Hammer found in Cretaceous layer

google be thy name....http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

quote:

---

Mr. and Mrs. Max Hahn were hiking along the Red Creek near the small town of London Texas, in June 1936, when they happened upon a small rock nodule with a piece of wood protruding from it. According to Helfinstine and Roth (1994), Max Hahn's son George broke open the rock nodule in 1946 or 1947, revealing the rest of the hammer, including a metal hammer head. It is important to note that even some creationist accounts (Baugh 1997, Mackay, 1985) acknowledge that the hammer bearing nodule was not attached to the surrounding rocks of the creek. Mackay (1985) explicitly states "The rock was sitting loose on a ledge and was not part of the surrounding ledge." Evidently no photos or other reliable documentation exists to confirm the exact circumstances of the original discovery. However, the lack of sharp marks on the nodule seems to confirm the reports that it was found loose and not chiseled from a larger rock.

---

So the provenance of the hamemr as IN THE ROCK is not demonstrated. Furthermore, creationist claims as to the age of the rock are contradictory:

quote:

---

From the start Baugh and other creationists seemed to presume without clear evidence that the nodule in question was once a natural part of the nearby rocks. They also seemed to have trouble deciding what mainstream geologic period the nearby rocks represented. For years Baugh claimed that it came from an Ordovician formation (Baugh, 1983, 1986, 1987), whereas Walter Lang (1983) and Bartz (1984) reported that the hammer was found in Silurian rock. A report in Creation Ex Nihilo (Mackay, 1983) stated the hammer was "in limestone dated at 300 million years old" (which would make it Pennsylvanian). A subsequent CEN article (Mackay, 1984) stated that the hammer was in "Ordovician rock, supposedly some 400 million years old" (although that age would make it Devonian, not Ordovician). In yet another CEN report (Mackay, 1985) stated, "the rocks associated with the hammer are supposedly some 400-500 million years old" (which would include part of the lower Devonian, all of the Silurian, and most of the Ordovician Period). Baugh and others (Wilson and Baugh, 1996) continued to claim the rock was in Ordovician or "Ordovecian [sic]" rock, even after researcher John Watson, according to Helfinstine and Roth (1994) pointed out that the rock outcrops at the Red Creek site were actually Lower Cretaceous (Hensell [sic] Sand Formation), to which they ascribed (incorrectly) an orthodox age "near to 135 mybp." A recent web sit article by Baugh's supporter David Lines acknowledged that the nearby formation is Cretaceous (Lines, 1999).

---

A plausible alternate provenance was given 20 years ago:

quote:

---

The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble (Cole, 1985).

---

There are more discrepancies listed.

Lets take a look at the claims on this site, shall we?The first error appears right at the top of the page:
"Max Han was fishing with his family near London, TX".In fact the finders name was HAHN.The very next sentence says "When the rock was cracked open, this octagonally shaped iron hammer was exposed." while spectacularly failing to mention that at least 10 and possibly 11 years had passed since the rock itself was found.The paragraph next to image two appears suspiciously like technobabble:

quote:

---

The enclosing rock contains Lower Cretaceous fossils. It is a concretionary sandstone nodule from the nearby cliff which is made up of concretionary sandstone nodules.

---

This site specifically claims that this is ENCLOSING rock, while that is NOT actually true according to the circumstances in which the hammer was found.So either this site is telling outright lies, or, more likely IMO, this story has passed from one person to another being slightly distorted each time, taken each time on faith and never researched by anyone in that chain.

quote:

---

So you are telling me that someone jammed this hammer into the side of a cliff? The metal was completely encased. Aren't some fossils found the same way (chipping at the side of a cliff in X layer)?

---

It was not found IN a layer - it was found in a loose nodule. Yes fossile are necessarily foudn in layers, but as I mentioned above, the fact that the nodulke with the wood does not actually appear to have been attached to the cliff seems to have been conveniently forgottem.

quote:

---

2. What about the unique metallurgy of the iron? It can only be reproduced today on the molecular level. Doesn't that kinda refute the (its just an old hammer that someone mashed into the side of a cliff) argument, since nobody in recent times could make iron of that quality (with chlorine in it no less)?

---

Well have you? You are merely parrotting assertions you cannot back up. I'm not sure what "reproduced at the molecular level" means, and am not clear what the basis for believeing the hammer has unusual metallurgy either, seeing as it has not been tested by a reputable lab. Its a totally unsubstantiated claim. As you will see from the link I provided offers have been made to get it tested and these were refused.

Things found in ancient coal or rock layers are standard fare in the Mysteries of the Unexplained or conspiracy type stuff. My favourite is a pterodactyl supposedly unleashed by railway tunnel diggers in France, which staggered about 20 feet before dropping down dead (allegedly). Then there are sundry frogs found in coal nodules and what have you.I was going to provide a link but now I fear merely starting the thread over again. So I won't.