Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 183 (8025 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2014 8:51 PM
193 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: tellmeverbatim
Happy Birthday: AndrewPD
Post Volume:
Total: 724,105 Year: 9,946/28,606 Month: 1,636/2,455 Week: 354/592 Day: 126/59 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
11NextFF
Author Topic:   Hammer found in Cretaceous layer
Tal
Member (Idle past 1960 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 1 of 160 (173980)
01-05-2005 4:37 AM


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
www.1st-vets.us
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-05-2005 8:34 AM Tal has responded
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2005 9:50 AM Tal has responded
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 01-06-2005 8:27 PM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 128 by JonF, posted 02-02-2005 11:05 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 11390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 2 of 160 (174015)
01-05-2005 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tal
01-05-2005 4:37 AM


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.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tal, posted 01-05-2005 4:37 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tal, posted 01-05-2005 8:53 AM Admin has responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 1960 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 3 of 160 (174024)
01-05-2005 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
01-05-2005 8:34 AM


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
www.1st-vets.us
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-05-2005 8:34 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 01-05-2005 9:16 AM Tal has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 11390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 4 of 160 (174029)
01-05-2005 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tal
01-05-2005 8:53 AM


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 www.drdino.com 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.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tal, posted 01-05-2005 8:53 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tal, posted 01-05-2005 9:22 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 1960 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 5 of 160 (174034)
01-05-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
01-05-2005 9:16 AM


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
www.1st-vets.us
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 01-05-2005 9:16 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 11390
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 6 of 160 (174040)
01-05-2005 9:36 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by contracycle, posted 01-05-2005 10:04 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10482
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 7 of 160 (174045)
01-05-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tal
01-05-2005 4:37 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tal, posted 01-05-2005 4:37 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tal, posted 01-05-2005 9:57 AM PaulK has responded

    
Tal
Member (Idle past 1960 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 8 of 160 (174049)
01-05-2005 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
01-05-2005 9:50 AM


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
www.1st-vets.us
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2005 9:50 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 01-05-2005 10:08 AM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 11 by contracycle, posted 01-05-2005 10:15 AM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 12 by JonF, posted 01-05-2005 11:47 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 160 (174052)
01-05-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Admin
01-05-2005 9:36 AM


google be thy name....

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

quote:
Mr. and Mrs. Max Hahn were hiking along the Red Creek near the small town of London Texas, in June 1936, when they happened upon a small rock nodule with a piece of wood protruding from it. According to Helfinstine and Roth (1994), Max Hahn's son George broke open the rock nodule in 1946 or 1947, revealing the rest of the hammer, including a metal hammer head. It is important to note that even some creationist accounts (Baugh 1997, Mackay, 1985) acknowledge that the hammer bearing nodule was not attached to the surrounding rocks of the creek. Mackay (1985) explicitly states "The rock was sitting loose on a ledge and was not part of the surrounding ledge." Evidently no photos or other reliable documentation exists to confirm the exact circumstances of the original discovery. However, the lack of sharp marks on the nodule seems to confirm the reports that it was found loose and not chiseled from a larger rock.

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:
From the start Baugh and other creationists seemed to presume without clear evidence that the nodule in question was once a natural part of the nearby rocks. They also seemed to have trouble deciding what mainstream geologic period the nearby rocks represented. For years Baugh claimed that it came from an Ordovician formation (Baugh, 1983, 1986, 1987), whereas Walter Lang (1983) and Bartz (1984) reported that the hammer was found in Silurian rock. A report in Creation Ex Nihilo (Mackay, 1983) stated the hammer was "in limestone dated at 300 million years old" (which would make it Pennsylvanian). A subsequent CEN article (Mackay, 1984) stated that the hammer was in "Ordovician rock, supposedly some 400 million years old" (although that age would make it Devonian, not Ordovician). In yet another CEN report (Mackay, 1985) stated, "the rocks associated with the hammer are supposedly some 400-500 million years old" (which would include part of the lower Devonian, all of the Silurian, and most of the Ordovician Period). Baugh and others (Wilson and Baugh, 1996) continued to claim the rock was in Ordovician or "Ordovecian [sic]" rock, even after researcher John Watson, according to Helfinstine and Roth (1994) pointed out that the rock outcrops at the Red Creek site were actually Lower Cretaceous (Hensell [sic] Sand Formation), to which they ascribed (incorrectly) an orthodox age "near to 135 mybp." A recent web sit article by Baugh's supporter David Lines acknowledged that the nearby formation is Cretaceous (Lines, 1999).

A plausible alternate provenance was given 20 years ago:

quote:
The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985).

There are more discrepancies listed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 01-05-2005 9:36 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10482
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 10 of 160 (174053)
01-05-2005 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tal
01-05-2005 9:57 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tal, posted 01-05-2005 9:57 AM Tal has not yet responded

    
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 160 (174058)
01-05-2005 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tal
01-05-2005 9:57 AM


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:
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 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tal, posted 01-05-2005 9:57 AM Tal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by JonF, posted 01-05-2005 11:50 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2597
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 12 of 160 (174083)
01-05-2005 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tal
01-05-2005 9:57 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tal, posted 01-05-2005 9:57 AM Tal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 01-06-2005 1:27 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2597
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 13 of 160 (174086)
01-05-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by contracycle
01-05-2005 10:15 AM


quote:
The enclosing rock contains Lower Cretaceous fossils.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by contracycle, posted 01-05-2005 10:15 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 160 (174263)
01-05-2005 11:13 PM


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.
Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 01-05-2005 11:30 PM Gary has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8561
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 15 of 160 (174270)
01-05-2005 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Gary
01-05-2005 11:13 PM


Mistake or...
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Gary, posted 01-05-2005 11:13 PM Gary has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
11NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014