Erayr: Metal In Coal And Ufo'S

[Salem]

Are you acquainted with the expression, "Salting a mine."? It is quite easy to "deposit" a piece of metal into the relatively soft material that coal is, using the standard shotgun application that now stands for "salting a mine".

Finding one piece of metal in one piece of coal isn't evidence of anything. It certainly isn't enough to qualify as a challenge to the age of the coal or the age of the earth. Occam's razor is applicable here. Look for the simplest answer until something challenges the premise.

Contamination is certainly a possiblility. I am curious to see where an investigation of the facts leads us.

[dgd]

Interesting. So if we have matter used in other worlds, and the normal successful progression of a world is to become one of the kingdoms of glory, where does this pre used matter come from?

We understand that the future condition of this world is to be a celestialized body. We we can only speculate as to whether that is to be the fate of every world that is inhabited. As you imply there has to be places for the other kingdoms which are to be inherited by those that do not receive a celestial glory. Are those other worlds that are currently inhabited by other's of God the Father's children? Again, we can only speculate. If those worlds become something less than a celestialized world, do we infer that those worlds did not fill "the measure of it's creation"? I don't think we can do that. Perhaps these other kingdom's will be on worlds that are not currently inhabited at all.

I would consider the idea that there are worlds (or stars) that are going through stages of development such that the matter in them is intended to be used in other worlds in the future for inhabitation. If that is their purpose, I don't think we can call consider such world a failed creation.

[ERayR]

What exactly are these manufactured objects? Do you have a reference or a link?

This is the one I started with.

http://msnvideo.msn....26-00943b9ab0b0

Here are some more.

http://www.s8int.com/page8.html

This is just a sample of the anomalies.

Edited May 19, 2013 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Are you acquainted with the expression, "Salting a mine."? It is quite easy to "deposit" a piece of metal into the relatively soft material that coal is, using the standard shotgun application that now stands for "salting a mine".

Finding one piece of metal in one piece of coal isn't evidence of anything. It certainly isn't enough to qualify as a challenge to the age of the coal or the age of the earth. Occam's razor is applicable here. Look for the simplest answer until something challenges the premise.

I am well aware of what salting is. However a 4 1/2 inch high 6 1/2 inch base vase or an iron pot.

That's some shotgun.

[Stone holm]

We understand that the future condition of this world is to be a celestialized body. We we can only speculate as to whether that is to be the fate of every world that is inhabited. As you imply there has to be places for the other kingdoms which are to be inherited by those that do not receive a celestial glory. Are those other worlds that are currently inhabited by other's of God the Father's children? Again, we can only speculate. If those worlds become something less than a celestialized world, do we infer that those worlds did not fill "the measure of it's creation"? I don't think we can do that. Perhaps these other kingdom's will be on worlds that are not currently inhabited at all.

I would consider the idea that there are worlds (or stars) that are going through stages of development such that the matter in them is intended to be used in other worlds in the future for inhabitation. If that is their purpose, I don't think we can call consider such world a failed creation.

Gave you a bump for that since there is fine logic there. So let me ask a further question, just how far would that development be allowed to proceed? Say like to pre human hominids? To the storage of carbon from organic life?

[Salem]

This is the one I started with.

http://msnvideo.msn....26-00943b9ab0b0

Here are some more.

http://www.s8int.com/page8.html

This is just a sample of the anomalies.

Thank you.

[dgd]

Gave you a bump for that since there is fine logic there. So let me ask a further question, just how far would that development be allowed to proceed? Say like to pre human hominids? To the storage of carbon from organic life?

As I understand, all elements except hydorgen and helium are the products of stars. For the earth to be formed out of pre-existing matter, that material may have come from not only other worlds (as I would have typically thought myself until this conversation) but also from stars. Having never created worlds myself, I do not know the mechanisms for stocking a planet with things like oil or coal. Those materials could have come from another pre-existing world. I also have no problem believing that the earth has been around long enough for these things to have formed here over millions of years from life forms placed here for their own purposes.

A whole lot of speculation in any case and I try not to take my own theories too seriously.

[Calm]

Coal and oil are fossil fuels...it seems to me that it would be more efficient for them to be created where they are found rather than transported somehow and then stuck in the ground somehow.

Plus while God might be able to control the process so that the whole mess doesn't melt together or evaporate due to the heat created in transport and assembly, is laid out in layers that seem to indicate progression of time, the world just doesn't appear to me like it was assembled like a jigsaw puzzle.

