Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods

HI Buz, Come on Buz be serious here. If a 'hammer is a hammer is a hammer', then a chariot wheel is a chariot wheel is a chariot wheel! The fundamentals are the same Buz, both are artefacts.But you know that there are many different kinds of chariot wheels from many different civilisations and eras. Well there are also many different types of 'hammers' as well, ranging from hard wooden clubs to stone headed hammers to iron headed hammers.Anyway, back to the topic, I cannot find anything about the hammer on Baugh's site, can you tell me how he dated it and when it is dated to (according to Baugh)?Many Thanks.Brian.

quote:

---

.......there are many different kinds of chariot wheels from many different civilisations and eras. Well there are also many different types of 'hammers' as well, ranging from hard wooden clubs to stone headed hammers to iron headed hammers.

---

Your deceptive strategy: Make Buz look idiotic by spinning and back to topic before buz defends. I made the point that there were ironworkers then and there's just not that many ways to make a carpenter's iron hammer, as the artifact was. On the other hand, there's lots of chariot wheel designs.

You might want to check out The London Hammer: An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact by Glen J. Kuban. The article refers to another article by Creationist David Lines which used to be at Baugh's museum website, but is no longer there. However, the article can be found at The London Artifact: An Iron Hammer In Stone. In it you'll see that the handle was radiocarbon dated to between 0 and 700 years old.In a large universe there will always be unexplainable phenomena and evidence, but the hammer isn't that mysterious. It is well known that solid rock can be deposited by water - just look at the stalactites and stalagmites in caves. You also have to consider that Baugh will not permit outside analysis, and doesn't seem interested in doing much analysis himself. Despite your skepticism, hammer styles are widely variable (check out any Home Depot), and the style of the hammer would reveal much about its origin. It's already been tentatively identified as an American style hammer from the 19th century. Analysis of the iron would also reveal much about its origin, as the techniques of smelting and working iron have changed much over time.But the biggest problem for Baugh's claim that the hammer is pre-flood is that the iron age did not begin until around 2000 or 3000 years ago, which is considerably after the flood. And iron technology did not reach the New World until after Columbus. Archeology reveals no New World iron technology in the form of ancient Indian furnaces. In fact, archeology reveals no metal-working capability among the Indians whatsoever.Even if you prefer to believe that Baugh's hammer is scientifically inexplicable, you still have to weigh the evidence in the balance. On one side you have literally thousands of congruent radiometric measurements, while on the other you have one mysterious hammer whose owner seems determined that it stay as mysterious as possible.--Percy

Buz, You gotta be shittin me? You hypocrite. You have singularly failed to explain why different methods obtain the same dates against V-A-S-T odds of it occurring by chance. You have changed the subject, equivocated, & quoted no data whatsoever to contradict me, & you have the brass balls to call someone else deceptive? I have been pushing you for an explanation since post 18, that's 166 posts ago!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

You gotta be shittin me? You hypocrite. You have singularly failed to explain why different methods obtain the same dates against V-A-S-T odds of it occurring by chance. You have changed the subject, equivocated, & quoted no data whatsoever to contradict me, & you have the brass balls to call someone else deceptive? I have been pushing you for an explanation since post 18, that's 166 posts ago!

---

I actually asked buz to explain how all the different dating methods could be in error in such a way as to return consistent dates, within the first few messages, but to no avail whatsoever.He can't. That's why he hasn't. He even admitted to not knowing what he is talking about, basically, but of course this doesn't stop him from feeling utterly certain that he is correct....arrogance and ignorance are best friends.

quote:

---

Archeology reveals no New World iron technology in the form of ancient Indian furnaces. In fact, archeology reveals no metal-working capability among the Indians whatsoever.

---

That's hardly a guideline for what was going on around the world in more civilized cultures. There's either gotta be something wrong with the dates or the iron all rusted away if the earliest iron work found is dated 2000 BC. Mankind is just not that stupid as to have gone milleniums without the use of iron. I'll go with the Bibllical record, thanks.

You may not realize how hard it is to smelt iron. And as it turns out bronze is good enough for most things. That's why the bronze age lasted so long.Purifying iron to any degree takes heat well beyond that able to be generated by your average smith. That's why the blast furnace was such a big deal.I do understand, however, that the occasional iron meteorite was forged into the occasional sword or helm. They pop up in Greek mythology, from time to time.But short of meteors iron or any useful purity simply wouldn't have been avaliable to humans. It's not a matter of being stupid - it's just a matter of not having the technology to smelt it.

