|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hammer found in Cretaceous layer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Suggest this topic go into dates/dating.
Dr. Carl E. Baugh's Doctoral Dissertation The Hammer 1. Does this hammer present a problem to the current evolutionary timeline? It was found in 1934 in Cretaceous rock in Texas, which would date it 100 million years before humans came around according to the ToE. 2. This hammer doesn't rust due to the chlorine in the iron. This doesn't have anything to do with creation/evolution, but rather how this much iron came about to have chlorine in it.(96% iron, 2.6% chlorine and .74% sulfur ) mixture From what I understand, this can be duplicated today on the molecular level, but it can't be mass produced. The chlorine in the iron gives it protection from corrosion. Pictures from the CEM site.
The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimball County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. The density of the iron in a central, cross-sectional plane is shown in Photo K16. It shows the interior metal to be very pure, with no bubbles. Modern industry cannot consistently produce iron castings with this quality, as evidenced by test results that show bubbles and density variations that have caused pump and valve bodies to break. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This message has been edited by Tal, 01-05-2005 09:34 AM Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Your own writing should predominate. Introduce the topic and describe your position. Use links as references. Extensive cut-n-pastes should be avoided. Here's a link to the Forum Guidelines, see rule 5. Sorry the Forum Guidelines do not currently have an easily accessible link, you joined just as the forum was undergoing a significant revision. This will be remedied soon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Condensed and corrected.
I figured the info/pictures in the forum would be a better presentation than anything I could add. But I tried. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tal writes: I figured the info/pictures in the forum would be a better presentation than anything I could add. But I tried. The requirement that members make their point in their own words is to ensure the member understands the material. Without this requirement we often discover that someone has posted a link he doesn't understand, or that the link is too general (e.g., "See
Dinosaur Adventure Land
for proof!"), or even worse, that the link doesn't make the point the member thought it did. While this requirement is perhaps unfair to those who do their homework, we have to enforce the guidelines equally for everyone. The pictures were great, and if you'd like to embed them in your own discussion instead of in Carl's I think that would make a very effective opening post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Ok, can I post the pictures with the appropriate captions from the body of the text from the site?
The pics by themselves don't mean much. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The title is wrong. The hammer was not found embedded in a "layer" -it was found in a loose nodule (as the linked article clearly states). Unless and until that is shown to be Cretaceous in origin, rather than a recent concretion the hammer poses no threat to evolutionary theory at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5677 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Unless and until that is shown to be Cretaceous in origin, rather than a recent concretion the hammer poses no threat to evolutionary theory at all. It has been. I know he took it to the labs in NASA for analysis. Unfortunately I don't have a link for that.
The enclosing rock contains Lower Cretaceous fossils. It is a concretionary sandstone nodule from the nearby cliff which is made up of concretionary sandstone nodules.
This cliff is part of the Lower Cretaceous Edwards Plateau which evolutionists tell us was formed 140 million years ago
link Convenient to easily dismiss the subject though. This message has been edited by Tal, 01-05-2005 09:58 AM This message has been edited by Tal, 01-05-2005 10:03 AM Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
google be thy name....
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm
quote: So the provenance of the hamemr as IN THE ROCK is not demonstrated. Furthermore, creationist claims as to the age of the rock are contradictory:
quote: A plausible alternate provenance was given 20 years ago:
quote: There are more discrepancies listed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The fact is that the hammer is found in a loose concretion. The hammer appears to be of recent origin (design plus the presence of unmineralised wood). Pending good evidence to the contrary the best explanation is that the concretion is also recent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Lets take a look at the claims on this site, shall we?
The first error appears right at the top of the page:"Max Han was fishing with his family near London, TX". In fact the finders name was HAHN. The very next sentence says "When the rock was cracked open, this octagonally shaped iron hammer was exposed." while spectacularly failing to mention that at least 10 and possibly 11 years had passed since the rock itself was found. The paragraph next to image two appears suspiciously like technobabble:
quote: This site specifically claims that this is ENCLOSING rock, while that is NOT actually true according to the circumstances in which the hammer was found. So either this site is telling outright lies, or, more likely IMO, this story has passed from one person to another being slightly distorted each time, taken each time on faith and never researched by anyone in that chain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I know he took it to the labs in NASA for analysis Pretty darned unlikely; I am pretty sure there are no NASA labs that do that kind of thing. There are plenty of non-NASA labs that do. And, if there was actually third-party verification of the age claim, do you really think there would be no reference whatsoever to it anywhere on the Web? Particularly at Baugh'e site?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
quote: Note that, even if it does contain lower Cretaceous fossils, they may be reworked (which a fossil expert could probably evaluate immediately). IOW, the mere presence of Cretaceous fossils does not prove Cretaceous age for the rock/concretion until further analysis has been performed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
What kind of rock is it in? Could it have been dropped by someone a long time ago, and then some form of natural concrete hardened around it? It might not be a forgery, it could have just been misidentified by Creationists who don't know much about geology to begin with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
What kind of rock is it in? Could it have been dropped by someone a long time ago, and then some form of natural concrete hardened around it? It might not be a forgery, it could have just been misidentified by Creationists who don't know much about geology to begin with. I think that this is the most likely case here. What I would be interesting in understanding better is whether this is a matter of incompetence or dishonesty. The finding should be subject to very careful analysis. (It should, of course, had it's providence carefully recorded too - that is lost through carelessness now). It would seem that this has almost certainly not been done. Perhaps because those with it don't understand what is necessary to get a better answer. The other explanation is that they know perfectly well what they have (or rather don't have) and don't want it carefully analyzed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024