300 million year old pot found in coal

originally posted by: cooperton

If evolutionary theory is proven invalid, then everyone with a major or paid study in evolutionary biology is immediately out of a job. So yeah I doubt they'll ever confess there is even a slight possibility they may be wrong, especially since they are the gate-keepers of what gets published or not.

Well that simply isn't going to happen the amount of evidence to support it is utterly overwhelming. This would be like saying its possible scientists will loose there job because the world is flat or the Moon doesn't really exist. I known you are creationist but you're dream simply is never going to happen. No more than a Historian will suddenly find that WW1 didn't happen.

No you're looking at it backwards. A wooden wheel in this layer shows that the dating of the layers is drastically wrong. Which further corroborates with human footprints in sandstone and limestone layers.

Other than claims and a easily faked photo there is no evidence and they have set up the situation where no investigation can occur.

Besides the testimony of the person who found it and the witness who affirmed it.

"While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla[homa], in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk 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 the piece of coal. Jim Stall (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines."

That isn't evidence that is opinion. There is a difference can you prove with 100% assurance that the person is telling the truth? Nope. If however we had part of the 'wheel' could we test it. Yes and those results would be evidence for or against. Anecdotes are only nice not evidence

With this logic, evolutionary theory is a hoax then.

Nope we have evidence for evolution you know those fossil things you cannot explain and lots of other annoying indications and evidence - is Covid-19 changing?...lol


You know evolution is not the purpose of this sub-forum? If you want to beat your head against the edifice of Evolutionary biology may I suggest you go to appropriate sub-forum . Here you go: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Hanslune

Sorry Hanslune but as for the evolution bit I have to 'pick a bone' I think that you are interpreting those finds as evidence when in fact they can be interpreted several ways so they are NOT Evidence at all but rather can be used to support the opinion that they are and it is just opinion.

Fact they are not except when interpreted and posited as such by professionals whom have built there careers around one theory and need to interpret there finds in support of it to maintain there house of card's.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

Fact they are not except when interpreted and posited as such by professionals whom have built there careers around one theory and need to interpret there finds in support of it to maintain there house of card's.

Lots of people have also built careers on the world being round, that we breath oxygen, the Earth goes around the earth. They base that on evidence. The evidence for Evolution is all around us it is probably one of the most strongly evidence theories about.

originally posted by: Hanslune

Lots of people have also built careers on the world being round, that we breath oxygen, the Earth goes around the earth. They base that on evidence.

No one's careers are contingent on these, but there are people who major in evolutionary biology and teach it in schools.

The evidence for Evolution is all around us it is probably one of the most strongly evidence theories about.

The theory of gravity can be exemplified by showing that objects accelerate towards the earth at 9.8m/s2. Evolution has nothing to show for it, we've never observed a population of organisms evolving. There's even a lab that has an E. Coli strain that has been persisting for over 70,000 generations and guess what? It's still E. Coli with no signs of becoming anything besides E. Coli.

An alleged 300mya pot found in coal disproves evolution in exactly the same way the fact I have 3 bolts but only 2 nuts in my drawer disproves the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun.

And the only people making any money, or in any way reliant on anything here, are those selling the books that represent old fake news stories as real - the ones cooperton clearly buys into.

But, hey, in 100 years time someone will be using the widely reported news-story that a WW2 bomber was found on the Moon (and, a week later, disappeared from the Moon) as proof humans landed there in the 1940s.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
An alleged 300mya pot found in coal disproves evolution in exactly the same way the fact I have 3 bolts but only 2 nuts in my drawer disproves the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun.

And the only people making any money, or in any way reliant on anything here, are those selling the books that represent old fake news stories as real - the ones cooperton clearly buys into.

But, hey, in 100 years time someone will be using the widely reported news-story that a WW2 bomber was found on the Moon (and, a week later, disappeared from the Moon) as proof humans landed there in the 1940s.

Speaking of WWII bombers, a WWII P-93 was found buried beneath 260ft of ice in Greenland.

WWII Plane found in Greenland

So over about 50 years, 260ft of ice accumulated in Greenland. At a rate of 260ft/50years, given the ice sheets in Greenland are about 7800ft thick, it would only take 1,500 years to accumulate. So much for those millions of years for ice sheets to form.

The most common defense I hear for evidence of evolution is "There's so much evidence for evolution". Few people can particularize any empirical observation that support it, and they often resort to vague remarks like 'the fossil record', or 'antibiotic resistance'. But even antibiotic resistance has been found to be due to reversible epigenetic inheritance and not enduring random mutations (source). The missing links are all CGI renderings based off fossils that are lacking most of their skulls. It's just a silly fantasy at this point which perpetuates due to people's blind faith in 'scientists' who are never willing to admit that evolutionary theory may be wrong.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

Fact they are not except when interpreted and posited as such by professionals whom have built there careers around one theory and need to interpret there finds in support of it to maintain there house of card's.

Lots of people have also built careers on the world being round, that we breath oxygen, the Earth goes around the earth. They base that on evidence. The evidence for Evolution is all around us it is probably one of the most strongly evidence theories about.

And yet we can't agree on many thing's and that is human I would guess, our belief's, the personal interpretation of our reality, what we have experienced.

I won't get into the philosophical mod but lets say there are many careers and even in that career there are some experts whom are on OUR Side of the argument NOT on yours and yes some of them are better educated and qualified than yourself but they are NOT what is considered mainstream today.

That however does NOT make them wrong and you right.

OR for that matter either side right - OR wrong.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
An alleged 300mya pot found in coal disproves evolution in exactly the same way the fact I have 3 bolts but only 2 nuts in my drawer disproves the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun.

And the only people making any money, or in any way reliant on anything here, are those selling the books that represent old fake news stories as real - the ones cooperton clearly buys into.

But, hey, in 100 years time someone will be using the widely reported news-story that a WW2 bomber was found on the Moon (and, a week later, disappeared from the Moon) as proof humans landed there in the 1940s.

A fair point but let me put it to you this way, even if the idea that the Laws of Conservation defying act of a puddle of dirty water turning into complex organized molecular systems within a supposedly LIMITED universe (this is not apparently an infinite universe or we would have whole city's, an infinite number of them filled with an infinite number of chimp's randomly bashing keys and turning out Shakespeare's collected volumes purely by chance an infinite number of times BUT OF COURSE WE DON'T - I would have won the Lottery an infinite number of times too but sadly I have not - see just how unrealistic the accidental formation of life idea really is?).

So Life exists but does it perhaps actually predate OUR universe and is our Universe a creation, not just our earth with a moon just the right distance from us and one of the oddest objects in the known universe that we could likely visit trillions of alien worlds and possibly hardly or even never see around another.
Our earth just the right distance from our sun in the so called Goldilocks' zone of orbit.
With just the right balance of chemicals, atmosphere, water and land and heat both internally and externally and a Beautifully engineered NATURAL or not magnetosphere.

But yes let's just say it's all chance in a LIMITED universe, chance among a LIMITED number of potential situations and outcomes that our planet and perhaps - perhaps many others have LIFE.

But no it all began as a pool of ooze, decided it was going to self replicate so created DNA, felt a bit cold so put on a Cellular Membrane Jacket, felt lonely so took some of it's home with it in the form of Cytoplasm, still felt lonely so started to hang out in a gang and eventually turned into YOU?.

I mean man do you even realize what a miracle even a bloody worm is never mind a rational thinking being.

But no it's all muddy puddle to fish to monkey to man for you, blah what a load of anti God out of the age of false reason Victorian claptrap, even Darwin began to doubt his opinion before his death.

You know they have found Rhino's again and again and again over the supposedly last 65 million years of the geological record and they are not the only Species, odd thing these were DIFFERENT Species of Rhino or so they claim that Evolved again and again and again and again.

Why not humans, well?.

Or what if they were the same species or created by the same creator, engineered for some reason put into a world that was also engineered and maintained for some purpose that escapes our human comprehension because we are frankly too small to understand.

Even without a God a race that reached a state of evolution that they became non corporeal may realize they have reached a dead end, realized that the only way to keep themselves from vanishing is to recreate (to have children) as even if they have conquered death in this hypothetical scenario they would realize that the universe even a limited one is a very big place and in time even if they numbered in the trillions they would gravitate apart and become very lonely all but ceasing to be anything other than an inert property of the universe.


Look outside the myopic view of idiot teachers that were themselves nothing but kid's that were taught the same crap and then parrot it to the next generation and think for yourself, theory's' are meant to be debated NOT believed as fact, they are models and tool's NOT reality itself and yes they can help to explain but are almost always flawed in some way.


My personal take, GOD is real.

This pot found in coal shown in the OP is one of countless examples of evidence that falsifies the conventional historical narrative

originally posted by: LABTECH767

I won't get into the philosophical mod but lets say there are many careers and even in that career there are some experts whom are on OUR Side of the argument NOT on yours and yes some of them are better educated and qualified than yourself but they are NOT what is considered mainstream today.

That however does NOT make them wrong and you right.

