Originally posted by Theoferrum

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.

Are 'evolutionists' qualified to look at geological samples?

Anyways, if you accept this 'evolutionist' claim that this sample is real, why not accept an 'evolutionist' claiming that the earth is 4.55 bn years old? After all, the hammer-in-rock sample could be a miracle, or just a conspiracy theory involving a time machine, a rubber band and a whole load of CIA operatives in collusion with the freemasons. Or do you just pick 'n choose what aligns best with your predetermined conclusions in any subject?

Originally posted by Omega Red

Are 'evolutionists' qualified to look at geological samples?

Anyways, if you accept this 'evolutionist' claim that this sample is real, why not accept an 'evolutionist' claiming that the earth is 4.55 bn years old? After all, the hammer-in-rock sample could be a miracle, or just a conspiracy theory involving a time machine, a rubber band and a whole load of CIA operatives in collusion with the freemasons. Or do you just pick 'n choose what aligns best with your predetermined conclusions in any subject?

Because the foundation for dating the strata of the earth is mere guess work with no actually dating occuring other then that they wanted the earth to be billions of years old.

The logical conclusion is that the hammer in the rock is an artifact from the Antediluvial world that was buried in the flood.

You want to talk about the CIA and Poppy George Bush Sr some more?

Originally posted by rogue06

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.

Attachment 71053

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

Really? First you said a Evolutionary Geologists visually inspected the Hammer and Rock and now you are saying that Dr. Baugh is, what, scared to let the scientists look at his other artifacts.

I'm sure he must have evolutionists lining up at the door to look at the other artifacts however, be that as it may (or may not) be, point is, in fact, that the Hammer with Wood Handle is a Genuine Artifact that 'scientists' totally ignore and the only logical explanation is that their dating methods are off by millions of years and this is an Antediluvial Artifact.

Originally posted by rogue06

The supposed sandal-print on a trilobite from Utah.

Proof please.

Here are a whole lot more from this website that I am gonna check out - hope the links show up :

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 73 NEXT>>>

http://www.s8int.com/

"An Auroch is an large, extinct "buffalo like" animal. Many skeletons of this extinct type have been found in Europe. What is remarkable about one in particular in the Moscow Museum of Paleontology is that it has a bullet hole in its skull. The hole is round, without radial cracks that would result from slower projectiles like spears and arrows. The only known projectile that leaves this kind of smooth, round hole without radial cracks is a bullet because of its velocity. The auroch survived the wound and lived long enough for unmistakable calcification to appear at the site of the injury.

How did an animal that became extinct supposedly thousands and thousands of years ago come by a "modern" bullet hole in its skull."

http://www.s8int.com/page4.html

Well, if the dates are off by millions of years that means man lived at the same time as dinosaurs which would explain why the wall at Baalbek is so high.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Here are a whole lot more from this website that I am gonna check out - hope the links show up :

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 73 NEXT>>>

http://www.s8int.com/

link above

"..On November 17, 3398 B.C., two billion people, with their astonishing technology, vanished from the face of the earth. This lost super race beat us to the moon(?), to computers, and to nuclear war. A cosmic disaster occurred which wiped out a super civilization and generated 6,000 foot tidal waves the disaster known to early civilizations worldwide as the great flood (the deluge mentioned in the book of Genesis in the Bible, for which Noah constructed the Ark to save a remnant of mankind). :

---

© source where applicable

Ok, yes, sure, how else could it have been?

- FreezBee

Here is a footprint in One Billion Year old Granite at Gowers Mountain in Cleveland National Forest.

http://www.s8int.com/page5.html

Here is his take on the Hammer :

"The following is excerpted from "Darwin's Mistake", by Hans Zilner.


"This ancient tool has a simple form, similar to the type of hammer that is still common in Germany today. The handle now is a very hard petrified crystal with an intact structure. It was possible to ascertain that the interior of the handle had partly turned into porous coal.

