Hammer Found in Cretaceous
13 Comments - 1449 Views
Human Articact Found in Cretaceous Rock
Submitted By bigdog on 09/02/27
FreeHovind, bigdog, Discussions
Here is an article about a hammer found in cretaceous rock. Athough the article places doubts, the artifact is a good example of how cretaceous rock may not be millions of years old. Of course I don't believe it is. The hammer also looks old but intelligently put together.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm
» Reply to CommentActually the hammer was in a concretion (with a mo
rationalist (ben)
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/27 - 2:08 GMT
Actually the hammer was in a concretion (with a modern shell as well) and not ancient rock. If you are going to lie you shouldn't point to a website that shows how it is a lie. I know you don't trust the Earth is as old as science says. The hammer is more than likely younger than the state of Texas.
» Reply to Comment
"The stone is real, and it looks impress
"The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar
with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck
in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself
is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an
intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if
the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically
soluble (Cole, 1985)."Ta-Da!! The joy of reading!
» Reply to CommentHold on
Did you actually read your link?
» Reply to Comment
I put an opposing viewpoint on purpose. It's int
I put an opposing viewpoint on purpose. It's interesting reading. One of the main points for me is that it obviously didn't take millions of years for the rock to cover the hammer. I bet if a dinosaur bone was in it they would say both were millions of years old. And Ben stop trying to be the 'doctor of science' and Ben the 'Rationalist' at the same time. I think that most people have you figured out.
» Reply to CommentYou really think I have a sock puppet account
You really think I have a sock puppet account? Perhaps the moderator will be so kind as to give the IP address for our posts. I post from home and work. No others post from those locations so you could easily tell we are not the same person.
If a dinosaur bone was truly in a rock and not in a concretion then you are right. You have little understanding of geology it would appear.
» Reply to Comment
I'm sure K-Ar dating would properly date it then
I'm sure K-Ar dating would properly date it then. Sure
» Reply to CommentK-Ar dating would properly date what? The ham
K-Ar dating would properly date what? The hammer is not old. The minerals formed a concretion which is not unlike what cement does. It is not a conspiracy.
» Reply to CommentLooks like concretion to me. If this is such
Looks like concretion to me. If this is such a huge claim, why didn't if get submitted for peer review? and more importantly, where is the hammer now?
» Reply to CommentYou are aware that all fossils form relativel
You are aware that all fossils form relatively rapidly...right?...if they didn't they would rot. It seems that hovindites all seem to believe that fossils are supposed to take millions of years to form.
» Reply to CommentThey also apparently think that concrete take
They also apparently think that concrete takes millions of years to dry based on this story...
» Reply to CommentMoab man
http:
Moab man
http://www.answersincreation.org/moab_man.htm
The bones were found 15 feet deep in loose sand, not in a rock matrix.
Their postures were similar to known Indian burials. The bones were
unfossilized and partly decayed, and dating them yielded an age of 210
+/- 70 years. In short, they were a fairly recent burial.
Their postures were similar to known Indian burials. The bones were
unfossilized and partly decayed, and dating them yielded an age of 210
+/- 70 years. In short, they were a fairly recent burial.
malachite man
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm
fossilzed fingers
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC120.html
The biggest problem with this one is that it was not documented in situ and as such the association with the Cretaceous can not be confirmed. This one problem renders it useless.
Dinosaur tracks found in cretaceous
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/large_dinosaur_tracks_found_in_cretaceous_period_polar_region
» Reply to CommentI am confused 9tails. Are you trying to prove
I am confused 9tails. Are you trying to prove that man and dinosaurs didn't live together? Good job.
» Reply to CommentYes i drew that concusion too, i assume it wa
Yes i drew that concusion too, i assume it was unintentional
None of this site's content is copyrighted, unless it specifically says otherwise.