Hi Buz,There was no deception intended, it was a genuine attempt to educated you in a basic premise of archaeological research. The example was to help you think about what you are claiming. I know you have read about chariot wheels as you have posted messages about them before, that was why I used the chariot wheels as an example to illustrate that each individual find is unique. It isnt just the construction of the hammer that has to be considered, the circumstances of the find are important too. The levels above and below the find are very important for dating an artefact, the location of the find may even indicate if the artefact is local or not. If it ins't local then this could indicate a 'nomadic' group or even point to early trading amongst groups.Also, I wasnt spinning anything, since the thread is about your rejection of dating methods, I was simply interested in how Baugh dated the hammer, and then why you would accept his dating method above every other one.You keep citing people to support your cause who are not experts in their fields, if anything, they are embarrassments not only to the discipline that they are trying represent, but they are also embarrassments to any level headed observer. You use Baugh as an expert and the guy has been shown to be little more than a crank, you even doubt his abilities yourself now.But perhaps the most ridiculous 'expert' you use is Ron Wyatt, you take the word of this ex-nurse over the word of highly trained and dedicated archaeologists, this guy had no clue about even the basics of archaeological methodology, but then again he didnt need it. There are so many gullible desparate Bible believers out there, so anxious to have anything to support the Bible stories that they swallow any garbage thrown their way.I need to let you in on a secret Buz. Hovind, Baugh, Wyatt et al, are all making a complete fool out of you and all the other people who swallow their grabage. When you present their arguments to anyone who even has a basic understanding of the area they are representing, all you are doing is showing the person that you are trying to persuade that you havent done any critical research.There's nothing wrong with trying to defend your beliefs, but some people simply refuse to change their stance regardless of what evidence is presented to them.Finally, good luck with your personal search, I hope you find what you are looking for.Best Wishes.Brian.

What is it in the Biblical record that leads you to believe that there were iron workers pre-flood? Do you have any cross-confirming evidence that would tend to lend credibility to your Biblical interpretation? The hammer was found in the Americas. What leads you to believe the technology of cultures in other regions is relevant? The dating was reported by David Lines, a Creationist. Given the reliability of radiocarbon dating, on what basis do you challenge the dating? Yes, most ancient iron has rusted away. It is not that common archeologically to find ancient iron. Archeological evidence of iron technology comes from mines, from furnaces and from ancient records. The mere existence of bronze implements and weapons, given their immense inferiority to iron, places your position in question, since what civilization would use bronze when iron was available? What civilization could long defend itself against neighbors with iron (they couldn't, of course, which is why iron technology so rapidly replaced bronze)? What is it about the evidence that leads you to question its credibility? Oh, I don't know, Buzz, there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence of our brilliance around here. You do realize, I hope, how spurious this argument is? It's of the same type of fallacy as, "If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they invent toast that falls butter-side-up?" The archeological and historical evidence says iron technology did not develop until much after your date for the flood. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: What reasons do you have for doubting this?It might help to note at this point that your usual approach is to simply reject evidence presented. But the strength of your position is not measured by the determination with which you defend it, but by your ability to convince others. Without anything but anecdotal evidence this cannot occur. Your beliefs run counter to well established and internally consistent knowledge across a wide variety of fields, including, apparently, history. In essence, you've presented yourself the challenge of disproving much of what we already know.--Percy

Just in case any observers are interested, these dates are taken from Volkmar Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplementary Series Sheffield, 1996, pp.74&75Neolithic 8000-4000
Chalcolithic 4000-3150
Early Bronze Age I 3150-2950
Early Bronze Age 11 2950-2650
Early Bronze Age III 2650-2350
Early Bronze Age IV 2350-2150
Middle Bronze Age I 2150-1950
Middle Bronze Age IIA 1950-1750
Middle Bronze Age 1113 1750-1550
Late Bronze Age I 1550-1400
Late Bronze Age II 1400-1200
Iron Age I 1200-1000
Iron Age IIA 1000-900
Iron Age II13 900-700
Iron Age IIC 700-587
Iron Age III 587-332
Hellenistic Period 332-37
Roman Period 37BCE-324CE
Byzantine Period 324-634CEThere are minor disagreements over the exact dates of the transitions, but these, in this instance, are negligible.

