Although the coalification process has been used in the past to support theories of an aged universe, research done by leading creation scientists reveals that this process actually supports creation teachings of a young Earth. Physical evidence demonstrates that the coalification process must have occurred rapidly, rather than over vast time periods.
Go do some research first before answering, you might be wrong in your answer
2006-10-11 07:04:51 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
First of all, coal has never been used to support an aged universe, or even an aged earth for that matter! That is a LIE.
Secondly, what evidence????? LOL found the article, it is a disgrace!!!
2006-10-11 07:09:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Creation scientists is an oxymoron. Those who purely believe in creation try to proof creation rather than seek answers to understand how the world came to be. There's a difference.
Even the Catholic Church has acknowledged that the two can coexist and there are merits to the theory of evolution. The Bible cannot always be taken literally - even bibilical scholars say this. There are many metaphors and allegories in the Bible. Creation is one of them. Even the story of Adam and Eve cannot be taken literally. The lifespans of key figures in Genesis cannot be taken literally either (e.g. Say adam lived to 900 years).
2006-10-11 07:10:47 · answer #2 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I hope you mean by research, look for data, not just Creationists quoting each other.
Speculating that it could have happenened is hardly evidence.
As for the "polonium halos", they are the closest to science I've ever seen from a creationist. There are some unproven hypotheses (for example that the polonium HAD to start as polonium and could not be a devay product. Given how many radiometric measures indicate an old world, it's pretty obvious why Creationists would jump on one curious phenomenon that hasn't been explained and call it "proof".
2006-10-11 11:26:40 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I need not do any research.
The term "Creation Scientist" is an oxymoron. It is religion under disguise.
If you beleive in the story of Creationism, you effectively deal a death blow to EVERY SINGLE BRANCH of science that man knows. Now, we've used this science to put us on the moon, cure diseases and countless other things such as invention of the atomic bomb.... Are you telling me those sciences are all false, because creationism is true??
And, for the record, I see no research in your question - I see regurgitation of "facts" from Creationists. I do not for a moment beleive you even understand what you write.
2006-10-11 07:16:20 · answer #4 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I have seen lots of articles on rapid coal formation on the internet, the prob is is that if a scientis becomes interested in creation he is immediatley shunned by the scientific community, but there are lots of strange phenomona like tress that have grown through fossil layers, human and dinosaur footprints, the problem is i see it, that scientist assume the earth is billions of years old and so there is this kind of 'oh lets fit this bit of information that upsets our theoris and just blind the people with nonsense', to the layman science can be baffling and the public get a 'just trust us attitude'. When Mt st Helens blew it's stack in 1980, there was a huge lyer of ash deposited in over 20 distinct layers, this of course was completly new to science and they had to adapt their theories to accomodate this new information, which meant that if we had been having this debate before 1980 all these so called right on scientists would be WRONG, The Bible to me has not been contradicted,
eg "All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again."
the Mississippi River dumps approximately 518 billion gallons of water every 24 hours into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go?
Of course I could never convince a 'Real' scientist, but I do smile whenever I see a so called Real scientist who has become convinced that the Earth was created not merely a product of chance or accident
God Bless
2006-10-11 07:41:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Well if you really wanted an answer to how long it takes to form coal, perhaps you should have asked in the science category. Oh wait, you were trying to prove a point, right? Well I don't see you backing up your reasoning with any documentations. I can say I read an article that Santa Claus is real. So now Santa is real. Ha ha.
2006-10-11 07:10:00 · answer #6 · answered by Allison L 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Even if coal were formed quickly it would not prove a young Earth - just show that coal forms quickly. Lots of other geological evidence to show an Earth billions of years old. Doesn't have to go along with evolution , although it does.
Try http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html for basics on how to date rocks.
2006-10-11 07:16:45 · answer #7 · answered by Sage Bluestorm 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Research done by leading creation scientists reveals that monkeys are currently flying out of my a*se.
In truth, they aren't, but when has that ever bothered 'leading creation scientists'?
2006-10-11 07:12:29 · answer #8 · answered by XYZ 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
And I thought it was going to be a decent question. Darn I was wrong. and if that were the case diamonds would be a lot cheaper!
Creation scientist is a oxymoron.
2006-10-11 07:14:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Can your "creation scientists" make oil as well? If so, why are we still dealing with the middle east? Why not just make our own oil? And natural gas? Seriously, if we can make fossil fuels, why aren't we doing it?
2006-10-11 07:19:34 · answer #10 · answered by ♥Mira♥ 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