bu11fr0g Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 The better question is why is there only a single small piece of metal in coal? The best answer is that it is a fake. Examination of the metal could readily sort this out if there appeared to be any legitimacy.News reports that feature UFO's need to be taken with some degree of scepticism -- i think any news report does.
ERayR Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 (edited) The better question is why is there only a single small piece of metal in coal? The best answer is that it is a fake. Examination of the metal could readily sort this out if there appeared to be any legitimacy.After 300 million years what do you expect? A working mechanism?Fake is a possible answer. However, it is not just one artifact there are more from all around the world. What have we a world wide prankster club made up of coal miners and rock quarry workers? Another explanation is they are real. Another possibility is they are real and the coal deposits are really not in the hundreds of millions of years old.Personally I have no favorite explanation. I only bring it up to illustrate one should not be so dogmatic, sure and confident concerning their favorite creation/evolution stories because just when you do something comes along that doesn't fit.It appears that enough examination was done to know that one was aluminum, another was silver and another iron.News reports that feature UFO's need to be taken with some degree of scepticism -- i think any news report does.I agree in part. The conclusions should be taken with a degree of skepticism just as all conclusions about events and process originating that far back in time. One does not have to accept the conclusions to realize there are more than one possibility and these artifacts do present some questions and deserve not to be dismissed out of hand because they don't fit into certain narratives. Edited May 18, 2013 by ERayR
thesometimesaint Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 (edited) We have officially entered the land of one flew over the coo coo's net.The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles or UFO's There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God or UFO that reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a creation occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God, or UFO's subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point? Edited May 18, 2013 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 We have officially entered the land of one flew over the coo coo's net.The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles or UFO's There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God or UFO that reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a creation occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God, or UFO's subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?TSS please stop attributing things to me I did not say. In your rush to ridicule and discount any information that does not coincide with your vision of events you teeter on the edge of ridiculous. No where did I say anything about a creation 4,000 or 6,000 or 100,000,000 years ago. I was pointing out just a couple of anomalies that do not agree with young earth or evolution theories. It would seem to me that one would be interested in investigating evidence and get answers regardless of whether it agrees with your premise or not.Nowhere did I advocate UFO origins. The conclusions, of UFO origins, should be taken with a degree of skepticism just as all conclusions about events and process originating that far back in time. One does not have to accept the conclusions to realize there are more than one possibility and these artifacts do present some questions and deserve to be examined, not to be dismissed out of hand because they don't fit into certain narratives. 2
thesometimesaint Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 TSS please stop attributing things to me I did not say. In your rush to ridicule and discount any information that does not coincide with your vision of events you teeter on the edge of ridiculous. No where did I say anything about a creation 4,000 or 6,000 or 100,000,000 years ago. I was pointing out just a couple of anomalies that do not agree with young earth or evolution theories.It would seem to me that one would be interested in investigating evidence and get answers regardless of whether it agrees with your premise or not.Nowhere did I advocate UFO origins. The conclusions, of UFO origins, should be taken with a degree of skepticism just as all conclusions about events and process originating that far back in time. One does not have to accept the conclusions to realize there are more than one possibility and these artifacts do present some questions and deserve to be examined, not to be dismissed out of hand because they don't fit into certain narratives.Heavy metals are nothing unusual in coal deposits. http://www.minersnews.com/EMarApr2012/HeavyMetal.html
ERayR Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 Heavy metals are nothing unusual in coal deposits. http://www.minersnew...HeavyMetal.htmlTSS must I take your hand. It was not just heavy metals. 1- Manufactured aluminum. 2- A manufactured silver object. 3- An iron pot(not a blob of iron). Your reaction is emblematic of the mindset of "serious" evolutionists and creationists. First ridicule then explain away without investigation.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 The better question is why is there only a single small piece of metal in coal? The best answer is that it is a fake. Examination of the metal could readily sort this out if there appeared to be any legitimacy.News reports that feature UFO's need to be taken with some degree of scepticism -- i think any news report does.This planet has been visited by ET's, not the movie one. We are all from somewhere else, Angels who visit are not coming from around the "literal block", the only question is how do they get here. Christ was taken up into the heavens and out of sight, Elijah taken in a some type of craft, explained (or attempted too) it the best terms they could think of, "...taken up in a whirlwind into heaven", he could call down fire from heaven. Look up the world oldest computer, a divide used to track the stars, built like a Swiss Watch, predating Christ. Cool stuff out there, many things built that defy the times. Makes me wonder why a steel sword drives people crazy because it was not the "steel age", which by the way the OT also makes reference too. Can you tell I love Sci-fi.