[Stone holm]

Coal and oil are fossil fuels...it seems to me that it would be more efficient for them to be created where they are found rather than transported somehow and then stuck in the ground somehow.

Plus while God might be able to control the process so that the whole mess doesn't melt together or evaporate due to the heat created in transport and assembly, is laid out in layers that seem to indicate progression of time, the world just doesn't appear to me like it was assembled like a jigsaw puzzle.

Well I take it that is the issue here as to the significance of out of place artifacts in the fossil layer. Seems like I have heard the debris from other "creation" floated in this context, but sense some reluctance with the idea that God would ever bake a cake that didn't rise properly.

[ERayR]

Back to the question: Why do evolutionists and young earth creationists alike ignore and ridicule information like ancient artifacts just because it doesn't apparently fit their model?

[bcuzbcuz]

I am well aware of what salting is. However a 4 1/2 inch high 6 1/2 inch base vase or an iron pot.

That's some shotgun.

Sorry, I just don't see how any of these things you mention are fruit from the same tree. Poorly documented objects embedded in relatively soft coal make for entertaining television but hardly qualify as verifiable. If those objects from the 1800's were actually found in the coal, a simple mine explosion could have compacted them into place. It is still "salting a mine", not with the intention to defraud but where the coal tunnel acts as the shotgun.

Have you ever been in a coal mine and scraped it from the walls. Coal seams can be several hundred meters thick and extend over vast distances. There are many grades, ranging from the hard anthracite down to soft peat or lignite. Hilt's law states that the deeper the seam the harder the coal, which makes sense if you think about it.

I suggest you sit with a piece of coal and pull it apart in your hands or whack it with a hammer and observe the layers and even different streams of colour. Coal is organic, even though anthracite coal is virtually metamorphic due to extreme pressure and heat. If you're lucky you might find an imprint of a leaf. But metal objects...nahhh!

[thesometimesaint]

Back to the question: Why do evolutionists and young earth creationists alike ignore and ridicule information like ancient artifacts just because it doesn't apparently fit their model?

False equivalency.

[ERayR]

Sorry, I just don't see how any of these things you mention are fruit from the same tree. Poorly documented objects embedded in relatively soft coal make for entertaining television but hardly qualify as verifiable. If those objects from the 1800's were actually found in the coal, a simple mine explosion could have compacted them into place. It is still "salting a mine", not with the intention to defraud but where the coal tunnel acts as the shotgun.

Have you ever been in a coal mine and scraped it from the walls. Coal seams can be several hundred meters thick and extend over vast distances. There are many grades, ranging from the hard anthracite down to soft peat or lignite. Hilt's law states that the deeper the seam the harder the coal, which makes sense if you think about it.

I suggest you sit with a piece of coal and pull it apart in your hands or whack it with a hammer and observe the layers and even different streams of colour. Coal is organic, even though anthracite coal is virtually metamorphic due to extreme pressure and heat. If you're lucky you might find an imprint of a leaf. But metal objects...nahhh!

SEE. Automatic dismisal.

[ERayR]

False equivalency.

[media=]

You are still trying to divert. I am not debating evolution vs creationism. Only asking why neither will constructively address out of place artifacts in any way but dismissal and ridicule.

Edited May 20, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

You are starting with the priori that somehow they are naturally placed out of place artifacts. It is like finding polar bears in Sub-Saharan Africa. Chances are real good that it was man that brought them there, and not that they naturally occur there.

Edited May 20, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

You are starting with the priori that somehow they are naturally placed out of place artifacts. It is like finding polar bears in Sub-Saharan Africa. Chances are real good that it was man that brought them there, and not that they naturally occur there.

Nope I am definitely not starting with the assumption that they were somehow naturally placed there.

Yep my point exactly. Somebody brought them there and put them in the middle of a great big chunk of coal in the middle of a large coal seam that is maybe 300,000,000 years ago. According to young earth creationists man was not around then and according to evolutionist IF man was around they were certainly not advanced enough to produce aluminum, nor advanced enough to produce a decorative silver whatever or to produce a small iron pot. And that is only three of what seems to be hundreds of anomalies that are being ignored. At least the ancient alien crowd is addressing the problem even if some of us think their explanation is a bit of a stretch.

