Originally posted by rogue06

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.

So, did Dr. Cherkinsky actually test the material to verify that it was an iron concretion? No, he just thought it was which throws your next comment out the window until it is tested one way or another however, as I stated in the post above carbon dating would be affected by heat and leaching thus rendering a false age of 33000 years when the flood occured 1666 FC (From Creation) or about 4516 BC rendering the date off by about 30,000 years, more or less.

In 1944 Newton Anderson claimed to have found this bell inside a lump of coal that was mined near his house in West Virginia. When Newton dropped the lump it broke, revealing a bell encased inside. What is a brass bell with an iron clapper doing in coal that is supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old? According to Norm Scharbough's book Ammunition (which includes a compilation of many such "coal anecdotes") the bell was extensively analyzed at the University of Oklahoma and it was found to contain an unusual mixture of metals, different from any modern usage. Photo and text from Genesis Park.

http://www.s8int.com/page8.html

The differences in the metal content of all these anomolous artifacts - something they all share in common, by the way - that is different from any metal content today is partially due to the increased barometric pressure that existed before the flood - about twice what it is today.

Here is a screw that is embedded in an unknown black stone (which caused the finder to theorize it came from space but that is because he actually thinks that the dating methods are reliable when they are not).

Mr. Zhilin Wang found this stone on a field research trip to the Mazong Mountain area located on the border of Gansu and Xijiang provinces. The pear-shaped stone is extremely hard and has a mysterious black color. The most surprising part of the stone is the imbedded 6 cm cone-shaped metal bar which bears clear screw threads. More than 10 geologists and global physicists from the National Land Resources Bureau of Gansu Province, Colored Metal Survey Bureau of Gansu Province, the Institute of Geology and Minerals Research of China Academy, Lanzhou Branch, and the School of Resources and Environment of Lanzhou College gathered to study the origin of this mysterious stone. After a discussion about its possibility of being man-made and the possible reasons for its formation, the scientists unanimously labeled the stone as one of the most valuable in China and in the world for collection, research, and archaeology studies.

http://www.s8int.com/page10.html

This guy found an Antediluvial Electric Plug in a chunk of Granite - I wonder if the rest of the plug is still encased in the rock?

My Rock's material is solid natural quartz and feldspar granite (very little observed mica; I am not a Geologist) - not an accretion, concretion or pumice - does not contain any resins, cements, glues, limestone, mortar, or other non-granite binding agents - is very hard, is estimated to be at least 100,000 years old, and has embedded in it an electrical-like component (I assume to be a connector of some sort).

http://www.s8int.com/page15.html

I should have titled this post Antediluvia

On Page 17 is a discussion of the Sphinx however though they have proven that the Sphinx has experienced an extreme amount of precipitation, the dates of the Sphinx given by the Egyptologists are assuredly correct which just happens to fit the timing of the flood in the Bible.

Egyptologists will tell you that in order to build the Sphinx, Menkarah cut into the causeway leading up to Khufu's Pyramid and thus there is absolutely no doubt that the Sphinx was built after the Great Pyramid.

What all this tells us is that the Antediluvial Civilization existed and perished circa 4KBC (4000 years BC).

http://www.s8int.com/page17.html

Something tells me this thread is lonely and really want to go stay with its brother "Adam's Body in Noah's Ark" one over in the Psychiatric Ward.

Just a hunch.

- T

Originally posted by Theoferrum

So, did Dr. Cherkinsky actually test the material to verify that it was an iron concretion? No, he just thought it was which throws your next comment out the window until it is tested one way or another however, as I stated in the post above carbon dating would be affected by heat and leaching thus rendering a false age of 33000 years when the flood occured 1666 FC (From Creation) or about 4516 BC rendering the date off by about 30,000 years, more or less.

Couldn't help but notice that you skipped over the fact that the person who wrote the article you are citing has admitted that he doesn't know what the object is though continues to call it wood in the popular press.

As for Cherkinsky, that wasn't his job and only said: "“It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood.” Catch that Theo? "It wasn't wood... with structures lightly similar to wood." He's even saying that even the resemblance to wood wasn't very good.

And I also couldn't help but notice that you completely avoided the part that shows that the entire idea of testing it using C14 testing was ludicrous from the start and predestined to get crap results:

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.

Originally posted by Theoferrum

In 1944 Newton Anderson claimed to have found this bell inside a lump of coal that was mined near his house in West Virginia. When Newton dropped the lump it broke, revealing a bell encased inside. What is a brass bell with an iron clapper doing in coal that is supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old? According to Norm Scharbough's book Ammunition (which includes a compilation of many such "coal anecdotes") the bell was extensively analyzed at the University of Oklahoma and it was found to contain an unusual mixture of metals, different from any modern usage. Photo and text from Genesis Park.

http://www.s8int.com/page8.html

Operative word highlighted. If their was supporting documentation, even witnesses, they would be prominently displayed with the claim. IOW, it has about as much legitimacy as my claim that I dug the following out of a petrified pumpkin in 1960:

600032.jpg

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.

Who are the experts, or ah . . . maybe X-spurts?

Originally posted by Theoferrum

This guy found an Antediluvial Electric Plug in a chunk of Granite - I wonder if the rest of the plug is still encased in the rock?

My Rock's material is solid natural quartz and feldspar granite (very little observed mica; I am not a Geologist) - not an accretion, concretion or pumice - does not contain any resins, cements, glues, limestone, mortar, or other non-granite binding agents - is very hard, is estimated to be at least 100,000 years old, and has embedded in it an electrical-like component (I assume to be a connector of some sort).

http://www.s8int.com/page15.html

I should have titled this post Antediluvia

And it just couldn't be something like this?:

reptilerock.jpg

Originally posted by Theoferrum

[
B]An Auroch[/b]...

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

Because you are a gulllible idiot who believes the lies of propagandists.

There is nothing particularly surprising about an aurochs skull with a bullet hole in it - if indeed it actually exists and isn't just something your source made up - because the aurochs didn'y go extinct thousands and thousands of years ago, but only a few hundred years ago, after the invention of the musket.

Roy

An electric blanket for lizards. The human world at the dawn of the 21st century is a strange and amazing place...

-Neil

Originally posted by Tiggy

Something tells me this thread is lonely and really want to go stay with its brother "Adam's Body in Noah's Ark" one over in the Psychiatric Ward.

Just a hunch.

- T

With over a thousand hits, I doubt it.

But you just let everyone know that that is what you would like to see happen to this thread because you can't address the facts.

Originally posted by rogue06

Couldn't help but notice that you skipped over the fact that the person who wrote the article you are citing has admitted that he doesn't know what the object is though continues to call it wood in the popular press.

As for Cherkinsky, that wasn't his job and only said: "“It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood.” Catch that Theo? "It wasn't wood... with structures lightly similar to wood." He's even saying that even the resemblance to wood wasn't very good.

And I also couldn't help but notice that you completely avoided the part that shows that the entire idea of testing it using C14 testing was ludicrous from the start and predestined to get crap results:

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.

And apparently you missed the fact that the material yielded a carbon date regardless of how much it may be in error which, as far as I know, you can't do with a piece of iron. So, if it ain't wood, how did they even get a carbon date for it, may I ask?

Originally posted by rogue06

Operative word highlighted. If their was supporting documentation, even witnesses, they would be prominently displayed with the claim. IOW, it has about as much legitimacy as my claim that I dug the following out of a petrified pumpkin in 1960:

Attachment 71098

Well, Rouge, explain to us where he got the Bell with the noted discreptancies in metallurgy from anything made today, as the article mentions?