There is no way to scientifically explain this combination of carbonization and petrification. I have not heard of a similar piece, found anywhere in the world. Two very different processes must have occurred simultaneously or in short succession. Crystal petrifaction requires an ecosphere of running water whereas for the development of porous coal, one could, for example, assume that fire was the necessary agent. Water and fire, it goes without saying, are two very different and mutually exclusive elements."

http://www.s8int.com/page6.html

Man made pipes embeded in solid rock on a Mountain in Mount Baigong in the Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province.

http://www.s8int.com/page6.html

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Here are a whole lot more from this website that I am gonna check out - hope the links show up :

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 73 NEXT>>>

http://www.s8int.com/

So much woo, so little time...

- T

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Proof please.

OK

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Man made pipes embeded in solid rock on a Mountain in Mount Baigong in the Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province.

http://www.s8int.com/page6.html

From the same link :

"More strange is that there are also some pipes in the lake, some reaching above water surface and some buried below, with similar shapes and thickness with those on the beach. According to Qin Jianwen, head of the publicity department of the Delingha government, the scraps were once taken to a local smeltery for analysis. The result shows that they are made up of 30 percent ferric oxide with a large amount of silicon dioxide and calcium oxide. Eight percent of the content could not be identified. "The large content of silicon dioxide and calcium oxide is a result of long interaction between iron and sandstone, which means the pipes must be very old," said Liu Shaolin, the engineer who did the analysis. "This result has made the site even more mysterious," Qin said."Nature is harsh here. There are no residents let alone modern industry in the area, only a few migrant herdsmen to the north of the mountain."

So, how did these man made pipes get embedded in Sandstone that is (depending on who you ask) about 200 Million years old?

Like the Hammer and Wood, here you have proof positive that the dating methods are off by millions and even billions of years and proof of the Antediluvial civilization that perished in the flood.

Originally posted by Tiggy

So much woo, so little time...

- T

\

I'll remember you said that...

Here is another one :

Dating dilemma : fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone

Creation 21(3):39–41 June 1999 by Andrew Snelling

In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon. Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character of the wood was still evident. A piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...fossilwood.asp

The very fact that they were able to cardon date the wood proves that it, nor the sandstone it is embedded in, is 200 Million years old. Further, it is doubtful that piece of wood would have lasted the dated 33 Thousand Years indicating, as stated, that "All man made dating methods are subject to error due to heat and leaching" as the Smithsonian stated to myself in a letter.

Thus, the earth is a lot younger then most people believe and the Bible is the only record that fits all the facts left in the fossil record.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Here is another one :

Dating dilemma : fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone

Creation 21(3):39–41 June 1999 by Andrew Snelling

In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon. Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character of the wood was still evident. A piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...fossilwood.asp

The very fact that they were able to cardon date the wood proves that it, nor the sandstone it is embedded in, is 200 Million years old. Further, it is doubtful that piece of wood would have lasted the dated 33 Thousand Years indicating, as stated, that "All man made dating methods are subject to error due to heat and leaching" as the Smithsonian stated to myself in a letter.

Thus, the earth is a lot younger then most people believe and the Bible is the only record that fits all the facts left in the fossil record.

As Snelling acknowledges he had the wood “sent for radiocarbon (¹⁴C) analysis.” Radiocarbon dating has a maximum range of something like 50,000 years, meaning it can’t reliably date anything older than that. Reputable scientists all readily understand this and don’t bother having older artifacts radiocarbon dated knowing full well the results will be meaningless since the test was never designed to do that.

Most people can appreciate the fact if you use tools not designed to do a job that you are more often than not likely to get less than satisfactory results. It’s sort of like blaming a microwave for not being able to slow cook something like a crock pot. It never was designed to and any attempts to get it to work that way are not very likely to succeed. But like the poor craftsman, YECs choose to blame the tools for the mistakes.

Moreover, describing the object as being wood is highly misleading in that it remains unidentified. Neither the lab that examined it nor Snelling himself are sure what it is. In fact, the lab manager, Dr. Alexander Cherkinsky has stated that “It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood.”

And as an aside, not that it matters, but a date of 33,720 years is still a lot older than 6000 years, meaning the evidence you selected to present serves to discredit your YEC claim. Just sayin.