty with him defending his new earther beliefs. In truth I respect him for standing by his convictions. I know it’s not cool to persecute someone for their faith but it’s just so factually ridiculous that sometimes it’s hard to resist.

Interesting fact about the Creation Museum. It wasn't built for that purpose. It started out as a Packard dealership, and as its environment changed it slowly evolved to its current use.

"Because one story makes me feel warm and fuzzy, and the other requires me to learn stuff I'm too busy to learn."

I don't think you or Ken Hamm are qualified to talk about what is 'contradictory' to science, but carry on.

Oh, and I endorse this thread if such a thing is really desired.

As for me, I'll write a missive to my current self. Here's what the Rain Man of 2018 is thinking about.

1. I believe that Patrick Mahomes II is a franchise quarterback in the making.

2. I would like to add some sort of secret passage to my house.

3. I would like to visit Greece.

4. I hope to see a cloned dinosaur within the next three years. One of those really big plant eaters.

5. I hope to have visited Connecticut within the next three years.

6. I'm hoping that the trend of women wearing jeans with big holes in them will be over in three years, and that bikinis will be everyday wear.

7. I sure hope I'm not still paying for cable TV three years from now.

8. I better not be over 190 pounds in three years.

Up until he starts spouting off with his 'alternative science proof'.ROFL

No mention of ermines? I'm disappointed.

I have absolutely no log in this fire, nor do I support one view or the other, but I'm curious what science the two of you support to refute his claim? I ask because I'm legitimately intrigued given that carbon-14 dating is only truly accurate for a few thousand years.

Macro evolution is a myth and completely unproven.