ERayR Posted May 18, 2013 Posted May 18, 2013 (edited) This planet has been visited by ET's, not the movie one. We are all from somewhere else, Angels who visit are not coming from around the "literal block", the only question is how do they get here. Christ was taken up into the heavens and out of sight, Elijah taken in a some type of craft, explained (or attempted too) it the best terms they could think of, "...taken up in a whirlwind into heaven", he could call down fire from heaven. Look up the world oldest computer, a divide used to track the stars, built like a Swiss Watch, predating Christ. Cool stuff out there, many things built that defy the times. Makes me wonder why a steel sword drives people crazy because it was not the "steel age", which by the way the OT also makes reference too. Can you tell I love Sci-fi.Pa Pa its not the sci fi stuff that bothers me it is the unexplained tid bits that are dismissed because they don't fit someones neat little box. Edited May 18, 2013 by ERayR
Stone holm Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 Even the Church has allowed the possibility that the unorganised matter from which this Earth was created might have been the debris leftover from a prior failed Creation. Just thought I would throw that out there, as I love Vonnegut Daniken spins so much.
blackstrap Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 Google ' out of place artifacts ' to see many examples of these anomalies. If one spends a wee bit of time outside the box that geologists have nailed themselves into ,and all kinds of strange 'evidence' shows the rigidity of the geologic column to be much more flexible than assumed. Again I point to the study of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption as evidence that what can appear to take eons to happen ,in truth can take minutes. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) Pa Pa its not the sci fi stuff that bothers me it is the unexplained tid bits that are dismissed because they don't fit someones neat little box.I think that was the belabored point I was making. Edited May 19, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee
halconero Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 I just read this wonderful old talk by Hugh B. Brown entitled "What man is, and what he may become." He addresses evolution and science in general in it for a bit, even saying that questions on the exact mechanisms for the earth's creation are best left to the anthropologists, biologists, geologists, etc of the world. He then adds a caution for people of any or no profession at all. "In both religion and science we must ardently avoid dogmatism." He goes on to say that we must not be so set in our ways that when new information comes, be it through spiritual revelation or new empirical evidence, we are not willing to change our beliefs/opinions/theories to conform to it.Scientists, church members...both can be dogmatic and "creedal" in their thinking, neither should be. 2
Stone holm Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 I just read this wonderful old talk by Hugh B. Brown entitled "What man is, and what he may become." He addresses evolution and science in general in it for a bit, even saying that questions on the exact mechanisms for the earth's creation are best left to the anthropologists, biologists, geologists, etc of the world. He then adds a caution for people of any or no profession at all. "In both religion and science we must ardently avoid dogmatism." He goes on to say that we must not be so set in our ways that when new information comes, be it through spiritual revelation or new empirical evidence, we are not willing to change our beliefs/opinions/theories to conform to it.Scientists, church members...both can be dogmatic and "creedal" in their thinking, neither should be.I have seen a little more of the creedal in the biologists than amongst the physicists and geologists, but I think that is just because they have been attacked so frequently by dogmatic Fundamentalist Christians. We need to exercise a fair amount of the cognitive dissonance and be a little bit flexible in our thinking, someday we will understand how the whole thing falls together. But in the meantime, I just love Von Daniken theories and BTW name got auto miscorrected in my other comment, although Vonnegut is kind of fun as well at times on these issues. My personal favorite is Rupert Sheldrake he can really do some great spins on this kind of stuff.
