|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Coal formation and Evolution?
Posted on: February 8, 2007 - 12:44pm
   Offline
Coal formation and Evolution?
A few days ago a Creationist asked me how does the formation of Coal confirms evolution? Im not 100 percent sure what he ment by that question but has anyone ever hear of any similar arguments?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
That's an argument?
He said that the formation of Coal does not support evolution because it can be created so fast. This is a website he sighted. Has anyone seen anything similar?
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_record_buried_in_coal
Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com
www.pathofreason.com
Check it out
I've never heard this claim before. But that website doesn't take long to make a massive error. In the 5th paragraph it is stated that estimates for the age of the earth fluctuate between 8 and 20 billion years. I have to wonder what century this whole thing was written in, and with such an obvious lie so early on, the site has no credibility whatsoever.
I'd be interested in hearing some argument from this from a theist who actually had something to present, but these guys don't even listen to the science they're trying to refute. How amusing.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Personally, I've never heard the presence of coal used as an argument FOR evolution.
Seems like a bit of a strawman to argue for a young Earth. Sure, it may be possible for coal to form quickly, but it can't quickly get to some of the places we've found it.
-Triften
Sounds like those creationists are mixing up two completely different scientific fields again.
Coal has nothing to do with evolution. Geology != Biology.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Well, coal has something to do with evolution, because it shows the huge age of the earth.
If these nutcase Christians want to go ahead and bury some wet vegetation, we'll see how quickly it takes coal to form. According to that article it's a matter of a few years!!!
Also it's riddled with fossils, including from the earliest winged insects, lots of which no longer exist (but fascinatingly also cockroaches almost unchanged from their modern descendants...) I guess Noah didn't have enough room for dragonflies but somehow the 'roaches crept in...
It's ridiculous. Think for yourself: if we could create energy that quickly, why is there a concern for a future energy crisis?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I completely agree with you guys! I didn't really understand his argument...then again I never really understand where they come up with some of the stuff they do.
Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com
www.pathofreason.com
Check it out
A short bit on coal and the Noachian flood:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/coal.html
No idea what the guy was talking about. Coal is formed by the pressure in an anoxic environment when sediment builds over dead organic material, eventually decaying it into hydrocarbons. That is pretty much nothing to do with evolution. I dont see how it could be construed as an argument for a creationist. In fact, it helps the evolutionary theory because if the ridiculous timescale offered by the bible was correct, there would be no time for any fossil fuel to form. It proves the evolutionary notion of geochemical strata dating.
The guy must be a moron.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism