Creation Evidence Museum

[JTEM]

I wonder if anyone can actually counter this or if the
best you can manage, emotionally, is to act out like an
eight year old child.

Guess which one I'm banking on. Go on: guess.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1709960086403655

[LDagget]

Post by JTEM
I wonder if anyone can actually counter this or if the
best you can manage, emotionally, is to act out like an
eight year old child.
Guess which one I'm banking on. Go on: guess.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1709960086403655

It's pretty easy to suggest a reasonable explanation that could
be readily tested. A brief review of the web fails to find
documentation from tests performed.

The consensus seems to be that it looks very much like a type
of mining hammer what was in use in Texas (where it was found).
The design is consistent with other mining hammers used in the
early 1800s. There are similar artifacts known to be mining
hammers in existence.

Two obvious things to test would be the iron in the hammer head
and the wooden shaft. I'd suggest metallurgical testing of the
atomic composition of the head including isotopic analysis to
be compared with a range of other artifacts known to have been
used in Texas, and of course comparison to a range of iron
artifacts from other sites around the world and other times.

Special note: if anyone tries to make a claim about C14 in the
hammer head they are a complete moron.

I would however test the haft to determine the species of wood
and a C14 date. Special care is needed when doing that date
because the artifact is likely to be partially mineralized with
contamination from the limestone that feed the concretion that
it appears to be embedded in. The carbon in the limestone is
of course a distinct source of carbon from the wood of the shaft.
And of course the carbon in the limestone will be older than
a range relevant to C14 dating.

I can't help but notice that the haft is broken, much like a
mining hammer haft would break.

So ultimately, I speculate it is a mining hammer from the
early 1800s that was broken and discarded in an active limestone
cave. The active cave subsequently produced a concretion that
enclosed the broken hammer. Concretions can form rapidly in
active caves. They are what stalactites and stalagmites are.

I'm not well versed in how to test the age of concretions but
there are likely ways. It would be best to know exactly where
the hammer was found so tests could also be made on the surrounding
limestone sources.

I will add that the fact that none of this, or perhaps better
alternative testing, has apparently be done suggests that the
keepers of this artifact are more interested in marketing a
manufactured controversy than in understanding it.

And to the broader audience, yes, I know. But this isn't
Purina Troll Chow as it lacks the essential invectives.

[Ernest Major]

Post by LDagget
I'm not well versed in how to test the age of concretions but
there are likely ways. It would be best to know exactly where
the hammer was found so tests could also be made on the surrounding
limestone sources.

Dating of recent limestone deposits, especially precipitated ones, is
usually performed using Uranium-Thorium dating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93thorium_dating

This class of techniques has a nominal range from the present to several
hundred thousand years. They depend on the essential insolubility of
Thorium. I would expect that at low ages errors from trace
coprecipitational or detrital Thorium become significant (but a cursory
web search doesn't find any discussion of the magnitude of this - I
imagine a 19th century sample being dated as pre-Columbian). As is
obvious the method depends on the sample being from a chemically closed
system - consequently uranium leaching is a known issue.

[Ernest Major]

Post by Ernest Major

Post by LDagget
I'm not well versed in how to test the age of concretions but
there are likely ways. It would be best to know exactly where
the hammer was found so tests could also be made on the surrounding
limestone sources.

Dating of recent limestone deposits, especially precipitated ones, is
usually performed using Uranium-Thorium dating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93thorium_dating
This class of techniques has a nominal range from the present to several
hundred thousand years. They depend on the essential insolubility of
Thorium. I would expect that at low ages errors from trace
coprecipitational or detrital Thorium become significant (but a cursory
web search doesn't find any discussion of the magnitude of this - I
imagine a 19th century sample being dated as pre-Columbian). As is
obvious the method depends on the sample being from a chemically closed
system - consequently uranium leaching is a known issue.

