Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Or the imprint was put there less than 6000 years ago --- yes.
If a lump of anthracite containing 40 million years of embedded age acquires an imprint 1000 years ago, that would not constitute Omphalism.
I don't know --- I'm not into biogeology --- or whatever it's called.Okay, so the final kicker is this: Is this the only method by which coal deposits can contain fossils?
Well --- I'm still waiting to hear why Embedded Age is wrong --- and I have a feeling I'm not going to, either.
Especially since all we're yakking about is impressions in coal, YEC, and Omphalism --- everything BUT embedded age.
(You guys are smart.)
Well --- I'm still waiting to hear why Embedded Age is wrong --- and I have a feeling I'm not going to, either.
Especially since all we're yakking about is impressions in coal, YEC, and Omphalism --- everything BUT embedded age.
(You guys are smart.)
I don't know --- I'm not into biogeology --- or whatever it's called.
Perhaps someone else can answer this.
B is my answer --- I believe God created coal and oil in the earth during the Creation Week.Since we're not talking specific mechanics, generalizations are good:
A) Coal created in Creation week - Fossils created in Creation week
B) Coal created in Creation week - Fossils not created in Creation week
C) Coal not created in Creation week - Fossils created in Creation week
D) Coal not created in Creation week - Fossils not created in Creation week
We've established that D is valid in your hypothesis, so we're now trying to establish if any others are valid statements in your hypothesis. Since we're not going into specifics about methods at this time, these are the only four possible answers.
Why, of course --- how could I have forgotten that?1, You have yet to explain what embedded age actually is...
Oops! Forgot that too, didn't I?... how God embedded age...
I forgot to ask Him that one.... or why he should want to do so.
Oh.Embedding age certainly isn't required to make something that is "mature," nor can I see how it is preferable.
Finally --- something I did do!2. You have acknowledged that fossils in coal show that those fossil imprints, etc. had to have been made within the last 6,000 years or so.
Hmmm --- despite the fact that there was a race of angels on the earth for a couple thousand years?However, there is no way for them to get there unless they were made as the coal was being formed or before it was formed.
You know what "reknown" means, don't you, Split Rock?Genesis 6:4 said:There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Incorrect.Therefore, the coal is all less than 6,000 years old. Correct?
Just a note to lurkers:
See, this is what happens when you give in.
You'd better known your p's and q's if your gonna discuss the Creation with these guys.
Why?
They want to discuss anything BUT creation.
Well, like Puff the Magic Giraffe showed (I can't remember his account name), there is anthracite, and there is subbituminous coal, and there is bituminous coal, and there is [something that starts with the letter ell, I think], and finally there is peat - (yes, I was so impressed with that post, I [almost] memorized it).Ah righto, so no coal was created after creation week then? If so, then I was wrong and D is not a valid result of your hypothesis.
Well, like Puff the Magic Giraffe showed (I can't remember his account name), there is anthracite, and there is subbituminous coal, and there is bituminous coal, and there is [something that starts with the letter ell, I think], and finally there is peat - (yes, I was so impressed with that post, I [almost] memorized it).
I believe God created the anthracite, but possibly that bituminous stuff formed by itself.
It's like God created the atmosphere, but the atmosphere also forms naturally.
Assuming that you are right --- and a fossil of a leaf has been found in anthracite --- my answer is simply, "I don't know how it got there" --- BUT, I don't think the Scriptures are totally silent on some issues, and I think there's enough information in God's Diary that it can be ascertained, or at least be explained with an educated guess.Okay, I get your position now. Speaking specifically about anthracite, your position is that it was *not* created with fossils in it, but that the fossils were later added. So the question is then, what is the method by which a piece of anthracite can have a fossil of a leaf inside it without that fossil of the leaf having been put in the anthracite during creation? This is the question that naturally arises since you are positing that the fossils did not originate during creation week but that the anthracite coal itself did.
Are we done in the coal mines of Genesis 6 now?
Can someone --- (Heaven forbid it would be the OP) --- can someone please tell me now why Embedded Age is wrong?
Ain't that a shame?This is all valid, because you cannot provide the proof to back up your claim that fossils were put within anthracite coal after creation.
Did you qv 189, like I asked you to?This is what you're stating:
1) God made anthracite
2) creation is over
3) ?????
4) fossils now in anthracite
...
You have not provided anything to fill in #3, therefore your premise is not valid, it's not sound. Without doing so you have no basis to claim that fossils were not created during creation week, and therefore no basis to claim that there is a difference between embedded age and embedded history.
AV, this all relates to embedded age because you have not provided a method by which fossils can be formed within anthracite after genesis 1. Since you cannot provide such a method, the standard view that anthracite was formed with the fossils already in it holds. If this you believe that anthracite was formed during genesis 1, then it stands to reason that the fossils were too because you have failed to provide proof otherwise. If there are fossils in the coal when it was formed during genesis 1 then this is proof of embedded history.
This is all valid, because you cannot provide the proof to back up your claim that fossils were put within anthracite coal after creation.
This is what you're stating:
1) God made anthracite
2) creation is over
3) ?????
4) fossils now in anthracite
And this is what others are saying:
1) God made anthracite and fossils in anthracite
2) creation is over
You have not provided anything to fill in #3, therefore your premise is not valid, it's not sound. Without doing so you have no basis to claim that fossils were not created during creation week, and therefore no basis to claim that there is a difference between embedded age and embedded history.
You can't tell me where mass/energy comes from
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?