News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Like oil, coal taking milions of years to form is another claim where time becomes the excuse as to why such a process cannot be observed. So the claim is made while full well knowing that there is no such process to test. And the excuse used everytime will be that it takes to much time to observe.

Any evidence of coal and human artifacts are apart and therefore claimed to be not real. Frauded, faked, carved etc... But more recently, several human artifacts were found embeded in coal from a ship wreck.



The only thing I can figure since creationists always lie and fake stuff. Is that the dinosaurs needed door knobs for the doors on their caves.

So in order to prove your point, you have provided a provenance for your picture, some source, some info about what it is and where it came from, and how we can know it's genuine . . . whoops, no.

I'm sure you're aware that coal consists of many layers of plants and animals -- layers that take a lot of time to form. Coal deposits have been studied the world over, as other types of sedimentary layers have been. The main issue here is not whether coal can be formed quickly, but whether the things we see in natural coal layers (many, many layers of fossils showing faunal succession for example) could be formed quickly.

Do you have any other evidence to present here? I'd like to see more concrete evidence for a 6000 year old earth and Biblical creation, but we can talk about how old coal is for now if that's what you'd like.

I knew you were going to ask this. So here is the deal and let this be an example of what evolutionist do when evidence found supports creation.

I was searching the Internet looking for human artifacts in coal. Using different words in different ways to get different results. That is when I ran across a scuba dive site that dives for artifacts on sunken ships. Bored with my search thought I'd look and see what kind of history they brought up from those ships.

That is when I ran across the door knobs in coal. So I used the picture on my website and left a reference. The person who runs the website is a evolutionist. So when another evolutionist, who will remain nameless, contacted him to let him know what I was using the pic for. He deleted the page. And removed the two pics I used from his website so that references or credibility could be denied all because this evidence pointed to creation and a Creator.

The person who contacted the one who owns the website tried to make it look like that I was using the pics illegally. In which I had to claim the "fair use" act because my site is used to educate and makes no money. At which point he made the error page say that he does not agree with the views of my site when ever the reference link was clicked on from my site.

Now, if most evolutionists are rational as most would claim. Then why go to so much trouble to cover up this evidence and it's credibility?

But because of your response and your willingness to imply that all creationist lie and fraud evidence. I did some searching and found where he used another picture of the door knobs in coal and has gone as far as to now claim that it was a coal like substance they were in, instead of the original claim that it was coal.

Here's the link where he removed the pics from: http://www.njscuba.com/artifacts/brunette.html
That link now goes to an error page. Which he has now changed as well.

Here's the link where pics are used where door knobs are in coal: http://njscuba.net/sites/site_brunette.html

To view the website, you have to have I.E. 7, or firefox browsers. Anything else and you will get an error page.

Now someone who is more versed in doing searches may be able to find that pic in the google cache. It's been about a year since I found them Maybe a little longer.

I have another pic from the same ship wreck of more things found in coal. I can post it if you would like to see.

But just as a side note. This is not the first time I have had this happen. where I find evidence for creation on the web quite by accident to have the person who owns the website deny the evidence or the credibility of it. Hiding what you do not want to believe does not change truth or reality.

Every time someone does this, it proves to me more and more that evolution and science is not about finding truth. But is more about an agenda of having only one truth. One without God.

And the more people who post here and try to cover for what happened, and the pics involved. Will just reaffirm what I already know.

Well I'm giving you 5 stars for out-winding CTD in the "evolutionists are liars" ad hominem sweepstakes. Why an "evolutionist" allegedly wanted to delete this pic is beyond me. If you read my first post, I said that natural coal layers have been studied just like other sedimentary layers have been, and the processes for their formation are understood.

I also said that this is the problem for your argument here, and not the fact that coal can be formed rapidly in artificial conditions. The only source for your picture that I can find is the web page that you linked to, and the only information is that this is a "coal-like deposit." That doesn't give me much to go on. It's obviously different from something you would dig up in a coal seam.

If you were aiming for a peer-reviewed scientific paper publishing something about how the earth isn't old because doorknobs have been found in a "coal-like deposit," you'd be asked for more evidence. That's what I'm going to ask you for. For example, the insinuation is that the doorknobs were there while the coal formed. Has it been verified that this is the case? The caption for the picture says, "Long immersion in the sea causes it to become concreted into big masses which often contain other artifacts." -- and indeed, it looks to me like the doorknobs have been concreted to the surface -- the coal hasn't been split open to reveal doorknobs in the interior. Also, has the coal been studied under a microscope? What fossils have been found in it to date it? Can you answer? Or, I repeat, is this single picture (or other unprovenanced pictures) your sole evidence for this thread?

What's 'artificial' about the conditions?

And this is pretty funny when one remembers the arguments about forming 'life' under artificial conditions.

Yes, the primary evodating method - that's a big concern.

Well how does it feel when what you imply with just about every post (creation are liars) is served back to you? You don't like it do you?



