Coal artifacts fake, according to Answers in Genesis.
AIG claims that there has been no artifacts found attached to coal. So therefore, all that have claimed this are more or less lying. So another YEC evidence gets debunked, or does it?
Quote from AIG site:
| Gold chains have been found in coal. Several artefact's, including gold objects, have been documented as having been found within coal, but in each case the coal is no longer associated with the artifact. The evidence is therefore strictly anecdotal (e.g. This object was left behind in the fireplace after a lump of coal was burned). This does not have the same evidential value as having a specimen with the coal and the artifact still associated. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp Comment is towards bottom of page. |
Here we have objects still associated with coal. Things that make you go hmm.
Reference: http://www.njscuba.com/artifacts/brunette.html
Here we have door knobs embedded in coal that was found by a diver. It was from a ship that was carrying these door knobs as a part of their cargo, and it sank.
Reference: http://www.njscuba.com/artifacts/brunette.html
This was found next to a ship wreck. The items on that ship were embedded in the piece of coal.
Being that AIG is supposed to be the most informed creationist ministry on creation itself. It makes me wonder how this evidence, plus more, has been some how over looked. But it all fits into the pattern of debunking the most dangerous evidence to Evolution, and OEC. So is AIG debunking YEC evidence to keep Evolution and OEC the best evidence for origins? Is AIG bashing the bearer of YEC (Baugh, Hovind, Pettersen, Wyatt etc..) evidence to accomplish the same thing? The evidence so far speaks for itself.
Side note: There have been attempts to debunk this information, on several forums, since putting this up on this web page. The main attempt is claiming that the ships back then burned coal. And that when this ship sunk, the coal from the ship broke down, and reformed around said items.
So here are the questions that need to be asked if someone makes this claim.
| 1) Has such a process ever been observed? |
| 2) Is there a name for this process? |
| 3) Can this process be repeated in a lab? |
| 4) Why would coal break down in the first place? |
| 5) And why would it reform? |
| 6) And how long does each process take (breaking down, and reforming)? |
You see, this is an example of evolutionists lame attempt to debunk evidence that does not go along with current theories and views. This is how they handle all creation evidence. The lame excuse is the attempt to stifle such evidence before it starts to circualte. This is because they need to come up with a debunk good enough to explain it away. This tactic buys them time to do just that. Don't be surprised if websites go up to debunk this. But never go along with personal view websites. They can say anything, and usually do. We are all entitled to free speech. And one person's opinion does not make truth. Not even my opinion.
So if they are going to debunk the evidence above, then it needs to be done on a main stream science web site. They are not always right, but their percent of being right is much greater,
AIG gets the monkey award for not looking into the evidence of coal artifacts more closely: 
Make sure to click next at the bottom of this page to continue.