ERayR Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 I just read this wonderful old talk by Hugh B. Brown entitled "What man is, and what he may become." He addresses evolution and science in general in it for a bit, even saying that questions on the exact mechanisms for the earth's creation are best left to the anthropologists, biologists, geologists, etc of the world. He then adds a caution for people of any or no profession at all. "In both religion and science we must ardently avoid dogmatism." He goes on to say that we must not be so set in our ways that when new information comes, be it through spiritual revelation or new empirical evidence, we are not willing to change our beliefs/opinions/theories to conform to it.Scientists, church members...both can be dogmatic and "creedal" in their thinking, neither should be.This post was not about who agrees or disagrees with evolution or young earth creation. It was about the failure of both to address these out of place artifacts. If these artifacts are dismissed out of hand because the don't fit some preconceived dogma there will never be any answers. The posts in this tread are ample to illustrate the pattern. First ridicule then reject or reject then ridicule. 1
ERayR Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 (edited) I have seen a little more of the creedal in the biologists than amongst the physicists and geologists, but I think that is just because they have been attacked so frequently by dogmatic Fundamentalist Christians. We need to exercise a fair amount of the cognitive dissonance and be a little bit flexible in our thinking, someday we will understand how the whole thing falls together. But in the meantime, I just love Von Daniken theories and BTW name got auto miscorrected in my other comment, although Vonnegut is kind of fun as well at times on these issues. My personal favorite is Rupert Sheldrake he can really do some great spins on this kind of stuff.I have trouble with the Alien visitor approach but at least they are willing to address the problem. Got to give them credit even if I disagree. Edited May 19, 2013 by ERayR
halconero Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 This post was not about who agrees or disagrees with evolution or young earth creation. It was about the failure of both to address these out of place artifacts. If these artifacts are dismissed out of hand because the don't fit some preconceived dogma there will never be any answers. The posts in this tread are ample to illustrate the pattern. First ridicule then reject or reject then ridicule.Sorry. I should have made it clearer what I was trying to say. I'm not trying to reject or ridicule you. I was actually trying to agree with you, although I realize now that I failed to express that clearly. What I meant to say was, that sometimes evolutionists and creationists get so dogmatic that they ignore or don't account for things like this.As for the origin of these? No clue, I haven't done enough research on them. I'm afraid I'm going to have to throw my hands up in the air and not even hazard a guess. 2
dgd Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 Even the Church has allowed the possibility that the unorganised matter from which this Earth was created might have been the debris leftover from a prior failed Creation. Just thought I would throw that out there, as I love Vonnegut Daniken spins so much.Is a "failed creation" from a god who did not know what they were doing? How would a "failed creation" even be possible? I think you are injecting some of your own ideas into the concept that the earth was not created from nothing but from matter that had been prevously used in other worlds. 2
thesometimesaint Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 All planets/suns in our universe are from other long ago planets /suns. Whether those are failures or not is another question.
thesometimesaint Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 TSS must I take your hand. It was not just heavy metals. 1- Manufactured aluminum. 2- A manufactured silver object. 3- An iron pot(not a blob of iron).Your reaction is emblematic of the mindset of "serious" evolutionists and creationists. First ridicule then explain away without investigation.CFR
Stone holm Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 Is a "failed creation" from a god who did not know what they were doing? How would a "failed creation" even be possible? I think you are injecting some of your own ideas into the concept that the earth was not created from nothing but from matter that had been prevously used in other worlds.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?
Stone holm Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 Other long ago planets and suns.Oh I see, well that works so long as you never use that argument to explain bones and man made artifacts.
thesometimesaint Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 Oh I see, well that works so long as you never use that argument to explain bones and man made artifacts.I've never made that argument.
bcuzbcuz Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 After 300 million years what do you expect? A working mechanism?Fake is a possible answer. However, it is not just one artifact there are more from all around the world. What have we a world wide prankster club made up of coal miners and rock quarry workers? Another explanation is they are real. Another possibility is they are real and the coal deposits are really not in the hundreds of millions of years old.Personally I have no favorite explanation. I only bring it up to illustrate one should not be so dogmatic, sure and confident concerning their favorite creation/evolution stories because just when you do something comes along that doesn't fit.It appears that enough examination was done to know that one was aluminum, another was silver and another iron.I agree in part. The conclusions should be taken with a degree of skepticism just as all conclusions about events and process originating that far back in time. One does not have to accept the conclusions to realize there are more than one possibility and these artifacts do present some questions and deserve not to be dismissed out of hand because they don't fit into certain narratives.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.
Salem Posted May 19, 2013 Posted May 19, 2013 TSS must I take your hand. It was not just heavy metals. 1- Manufactured aluminum. 2- A manufactured silver object. 3- An iron pot(not a blob of iron).Your reaction is emblematic of the mindset of "serious" evolutionists and creationists. First ridicule then explain away without investigation.What exactly are these manufactured objects? Do you have a reference or a link?
Recommended Posts