What was the #1 MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY of "creation science" ?

[Loudmouth]

If you're digging in a fresh mine and find ANYTHING in the coal it means someone was there before you. This gets increasingly strange the deeper you dig.

So how did they date the concretion around the hammer? Please explain this to us.

Also, you still have not explained how 14C is created in the atmosphere. Have you looked that up yet?

 

[OllieFranz]

Either that or you're lying through your teeth. Do you SERIOUSLY think someone who shovels coal for his livelihood wouldn't know coal from clay? Morover, considering how many other instances there are of things being found of coal, DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT NOBODY WHO USES COAL KNOWS WHAT IT IS??? "A team of archaeologists checked it, and as it turns out, the rock encasing the hammer was dated back more than 400 million year; the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old." So out of a team of archeologists, NOT A ONE OF THEM knew what coal was?

Ollie's rebuttal was so weak only a complete dingbat or a desperate old earth evolutionist would believer it. A team of archologists don;t know coal from clay.

Look again even at your own source page. The London hammer was not imbedded in coal it was imbedded in limestone (I already posted a mea culpa for mis-remembering that it was clay).

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Did someone mention Carl Baugh?



































'Cause that guys a fraud.

 

[Tomk80]

This was in a lump of coal, not just in the seam.

I don't know. How you YOU explain how it got there when you claim the lump predated man by 300 million years?

For the argument this is actually irrelevant. You have in fact ceded your argument here.

Since you think the coal has been created 6,000 years ago, and we think it was created 300 million years ago, and since it is a (relatively) modern tool, one conclusion is inevitable, regardless of which of the two ages you cling to. The hammer must have gotten in the lump of coal after the time it was created for both time spans. In this case, you have the exact same problem to explain as we.

 

[Tomk80]

If you're digging in a fresh mine and find ANYTHING in the coal it means someone was there before you. This gets increasingly strange the deeper you dig.

That problem holds for you as well as for us. So the explanation is probably the same too, and has nothing to do with the formation of coal.

Of all the arguments I have come across in the evolution/creation debate, this has to be among the most rediculous.

 

[Split Rock]

Either that or you're lying through your teeth. Do you SERIOUSLY think someone who shovels coal for his livelihood wouldn't know coal from clay? Morover, considering how many other instances there are of things being found of coal, DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT NOBODY WHO USES COAL KNOWS WHAT IT IS??? "A team of archaeologists checked it, and as it turns out, the rock encasing the hammer was dated back more than 400 million year; the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old." So out of a team of archeologists, NOT A ONE OF THEM knew what coal was?

Ollie's rebuttal was so weak only a complete dingbat or a desperate old earth evolutionist would believer it. A team of archologists don;t know coal from clay.

It's unbelievable what people will claim to avoid acknowledging that God is real.

It doesn't really matter to you though, does it Split Rock? You'll just dig up another lame dismissal of things you can't explain from the multitude of disengenuous ones put up by old earth evolutionists and won't think twice about swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

Is that all you can do.. parrot me?

Coal did not form around the hammer. That is false. Look at the photos on your website. It is NOT coal. Get it now? Is that really the best you can do to refute deep time? An anecdotal story about a hammer dropped in a coal seam? The great atheist-geologist-evolutionist conspiracy must have missed that hammer, huh? Where are the refernces, btw? Are we suppsoed to believe professional lying "creation ministry" websites at their "word?" Did they find the hammer? No? Then where are the references????

 

[Split Rock]

For the argument this is actually irrelevant. You have in fact ceded your argument here.

Since you think the coal has been created 6,000 years ago, and we think it was created 300 million years ago, and since it is a (relatively) modern tool, one conclusion is inevitable, regardless of which of the two ages you cling to. The hammer must have gotten in the lump of coal after the time it was created for both time spans. In this case, you have the exact same problem to explain as we.

He didn't say that the coal was created by God. Rather, I think he is implying that coal can form very fast.

 

[Tomk80]

He didn't say that the coal was created by God. Rather, I think he is implying that coal can form very fast.

Within a mountain? How? Again in the scenario of finding a modern device in coal, how would that work? Did the little fire fairies fart coal? Whichever way you turn it, the problem remains the same in his model.

 

[MrsLurking]

KWCrazy wrote:
It's unbelievable what people will claim to avoid acknowledging that God is real.

Coal did not form around the hammer. That is false. Look at the photos on your website. It is NOT coal. Get it now? Is that really the best you can do to refute deep time? An anecdotal story about a hammer dropped in a coal seam?

KWCrazy, I don't understand what you are saying.

