|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hammer found in Cretaceous layer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Probably already done. (Oh, you mean ANOTHER biased analysis.)
quote: This is a good point. I would never trust a sample sent from Baugh. Collect it yourself, PY.
quote: Do you know any coal miners? If so, would you accept a sample from a coal mine ... probably collected by a miner?
quote: My bet: It'll never happen.
quote: No, because Baugh either thinks he knows the TRUTH already, or because he knows that it's all a hoax. There are too many holes in this story and Baugh won't risk a challenge.
quote: Well, this is one of the facts: Baugh has refused a third-party analysis. How long will you not hold him to accounts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yep, that's what they count on. There are few better sports among miners, drillers, etc. than to play the college kids for fools. Or the credulous true-believers... My advice to you is: never quit your day job to play poker for a living.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And the Cretaceous hammer was real too, eh. Until the the story developed more holes than a boatload of Swiss cheese... So, then, bring us a picture of the cup. I'd like to see this artifact. And my point is, and it should be a red flag to you, that virtually all of these 'artifacts' have dubious origins, and were not scientifically vetted in the field. I don't care about excuses, the point is that we cannot verify their authenticity by qualified researchers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Not sure what you intend here, since two examples have been cited already. Isn't there a some kind of a boot in limestone someplace? Added by edit: And then of course there is the dry lake artifact that was supposed to be from some advanced, now vanished civilization. It turned out to be an old version of a spark plug. And yes, how about Onyate Man? Forgot about that one. This message has been edited by edge, 01-08-2005 20:37 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: The things a YEC will never know. You've just brought back a lot of memories...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Actually, yes.
quote: That is not the point. The point is that nothing you have is actually, scientifically documented. In fact many times the artifact is not found in the coal, but only SAID to have been there. From that point, credulity takes over. Next post:
quote: Most of it has, or else there is some other independent, objective evidence for the object.
quote: Molds can be created easily, especially when the audience is credulous. Just look at some of the 'human footprints' tracking along dinosoar prints. Some are only human with the greatest of imagination, others are clear hoaxes, but still believed by those who want to believe.
quote: Do you mean coal a few centuries old, or mines a few centuries old?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
1. Hmmm, all this talk about bogus real looking archeological stuff makes one wonder just how much of you people's ideological alleged evidence has been proven not bogus and how much of it has been subjected to the analytic scrutiny of creation scientists for fairness an balance. Actually, a lot of ideas have been shown to be bogus, but those are usually not the ideas that end up being published and validated by the scientific communitly. Do you at least have a picture of this cup? We always hear about such things as hammers embedded in rock, etc., but when we see the pictures it turns out nothing like the description.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
2. How much time would it take for concreted dust train to actually look like hard coal chunks so as to look like normal coal? The thing is, we don't know that it looked like normal coal. I have heard many things from laymen only to be disapppointed by the reality. A trained and experienced person should be able to tell the difference, but as yet, I do not see anything that would lead me to believe this instance of a buried artifact. The picture is less than convincing. Where is the mold that the affidavit mentions?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024