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
™ Version 4.2