I guess somebody could be going around drilling holes hundreds of feet down into strata hundreds of millions of years old over a period of a hundred years or more and dropping them in the hole then pouring molten coal down the hole to seal it up. Now that is a nice simple explanation.

[Stone holm]

Nope I am definitely not starting with the assumption that they were somehow naturally placed there.

Yep my point exactly. Somebody brought them there and put them in the middle of a great big chunk of coal in the middle of a large coal seam that is maybe 300,000,000 years ago. According to young earth creationists man was not around then and according to evolutionist IF man was around they were certainly not advanced enough to produce aluminum, nor advanced enough to produce a decorative silver whatever or to produce a small iron pot. And that is only three of what seems to be hundreds of anomalies that are being ignored. At least the ancient alien crowd is addressing the problem even if some of us think their explanation is a bit of a stretch.

I guess somebody could be going around drilling holes hundreds of feet down into strata hundreds of millions of years old over a period of a hundred years or more and dropping them in the hole then pouring molten coal down the hole to seal it up. Now that is a nice simple explanation.

And I take it you want to rule out space travellers and recycled aborted creations -- why do we want to limit everything to either short term creationists or pure evolutionists, are we that lacking in imagination these days?

[ERayR]

And I take it you want to rule out space travellers and recycled aborted creations -- why do we want to limit everything to either short term creationists or pure evolutionists, are we that lacking in imagination these days?

No I did not say to rule out any of those. I was only pointing out that what I have seen from those quarters has not been overly convincing to me. I am not limiting anything but am directing my criticism to those two groups (young earthers and evolutionists). They are the ones who dismiss these artifacts and refuse to examine them. I did note that at least the ancient alien crowd attempts to explain them. It is just that I am less than convinced by their explanations. I would just once like to hear an evolutionist say this is what we believe but there are a number of anomalies out there we can not understand. Or the young earth advocates say this is what we believe but there are some anomalies out there that don't fit this scenario.

[Salem]

Coal and oil are fossil fuels...it seems to me that it would be more efficient for them to be created where they are found rather than transported somehow and then stuck in the ground somehow.

Plus while God might be able to control the process so that the whole mess doesn't melt together or evaporate due to the heat created in transport and assembly, is laid out in layers that seem to indicate progression of time, the world just doesn't appear to me like it was assembled like a jigsaw puzzle.

I agree. It appears to me that long ago God created a world, and then when that world passed away,He used it as the foundation of the next world, and so on and so forth until He created our present earth; so that the remains of each previous world are layerd in the earth's crust just as we find them today.

[Stone holm]

I agree. It appears to me that long ago God created a world, and then when that world passed away,He used it as the foundation of the next world, and so on and so forth until He created our present earth; so that the remains of each previous world are layerd in the earth's crust just as we find them today.

When you say passed away what do you mean, this is very interesting speculation-- I mean that in a positive way and am giving you a bump on that comment.

[Stone holm]

I agree. It appears to me that long ago God created a world, and then when that world passed away,He used it as the foundation of the next world, and so on and so forth until He created our present earth; so that the remains of each previous world are layerd in the earth's crust just as we find them today.

I agree both sides have hardened dogmatically. I don't have a problem with it being litter left behind during the abundant life filled eras that those deposits were laid down either.

[Salem]

When you say passed away what do you mean, this is very interesting speculation-- I mean that in a positive way and am giving you a bump on that comment.

That's a very good question, because I mean it in the same way God meant it when He said,

"And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words." (Moses 1:38)

Unfortunately, I am not really sure what God meant when He said, "pass away." All I can do is speculate that He meant some kind of death of the old world followed by the birth of a new world.

[Stone holm]

That's a very good question, because I mean it in the same way God meant it when He said,

"And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words." (Moses 1:38)

Unfortunately, I am not really sure what God meant when He said, "pass away." All I can do is speculate that He meant some kind of death of the old world followed by the birth of a new world.

Are you sure that is not referring to the conversion from a mortal planet to a Kingdom?

[ERayR]

Are you sure that is not referring to the conversion from a mortal planet to a Kingdom?

Those are very good observations and questions. They should be taken to their own thread.

Thank you.

[Stone holm]

Those are very good observations and questions. They should be taken to their own thread.

Thank you.

Sorry, but don't you think that question is relevant to explain whether the "anomalies" have to do with the Earth having been recycled from a prior state?