Explain to me how someone's failure to be fooled by a silly "hammer in coal" hoax matters. And how do you get from that hammer to "avoid acknowledging that God is real"? That is a very large LEAP OF LOGIC.

I realize that your username may be a hint of a parody, but you seem to be impassioned about something, although I'm not entirely sure what that would be.

 

[And-U-Say]

Creation science is useful in refuting the lies of evolutionists. Scientists who do not pray at the altar of Darwinism will not get their work published in "evolution only" publications, so it gives them a platform to continue thier research. For example, when carbon 14 appers in coal that is supposedly 300 million years old, or when metal gears are found embedded in coal we would never heat about the discovery via old earth only publications. It's like trying to get truth out of government approved media.

Scientists do not "pray" at the alter of evolution. Scientists attempt to tear down that "alter". Fame is Science is about overturning or extensively modifying existing theories. Very little fame and fortune is garnered by agreeing with existing theories.

Your post demonstrates that you do not understand the world of Science. You have some twisted idea probably based on your own experience of religion (which does not allow the questioning of dogma).

So Science does the exact opposite of what you suggest here. You did not know that?

 

[MrsLurking]

KWCrazy wrote:

For example, when carbon 14 appers in coal that is supposedly 300 million years old, or when metal gears are found embedded in coal we would never heat about the discovery via old earth only publications.
​

Your post demonstrates that you do not understand the world of Science. You have some twisted idea probably based on your own experience of religion (which does not allow the questioning of dogma).

So Science does the exact opposite of what you suggest here. You did not know that?

Perhaps KWCrazy could explain to us:

1) Why "metal gears" in coal somehow defies established theories of science.

2) The citations for peer-reviewed publications which document the metal gears and the provenance of the find. Something smells quite fishy here.

3) Why HEARSAY should be accepted without documentation?

Is everything explained by conspiracy theories?

 

[KWCrazy]

Coal did not form around the hammer. That is false. Look at the photos on your website. It is NOT coal. Get it now? Is that really the best you can do to refute deep time?

In 1944, a boy in Upshur County West Virginia dropped a lump of coal that had been taken from a coal deposit estimated to be 300 million years old and found a brass bell inside. The bell was dated back to the antediluvian period. The University of Oklahoma laboratory found that the bell contained a mix of metals unknown in modern alloy production.
source

You need to apply to the University of Oklahoma. Apparently they don't know what coal is either. Rather than address the facts, you attack the messenger. Magor league fail there. An eight year old can Google items found in coal and know how incredibly wrong you are. I could list many more, but appaerntly nobody from archeologists to university professors seem to know what coal is.


​

 

[Skaloop]

In 1944, a boy in Upshur County West Virginia dropped a lump of coal that had been taken from a coal deposit estimated to be 300 million years old and found a brass bell inside. The bell was dated back to the antediluvian period. The University of Oklahoma laboratory found that the bell contained a mix of metals unknown in modern alloy production.
source

You need to apply to the University of Oklahoma. Apparently they don't know what coal is either. Rather than address the facts, you attack the messenger. Magor league fail there. An eight year old can Google items found in coal and know how incredibly wrong you are. I could list many more, but appaerntly nobody from archeologists to university professors seem to know what coal is. ​

Why does your source not link to the primary source information from the University of Oklahoma? That's the only way to address the facts. Because your source has not shown anything to be a fact.

Also, this guy has a well-written analysis of realistic possible explanations:

Gordon's Blog: The Mystery of the Bell Found in Coal
​

 

[KWCrazy]

Why does your source not link to the primary source information from the University of Oklahoma? That's the only way to address the facts. Because your source has not shown anything to be a fact.

Also, this guy has a well-written analysis of realistic possible explanations:

Gordon's Blog: The Mystery of the Bell Found in Coal

You DO realize that his article doesn't refute anything, right? He points out that the man passed a polygraph test, that the bell probably originated in India and that nothing that was posted about the bell can be refuted. Further, he offered "possible" explanations, which are not positive refutations. Your statement "your source has not shown anything to be a fact" is a demonstrated lie. Your source admits that the man passed a polygraph test and only suggests that maybe it wasn't found in coal. How the ancient bell found its way into a West Virginia coal mine is never answered, nor are any of the facts of the case disproved.

In other words, you FAIL. There is still no answer of how the bell... or any of the other man made material that has been found in coal... can be encased in a substance over 100 million years old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with the bell story is that there is no reliable source for where the bell came from.

The original story says a young boy found it. The person who passed the lie detector test was not the young boy.