When Bing CoPilot woke up I asked it about this. It agrees with me, but
fails to provide citations, even when prompted with a second question.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 11:18:56 +0000, the following appeared

Post by LDagget

Post by JTEM
I wonder if anyone can actually counter this or if the
best you can manage, emotionally, is to act out like an
eight year old child.
Guess which one I'm banking on. Go on: guess.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1709960086403655

It's pretty easy to suggest a reasonable explanation that could
be readily tested. A brief review of the web fails to find
documentation from tests performed.
The consensus seems to be that it looks very much like a type
of mining hammer what was in use in Texas (where it was found).
The design is consistent with other mining hammers used in the
early 1800s. There are similar artifacts known to be mining
hammers in existence.
Two obvious things to test would be the iron in the hammer head
and the wooden shaft. I'd suggest metallurgical testing of the
atomic composition of the head including isotopic analysis to
be compared with a range of other artifacts known to have been
used in Texas, and of course comparison to a range of iron
artifacts from other sites around the world and other times.
Special note: if anyone tries to make a claim about C14 in the
hammer head they are a complete moron.
I would however test the haft to determine the species of wood
and a C14 date. Special care is needed when doing that date
because the artifact is likely to be partially mineralized with
contamination from the limestone that feed the concretion that
it appears to be embedded in. The carbon in the limestone is
of course a distinct source of carbon from the wood of the shaft.
And of course the carbon in the limestone will be older than
a range relevant to C14 dating.
I can't help but notice that the haft is broken, much like a
mining hammer haft would break.
So ultimately, I speculate it is a mining hammer from the
early 1800s that was broken and discarded in an active limestone
cave. The active cave subsequently produced a concretion that
enclosed the broken hammer. Concretions can form rapidly in
active caves. They are what stalactites and stalagmites are.
I'm not well versed in how to test the age of concretions but
there are likely ways. It would be best to know exactly where
the hammer was found so tests could also be made on the surrounding
limestone sources.
I will add that the fact that none of this, or perhaps better
alternative testing, has apparently be done suggests that the
keepers of this artifact are more interested in marketing a
manufactured controversy than in understanding it.

Good summation; thanks. As an aside, be prepared to have any
"response" from JTEM the Incredible Bore to truncate your
post to one or two lines (or less) and ignore what you
wrote.

Post by LDagget
And to the broader audience, yes, I know. But this isn't
Purina Troll Chow as it lacks the essential invectives.

Invective is not, strictly speaking, required, but it *does*
tend to generate more responses.

[JTEM]

Post by Bob Casanova
Good summation; thanks. As an aside, be prepared to have any
"response" from JTEM the Incredible Bore to truncate your
post to one or two lines (or less) and ignore what you
wrote.

Gosh, you're so superior! Well at least that's exact what your
every last post translates to. You'd think that if you were
superior to anyone, or anything for that matter, you wouldn't
need to work so hard to convince people... yourself in
particular.

You are the proverbial pot calling the snow "Black."

[RonO]

Post by LDagget

Post by JTEM
I wonder if anyone can actually counter this or if the
best you can manage, emotionally, is to act out like an
eight year old child.
Guess which one I'm banking on. Go on: guess.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1709960086403655

It's pretty easy to suggest a reasonable explanation that could
be readily tested. A brief review of the web fails to find
documentation from tests performed.
The consensus seems to be that it looks very much like a type
of mining hammer what was in use in Texas (where it was found).
The design is consistent with other mining hammers used in the
early 1800s. There are similar artifacts known to be mining
hammers in existence.
Two obvious things to test would be the iron in the hammer head
and the wooden shaft. I'd suggest metallurgical testing of the
atomic composition of the head including isotopic analysis to
be compared with a range of other artifacts known to have been
used in Texas, and of course comparison to a range of iron
artifacts from other sites around the world and other times.
Special note: if anyone tries to make a claim about C14 in the
hammer head they are a complete moron.
I would however test the haft to determine the species of wood
and a C14 date. Special care is needed when doing that date
because the artifact is likely to be partially mineralized with
contamination from the limestone that feed the concretion that
it appears to be embedded in. The carbon in the limestone is
of course a distinct source of carbon from the wood of the shaft.
And of course the carbon in the limestone will be older than
a range relevant to C14 dating.
I can't help but notice that the haft is broken, much like a
mining hammer haft would break.
So ultimately, I speculate it is a mining hammer from the
early 1800s that was broken and discarded in an active limestone
cave. The active cave subsequently produced a concretion that
enclosed the broken hammer. Concretions can form rapidly in
active caves. They are what stalactites and stalagmites are.
I'm not well versed in how to test the age of concretions but
there are likely ways. It would be best to know exactly where
the hammer was found so tests could also be made on the surrounding
limestone sources.
I will add that the fact that none of this, or perhaps better
alternative testing, has apparently be done suggests that the
keepers of this artifact are more interested in marketing a
manufactured controversy than in understanding it.
And to the broader audience, yes, I know. But this isn't
Purina Troll Chow as it lacks the essential invectives.

