Originally posted by rogue06

Please demonstrate the fact "all the man made metals found in anomalous circumstances all display the same pattern of abnormal mixture one trait of which that they all seem to have in common is that they don't rust." IOW, evidence please.

First tell me what IOW means.

Originally posted by Roy

...paying particular attention to any claims that the metal hammerhead shown at the start of the thread has in fact rusted.

Roy

There are no claims that it has rusted - that is his point. I have heard this of several other artifacts - someone mentioned a Statue in India - the Spear of destiny, reportedly, does not rust etc.

I'll have to check on that when I get the time.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

So, what, there are no geologists that are evolutionists?

That it displays ignorance on the subject that you don't realize that geology and the like are totally unrelated to and independent from evolution. Calling them evolutionists (and in answer to your question, no, many early geologists opposed the ToE when it was published) is as valid a description and about as useful as saying "According to Europeans."

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Yeah, it was called Noah's Flood - but then when Darwine put his two cents in, everyone decided it must have taken millions of years to form and then they had to explain the anomolous artifacts - most of which you have ignored, like the man made pipe in the mountain in China, etc.

Sorry Theo. You’re just making crap up here.

The geologic column and the fact that the world is ancient had been worked out by the 1830s when Darwin set sail aboard the Beagle. In fact he took a copy of Charles Lyell’s “Principles of Geology” with him on the voyage. It would be very difficult for Darwin’s ToE to influence books that were written well before he even formulated his ideas.

And no I haven’t addressed every single object that you’ve mentioned as you spray them out in a mad “Gish Gallop.” It takes far more effort to look up something and research any analysis of it that has been done than it does to C&P ridiculous, often easily demonstrably incorrect bull manure.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Yeah, after Darwin

While it was “after Darwin,” his theories had absolutely nothing to do with figuring out how so-called “polystrate” trees come about. But as I said, the gullible and deluded seem incapable of discovering the answer to this mystery despite being solved well over 100 years ago.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

And a Global flood can lay down alot of layers very quickly, can't it?

There are actually several things that would indicate a recent (or even much less recent) global flood if they were present in the geologic record. The fact that they don’t exist was one of the things that began to convince geologists before Darwin’s publishing of the ToE that the Earth hadn’t experienced a global flood and was in fact far, far older than they had presumed.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

By golly, you're right. But, since we already know that there was a global flood - which the anomolous artifacts prove - it is much more logical to concluded that the fossilized tree through, what, ten layers of strata - occured at the time of the flood.

How in the world would any of these objects, presuming that any are what you present them to be (a big enough “if” to create its own gravity), demonstrate the reality of a global flood? This is a bizarre leap in “logic” here.

And just how do you get a forest to be covered by sediment, grow another mature forest on top of the first only to be buried in sediment in which another forest grows to maturity on top the previous two forests only to be buried in sediment in which another forest grows to maturity on top... up to over 20 times during a one year flood? How do you get any trees to grow at all while submerged under miles of water?

Originally posted by wattsr1

Yet, you even asked me to repeat the question. I hope you didn't count that one.

Regards, Roland

I did not ask you to repeat the question - I did ask you to state your claim however, I have already addressed this.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

I didn't say it was impressive

And that is an understatement!

Originally posted by Theoferrum

I personally doubt it was a oil lamp of any kind but what is unmistakeable is that it was factory made.

As my pictures demonstrate the picture you provided is not of the actual object (which is of stone) but apparently of a recreation/model of it in some material that isn't stone.

Originally posted by rogue06

That it displays ignorance on the subject that you don't realize that geology and the like are totally unrelated to and independent from evolution. Calling them evolutionists (and in answer to your question, no, many early geologists opposed the ToE when it was published) is as valid a description and about as useful as saying "According to Europeans."

Why, because I didn't differentiate between the two? I would suspect that at the time of this writing, most geologists are evolutionists. Do you claim otherwise? And, if not, then the only one showing their ignorance is you - "The same judgment you judge others with you are guilty of yourself."

Originally posted by rogue06

Sorry Theo. You’re just making crap up here.

The same judgment. Those pipes embedded in a mountain in China are not made up and I noticed you failed to address them and most of the artifacts presented.

Originally posted by rogue06

The geologic column and the fact that the world is ancient had been worked out by the 1830s when Darwin set sail aboard the Beagle. In fact he took a copy of Charles Lyell’s “Principles of Geology” with him on the voyage. It would be very difficult for Darwin’s ToE to influence books that were written well before he even formulated his ideas.

And who made it popular amoung all those "many" geologists who used to be opposed to ToE? Yeah, Darwin.

Originally posted by rogue06

And no I haven’t addressed every single object that you’ve mentioned as you spray them out in a mad “Gish Gallop.” It takes far more effort to look up something and research any analysis of it that has been done than it does to C&P ridiculous, often easily demonstrably incorrect bull manure.