When you do, be sure to remember the verse about some king that YHWH, et al., wouldn't fight because they "had chariots of iron." A lot like "shock and awe," or so it sounds.....or at least like the Polish cavalry fighting Panzers...

quote:

---

What is it in the Biblical record that leads you to believe that there were iron workers pre-flood? Do you have any cross-confirming evidence that would tend to lend credibility to your Biblical interpretation?

---

Genesis 4:22 (about 3900BC) "And Zilla, she also bore Tubal-cain, and instructor of every artificer in brass and iron;.........."
According to the record, he came of the line of Cain.

quote:

---

The hammer was found in the Americas. What leads you to believe the technology of cultures in other regions is relevant?

---

Because according to the record, God confounded the speech, creating multilinguistics, scattered the people and likely created the races, (God being the first racist ) about 2250 BC. and there were, according to the record, ironworkers long before that.

quote:

---

The dating was reported by David Lines, a Creationist. Given the reliability of radiocarbon dating, on what basis do you challenge the dating?

---

I didn't necessarily challenge the dating of the 2000 yr iron. I simply said that either some dating was flawed or all the older iron had rusted away.

quote:

---

Yes, most ancient iron has rusted away. It is not that common archeologically to find ancient iron. Archeological evidence of iron technology comes from mines, from furnaces and from ancient records. The mere existence of bronze implements and weapons, given their immense inferiority to iron, places your position in question, since what civilization would use bronze when iron was available? What civilization could long defend itself against neighbors with iron (they couldn't, of course, which is why iron technology so rapidly replaced bronze)? What is it about the evidence that leads you to question its credibility?

---

That they knew about the existence of iron deposits is a no brainer. So why should they who knew how to melt metal not melt the iron also? You people claim mankind is scores of thousands of years old. It's rediculous to assume he let all those alleged scores of milleniums pass on without utilizing the abundance of iron available. Even if mankind were once an ape, he would have been evolved into quite an intelligent being a long, long time ago.BTW, I'm sure you've heard the ape's viewpoint on evo, haven't you?It goes something like, "Man descended alright, the onery cuss, but for sure, he never ever descended from us." Hmmm, How can I add that to my signature? I'd like that.

quote:

---

Oh, I don't know, Buzz, there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence of our brilliance around here.

---

Percy, you're an alright guy. You were kind and honest enough to use the pronoun, our.As for the Brittanica quote, see above for my reasons to reject it's accuracy.

quote:

---

It might help to note at this point that your usual approach is to simply reject evidence presented. But the strength of your position is not measured by the determination with which you defend it, but by your ability to convince others. Without anything but anecdotal evidence this cannot occur. Your beliefs run counter to well established and internally consistent knowledge across a wide variety of fields, including, apparently, history. In essence, you've presented yourself the challenge of disproving much of what we already know.

---

Well, you see, Percy, I've been into studying the Bible in depth since becoming a Christian at age 10, fifty-eight years ago, as well as having watched closely these decades, some remarkable end time prophecies of the Bible being fulfilled and emerging in fulfillment on the world scene, including social and religious life, not to mention the amazing personal experiences I've enjoyed from God, that I cannot simply discard these pillars as worthless falacies simply on the basis of some dating theory which on the surface seems to raise questions concerning things past that have no eye witnesses. For me, rejecting some, I say, some of the dating theory is the prudent thing to do. The fact is that I can't have it both ways. I must reject one or the other. I believe in the end, I will be vindicated and the higher road shall prevail.Always good to talk to you, though we're a good distance apart, ideologically.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is a reply to:
Message 187 by buzsaw, posted 07-10-2003 12:09 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal the secret to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-11-2003]

I might add that according to the record, only certain ones were ironworkers. Others were herdsmen, musicians and so forth. Likely whomever the Indians of the Americas descended from were not into iron.------------------
Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal the secret to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7

