This aught to stir up some debate.

Young earthers have no problem accepting the many anomalous artifacts that have been found, like man made objects found in coal, shale, and other 'million year old' strata, yet these facts are ignored by Evolutionists and many 'old earthers'.

A metal sphere found in a 3 Billion Year old chunk of Precambrian Strata and Letters found in a chunk of 500 Million Year old Marble.

And, the kicker, is the man made hammer found embeded in a chunk of Cretaceuas Strata where the handle is still wood and has not petrafied or rotted away.

What sayest the uncle's monkey?

Originally posted by Theoferrum

This aught to stir up some debate.

Young earthers have no problem accepting the many anomalous artifacts that have been found, like man made objects found in coal, shale, and other 'million year old' strata, yet these facts are ignored by Evolutionists and many 'old earthers'.

A metal sphere found in a 3 Billion Year old chunk of Precambrian Strata and Letters found in a chunk of 500 Million Year old Marble.

And, the kicker, is the man made hammer found embeded in a chunk of Cretaceuas Strata where the handle is still wood and has not petrafied or rotted away.

What sayest the uncle's monkey?

You provided no evidence for your claims.





Regards, Roland

Originally posted by wattsr1

You provided no evidence for your claims.

Regards, Roland

I wanted to see if you were awake...

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: T-Shirt Ninja

Dude, you can't argue by weblink. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Here is the one for the Hammer :

• Edited by a Moderator •

Originally posted by Theoferrum

I wanted to see if you were awake...

Forbidden Archeology :

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/anomalous.htm

So why not take an argument from it and present it?

I do believe I saw someone post a link of rebuttals somewhere a few weeks ago.

Should I post an anti-link to your link?

Then you can post a link to my anti-link.

Then I can post an anti-link to your link.



Regards, Roland

.

Originally posted by wattsr1

So why not take an argument from it and present it?

I do believe I saw someone post a link of rebuttals somewhere a few weeks ago.

Should I post an anti-link to your link?

Then you can post a link to my anti-link.

Then I can post an anti-link to your link.



Regards, Roland

Perhaps you should explain what a man made hammer with wooden handle embeded in cretaceus does to you comparative dating methods of tree rings and ice core samples.

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

Originally posted by Theoferrum

This aught to stir up some debate.

Young earthers have no problem accepting the many anomalous artifacts that have been found, like man made objects found in coal, shale, and other 'million year old' strata, yet these facts are ignored by Evolutionists and many 'old earthers'.

A metal sphere found in a 3 Billion Year old chunk of Precambrian Strata and Letters found in a chunk of 500 Million Year old Marble.

And, the kicker, is the man made hammer found embeded in a chunk of Cretaceuas Strata where the handle is still wood and has not petrafied or rotted away.

What sayest the uncle's monkey?

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

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

Shhhhh - don't give it away...

Here we go :

"This coinlike object, from a well boring near Lawn Ridge, Illinois, was reportedly found at a depth of about 114 feet below the surface (Winchell 1881, p. 170). According to information supplied by the Illinois State Geological Survey, the deposits containing the coin are between 200,000 and 400,000 years old."

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/anomalous.htm

So, this would have us believe (i.e. 'old earthers') that the flood occured circa 300,000 BC and yet this is like the Constellation of Taurus being painted on a cave in France somewhere for the age of Taurus was 4KBC (i.e. spring equinox in that constellation) and to think that the paintings themselves were made the last time this was the case (i.e. 29,000 BC) defies logic - that the ink of the cave paintings would last that long.

"The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimball County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal. The wooden handle appears to have been broken off, then worn smooth where it protruded from the rock concretion. Photo G6 shows the handle from the top with the hammerhead removed. The dark area in the wood is where it has partially turned to coal. The end of the handle visible through the top of the hammerhead eye appears sawn off, as shown in photo E2."

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

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Perhaps you should explain what a man made hammer with wooden handle embeded in cretaceus does to you comparative dating methods of tree rings and ice core samples.

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

Originally posted by Theoferrum

Here we go :

"This coinlike object, from a well boring near Lawn Ridge, Illinois, was reportedly found at a depth of about 114 feet below the surface (Winchell 1881, p. 170). According to information supplied by the Illinois State Geological Survey, the deposits containing the coin are between 200,000 and 400,000 years old."

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/anomalous.htm

So, this would have us believe (i.e. 'old earthers') that the flood occured circa 300,000 BC and yet this is like the Constellation of Taurus being painted on a cave in France somewhere for the age of Taurus was 4KBC (i.e. spring equinox in that constellation) and to think that the paintings themselves were made the last time this was the case (i.e. 29,000 BC) defies logic - that the ink of the cave paintings would last that long.

Since the Illinois State GS supplied the information, does the author provide any references to this information?


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Theoferrum

"The London Artifact was found near London, Texas in Kimball County. The site is part of a large geographical zone called the Edwards Plateau. It primarily consists of Cretaceous rock. In June of 1934, Max Hahn discovered a rock, sitting loose on a rock ledge beside a waterfall outside London, Texas. Noticing that this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, he and family members cracked it open with a hammer and chisel, exposing the hammerhead to the light of day for the first time since the stone formed around it. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. In the resulting nick, bright, shiny iron was exposed. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The metal hammerhead is approximately six inches (15.24cm) long with a nominal diameter of one inch. This seems somewhat small for a gross pounding instrument, suggesting that this tool was meant for fine work or soft metal. The wooden handle appears to have been broken off, then worn smooth where it protruded from the rock concretion. Photo G6 shows the handle from the top with the hammerhead removed. The dark area in the wood is where it has partially turned to coal. The end of the handle visible through the top of the hammerhead eye appears sawn off, as shown in photo E2."

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

Here you are, since you wish to argue largely by link and cut 'n paste:-

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

TWeb's GlennMorton had an input I see.


Regards, Roland

"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.

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.