Originally posted by wattsr1

Well again, you need to present an argument with some supporting evidence.

So far all you have done is present a link to a book.

As I say, I can do a link against your link. Just Google "critique of forbidden archaeology" and you will get plenty of hits.

Are you a Hindu?


Regards, Roland

The argument is the opening statement of this article and the link is the supporting evidence and, if someone would tell me how to post pictures on my threads I would have the facts instead of words but since we can't apparently post pictures, I posted the link.

So, are you telling me that you have never heard of anomalous artifacts.

Somone that is, supposedly, as well read as you surely has heard of them and probably the very ones that I mentioned so why the semantic games, homie?

Originally posted by Theoferrum

"close examination of the Paluxy evidence does not support the presence of genuine human tracks, and no rigorous evidence has been presented by any creationists linking the hammer to the nearby strata in Red Creek, let alone those in Glen Rose."

The man who gave the standard reply "the host rock was not part of the original strata" or something to that effect never even visually checked out the artifact.

How did you manage to reach that conclusion?

Originally posted by Tf

Further, a differnece that is no difference, is no difference. What, cretaceus rock ceases to be rock if it is not physically connected to the local strata.

Point is a rock - dated to the same age as cretaceua - formed around a man made hammer who handle is still wood.

This destroys the man made dating methods as do the majority of the other anomalous artifacts.

This is almost unreadable.


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Abigail

It is very simple. If through chance the first cell appeared then do you really think it is such a big deal for something as simple as a cannonball or cricket ball or hammer to come together

So true! I got dibs on the first motorcycle they dig up.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

The argument is the opening statement of this article and the link is the supporting evidence and, if someone would tell me how to post pictures on my threads I would have the facts instead of words but since we can't apparently post pictures, I posted the link.

So I presented you with a link which say's FA is wrong. Therefore you are wrong.

Originally posted by Tf

So, are you telling me that you have never heard of anomalous artifacts.

I've heard of anomalous everything. Pretty well every idea we have ever had, has some evidence which cannot be used to support it, because that particular evidence is anomalous.

Originally posted by Tf

Somone that is, supposedly, as well read as you surely has heard of them and probably the very ones that I mentioned so why the semantic games, homie?

Why the argument by link and cut 'n paste, homie?

It makes it easy I guess. So I might just as well do it back.



Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Theoferrum

The argument is the opening statement of this article and the link is the supporting evidence and, if someone would tell me how to post pictures on my threads I would have the facts instead of words but since we can't apparently post pictures, I posted the link.

So, are you telling me that you have never heard of anomalous artifacts.

Somone that is, supposedly, as well read as you surely has heard of them and probably the very ones that I mentioned so why the semantic games, homie?

I've never posted images on this forum, but if I remember correctly, you have to first upload the image at a site like imageshack or photobuket, and they give you a link.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Here is the one for the Hammer :

Creation Evidence Museum

http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.p...ask=view&id=26

Most YEC organizations will have nothing to do with Baugh and his objects, declaring they are “Not scientifically sound.” Creation Ministries International is more explicit:

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use: Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’

“Sorry to say, we think that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter.”


Source

---

© source where applicable

Notice this an admonishment and warning from fellow YECs – not from secular scientists or those who support an old Earth much less evolution.


As for the hammer itself, it is covered in hardened sediment, encrusted with calcium carbonate, which can happen pretty quickly as evidenced by the fact that WWII artifacts have been found embedded in limestone and coral

There is no evidence that the hammer is more than a few decades old when it was discovered. IIRC, it has been positively identified as a 19th century miner's hammer of a recent American historical style and make.

Glen J. Kuban, a creationist hired by YECs to investigate the authenticity of the supposed “man tracks” next to real dinosaur tracks at Paulxy, Texas, has written an excellent article discussing the hammer and its authenticity: The London Hammer: An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact.


And simply posting links without discussion is considered "argument-by-weblink" and is frowned upon here.

Originally posted by wattsr1

How did you manage to reach that conclusion?

This is almost unreadable.


Regards, Roland

Yeah, well that hammer embedded in a chunk of 100 Million Year Old Rock is really easy to read and totally destroys your 'comparative' chart especially when the wooden handle is included - a handle that has not deteriorated or petrafied during that period.

In case you can't read the picture, it is obvious that the rock formed around the hammer while it was still wet sand.

That is a fact.

Originally posted by Abigail

It is very simple. If through chance the first cell appeared then do you really think it is such a big deal for something as simple as a cannonball or cricket ball or hammer to come together

Ironically those who insisted that the fossils being excavated from the ground weren't the remains of organisms insisted on something similar. Some of them claimed that the fossils were actually natural rock formations created by "seeds" God had planted during creation.

Alright, lets see if this works. Here is the Hammer embeded in 100 Million Year Old Cretaeous Rock :

Originally posted by wattsr1

So I presented you with a link which say's FA is wrong. Therefore you are wrong.

Regards, Roland

Saying someone is wrong is not the same as proving them wrong.

I've seen the hammer, unlike the person who 'said' he was wrong and it is obvious that it was laid in place while the cretaceous rock was still wet sand and no explanation changes that fact.

Originally posted by rogue06

Most YEC organizations will have nothing to do with Baugh and his objects, declaring they are “Not scientifically sound.” Creation Ministries International is more explicit:

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use: Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’

“Sorry to say, we think that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter.”


Source

---

© source where applicable

Notice this an admonishment and warning from fellow YECs – not from secular scientists or those who support an old Earth much less evolution.


As for the hammer itself, it is covered in hardened sediment, encrusted with calcium carbonate, which can happen pretty quickly as evidenced by the fact that WWII artifacts have been found embedded in limestone and coral

There is no evidence that the hammer is more than a few decades old when it was discovered. IIRC, it has been positively identified as a 19th century miner's hammer of a recent American historical style and make.

Glen J. Kuban, a creationist hired by YECs to investigate the authenticity of the supposed “man tracks” next to real dinosaur tracks at Paulxy, Texas, has written an excellent article discussing the hammer and its authenticity: The London Hammer: An Alleged Out-of-Place Artifact.


And simply posting links without discussion is considered "argument-by-weblink" and is frowned upon here.

I notice they provided no proof of their contentions, for whatever the reason.

I've seen the Hammer in the Rock and it throws their words right out the window.

Now, since a picture is worth a thousand words or more, here is a manmade subscription embedded in a chunk of 500 Million Year Old Marble. Note how similar they are to the Hebrew Letters in the second picture (Chet and Vav) which when reversed as in a mold, would spell an abbreviated form of the word Chava - to reveal.

Are we to assume that aliens were here billions of years ago speaking an early form of Hebrew?

Hebrew probably being the Antediluvial Language that was not confounded at Babylon, since Abraham was not there for that event.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

I notice they provided no proof of their contentions, for whatever the reason.

Who offered no proof of their contentions?

Originally posted by Theoferrum

I've seen the Hammer in the Rock and it throws their words right out the window.

The expert has spoken. All debate therefore ends

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Saying someone is wrong is not the same as proving them wrong.

Making up evidence doesn't prove a person wrong either.

Originally posted by Tf

I've seen the hammer, unlike the person who 'said' he was wrong and it is obvious that it was laid in place while the cretaceous rock was still wet sand and no explanation changes that fact.

So you saw the hammer. What does that prove? You saw the hammer.

I saw a pink elephant once. Doesn't mean pink elephants really exist.


How do you know the person has not seen the hammer?



Regards, Roland

Wow. So this was the thread I was accused of ignoring by Theoferrum.

Not bad advice, when you think about it.

Originally posted by CTD___

So true! I got dibs on the first motorcycle they dig up.

Not gonna happen . If we go by Theoferrum's Adam's body thread, a secret NGS recovery mission will grab it and hide it in the basement of the Smithsonian.