This presents an even more serious problem for you. The bronze age didn't begin until around 3300 BC, so Tubal-cain not only couldn't have been working iron, he couldn't have been working bronze, either.I also asked you about cross-confirming evidence. The record of history and archeology says that 3900 BC predates the use of bronze and iron. What evidence do you have to the contrary?Let's keep in mind where we started. You believe Genesis relates an actual event in the flood, and for that reason you sought out evidence, which is a very good thing, just what science requires. But Carl Baugh's hammer is part of the evidence you came across, and now you've hitched your wagon to Carl's and all the baggage he brings. If you ride with Carl then you add history to the list of fields whose findings you reject, and you become as silly as Carl.There are other interpretations that don't force you to accept Carl's wild ride. Your Biblical timeline could be just a little bit off, enabling you to place Tubal-cain in the early bronze age, and he could have worked iron from meteorites, not from mines and furnaces. Or create your own accommodation. But there is no imperative in the available evidence that requires you to reject the findings history and archeology which for the most part are the friend of Biblical studies. Perhaps you subscribe to Biblical Archeology Review, in which case you understand firsthand what I'm saying. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is only a summary of knowledge, and it is your friend, not your enemy.Mankind's study of his world and universe reveals that God's creation makes sense, but the path you're following turns it more and more into a bewildering array of contradictions with none of the beauty or majesty of God's handiwork, and you do this solely to maintain your particular interpretation of Genesis. You must keep in mind that God speaks to us not only through the Bible but also through the wind and stars, that the beautiful universe around us, unadulterated by man, is more truly God's word than any book.In the larger scope of things, you have to start trying to find some internal consistency in your position. You can't really feel all that comfortable with a position that holds that geology is wrong, physics is wrong, cosmology is wrong, astronomy is wrong, and so forth, when evidence of their validity is all around us in the oil we find, the nuclear reactors we build, the men we put the moon, and the spacecraft we send out of the solar system to the stars. I'm sure you don't really believe that science and history are competent only when not dealing with issues in some way related to your Biblical interpretation. And it should be a serious concern to you that with every detail we explore here you broaden the array of evidence that you outright reject.You've had to absorb a flood of information in a short time, and it makes perfect sense that it should take some time before you sort it all out within your own mind. But there's no way to hasten this process, and I do believe that you're rushing into debate prematurely. Data is to be embraced, including Carl's hammer, so that it may be assessed and evaluated and if found reliable incorporated into the body of evidence. We would like to see you embrace the data presented here, rather than knee-jerk reject it, so that you may consider and assess it and incorporate it into your viewpoint if you find it competent. The Tower of Babel was post-flood, so it isn't relevant to a pre-flood hammer. As I stated earlier, not only is there no evidence of ironwork in your flood era, there is no evidence of ironwork anywhere in the pre-Columbus Americas. David Lines had the wooden handle dated, not the iron. There is no way to directly date iron that I'm aware of. And he dated it to less than 700 years, not 2000 years, in other words, consistent with 19th century American origin. This response, the second time you have replied in this vein, has two answers. The first concerns why you are raising this question without investigating the complexity of the process you're claiming we were brilliant enough to figure out millennia before we did.The second answer is to simply tell you what you evidently didn't bother to figure out for yourself. First men had to figure out that this crumbly orange rock actually contains a very hard metal. The only way to do that is to create the incredible heat necessary to melt the iron out of the ore. The only way to create the heat is to use bellows to blast air in sufficient volumes into the furnace. Since this isn't necessary for bronze, why would anyone put in all the effort to develop this technology? How man first figured out that iron ore contained iron remains a mystery.The fact of the matter is that iron mines and furnaces are very durable man-made structures, the ashe from the furnaces is extremely easy to date using radiocarbon methods, and we don't find them until well after 2000 BC. Where is the imperative that if evolution is true your religious experiences are false? I think you've set up a false dichotomy here.--Percy

quote:

---

For me, rejecting some, I say, some of the dating theory is the prudent thing to do. The fact is that I can't have it both ways. I must reject one or the other. I believe in the end, I will be vindicated and the higher road shall prevail.

---

But Buz, how do you explain the fact that all of the various radiometric dating methods (which measure different elements' decay rates) would each be wrong in such individual, different and precise ways as to make them return similar dates for the same sample of igneous rock?And, if this is happeneing, how is it that these incorrect congruent dates are returned with remarkable consistency over years and years of dating thousands and thousands of samples?I think it is truly a pity that your religion requires you to choose blind adherence to a particular interpretation of a few chapters in the Christian Bible over the rather unambiguous data collected from nature, right in front of you.Does God really want you to ignore reality? Does God really put more importance upon slavish adherence to a story than your ability to use your own eyes and intellect?------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-11-2003]