The hammer is supposed to be preflood according to Baugh, so a carbon
date of less than 1,000 years would mean that it was not preflood. Noah
must have thrown it overboard when the Ark was drifting around for a
year, and it must have been drifting over Texas at the time Noah threw
it overboard. I do not think that Baugh would think that Cain's
descendants (they were the ancient metal workers) had gotten to Texas
before the flood. It sounds like this has more problems for
creationists than for anyone else. How are they going to get a 19th
century hammer onto the ark or anywhere before the flood?

It would be nice if the hammer was made out of the same gopher wood as
the ark was made of, but no one knows what gopher wood was.

Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

Post by RonO

Post by LDagget

Post by JTEM
I wonder if anyone can actually counter this or if the
best you can manage, emotionally, is to act out like an
eight year old child.
Guess which one I'm banking on. Go on: guess.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1709960086403655

It's pretty easy to suggest a reasonable explanation that could
be readily tested. A brief review of the web fails to find
documentation from tests performed.
The consensus seems to be that it looks very much like a type
of mining hammer what was in use in Texas (where it was found).
The design is consistent with other mining hammers used in the
early 1800s. There are similar artifacts known to be mining
hammers in existence.
Two obvious things to test would be the iron in the hammer head
and the wooden shaft. I'd suggest metallurgical testing of the
atomic composition of the head including isotopic analysis to
be compared with a range of other artifacts known to have been
used in Texas, and of course comparison to a range of iron
artifacts from other sites around the world and other times.
Special note: if anyone tries to make a claim about C14 in the
hammer head they are a complete moron.
I would however test the haft to determine the species of wood
and a C14 date. Special care is needed when doing that date
because the artifact is likely to be partially mineralized with
contamination from the limestone that feed the concretion that
it appears to be embedded in. The carbon in the limestone is
of course a distinct source of carbon from the wood of the shaft.
And of course the carbon in the limestone will be older than
a range relevant to C14 dating.
I can't help but notice that the haft is broken, much like a
mining hammer haft would break.
So ultimately, I speculate it is a mining hammer from the
early 1800s that was broken and discarded in an active limestone
cave. The active cave subsequently produced a concretion that
enclosed the broken hammer. Concretions can form rapidly in
active caves. They are what stalactites and stalagmites are.
I'm not well versed in how to test the age of concretions but
there are likely ways. It would be best to know exactly where
the hammer was found so tests could also be made on the surrounding
limestone sources.
I will add that the fact that none of this, or perhaps better
alternative testing, has apparently be done suggests that the
keepers of this artifact are more interested in marketing a
manufactured controversy than in understanding it.
And to the broader audience, yes, I know. But this isn't
Purina Troll Chow as it lacks the essential invectives.

The hammer is supposed to be preflood according to Baugh, so a carbon
date of less than 1,000 years would mean that it was not preflood.  Noah
must have thrown it overboard when the Ark was drifting around for a
year, and it must have been drifting over Texas at the time Noah threw
it overboard.  I do not think that Baugh would think that Cain's
descendants (they were the ancient metal workers) had gotten to Texas
before the flood.  It sounds like this has more problems for
creationists than for anyone else.  How are they going to get a 19th
century hammer onto the ark or anywhere before the flood?
It would be nice if the hammer was made out of the same gopher wood as
the ark was made of, but no one knows what gopher wood was.
Ron Okimoto

Gopher wood is just a misprint. Noah actually said "go for wood".