The same judgment - actually, I would have said, Monkey Manure which you seem to be an expert in!

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Does it get smelted naturally?

Who in the world stated or even implied it was smelted? Iron can be found in naturally occurring nodules and the like:

bogiron.jpg

These were found washed out and found in a streambed in Texas.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

First tell me what IOW means.

Sheeesh! In Other Words

Originally posted by Theoferrum

There are no claims that it has rusted - that is his point. I have heard this of several other artifacts - someone mentioned a Statue in India - the Spear of destiny, reportedly, does not rust etc.

I'll have to check on that when I get the time.

Take a look at the picture Freezbee put up

Originally posted by Theoferrum

I did not ask you to repeat the question - I did ask you to state your claim however, I have already addressed this.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=160



Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Actually, Roland, I did address that. I said something to the effect that there are fossil remains of full fledged species then it stands to reason that there would also remain fossil remains of the millions of in between species encompassing all the species currently on the earth today and Punctuated Equilibrium would not change this glaring fact.

Again, it does not stand to reason, unless you claim to know something about fossilization and geological processes that we do not know.

For example, what percentage of animals get fossilized when they die?

What percentage of rocks do not get mechanically or chemically altered or eroded away over geological time?

How complete must our present discoveries of fossils be?



Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Theoferrum

There you go again - repeating the same post for the fourth time.

Unfortunately, your comment doesn't make sense, nor fit the facts.

You did ask me to repost it. See my link just above.

I asked you to prove it wrong. Could God not have done this?

Originally posted by Theof

Perhaps you would like to explain what the Uncaused Cause of the Entire Unvierse is for everyone, Einstein?

My guess is that you cannot even explain a caused Universe, not in the sense you want me to explain an uncaused one.



Regards, Roland

So, I think its time for a Summary of the Anomalous Artifacts that have yet to be adequately explained - I'll leave out those that are questionable for whatever the reason, such as the statues of dinosaurs or objects obviously made by a lathe and the one that is embedded in an unidentified mysterious black rock :

1) Tea Kettle in 300 'Million' Year Coal
2) Letters in 500 'Million' Year Old Strata
3) Hammer in 200 'Million' Year Cretaeous
4) Metal Sphere in 3 'Billion' Year Marble
5) Medallion in 200 'Thousand' Year Old Strata
6) Tracks in 600 'Million' Year Old Strata
7) Human Skull in 300 'Million' Year Old Strata
8) Giant Footprint in 1 'Billion' Year Old Granite
9) Man Made Pipes in 200 'Million' Year Sandstone
10) Wood / Iron in in 200 'Million' Year Sandstone
11) Bell in 300 'Million' Year Coal
12) Electrical Plug in 1 'Billion' Year Granite
13) Man Made Geometrical Carvings in 300 'Million' Year Sandstone
14) Metal 'Anvil' in 20 'Million' Year Strata
15) Man and Mammother tracks in 5 'Million' Year Strata
16) Reebok Track in 20 'Million' Year Strata

Originally posted by FreezBee

Here's an article about the London Hammer by Glen J. Kuban.

Look at the picture below (from that article):

Attachment 71156

It shows clear signs of rusting around the hole, where the handle was sitting.

Kuban writes:

link above

Reportedly the hammer head showed little oxidation when first revealed, and that it was smooth, with a brownish "fossil" [sic] coating, which has since become somewhat rusted and "rough" (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994).

---

© source where applicable

Later in the article, Kuban writes:

link above

Mackay (1994) stated that "research continues into the unusually shiny transparent layer which surrounded the hammer when it was discovered and why it did not corrode for several months." However, such statements contradict other creationist comments (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994) that the hammer had a brown (and thus presumably not shiny) surface when first broken from the concretion, and only when scratched was a shiny subsurface revealed.

---

© source where applicable

Apparently creationists do not agree on the original (as of the time of finding) look of the hammer head (and that's not the only disagreement among creationists concerning this hammer).

According the same article, the hammer head was analyzed at Batelle Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio, which found that the head consists of consist of 96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine, and 0.74% sulfur by weight. Since I do not know much about metallurgy, I cannot say, how unusual that is, nor whether that should make the hammer head more resistant to oxidation. But maybe someone else knows something.


- FreezBee

If you were 200 'Million' Years Old you'd be a little rusty too!

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Not when all the man made metals found in anomalous circumstances all display the same pattern of abnormal mixture one trait of which that they all seem to have in common is that they don't rust.

But, if you want to ignore the facts thats your choice.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

If you were 200 'Million' Years Old you'd be a little rusty too!

Except, of course, if I were a man made metal found in anomalous circumstances

- FreezBee