So what you imply here is that every evolutionists tells the truth no matter what? And that all the frauds from the past were just misunderstandings?

I can admit that creationists lie from time to time. But I doubt you can admit that evolutionists do the same. So by what written moral standards do evolutionists live by that is so much better than any standard out there that they can deem that what they say has more truth than anything else?



So you would deny that pressure and super heater water would make the coalification process work much faster?



Deep sea is artificial conditions? You are reaching here.



And you fell for what the evolutionist at that site wanted you to see. It's a nice touch in debunking creation evidence. And it works very well. You fell for it because you believe that all creationist are liars, and all evolutionists are truth tellers who never lied in their life.



And yes, the old peer review tactic. That makes me laugh. Who is going to peer review my claims? Evolutionists right? Why don't you let some creationist peer review your next paper on evolution and see if you think it would be fair?

Nice try.



Maybe it would be more understandable from a lying creation video that shows where coal can be made in less than a year? Nah, you just say he was lying, correct? So I say you are too.

But then you might say, that's mean. Well let's apply this to your side and show where your bias lies.

The biggest part of evolution process cannot be observed. And that is the millions of years of claimed evolution. Which by the way is 50% of the evolution theory.

So let's compare what you won't believe about the coal to what you will believe about evolution.

1) The picture of coal cannot be verified and because all creationists are deemed as liars you won't believe anything they say, correct?
2) But, from bones dug up in the ground. And a line up of how they look simuliar. You believe that it took millions of years to evolve?

You know bones cannot talk. They do not tell stories of their past. All that science really has is age dating and a line up of simuliar looks and DNA. The actual claims cannot and never will be verified (sound familiar?). And the actual process can never been seen because quote: It takes to much time.

So guess what? Your evidence for evolution is not any better than what you claim you do like about the evidence here, Why?

1) You cannot provide a observable process for the millions of years of claimed evolution.
2) Bones really cannot tell you anything beyond their age and maybe DNA.

But yet you believe it now don't you? So you base what you believe on the option of what you want to be true and rejecting everything else as a lie.

Question: Is "everything" that comes against evolution a lie? If so, then evolution has graduated to being an absolute and is no longer a theory. So you cannot deem all things a lie because you "want" evolution to be true. That is not science.

Also I notice that none of you evolutionists are even responding to my post on oil being made quickly. Now why is that since all creationist lie? You should be able to debunk it easily, or can you?

OK, so it looks like this one picture really is all the evidence you have here. I requested more in all honesty. Your source said that the doorknobs were cemented to the coal and that looks like the case to me. Being cemented to the top of the coal is not the same thing as being engulfed by it as it formed. And it would also be helpful to have some information about the coal itself, seeing as how coal consists of sedimentary layers and we can study what's inside those layers. You don't have that information either. Yet you claim this picture to be some kind of evidence. If that were the case, don't you think places like AiG would be writing articles about it and claiming it's more "devastating" evidence for the "fraud" of evolution?

What exactly are you trying to say here? What is your specific claim about coal, and what evidence can you present for it?

I know that coal has artificially been produced in a laboratory. These conditions are different from those in nature. If you have a Google on coal you will see what evidence there is that layers of coal are old, just like we can tell how old various other kinds of sedimentary layers are, but before I go into that I would like to find out first what your position is on this. Do you claim that coal was laid down in a global flood, for example, or just that it all has to be less than 6000 years old?



I've never had the dubious pleasure of talking with someone so full of venom. So you don't think there's any burden of proof on you to prove your claims to other people who are experts in the subject, and that creationist scientists should also be exempt from this? Why exactly do you think they shouldn't need to have their work scrutinised? So if it contains scientific flaws, that's just evolutionists being unfair is it?



If in other words you are saying we can't learn anything from the past, this topic has already been discussed here. It might be helpful if you took the time to read some old posts so that we do not cover the same ground all over again.



These topics have also been covered in other threads. If you want to talk hominid evolution it's a topic I have a lot of interest in, and I've already posted about it, including information about various dating methods that have been used on hominid fossils, and comparative morphological studies. Like I said, I am going to ask you to have a look at what's been discussed here before. Let's stick to coal in this thread please.

Evolution has also been observed. Russ2, a new member here, has only just posted information on genetics, and bacteria that have evolved and developed beneficial mutations. Again, another thread. If you can spend a little of your time in studying the information already here, before your next angry tirade against evolutionists, it might help give some focus to the topics under discussion.

This subject has also been covered, and it's a PRATT. You're maybe expecting people to spend more time here answering your posts than they've actually got. Your enthusiasm is clear but when it's the hundredth or thousandth PRATT you've seen, it gets a bit tedious.

Have patience and someone will attend.

I see that you assume things. I have other evidence I have not posted. But since you think it's all PRATT and we creationists are all the same. Maybe you just not interested. O well, your loss.