[LDagget]

Post by erik simpson

Post by RonO

Post by LDagget

Post by JTEM
I wonder if anyone can actually counter this or if the
best you can manage, emotionally, is to act out like an
eight year old child.
Guess which one I'm banking on. Go on: guess.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1709960086403655

It's pretty easy to suggest a reasonable explanation that could
be readily tested. A brief review of the web fails to find
documentation from tests performed.
The consensus seems to be that it looks very much like a type
of mining hammer what was in use in Texas (where it was found).
The design is consistent with other mining hammers used in the
early 1800s. There are similar artifacts known to be mining
hammers in existence.
Two obvious things to test would be the iron in the hammer head
and the wooden shaft. I'd suggest metallurgical testing of the
atomic composition of the head including isotopic analysis to
be compared with a range of other artifacts known to have been
used in Texas, and of course comparison to a range of iron
artifacts from other sites around the world and other times.
Special note: if anyone tries to make a claim about C14 in the
hammer head they are a complete moron.
I would however test the haft to determine the species of wood
and a C14 date. Special care is needed when doing that date
because the artifact is likely to be partially mineralized with
contamination from the limestone that feed the concretion that
it appears to be embedded in. The carbon in the limestone is
of course a distinct source of carbon from the wood of the shaft.
And of course the carbon in the limestone will be older than
a range relevant to C14 dating.
I can't help but notice that the haft is broken, much like a
mining hammer haft would break.
So ultimately, I speculate it is a mining hammer from the
early 1800s that was broken and discarded in an active limestone
cave. The active cave subsequently produced a concretion that
enclosed the broken hammer. Concretions can form rapidly in
active caves. They are what stalactites and stalagmites are.
I'm not well versed in how to test the age of concretions but
there are likely ways. It would be best to know exactly where
the hammer was found so tests could also be made on the surrounding
limestone sources.
I will add that the fact that none of this, or perhaps better
alternative testing, has apparently be done suggests that the
keepers of this artifact are more interested in marketing a
manufactured controversy than in understanding it.
And to the broader audience, yes, I know. But this isn't
Purina Troll Chow as it lacks the essential invectives.

The hammer is supposed to be preflood according to Baugh, so a carbon
date of less than 1,000 years would mean that it was not preflood.  Noah
must have thrown it overboard when the Ark was drifting around for a
year, and it must have been drifting over Texas at the time Noah threw
it overboard.  I do not think that Baugh would think that Cain's
descendants (they were the ancient metal workers) had gotten to Texas
before the flood.  It sounds like this has more problems for
creationists than for anyone else.  How are they going to get a 19th
century hammer onto the ark or anywhere before the flood?
It would be nice if the hammer was made out of the same gopher wood as
the ark was made of, but no one knows what gopher wood was.
Ron Okimoto

Gopher wood is just a misprint. Noah actually said "go for wood".

That in turn was a misunderstood translation. The lord used a wormhole
to supply and ultimately remove the vast mass of water needed for the
flood, obviously. But at the same time the wormhole was used to help
supply Noah with materials needed to build the Ark and for that he
sourced spam mailers from the early 21st Century CE, materials that
were in abundant supply and that nobody would miss. The precise nature
of the pharmaceutical spams is something I'm too shy to discuss but
the phrase "go for wood" might point the way.

