Christians upset over Golden Compass

If your gonna give me a Bull**** answer atleast back it up with with a credible source. creation Wiki? Are you ***ing serious!? There is only one truth, so why would we need two sites for Wiki? Why isn't it that what is presented within creation-wiki fit within the regular wikipedia? Perhaps the contents of creation-wiki's contents don't meet the standard of evidence that the regular wikipedia requires....this is seen when there is need for a whole new wiki. Creation-wiki obviously has an agenda to push (creationism).

also such a term as "transitionals" and "geologic columns" are false terms used to misinform the public. Wiki, regular wikipedia that is, doesn't use the term "geologic columns" but rather geologic timeline, which the accuratcy of such isn't questioned by any geologist.

This link ought to tear everything up:

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column

This "column" exists. It doesn't matter if it's all in one place or not. Line the pieces up and it works. "Overlaps" are clearly explained, and with quite a bit of evidence.

Of course this "column" provides plenty of problems for ol Noah and his flood, so the quickest answer is that it doesn't exist, right? How exactly does a flood deposit everything so evenly and so orderly? Has ANY flood done this? There's more evidence for a geologic timeline than there is for a global flood. We've known about this timeline for roughly 200 years now, and all of a sudden it's wrong just because you throw a bible at it?

Takes much more than that to debunk science.

Yes your right, and I think these links should help in debunking such false science. And here is a a good question to ask yourself. Why is some data accepted when it is in line with current dogma, and why is other anomalous finds disregarded and damned to oblivion simply because they are anomalous?
Why do believers in Evolution run away when you show them man made objects embeded in coal or stone? How do man made objects embeded in coal hundreds of feet or even thousands of feet below the surface of the earth fit into your time column?

http:Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Noah's Flood?
Anthracite Man?
Erratic Enigmatics
Cracking Open Stones
TFTF: The Charles Fort Files
YEC vs. YEC

Your man on the YEC site got this one right.

But never go along with personal view websites. They can say anything, and usually do. We are all entitled to free speech. And one person's opinion does not make truth. Not even my opinion.

Something you should take on board yourself Mr.Campbell.

Well that's the point that was being made reguardless of the source. Geologist don't question the geologic timeline, they just accept their conclusions at face value. Where is your proof for the accuracy of the geologic time line. Oh, and I see, for a source to be credible it has to be a site that agrees with your belief system. Rather than answer the question, you attack the site. Kind of like, if you don't like the message, kill the messenger.

Well if none of the experts question something then it must be pretty credible then....seriously if you think you're the first person to think of that i hate to burst your bubble!

and no a source does not need to agree with my belief it simply needs to be a scientific source or at least a neutral source, which obviously your source isn't.

If none of the experts question something then it must be pretty credible.

WOW.

Well the fact that they are finding man made artifact's deep in their geologic time column, don't you think your so called experts should be asking a few more questions, instead of running away from this evidence?

Cracking Open Stones
Erratic Enigmatics
Anthracite Man?
Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Noah's Flood?
YEC vs. YEC

Got scientific review and paperwork for all of these perchance? I mean... I see UFO magazines cited as references and a lot of words such as "It is said that..."

This isn't solid. Where's the scientific work to back this up.

"The evidence in support of the claim is so weak as to be scientifically useless. The only evidence is a letter from 1948, thirty-six years after the artifact was discovered. The letter says that the coal was not found in situ but went through an unknown amount of processing between the mine and the discovery of the iron cup after the coal was delivered. "

"The cup appears to be cast iron, and cast iron technology began in the eighteenth century. Its design is much like pots used to hold molten metals and may have been used by a tinsmith, tinker, or person casting bullets. Without the original pot to analyze, we cannot say exactly how it was used."

See, no real evidence. Only speculation. You've gotta have more proof than that... but seeing that there isn't really any solid evidence for your beliefs, it's easy to realize why this is construed as fact.

C'mon, you can do better than that!

I have read about this evidence for years, and the stories often end the same way, your great men of science do what they always do when confronted with facts. They pack it up and send the evidence back, or stick it on a shelf. That's what they do. And then guys like you come along and ask the same question. Where is the scientific review? And yes, real evidence does exist, just no scientist that have the courage to speak out. If you want to get anywhere in the scientific field you learn quickly to keep your mouth shut, or find a new line of work.

