Originally Posted by Vic Hays
Sometimes it is hard to see the forest for the trees.
An example is the powder river coal in Montana. It seems these deposits of coal defy explanation by scientists because they do not fit in with the accepted non-flood theories .
When you regurgitate creationist nonsense that's been debunked for decades, how seriously do you expect your arguments should be considered?
When the only reference provided is to a supposed article in an obscure (if it even exists) magazine with no author information, why would anyone give it weight in the face of all the scientific work that reaches a contrary conclusion?
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."