Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hammer found in Cretaceous layer
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


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 replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 160 (174318)
01-06-2005 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tal
01-06-2005 5:01 AM


But DID Batelle analyse the hammer ?
From http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm
all assertions about Batelle work on the hammer appear to be suspect in view of a leaflet inserted into the February 1985 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, which stated that all hammer research discussed in their article was privately done, and "all references to inferences that research or reports on the Hammer were done or prepared by Batelle Laboratories are in error."(Mackay 1985)
...
Mackay, John (ed). "Pre-Flood Hammer Update". Creation Ex Nihilo Nov. 1985. Vol. 8, No. 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tal, posted 01-06-2005 5:01 AM Tal has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 51 of 160 (174658)
01-07-2005 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
01-06-2005 11:15 PM


Well I suspect that it is the lighter areas that are more dense - that is consistent with the yellow-white of the head indicating the highest density and the wood of the handle being darker than most of the rock. Whether the darker surface represents an effect of weathering or is simply an artefact of the method I wouldn't like to say - but I would be surprised if it were anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2005 11:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2005 11:07 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 71 of 160 (174949)
01-08-2005 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Buzsaw
01-07-2005 11:16 PM


Re: Say What?
Since every report of an item like this that I've ever heard of is from the 19th Century or early 20th I rather doubt that the provenance of this cup is as simple as a miner finding it and giving or selling it to Carl Baugh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Buzsaw, posted 01-07-2005 11:16 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 01-08-2005 7:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 81 of 160 (175182)
01-09-2005 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Buzsaw
01-08-2005 7:22 PM


Re: Say What?
That's a really odd request. Producing examples of OTHER alleged finds would do nothing to explain how Baugh got the cup he claims to have.
http://www.creationevidence.org/...tour/ironpot/ironpot.html
Refers to a lump of coal allegedly split open at a power plant in 1912 and reported in 1948. Maybe this is Baugh's cup ?
Likewise the gold chain referred to on this page was allegedly found in 1891
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/5994/page3.html
Both items were supposedly found AFTER the coal had been distributed, and neither was at all recent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 01-08-2005 7:22 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 118 of 160 (180384)
01-25-2005 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Buzsaw
01-25-2005 1:17 AM


Re: Mine Trixters
Of the three the "pot" is the only one likely to be a fake as such.
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.
If the "finger" is a fossil at all it might be a root cast. But it certainly isn't a fossil human finger. But it seems to be a natural formation that looks a little bit like a finger rather than a fake.
Even the pot might not be a fake - we've got a suggestion on the table that may explain it as the product of an accident. Whether that explanation works or not I don't know - and I would like to see more evidnece (if nothing else I would like to see evidence that similar posts were used down mines at the time - that would be very significant).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Buzsaw, posted 01-25-2005 1:17 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2005 1:05 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 124 of 160 (181982)
01-31-2005 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Buzsaw
01-31-2005 1:05 AM


Re: Mine Trixters
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 here
http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/qar/july04.htm
The "fossil clock" on this creationist page looks even more similar
how long does it take for something to fossilize?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2005 1:05 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2005 7:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 127 of 160 (182472)
02-02-2005 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Buzsaw
02-01-2005 7:22 PM


Re: Mine Trixters
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2005 7:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2005 10:08 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 138 of 160 (183012)
02-04-2005 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Buzsaw
02-03-2005 10:08 PM


Re: Mine Trixters
Just look at the thing ! How can you possibly say that it IS a finger ?
While the pphoto here looks a bit more convincing than the one on Baugh's site we still have no more than a vague resemblence
http://home.texoma.net/~linesden/cem/finger/finger.htm
The claims about internal structure are also obviously bogus (why does the "bone" stop so short of the tip ?
And just consider - what are the chances that we would get a fossil finger - that is with the flesh preserved and nothing else ? There's no shortage of things that should survive better than the soft parts of a finger (all the major bones in a human body for a start !).
On the other hand the infilled burrows of prehistoric crustaceans are quite common in the Cretaceous
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/..._origins/carbbones/burrow.html
trace_fossils

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 02-03-2005 10:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024