There is a saying that you need to learn. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is an extraordinary claim with exceedingly weak evidence. I am not saying how the boy or whoever first found the Indian bell got it from some other source. I am saying it is highly unlikely that his story is true. Since there is no real evidence that it is true there is no reason to believe it.

 

[MrsLurking]

The problem with the bell story is that there is no reliable source for where the bell came from.

The original story says a young boy found it. The person who passed the lie detector test was not the young boy.

There is a saying that you need to learn. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is an extraordinary claim with exceedingly weak evidence. I am not saying how the boy or whoever first found the Indian bell got it from some other source. I am saying it is highly unlikely that his story is true. Since there is no real evidence that it is true there is no reason to believe it.

In other words, anyone with COMMON SENSE is not so gullible and naive. When people tell tall tales which strain the imagination, nobody with functioning neuron is going to accept the claims without solid evidence. (Apparently KWCrazy thinks his "say so" should be enough. And he thinks that anyone who asks for evidence is DENYING GOD! Rubbish.)

 

[KWCrazy]

The problem with the bell story is that there is no reliable source for where the bell came from.

The original story says a young boy found it. The person who passed the lie detector test was not the young boy.

He was just older. They didn't have polygraphs at the time.

There is a saying that you need to learn. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There's something that you need to learn. All explanations on hiow things came about over time are theories. When things do not fit into our theories, we have to re-think them. The most extrordinary claim is that everything that exists came to be on its own wiothout any cause or design. Yet everywhere we look there aare things that toss ice water into the fire.

This is an extraordinary claim with exceedingly weak evidence. I am not saying how the boy or whoever first found the Indian bell got it from some other source.

Considering that it was a 10 year old boy in West Virginia, in 1944, we can be pretty sure he didn't get it on Ebay. As to where it came from? Who knows? Somehow the bell got into the coal. Since a miner didn't report the find, it must have been brought out of the mine and delivered to the home while still encased in a lump (They used to eliver coal like that). Whatever the reasoning, the coal had to have been formed AFTER the bell was made. This means it could not have been very old, which entirely alters our concept of how coal forms.

I am saying it is highly unlikely that his story is true.

Arguments from incredulity are not scientific.

 

[Skaloop]

You DO realize that his article doesn't refute anything, right? He points out that the man passed a polygraph test, that the bell probably originated in India and that nothing that was posted about the bell can be refuted. Further, he offered "possible" explanations, which are not positive refutations. Your statement "your source has not shown anything to be a fact" is a demonstrated lie. Your source admits that the man passed a polygraph test and only suggests that maybe it wasn't found in coal. How the ancient bell found its way into a West Virginia coal mine is never answered, nor are any of the facts of the case disproved.

We don't know for a fact that the bell was ever in a coal mine, since that's not where the boy found it.

In other words, you FAIL. There is still no answer of how the bell... or any of the other man made material that has been found in coal... can be encased in a substance over 100 million years old.

The simple answer, based on the evidence, is that the bell was never encased in a substance over 100 million years old.

Quick question; what's your explanation for it? Say your assertions are correct. How did it happen? How did the bell get encased in coal?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He was just older. They didn't have polygraphs at the time.

I can't even find any references of a lie detector at all. Plus there is a reason they don't allow lie detectors in court.

There's something that you need to learn. All explanations on hiow things came about over time are theories. When things do not fit into our theories, we have to re-think them. The most extrordinary claim is that everything that exists came to be on its own wiothout any cause or design. Yet everywhere we look there aare things that toss ice water into the fire.

No, clearly you do not know the meaning of the word "theory".

Considering that it was a 10 year old boy in West Virginia, in 1944, we can be pretty sure he didn't get it on Ebay. As to where it came from? Who knows? Somehow the bell got into the coal. Since a miner didn't report the find, it must have been brought out of the mine and delivered to the home while still encased in a lump (They used to eliver coal like that). Whatever the reasoning, the coal had to have been formed AFTER the bell was made. This means it could not have been very old, which entirely alters our concept of how coal forms.

I haven't seen anything that says anything about the factuality of the story. Again, without extraordinary evidence this is the sort of claim that is best no to believe.

Arguments from incredulity are not scientific.

[/quote]

This is not an argument from incredulity. I am pointing out quite correctly that you never made your point in the first place.

Your claim fails. As I have told dad countless times without evidence you lose.

 

[OllieFranz]

He was just older. They didn't have polygraphs at the time.

........

Considering that it was a 10 year old boy in West Virginia, in 1944,

The polygraph was invented in 1921. And while additional tests were added over the next few years, by 1945 every component of the modern polygraph was in place.

Polygraph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia