Question for atheists and evolutionists.......?

Question

Science generally agrees that the coal beds were formed 300 million years ago, during the times of the dinosaurs. Science also generally agrees that Man "evolved" from apes about 10 million years ago, long after the dinosaurs.

Can any of you explain then, the fact that a intricately worked brass bell, a cast-iron crucible and an intricately worked gold chain have been found in blocks of coal?

The bell was found in a lump of coal that was determined to be 300 million years old! The iron crucible was in coal determined to be 295 million years old.

So, either Man was around during the times of the dinosaurs and could smelt and work metals, or the Bible story of pre-Flood Man is true, in which it says;

Genesis 4:22

22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

If the Flood story is true, then the coal beds were formed by the Flood, which fits in with these discoveries. Your thoughts?

Please, serious answers only. I'd like to see some intelligent debate, not inane and sarcastic answers.

For those interested, details of these discoveries can be fouind at:

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/bell/bell.htm

I see a lot of answers saying that this is all a hoax, but none that say this can show proof that it is a hoax.

Atheists and evolutionists always demand proof of Biblical truths, and when it is presented, they scoff at it and call it a hoax.

So I ask you: if it is a hoax, provide your proof.


Jim: Maybe "debate" was the wrong word for me to use. Ok, how about "theories"?

Mountainboy: Ever hear of the Ice Age? Much of the Flood waters were taken up in the glaciers that covered the Northern Hemisphere, as well as the polar ice caps. That, and plate tectonics created high mountains and deepened seabeds during the Flood.

mnrlboy; Your theory is quite interesting, but it also endangers the very arguments of geology and evolution, in that the fossils we find (especially of "prehistoric men") could actually be far younger than they appear, having possibly been deposited on older, exposed strata then re-buried.

Essentially you are saying that there is no reliable geological record to determine the ages of fossil finds.

The dating of the coal beds was done by professional mining geologists. Are you going to tell them they are wrong?

Don; In that case, we can ignore Darwin's "Origin of Species" book as it was written over 150 years ago, and there is no scientific proof to verify it's claims either.

Professional scientists have validated the objects found in the coal blocks. Are you willing to tell them they don't know what they're talking about?

Neil h - You mention that I make "sweeping statements" and that I am erroneous, yet you in turn say;

Your first statement : "Science generally agrees that the coal beds were formed 300 million years ago, during the times of the dinosaurs " is wrong in more than one sense.

Is this not a sweeping statement in itself, in that you say I am wrong, but offer no proof of your assertion?

Mythology is a fanciful account of historical events, such as the Iliad of Homer. Yet the Bible is unparalleled in it's historical acuracy. Read it, you may be surprised.

I find it ironic that when asked to produce proof of Biblical accuracy concerning the Flood, the same people immediately ridicule the evidence presented, shouting "Hoax!" or calling it "anecdotal evidence", ignoring the fact that highly-trained scientists have studied the objects in question and have provided the age estimates.

How can evolutionists explain 57 human footprints in the same stone as 203 dinosaur footprints? Or an iron hammer in the same stone layer as the footprints, a hammer whose composition can't be reproduced under today's atmospheric gas composition? (This same strata included dinosaur fossils, as well as a fossilized human finger).

Intermixed fossilized human and dinosaur footprints have been excavated in Colorado and Russia, and carbonized wood in the same strata has given the fossils an age of being 25-35,000 years old.

Ok, time to close this issue, I have tried to open eyes and minds. I pray that from here, God will do what I have been unable to do.

Answer 1

As Scott Huse has said, “In the field every conceivable contradiction to the proposed ideal sequence of the geologic column is found.” They are constantly having to explain away things like:
-The Cambrian explosion.
-Or fossils too low or too high in the geologic column.
-Or polystrate fossils (fossils that extent through several layers of strata).
-Or sedimentary strata found in the wrong stratigraphic order.
-Or missing strata.
-Or thousands of feet of strata that is bent and folded without cracking (which must have happened while it was all still wet).
-Or strata that lacks any erosion features with smooth lines between the layers.
-Or strata that are supposed to be millions of years apart that are inter-bedded.
-Or out-of-place human artifacts (Cremo and Thompson have done a thorough job of listing some out-of-place artifacts in their book, Forbidden Archeology).
-Or “living fossils” (animals that supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago that forgot to evolve and look the same as they do today).
-Or Dinosaur soft tissue being found (as they did in March of 2005); how could soft tissue and cells remain so relatively fresh for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history?

There are plenty of problems, but as you can see, if it doesn't fit their paradigm, they simply dismiss it.

Answer 2

Foxfire,

1. It seems to me that you are stereotyping people by addressing this question to "atheists" and "evolutionists". I am an "evolutionist", but not an atheist. Am I allowed to answer your question?

2. Coal beds were formed at many different points in earth's history, not just at 300 Ma.

3. You have your facts wrong... dinosaurs appeared 230 million years ago. The coal beds you speak of that date to 300 Ma predate the dinosaurs. This oversight, however, does not affect your argument.

4. I can easily explain this: People left those artifacts there long after the coal had already formed and been exposed to the earth's surface. This explanation is by far the most likely one regardless of whether their placement there was done as a hoax or not. If you date the artifacts themselves, you will find a much younger age than the age of the coal. This would be the "proof" that you are asking for. However, I don't even need this proof in order to invalidate your argument. The mere fact that placing a brass bell on top of a rock is possible means that you have no case for the coal beds being younger than 300 million years, because your argument assumes that they formed at the same time, which is an assertion that you've provided no evidence for. You cannot assume that anything that is presently in physical proximity to a rock must have been created at the same time as the rock. The cabin that I stayed in this summer was built on top of some granite. Would you argue that the cabin formed at the same time as the granite?

