Well I'm giving you 5 stars for out-winding CTD in the "evolutionists are liars" ad hominem sweepstakes.
Well how does it feel when what you imply with just about every post (creation are liars) is served back to you? You don't like it do you?
Why an "evolutionist" allegedly wanted to delete this pic is beyond me.
So what you imply here is that every evolutionists tells the truth no matter what? And that all the frauds from the past were just misunderstandings?
I can admit that creationists lie from time to time. But I doubt you can admit that evolutionists do the same. So by what written moral standards do evolutionists live by that is so much better than any standard out there that they can deem that what they say has more truth than anything else?
If you read my first post, I said that natural coal layers have been studied just like other sedimentary layers have been, and the processes for their formation are understood.
So you would deny that pressure and super heater water would make the coalification process work much faster?
I also said that this is the problem for your argument here, and not the fact that coal can be formed rapidly in artificial conditions.
Deep sea is artificial conditions? You are reaching here.
The only source for your picture that I can find is the web page that you linked to, and the only information is that this is a "coal-like deposit." That doesn't give me much to go on. It's obviously different from something you would dig up in a coal seam.
And you fell for what the evolutionist at that site wanted you to see. It's a nice touch in debunking creation evidence. And it works very well. You fell for it because you believe that all creationist are liars, and all evolutionists are truth tellers who never lied in their life.
If you were aiming for a peer-reviewed scientific paper publishing something about how the earth isn't old because doorknobs have been found in a "coal-like deposit," you'd be asked for more evidence.
And yes, the old peer review tactic. That makes me laugh. Who is going to peer review my claims? Evolutionists right? Why don't you let some creationist peer review your next paper on evolution and see if you think it would be fair?
Nice try.
If you were aiming for a peer-reviewed scientific paper publishing something about how the earth isn't old because doorknobs have been found in a "coal-like deposit," you'd be asked for more evidence. That's what I'm going to ask you for. For example, the insinuation is that the doorknobs were there while the coal formed. Has it been verified that this is the case? The caption for the picture says, "Long immersion in the sea causes it to become concreted into big masses which often contain other artifacts." -- and indeed, it looks to me like the doorknobs have been concreted to the surface -- the coal hasn't been split open to reveal doorknobs in the interior. Also, has the coal been studied under a microscope? What fossils have been found in it to date it? Can you answer? Or, I repeat, is this single picture (or other unprovenanced pictures) your sole evidence for this thread?
Maybe it would be more understandable from a lying creation video that shows where coal can be made in less than a year? Nah, you just say he was lying, correct? So I say you are too.
But then you might say, that's mean. Well let's apply this to your side and show where your bias lies.
The biggest part of evolution process cannot be observed. And that is the millions of years of claimed evolution. Which by the way is 50% of the evolution theory.
So let's compare what you won't believe about the coal to what you will believe about evolution.
1) The picture of coal cannot be verified and because all creationists are deemed as liars you won't believe anything they say, correct?
2) But, from bones dug up in the ground. And a line up of how they look simuliar. You believe that it took millions of years to evolve?
You know bones cannot talk. They do not tell stories of their past. All that science really has is age dating and a line up of simuliar looks and DNA. The actual claims cannot and never will be verified (sound familiar?). And the actual process can never been seen because quote: It takes to much time.
So guess what? Your evidence for evolution is not any better than what you claim you do like about the evidence here, Why?
1) You cannot provide a observable process for the millions of years of claimed evolution.
2) Bones really cannot tell you anything beyond their age and maybe DNA.
But yet you believe it now don't you? So you base what you believe on the option of what you want to be true and rejecting everything else as a lie.
Question: Is "everything" that comes against evolution a lie? If so, then evolution has graduated to being an absolute and is no longer a theory. So you cannot deem all things a lie because you "want" evolution to be true. That is not science.