I lived and went to school in Maryland for a few years. During this time, I visited the Smithsonian Institution many times.

Besides having evolutionary myth shoved down our elementary-school throats at every turn, we were also told that petrified trees take millions of years to form.

Well, this video from Hovind shows some petrified objects that are just a few decades (and less) old:

Lies In the Textbooks

PRATT Russ, and we're talking about coal here.

Video link to Hovind? Link to Budikka's 300 Creationist Lies Index.

Several people here have asked you before to summarise salient points in your own words rather than post video links and expect people to take the time to painstakingly respond. If I started posting lots of video links about evolution and said, "watch it and refute," would you do it?

Do you have anything to add here about coal? What is your position on coal? Where does it fit in the grand scheme of things eh?

This is just too hilarious, ikester7579: you've got to be kidding ....

Imaging that: found in the wreck of a ship built by humans and known to carry human artifacts! shocking.

Only if you can show that dinosaurs were also carried in the holds of human ships.

Enjoy.

Actually, she only claims that the creationist that should know better are liars...the jury's still out on you. These people, Hovind, Morris, Austin and their ilk have been shown to quote people out of context, purposely misrepresent geologic samples in order to get erroneous readings, and ignore evidence they, themselves, have gathered in order to put forth their conclusions regarding the age of the Earth and Origins. So, if they are not lying about their "research" then they are blind.

Not her claim at all. In fact, I cannot see how you could draw that conclusion unless you were trying to add an emotional aspect to your response. Are you implying that the deceptive actions of some people who adhere to a belief, necessarily affects the truth or falsehood of that belief?

Some evolutionists live by the standards of the Bible. Some live by the standards of the Koran. Some by the standards of the society in which they live. In all cases, as is probably true with creationists also, they do it imperfectly and are prone to mistakes on occasion.
As to the truth of what they say, that depends on how much it has been corroborated by others in their field (assuming you are referencing their scientific conclusions).

No. I would say that the rapid formation of coal in one instance does not mean that all or even a significant portion of the coal on the Earth was formed rapidly.

But...let's take your all-the-coal-on-the-Earth-was-formed-rapidly theory as a possibility. You say that high pressure and superheated water could form the coal. ok Please describe the process by which this happened all over the world in a short span of time. A simple explanation is fine with me. Just a description of the following:

1. Where did all the plant matter come from that formed the thick layers of coal we see today?

2. How did the plant matter get to the high pressure area where the superheated water was?

3. Approximately how much superheated water was needed to form all the coal we see?

4. What was the time frame in which this coal was formed?

5. Where did the superheated water go after it had done its job?

6. What are the telltale signs within the coal deposits that shows it was in contact with superheated water?

No. I would ask the researcher to show how the means used in the rapid creation of coal can be applied to the miles-thick seams of coal throughout the world. I would also ask what effect the application of that method, in the magnitude necessary to make all the coal in the world, would have on the rest of the planet.

There goes the science of forensics. I knew that those CSI programs were all fake.

Everything that comes against evolution is not a lie. It could simply be unintentionally untrue. That would make it a mistake...not a lie.

Linear, your patient and thorough responses are an example to us all. In all truth, I scan over angry remarks and blah blah evil, godless, blah. I guess if I want to fully take part in this kind of debate, I need to rake through it anyway and respond as you do. To be honest with you, I'm not sure I'm keen to do that. We've had some very venomous posts here in recent times and it takes the enjoyment out of discussing.

Back to that school work, LOL.

I have to agree with LindaLou says about Linear. You're a good guy..... : ) I appreciate your posts of late on all the different threads. Thank you!

I did not know I was being charged of a crime. So who is the prosecuter? All the evolutionist here? And who is the accuser, all of the evolutionists here?

The wording of your posts tells more about you and your friends then you ever know. And I also know the game being played here. It's a childish game played by people who cannot win the debate so they resort to the childish tactics and have others join in for support to try and make the person they disagree with look like they stand alone.

The creation theory is not so weak that we have to resort to such tactics to make ourselves look good in front of an audience of lurkers that have been invited to lurk at this forum while you guys put on a show. Then go back to your forums and laugh at how you guys made a fool of every creationist at this forum.



Shall I make a list of evolutionists who do the same thing? I guess when you cannot debunk the evidence then you have to attack the credibility. It's the only option left and is quite lame. Maybe you should start a lame thread on attacking the credibility of all creationists. So that you and all your friends can join in on the hoopla of hate.

The rest of your post is pretty much worthless.

It is nice to know that you can provide a list of deceptive evolutionists to go along with my list of deceptive creationists.

Two questions

1. Does deceptive behavior of some people in a group mean that all members of that group are deceptive?

2. Does the deceptive behavior of some adherents to a belief have any effect on the truth or falseness of that belief?

That is what you imply when you said what you said below. I'm just following your lead. Nice try on reversal of guilt though.