OR for that matter either side right - OR wrong.

Exactly. He is doing the classic appeal to authority fallacy which assumes the opinions of authorities must be correct. He is also doing an appeal to majority fallacy which assumes the most popular option must be correct.

Obviously this is no way to analyze observable evidence.

originally posted by: LABTECH767

But no it all began as a pool of ooze, decided it was going to self replicate so created DNA, felt a bit cold so put on a Cellular Membrane Jacket, felt lonely so took some of it's home with it in the form of Cytoplasm, still felt lonely so started to hang out in a gang and eventually turned into YOU?.

The thing is, DNA monomers do not self-polymerize in water. In order for DNA chains to form, there needs to be rather extreme acidic conditions. But the problem is that these acidic conditions would denature the resulting DNA structure so it wouldn't be able to function! It's a catch-22 the whole way when trying to theorize how molecules could aggregate properly into cells.

Evidence of Velikovsky's deluge.

originally posted by: cooperton

Speaking of WWII bombers, a WWII P-93 was found buried beneath 260ft of ice in Greenland.

WWII Plane found in Greenland

So over about 50 years, 260ft of ice accumulated in Greenland. At a rate of 260ft/50years, given the ice sheets in Greenland are about 7800ft thick, it would only take 1,500 years to accumulate. So much for those millions of years for ice sheets to form.

It was found in a glacier. A moving river of ice. Not buried under accumulated snow and ice. So sorry, you've been duped again.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

It was found in a glacier. A moving river of ice. Not buried under accumulated snow and ice. So sorry, you've been duped again.

Even the slowest accumulating part of Greenland gets 1ft/year. At about 7800ft deep that means its about 7800 years old, give or take depending on variables. So much for the million year old ice sheet.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

It was found in a glacier. A moving river of ice. Not buried under accumulated snow and ice. So sorry, you've been duped again.

Even the slowest accumulating part of Greenland gets 1ft/year. At about 7800ft deep that means its about 7800 years old, give or take depending on variables. So much for the million year old ice sheet.

Parts of the USA get even more snowfall per year ..... Yet in the summer, North Dakota's ice sheet is exactly 0.00mm deep. And where there is a permanent ice sheet, and not all the annual snowfall melts or sublimates, what lies below gets compressed.

Snowfall does not equal ice depth. That's very basic glaciology. But I bet your creationist/catastrophist websites and books don't tell you that. I wonder why?

Obviously, on a moving glacier, it's more complicated. But over time, most objects left on the surface will end up near the bottom. In effect, they sink. Glaciers are not solid. They are full of cracks, constantly opening and closing. Swallowing up all they touch. That's why crashed aircraft end up deep within the glacier. More basic glaciology.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

"It was found in a glacier. A moving river of ice. Not buried under accumulated snow and ice. So sorry, you've been duped again."


Snowfall does not equal ice depth. That's very basic glaciology. But I bet your creationist/catastrophist websites and books don't tell you that. I wonder why?

Obviously, on a moving glacier, it's more complicated. But over time, most objects left on the surface will end up near the bottom. In effect, they sink. Glaciers are not solid. They are full of cracks, constantly opening and closing. Swallowing up all they touch. That's why crashed aircraft end up deep within the glacier. More basic glaciology.

Ahh condescension - the classic defense of evolution. I never mentioned snowfall, I was referring to ice accumulation. Now will you be condescending to your own reading skills for being wrong?

greenland ice accumulation

This source shows that the inland ice accumulation is about half of the coastal accumulation rate. therefore, a layer of ice 7800ft thick does not take a million years to accumulate. It could be done in thousands of years. Your entire theory has no legs to stand on.

An empirical analysis of every major field of study shows that evolutionary theory is a house of cards that relies on people blindly believing experts who rely on speculation as their source. It's deluding people from our true history, and convincing them they're a meaningless mutated pond goo accident that will return to eternal nothingness one day. Yet it still has people zealously defending it as though it offers any sort of ontological benefit whatsoever. Seriously, you should hope you're wrong so there's at least some sort of enduring purpose in life.

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

Fact they are not except when interpreted and posited as such by professionals whom have built there careers around one theory and need to interpret there finds in support of it to maintain there house of card's.

Lots of people have also built careers on the world being round, that we breath oxygen, the Earth goes around the earth. They base that on evidence. The evidence for Evolution is all around us it is probably one of the most strongly evidence theories about.

And yet we can't agree on many thing's and that is human I would guess, our belief's, the personal interpretation of our reality, what we have experienced.