Also, if you are interested in intelligent debate as you claim to be, I would be interested to hear your response.

Chas chas 123,

The evolutionists you have talked to were probably just too condescending for you to have a reasonable discussion with. I am perfectly happy to discuss this with you and explain the scientific viewpoint, if you are willing to listen. There is no reason that it can't be done in a civil way.

And by the way, you say that you want to debate evidence, so let's debate some evidence. The amount of C-14 in most coal beds HAS in fact decayed to undetectable levels. The ones containing measureable, although very small and variable, amounts of C-14 that you reference can be easily explained by natural radiation from the surrounding rocks, or even microbes that cycle C-14 from the atmosphere back into the rock. In addition, the surrounding rocks can be dated by techniques not involving C-14 which yield ages of millions of years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html


Edit:

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying... I don't dispute the age of the coal as determined by the mining geologists, what I dispute is your assertion that the coal and the artifacts are the SAME AGE. What I'm proposing is that the coal is 300 million years old, and the artifacts are either several thousand years old or several years old (depending on whether or not they were created as a hoax).

Also, I am NOT "essentially saying" that there is no valid fossil evidence, I am saying that placing an artifact made of metal into a bed of coal is a very easy thing to do. In contrast, placing a complete skeleton of an early hominid into a sedimentary rock in the exact position that would be expected and infusing it into the matrix of the rock and then lithifying additional rock around it would be rather difficult. Paleontologists and geologists have very reliable ways of determining whether a fossil is "in situ" (died and was buried at the same time that the rock encasing it formed), and in addition, have methods for dating BOTH the fossil and the rock it is found in separately to verify that they are the same age. Thus, none of the evidence for evolution that has been gathered is in any danger.

Another edit:

timeponderer makes an excellent point in his response. Since you are the one trying to falsify decades worth of carefully tested and peer reviewed geological science, the burden of proof rests on YOU to demonstrate that these artifacts and the coal are 1) exactly the same age, and 2) much younger than geologists claim them to be, neither of which you have done. The burden of proof does NOT rest on us to prove that they are different ages, since this is the explanation that is already consistent with previous data.

Answer 3

You have not presented any evidence at all, just unsupported anecdotal statements. Anyone could say anything. I could say one day that I had seen some smurfs once. In which case it would be up to me to provide some evidence for my claim. Not up to all the biologists in the world to stop and say, OMG, unless we can prove he didn't really see smurfs one day, we must conclude that smurfs exist! Stop everything!

Further, a search of web reveals no tangible evidence for this claim either, just vague stories. Your latching on to these unsupported stories as the truth, reveals you are simply seeking validation, and aren't interested in the logic, truth and reason.

And, by the way, what, do you think all the geologists in the world are utter idiots??

But to give you an "explanation" anyway. Many newly exposed and previously unweathered rock types, like coal, when exposed to rainwater, can produce mineral rich solutions that can at least loosely cement together a bunch of rocks (or coal powder) in a matter of years. If there was even a single photo.....

And by the way, coal beds occur through out the late Paleozoic to recent geological record. They ARE of a variety of ages. Basic fact checking please.

Answer 4

Your first statement : "Science generally agrees that the coal beds were formed 300 million years ago, during the times of the dinosaurs " is wrong in more than one sense.

The rest of your question then goes downhill from there. At least read up on a subject before you start making sweeping statements.

Do you always believe everything you read in mythological books like the bible ?

Answer 5

i don't know about the coal and other flood thing. But what I'm pretty sure of is that we did not evolve from apes, the only reason able explanation is that Adam was out there poking something he shouldn't have and it had a offspring. so it just goes to show that from the beginning of time Man has always been poking things he shouldn't. that should be obvious from the half sheep half man in Mexico. they are just blind to the obvious because they are so desperate to think they know everything, when god made us and they can't scientifically prove it.

Answer 6

You want intelligent debate, yet you post all this stuff that is centered on a hoax. So, you have two problems.

This is Yahoo Answers. The basic premise here is to ask questions and receive answers, not debate.

Isn't posting a hoax and attempting to say it is authentic a lie? Why sure it is.

Also, you cant direct a question to specific peoples, ie atheist and evolutionist. Anyone wishing to can answer your question. Attempting to direct your question to specific people is bias. You are indeed trying to elicited a certain reply.

It is my opinion you are posting this question for the specific purpose of promoting the Creationist agenda.

Answer 7

All of modern history has been permeated by unexplainable events that defy logic.
People will go to incredible lengths to try to hood wink science.
So when something like this occurs it should be scrutinized very carefully.
The fact that this guy took a polygraph test should be taken with a grain of salt.

Answer 8

The coal beds are not millions of years old.
All coal contains carbon 14, which decays to undectable levels in about 50,000 years.
Even diamonds have C14
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4650/

The fact that coal contains complete coalified trees going vertically through many 'layers', indicates that coal was formed rapidly.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3007

The Global flood is the most likely cause, but such a notion is typically rejected on religious grounds by evolutionists.

Unfortunately you won't get much rational debate from evolutionists :)
I have engaged in communication with some, and the typical riposte to any attempt to discuss evidence is 'you're stupid'.

Answer 9

Those items were NEVER found in virgin coal beds. It was just a hoax by godbotherers to prop up their ridiculous Genesis fairy tale which only the demented could ever credit.

Answer 10

The problem with these finds is that they are anecdotal. We don't really know where they came from...they may be interesting, but their provenance is uncertain.