|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hammer found in Cretaceous layer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Would I lie? See Electro-mechanical engines of Perpetual Motion and Natural Selection. As the author will freely admit, no one's been able to disprove his masterful theory!
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
Yes, I see. Interesting how he handled that little "friction" problem.
Oh, and speaking of Clark Gable, your photo of him was a little outdated. Here's a more recent photo of him in his more dignified latter days. This message has been edited by Juhrahnimo, 01-30-2005 12:18 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
If the hammer was lost in the 19th Century and trapped in a concretion between then and the time it was found then it isn't a fake. But it isn't evidence of creation either. How many 19th century documented concreted things do we find that look as old as this formation for comparison? In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Well the hammer looks like a 19th Century hammer. The condition would be surprisingly good for something even thousands of year old (wood usually rots except in unusual conditions) and the supposed carbon date is consistent with a 19th century origin. So really it's worth asking what evidence is there that it is anything older ?
There's an 18th Century concretion herehttp://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/qar/july04.htm The "fossil clock" on this creationist page looks even more similarhow long does it take for something to fossilize?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Well the hammer looks like a 19th Century hammer. The condition would be surprisingly good for something even thousands of year old (wood usually rots except in unusual conditions) and the supposed carbon date is consistent with a 19th century origin. So really it's worth asking what evidence is there that it is anything older ? 1. I suppose there's not a lot of ways to design a hammer.2. Thanks for the links. I don't know where the hammer was found, so far as location dating goes, but it appears that it will depend a lot on dating data and I don't know how much of that's been done. In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you might want to edit that to the new site
Compelling Questions About The Grand Unified Theory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
We do know that the hammer was found in a loose concretion and there is no evidence that it was ever embedded in the cliff. At present there is no significant evidence that it is prehistoric (not even contextual finds that would make such an assignment plausible),
As to the other finds, the "finger" certainly isn't a fossil finger. Which leaves the pot which also has potential explanations and no context that would make a prehistoric origin plausible (I would like to see more evidence before coming to a definite conclusion, but a recent origin is more likely on what evidence we do have)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 199 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Researching Charles Knight's recent and unrelated question, I stumbled across If I Had a Hammer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hmm. I wonder if someone should let the NCSE know they have a serious, creationist-level misstatement in that article?
Why was there no attempt to date the hammer stylistically (it is of recent American historical style) or to subject the metal and/or wood to radiocarbon analysis instead of only doing this to some unrelated stick from Michigan? (emphasis added) I'm no geologist, but I wasn't aware you could use C-14 dating on metal? I'm sure the author simply mis-stated, but since we pride ourselves on clear and factual refutations of creationist nonsense, this is a pretty big one, IMO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
That's a term I've heard over the years but never knew what it meant. Thanks to Answers In Genesis [AiG], I now know that means the "evidence" is just a story or anecdote. It doesn't mean it's false, but it isn't exactly "hard" evidence, either.
AiG considers chains and cups found in coal (but no longer attached to the coal) to be items, the claims of which are anecdotal. Here is a link to a good page at their site that Lam first introduced me to: Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use. You can scroll up and down and read several arguments that AiG suggests Creationists not use and the various reasons why, but I have it set to go right to the part about artifacts found in coal (but no longer attached to coal). While I cannot know Mr. Baugh's motives, I can certainly understand people percieving as misleading his decision to make a replica of the cup embedded in coal, when the actual cup is not. I don't think I would do it. I might show the cup, but be careful to point out it is only an interesting story. More likely I wouldn't display the cup at all. I fail to see the purpose, once it is understood what anecdotal evidence means. It becomes more like hype than actual facts to consider in the EvC debate. I see the potential for setting up some less-knowledgeable creationists for serious disappointment and possibly causing them to doubt the whole idea of creationism, once they see how meaningless such things are, if they are held out as some amazing, evolution-defeating fact, when it is just an old cup with an interesting story. Anyways, the evidence that the cup was ever embedded in coal is only ANECDOTAL and it ever shall be. AiG says in another place regarding a gold chain supposedly found in coal (a newspaper reported this apparently--and I think the chain is on display somewhere but free of all coal):
This is exactly what is meant by anecdotal evidence. The word is derived from ‘anecdote’ meaning ‘story’. There is a story, but no coal sticking to a chain. This quote is what helped drive home what "anecdotal" evidence is (all those years I never knew!) I don't think the hammer is a fake as pointed out by JonF or PaulK (or someone) earlier, but I can see, after reading this thread, that I won't be holding it out as evidence of pre-Flooders. I would tend to go with the recent accretion theory unless some evidence indicates otherwise (esp. if the style matches some known historical style). As far as the cup goes...who knows...I would be dubious of all claims surrounding it. I don't think I'd even bother trying to explain it away (if I were an evolutionist). As a creationist I won't be mentioning it unless specifically asked about it. I hope Mr. Baugh takes PY up on the offer, and I appreciate PY's making such a generous offer. This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 02-03-2005 02:20 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
The above post is the reason I enjoy discussing things with you, TheLit. I agree with you 100% (you're not slipping to the Dark Side, are you? ). Baugh and others like him (Hovind is a supreme example) are the best advertisements for the loyal opposition that exist. Every utterance and false claim by these hucksters and outright purveyors of falsehood causes more people to question creationism as a whole than any 100 scientific journal articles. No one likes to be lied to or made to look like a fool...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Congratulations sir. A wonderful post. As a Christian to anther Christian I applaud you.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
how about a POTM?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Q beatcha to it.
TheLit has his first PotM already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually I believe someone already proposed that. It is certainly worthwhile.
Yup, see Message 3 Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024