Hammer found in Cretaceous layer

"Taken to NASA for dating" = "Showed it to the dude who empties the space toilets and asked him to guess how many millions of years old it was."

So, what you're saying is that they possessed a metalurgic technology far beyond anything we believe to be possible with the laws of chemistry......yet, in regards to toolmaking, they weren't any better than the toolsmiths of the 1800's? I mean, look at this hammer. It's a piece of junk. Why would they take a head made of their supermetal, and then jam it onto a crude wooden handle? Why doesn't it have a peen of any kind? A claw or a ball would have been considerably more useful; the claw for the removal of nails or the ball-peen for riveting.Modern hammers have steel shafts for strength, or composite materials for flexability, so that the shock of hammering is not conducted into the user's hand. You're telling me that they invented a metal that defies all physics, but they didn't happen to discover fiberglass along the way? Please. If this is some kind of futuristic super-hammer then why is it such a piece of shit?

And exactly how would that analysis and scrutiny be performed? Which creation labs are you aware of that can perform mass spectronomy, NMR, or metallurgic analysis, just to name a few?Quite frankly, the state of the art in "creation science" isn't fit to analyze anything. You simply don't have the resources. I mean, I guess if you guys wanted to look at the objects and cluck your heads like you knew what you were talking about, we could let you do that; I think we can schedule you in with the middle school tour groups.I'm sorry but I find the idea that creation science has any legitimate claim to an ability to assess evidence laughable at best; it's much akin to the Flat Earth Society demanding free rides in the Space Shuttle to "view this so-called evidence that the Earth is spherical for ourselves."

Right, but since you haven't seen the texture of the accretion around the cup, what does it matter?

Well, hell, they don't have to be there to observe the process. They just have to read the paper. The methodology of the analysis is always presented in a scientific paper.If you want to see how scientists are doing the analyses that lead to their conclusions, read the paper. It's all in there.AbE: Er, that is, by "read the paper" I mean read the scientific journal article the analysis was published in, not "pick up a copy of the New York Times."This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-09-2005 13:50 AM