Sulfur Springs Arkansas
Nov. 27, 1948

While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla. in 1912, I came upon a solid chuck of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression, or mould of the pot in a piece of the coal.

Jim Stull (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out.

I traced the source of coal and found that it came from Wilburton, Okahoma Mines.

Frank J. Kennord

Sworn to before me, in Sulpur Springs, Arkansas, this 27th day of November, 1948

Julia L. Eldred

Rapid formation of coal: Proof that strata form rapidly and that the earth is young.

Here is another link, and I'm sure if there was any intrest on your part to expose these stories as fakes it should not be hard to do for some of them, if these stories are fakes. Yet I find it hard to believe myself that there are so many people from all walks of life out there just making up stories about objects found in coal.

Embedded Anomalies, by Patrick Cooke

You'd have something if the coal and pot still existed. If we had something to test, we could put this one to rest. Unfortunately (and unfortunately for you), the only evidence is a letter from 30+ years after the fact. At that point, the whole thing becomes circumstantial and cannot be used as solid evidence towards anything.

"The letter says that the coal was not found in situ but went through an unknown amount of processing between the mine and the discovery of the iron cup after the coal was delivered."

That's why AiG says not to use this as an argument

If you want to get anywhere in the field of science, you need to start focusing on presenting evidence and peer review for YOUR OWN theories. If the only thing you are going to do is throw evidence with the single intention
of overthrowing ONE theory, almost all of which is extremely skeptical, you're not going to get anywhere.

The pot in question is on display at the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose Texas. Also, I believe a metal hammer is there that is enbedded in stone which is suppose to be 140 million years old. There is ample evidence out there, yet if I just focused on evidence that is only accepted by peer review, well, I would be just like you.
Rapid formation of coal: Proof that strata form rapidly and that the earth is young.

Sabz5150;49351 wrote:

The pot in question is on display at the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose Texas. Also, I believe a metal hammer is there that is enbedded in stone which is suppose to be 140 million years old. There is ample evidence out there, yet if I just focused on evidence that is only accepted by peer review, well, I would be just like you.
Rapid formation of coal: Proof that strata form rapidly and that the earth is young.

Do you know what else is in the creation museum???

A saddle on the back of a dinosaur!

People riding dinosaurs, thats an idea i thought was ridiculous when i saw it on:

THE FLINTSTONES!



The creation museum is a big joke to the scientific community....

Campbell34;49366 wrote:

Do you know what else is in the creation museum???

A saddle on the back of a dinosaur!

People riding dinosaurs, thats an idea i thought was ridiculous when i saw it on:

THE FLINTSTONES!



The creation museum is a big joke to the scientific community....

The bigger joke is the evidence the scientific community refuses to look at.

Fatal_Freedoms;49369 wrote:

The bigger joke is the evidence the scientific community refuses to look at.

You keep telling yourself that...

Campbell34;49410 wrote:

You keep telling yourself that...

I keep telling myself that because I have read over the years when evidence like this reachs the believers of Evolution it is almost always rejected. I have even seen this spoken on in a T.V. documentry. I recall one story how human skulls that were found hundreds of feet below the ground in a west virgina coal mine. The skulls themselves were molded right into the coal. The mine sent them to one of the scientific institutes to be considered, and they were soundly sent right back to the mine. I have heard stories like this for years, and like I have said, these out of place fossils donot want to be considered because they would upset the fine running machine of Evolution.

I keep telling myself that because I have read over the years when evidence like this reachs the believers of Evolution it is almost always rejected. I have even seen this spoken on in a T.V. documentry. I recall one story how human skulls that were found hundreds of feet below the ground in a west virgina coal mine. The skulls themselves were molded right into the coal. The mine sent them to one of the scientific institutes to be considered, and they were soundly sent right back to the mine. I have heard stories like this for years, and like I have said, these out of place fossils donot want to be considered because they would upset the fine running machine of Evolution.

1. What does skulls in a coal mine have to do with evolution?

2. There is no evidence for creationism! So how can scientists ignore it?

3. your standard of evidence for creationism is so much different than your standard of evidence for evolution it is completely laughable.

