Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I just googled it and didnt find anything, but the video is only a month or so old so who knows,,,If not a hoax this is badass!!!
sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old
no telling what you will find if you go 300 feet into the earth,,
you can jump ahead towards the end if the crawling gets to boring,,,
www.insideedition.com
sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old
I saw that but didnt see the size,,that is big and probably why they are in such good shape cause nobody wore them very much or not at all,,,This is interesting......
Damn things are in mint condition and worth 80K!!!!
And with a waist of 44 inches and an inseam of 46 he was one Big MOFO!!!!!
Oldest Pair of Jeans Known to Exist in the World Expected to Fetch $80,000 at Auction
The pants are believed to be up to 124 years old.
are you sure???sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old
This is sarcasm right?
I saw that but didnt see the size,,that is big and probably why they are in such good shape cause nobody wore them very much or not at all,,,This is interesting......
Damn things are in mint condition and worth 80K!!!!
And with a waist of 44 inches and an inseam of 46 he was one Big MOFO!!!!!
Oldest Pair of Jeans Known to Exist in the World Expected to Fetch $80,000 at Auction
The pants are believed to be up to 124 years old.
a 46" inseam would put the person at about 7' tall or more,,,they must be a promotional item and never worn or something like that
are you sure???sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old
This is sarcasm right?
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,
I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,
30K yrs accurately is as far back from what I've read,,are you sure???sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old
This is sarcasm right?
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,
I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,
Alright then.....
You said,and correct me if I'm wrong,that carbon dating didnt go back that far.
Maybe I misread your post.
30K yrs accurately is as far back from what I've read,,are you sure???sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old
This is sarcasm right?
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,
I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,
Alright then.....
You said,and correct me if I'm wrong,that carbon dating didnt go back that far.
Maybe I misread your post.
thats not even getting into the flaws of it,,
they tested newly formed rocks from mt st helenas and got readings going back as far as 15K yrs,,
and if you test the same item twice you will get two different readings,,
once you look into it you find its really not reliable and that goes for all the different isotope tests,,,
long term is the worst use,,30K yrs accurately is as far back from what I've read,,are you sure???sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old
This is sarcasm right?
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,
I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,
Alright then.....
You said,and correct me if I'm wrong,that carbon dating didnt go back that far.
Maybe I misread your post.
thats not even getting into the flaws of it,,
they tested newly formed rocks from mt st helenas and got readings going back as far as 15K yrs,,
and if you test the same item twice you will get two different readings,,
once you look into it you find its really not reliable and that goes for all the different isotope tests,,,
Alright thats better.
Carbon dating is best used in long term dating.
While it isnt flawless it's the best we got at the moment.
long term is the worst use,,30K yrs accurately is as far back from what I've read,,are you sure???sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old
This is sarcasm right?
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,
I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,
Alright then.....
You said,and correct me if I'm wrong,that carbon dating didnt go back that far.
Maybe I misread your post.
thats not even getting into the flaws of it,,
they tested newly formed rocks from mt st helenas and got readings going back as far as 15K yrs,,
and if you test the same item twice you will get two different readings,,
once you look into it you find its really not reliable and that goes for all the different isotope tests,,,
Alright thats better.
Carbon dating is best used in long term dating.
While it isnt flawless it's the best we got at the moment.
when the best we got is flawed it means we got nothing,,,
they tested a mammoth they found frozen and one part of its body tested thousands of yrs different than another part,,,
with results like that its better to just make something up,,,
did you know the test was designed to confirm previously agreed on dates???
what thats called is making the ruler after you made the thing youre measuring,,ie bad science,,,
the inaccuracies are as much as 50-75% in some occasions,,,long term is the worst use,,30K yrs accurately is as far back from what I've read,,are you sure???sorry CD doesnt go back that far and has to many flaws to be reliable,,,New results have carbon dated them at 435,000 years old
This is sarcasm right?
an evolutionist would try and pass that off as fact,,,they do it all the time,,
I am curious as to what they would CD as,,,
Alright then.....
You said,and correct me if I'm wrong,that carbon dating didnt go back that far.
Maybe I misread your post.
thats not even getting into the flaws of it,,
they tested newly formed rocks from mt st helenas and got readings going back as far as 15K yrs,,
and if you test the same item twice you will get two different readings,,
once you look into it you find its really not reliable and that goes for all the different isotope tests,,,
Alright thats better.
Carbon dating is best used in long term dating.
While it isnt flawless it's the best we got at the moment.
when the best we got is flawed it means we got nothing,,,
they tested a mammoth they found frozen and one part of its body tested thousands of yrs different than another part,,,
with results like that its better to just make something up,,,
did you know the test was designed to confirm previously agreed on dates???
what thats called is making the ruler after you made the thing youre measuring,,ie bad science,,,
The reason long dates are better is the inherent inaccuracies.
5% off dont mean shit when we're talking about thousands of years.