I won't get into the philosophical mod but lets say there are many careers and even in that career there are some experts whom are on OUR Side of the argument NOT on yours and yes some of them are better educated and qualified than yourself but they are NOT what is considered mainstream today.

That however does NOT make them wrong and you right.

OR for that matter either side right - OR wrong.

Interesting philosophic comments but it STILL doesn't do away with the evidence.

originally posted by: Hanslune

Interesting philosophic comments but it STILL doesn't do away with the evidence.

What in your mind is the most compelling instance of evidence for evolutionary theory? Be specific

Your thinking of Glacier Girl.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

Fact they are not except when interpreted and posited as such by professionals whom have built there careers around one theory and need to interpret there finds in support of it to maintain there house of card's.

Lots of people have also built careers on the world being round, that we breath oxygen, the Earth goes around the earth. They base that on evidence. The evidence for Evolution is all around us it is probably one of the most strongly evidence theories about.

And yet we can't agree on many thing's and that is human I would guess, our belief's, the personal interpretation of our reality, what we have experienced.

I won't get into the philosophical mod but lets say there are many careers and even in that career there are some experts whom are on OUR Side of the argument NOT on yours and yes some of them are better educated and qualified than yourself but they are NOT what is considered mainstream today.

That however does NOT make them wrong and you right.

OR for that matter either side right - OR wrong.

Interesting philosophic comments but it STILL doesn't do away with the evidence.

WHAT EVIDENCE?, no SERIOUSLY WHAT EVIDENCE.

You are substituting OPINION for EVIDENCE.

(Alright you bated me and I bit haha, should have remembered you always have to have the last word, now usually you make a good point but on this I disagree and that is MY opinion)

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Freeborn

No i added that last bit just for the poster i was replying to...

Flat earthers are in their own class... but ya all of them are Creationists... mostly young earth

...

Do flat earth societies still exist? in The AnswerBank: People & Places

...the American Charles Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Society...

Q.� Where did he make up these weird ideas

A.� He didn't. The society was an English invention. Johnson took it over in 1972 upon the death of Samuel Shenton of Dover, Kent, who had formed the society in 1956. The society traced its origins from the 1790s, when Sir Richard Phillips (1767-1840) put forward the flat or 'planist' theory. Phillips, among other occupations, dealt in patent medicine and founded The Leicester Herald. He was also jailed for selling atheist literature.

I think I've heard Raggedyman point out that the founder of the Flat Earth Society was an atheist. Don't know if that's true, perhaps he was thinking of this Richard Phillips fella.

Anyway, I don't think flat earthers actually believe what they say they believe or argue for, whether that comes along with atheism or (young earth) creationism. They just like to make stuff up and cry for attention, trying to get other people to believe falsehoods. There's a character described in the Bible with a similar modus operandi. He's very good at getting people to operate according to his modus operandi and goals. The apostle Paul warned that things would get worse in “the last days,” the time in which we are now living. “Wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse,” he wrote, “misleading and being misled [or, “deluding others and deluding themselves,” Phillips].”​—2 Timothy 3:1, 13.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“They will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.” Hmm, let's consider that phrase in light of the existence of several societies (i.e. groups of people that teach others their views so that their group becomes larger, groups of teachers with an audience, “misleading and being misled” and surrounding themselves with like-minded people who tickle their ears, someone else in another thread on the political subforums recently used the term "echo chambers"):

Flat Earth Society
Skeptic Society
Atheist Society
American Humanist Association

Just a few notable ones that come to mind off the top of my head. A comprehensive list would just go on and on.

originally posted by: cooperton
This pot found in coal shown in the OP is one of countless examples of evidence that falsifies the conventional historical narrative

...

Exactly. He is doing the classic appeal to authority fallacy which assumes the opinions of authorities must be correct. He is also doing an appeal to majority fallacy which assumes the most popular option must be correct.

Obviously this is no way to analyze observable evidence.

Seems like a good time to point out that the only observable evidence available for evaluation regarding the subject in the OP are photos that seem to have been made of some cup or pot in 1949 (according to the video), 37 years after the supposed find (and some photos shown in the video look even more recent). There is nothing being presented for any archaeological research. Which brings me to another thing I noticed in the video in the OP, only biologists are named as being involved with reporting this find, no archaeologists. The supposed evidence is also being held in some unnamed so-called "private museum", who knows what that could mean in the final analysis; sounds like access to the supposed evidence is quite restricted. All of these little details brings me to the conclusion that no evidence of any note is here to be evaluated and studied, or 'analyzed' as you put it.

The type of video in the OP (and the source) feels more like the type of documentaries you see on The History Channel: