• Edited by a Moderator •

Another object that most YEC groups have distanced themselves from, and for good reason.

Considering that trilobites are marine creatures any human stepping on it would have to be walking along the seafloor, which is a strange place indeed for any air-breathing creature to take a stroll. Further, there is no sign of any pressure having been exerted by the sandal-wearer upon the trilobite itself. No pressure deformation, nor foot movement at its margin.

The identification of the depression as a sandal print is dubious at best. For instance, the alleged heel is actually formed by a crack that runs across the entire slab, going beyond the boundary of the supposed “footprint.” Oblong and concentric oval shapes caused by geochemical processes are not uncommon on the Wheeler formation and that is almost certainly what is seen here.


Is this really the best you have?

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Gee, maybe aliens imported it from mars, huh.

Yet, regardless of where it came from, it is a manmade hammer embeded in a 100 million year old rock.

Probably planted by the CIA.

Actually, I addressed where it came from earlier:

Originally posted by rogue06

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.

It wasn't "embeded [sic] in a 100 million year old rock."

Originally posted by rogue06

Oblong and concentric oval shapes caused by geochemical processes are not uncommon on the Wheeler formation and that is almost certainly what is seen here.


Is this really the best you have? :wait:

"This particular find was later examined by Dr. Hellmut H. Doelling, of the Utah Geological Survey, and he found no irregularities or evidence of fakery - the print was genuine."

http://www.bluemoonnews.com/images2.htm

Well this professional geologist who has personally examined the footprints says otherwise.

Is that the best you can do?

Originally posted by Theoferrum

I notice all the 'old earthers' and evolutionists are ignoring the evidence.

No evidence to ignore. These finds are either natural, down right phoney, or planted

The hammer I am aware of. The rock was carved to fit the hammer.

The iron ball is most likely a natural concretion, which do occur in these sediments. The groves around the edge are relics of natural strata.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

The Handle is not embedded - the hammer is.

Clear it up any, homie..

The rock is just ingeniously fitted around the hammer. Chinese love these trick and sell phoney fossils to the Smithsonian using this trick.

Apparently, you are blind.

If that is not a hammer embedded in a chunk of rock then, exactly, what is it?

Creatin Evidence Museum - Dr. Baugh :

http://www.bluemoonnews.com/images2.htm

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Apparently, you are blind.

If that is not a hammer embedded in a chunk of rock then, exactly, what is it?

Creatin Evidence Museum - Dr. Baugh :

http://www.bluemoonnews.com/images2.htm

No the hammer head is not embedded. It is fitted in first and than the handle slide in.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

No evidence to ignore. These finds are either natural, down right phoney, or planted

The hammer I am aware of. The rock was carved to fit the hammer.

The iron ball is most likely a natural concretion, which do occur in these sediments. The groves around the edge are relics of natural strata.

If they were frauds or phonies, the establishment could easily prove so - it has not proven any of these to be frauds or forgeries and several experts have, in fact, stated they were genuine.

If you chose to ignore the facts, that is your choice, but to call something a fraud without proving so is, actually, slander.

Many objects have been found embedded in Coal which is about 300 Million Years Old.

Sulphur Springs, Arkansas - Nov. 27, 1948

While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression, or mould of the pot in a piece of the coal. Jim Stull (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines.

Frank J. Kennard


Creation Evidence Museum - Dr. Baugh :

http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.p...ask=view&id=10

Originally posted by Theoferrum

"This particular find was later examined by Dr. Hellmut H. Doelling, of the Utah Geological Survey, and he found no irregularities or evidence of fakery - the print was genuine."

http://www.bluemoonnews.com/images2.htm

Well this professional geologist who has personally examined the footprints says otherwise.

Is that the best you can do?

Saying that something has no irregularities or evidence isn't the same as saying something was genuine. If Doelling had pronounced this as being a genuine sandal-print on top of a trilobite then there would be quotes from him prominently displayed. Their complete absence indicates that wasn't his conclusion. He only said it wasn't faked. Nobody ever said it was.

Originally posted by rogue06

Saying that something has no irregularities or evidence isn't the same as saying something was genuine. If Doelling had pronounced this as being a genuine sandal-print on top of a trilobite then there would be quotes from him prominently displayed. Their complete absence indicates that wasn't his conclusion. He only said it wasn't faked. Nobody ever said it was.

No, he said it was geniune and if he didn't he would have sued the person involved and now you are trying to twist his words around simply because you can't handle the truth.

A genuine footprint found in a rock millions of years old.

That is a fact.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

If they were frauds or phonies, the establishment could easily prove so - it has not proven any of these to be frauds or forgeries and several experts have, in fact, stated they were genuine.

If you chose to ignore the facts, that is your choice, but to call something a fraud without proving so is, actually, slander.

Many of the "artifacts" displayed by Baugh have never been seriously examined. He'll make a big announcement about how he's going to have this-or-that object subjected to a whole battery of tests by leading experts and then merely put it out on display without any examination being done. The recent brouhaha about the easily debunked Alvis Delk print is a perfect example.

dinomanprint.jpg

With some objects we have been waiting decades for Baugh to submit something for verification as he says he will.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

No, he said it was geniune and if he didn't he would have sued the person involved and now you are trying to twist his words around simply because you can't handle the truth.

A genuine footprint found in a rock millions of years old.

That is a fact.

Happens all the time. And the various scientists often send requests to stop misrepresenting them and their work. It even happened here. A year or so ago a scientist joined solely to ask supersport to please stop twisting his work into supporting the opposite of what he said.

Originally posted by rogue06

Another object that most YEC groups have distanced themselves from, and for good reason.

Lacking context I can only assume you are referring to Mr. Conrad.

Roy

Originally posted by Roy

Lacking context I can only assume you are referring to Mr. Conrad.

Roy

The supposed sandal-print on a trilobite from Utah.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

The rock is just ingeniously fitted around the hammer. Chinese love these trick and sell phoney fossils to the Smithsonian using this trick.

No, cause then it would have been labled a fraud, fake or forgery by the evolutionists who examined it and who was qualified to determine so.

Thus, since he did not call it a fake - either in whole or in part - means that both the Wood and the Hammer itself is, in fact, embeded in a chunk of rock identified as cretaeus. The best he could do, from his belief system, was to say it was not part of the local strata but this only begs the question for you have a man made hammer with wooden handle embeded in rock that is 100 million years old.

That is a Fact.

The only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the man made dating methods are hopelessly in error by millions and even billions of years and that this artifact is a remnent of the Antediluvial Civilization described in Genesis and other cultural records.