The pot in question is on display at the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose Texas. Also, I believe a metal hammer is there that is enbedded in stone which is suppose to be 140 million years old. There is ample evidence out there, yet if I just focused on evidence that is only accepted by peer review, well, I would be just like you.
Rapid formation of coal: Proof that strata form rapidly and that the earth is young.

"The cup was likely dropped by a worker either inside a coal mine or in a mine's surface workings. Mineralization is common in the coal and surrounding debris of coal mines because rainwater reacts with the newly exposed minerals and produces highly mineralized solutions. Coal, sediments, and rocks are commonly cemented together in just a few years. It could easily appear that a pot cemented in such a concretion could appear superficially as if it were encased in the original coal. Or small pieces of coal, including powder, could have been recompressed around the cup by weight."

Also that pot looks to be cast. Are you saying we had that technology that long ago?

As for your hammer...

"The hammer is encrusted with calcium carbonate, which can happen quickly. The fossils are in nearby rocks, not part of the material encrusting the hammer. There is no evidence that the hammer is more than a few decades old."

Your link isn't exactly what I would call... "scientific". Linking creationist sites to science, and geologic science at that... well, that's pretty funny.

"Coal deposits show evidence of a history. Most coals are found in sedimentary rocks deposited in flood plains. They often contain stream channels, roots, and soil horizons. Long time may not be necessary to form the coal itself, but it is necessary to account for the context where coal is found."

A sworn testimony in front of whom?

A sworn testimony of what?

You have a letter saying a pot came out of a pile of coal. Nothing more. Any dating on this pot? The coal? Any scientific evidence of the origins of this pot?

No, let's not put aside HOW it was encrusted. That's the entire point. It was a petrified hammer (so the creationists say)! Got some dating evidence for that one?

Lacking any rigorous geologic evidence for their claims, hammer advocates have tried to make hay from the composition of the hammer head. Mackay (1985) and Lang (1983) reported that the hammer was studied at the renown Batelle Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio, where the head was found to consist of 96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine, and 0.74% sulfur by weight. Baugh suggested this profile was impossible to duplicate with modern technology under present atmospheric conditions (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). However, this claim would be difficult to substantiate. Even if the composition were truly unique, it would more likely indicate a lost or abandoned technology, not evidence against mainstream geology. According to Helfinstine and Roth (1994) a "tomographic x-ray" of the hammer, taken by Texas Utilities in 1992, showed no inclusions or irregularities in the head. Curiously, they and Baugh interpreted this as evidence of "advanced metallurgy" from a superior pre-Flood culture, rather than further evidence that it is a relatively modern hammer.

Mackay (1994) stated that "research continues into the unusually shiny transparent layer which surrounded the hammer when it was discovered and why it did not corrode for several months." However, such statements contradict other creationist comments (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994) that the hammer had a brown (and thus presumably not shiny) surface when first broken from the concretion, and only when scratched was a shiny subsurface revealed.

Lines (1996) noted that the file cut made in the hammer head in 1934 has remained "corrosion-free" in over 60 years, and some creationists have suggested this indicates some unique or mysterious attribute. However, as long a metal object is kept dry and clean, this would not be unexpected, and the bulk of the head already in a somewhat rusted condition would be expected to oxidize somewhat faster than the scratched mark.

In the Bible-Science Newsletter, Walter Lang (1983) stated that Batelle lab technicians "were convinced that the rock itself could not have been formed except where there was a great deal of water and pressure," and that the "partly coalified" condition of the handle indicated to the technicians that the wood was "under pressure with water and volcanic action." However, one has to wonder whether these statements come from the technicians or hammer advocates themselves, since 1. Limy concretions are generally thought by geologists to form in calm rather than violent conditions, 2. Very little of the hammer handle is carbonized, and such features can and normally do originate without any "volcanic" action, and 3. No formal report of the Batelle analysis was ever produced (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). Moreover, all assertions about Batelle work on the hammer appear to be suspect in view of a leaflet inserted into the February 1985 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, which stated that all hammer research discussed in their article was privately done, and "all references to inferences that research or reports on the Hammer were done or prepared by Batelle Laboratories are in error."(Mackay 1985)

The hammer was found LOOSE, not in situ.

The London Hammer: An Alleged Out of Place Artifact