[RonO]

Post by LDagget

Post by RonO

Post by LDagget

Post by JTEM
I wonder if anyone can actually counter this or if the
best you can manage, emotionally, is to act out like an
eight year old child.
Guess which one I'm banking on. Go on: guess.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1709960086403655

It's pretty easy to suggest a reasonable explanation that could
be readily tested. A brief review of the web fails to find
documentation from tests performed.
The consensus seems to be that it looks very much like a type
of mining hammer what was in use in Texas (where it was found).
The design is consistent with other mining hammers used in the
early 1800s. There are similar artifacts known to be mining
hammers in existence.
Two obvious things to test would be the iron in the hammer head
and the wooden shaft. I'd suggest metallurgical testing of the
atomic composition of the head including isotopic analysis to
be compared with a range of other artifacts known to have been
used in Texas, and of course comparison to a range of iron
artifacts from other sites around the world and other times.
Special note: if anyone tries to make a claim about C14 in the
hammer head they are a complete moron.
I would however test the haft to determine the species of wood
and a C14 date. Special care is needed when doing that date
because the artifact is likely to be partially mineralized with
contamination from the limestone that feed the concretion that
it appears to be embedded in. The carbon in the limestone is
of course a distinct source of carbon from the wood of the shaft.
And of course the carbon in the limestone will be older than
a range relevant to C14 dating.
I can't help but notice that the haft is broken, much like a
mining hammer haft would break.
So ultimately, I speculate it is a mining hammer from the
early 1800s that was broken and discarded in an active limestone
cave. The active cave subsequently produced a concretion that
enclosed the broken hammer. Concretions can form rapidly in
active caves. They are what stalactites and stalagmites are.
I'm not well versed in how to test the age of concretions but
there are likely ways. It would be best to know exactly where
the hammer was found so tests could also be made on the surrounding
limestone sources.
I will add that the fact that none of this, or perhaps better
alternative testing, has apparently be done suggests that the
keepers of this artifact are more interested in marketing a
manufactured controversy than in understanding it.
And to the broader audience, yes, I know. But this isn't
Purina Troll Chow as it lacks the essential invectives.

The hammer is supposed to be preflood according to Baugh, so a carbon
date of less than 1,000 years would mean that it was not preflood.  Noah
must have thrown it overboard when the Ark was drifting around for a
year, and it must have been drifting over Texas at the time Noah threw
it overboard.  I do not think that Baugh would think that Cain's
descendants (they were the ancient metal workers) had gotten to Texas
before the flood.  It sounds like this has more problems for
creationists than for anyone else.  How are they going to get a 19th
century hammer onto the ark or anywhere before the flood?
It would be nice if the hammer was made out of the same gopher wood as
the ark was made of, but no one knows what gopher wood was.
Ron Okimoto

Gopher wood is just a misprint.  Noah actually said "go for wood".

That in turn was a misunderstood translation. The lord used a wormhole
to supply and ultimately remove the vast mass of water needed for the
flood, obviously. But at the same time the wormhole was used to help
supply Noah with materials needed to build the Ark and for that he
sourced spam mailers from the early 21st Century CE, materials that
were in abundant supply and that nobody would miss. The precise nature
of the pharmaceutical spams is something I'm too shy to discuss but
the phrase "go for wood" might point the way.

It must have also been scam pharmaceuticals because it took Noah a
hundred years to build the Ark out of the spam supplies and he obviously
never got effective product because his progeny production was pretty
dismal in his first 4 hundred years, and did not improve when he started
to build the Ark.

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by RonO
The hammer is supposed to be preflood according to Baugh, so a carbon
date of less than 1,000 years would mean that it was not preflood.

Less than... 4k years, is it not?

I thought the earth was 6k years old and the flood happened like 4k
years ago.

Post by RonO
Noah
must have thrown it overboard when the Ark was drifting around for a
year, and it must have been drifting over Texas at the time Noah threw
it overboard.

That could explain how a post industrial tool, or maybe "iron age" if
we stretch things, arrived in North America.

unfortunately it's *Way* too old to be Noah's -- way, Way, WAY too old!

[JTEM]

Post by LDagget
It's pretty easy to suggest a reasonable explanation that could
be readily tested. A brief review of the web fails to find
documentation from tests performed.

That's part of the problem. You read claims -- "Gazillion year
old hammer!" or "Mostest hottest year in FOREVER!" -- but you
never see any credible science, ESPECIALLY when predictions all
fail.

For me it's fairly simple: A hammer as depicted here is at
the very least an iron age tool. So we are not only missing
an entire iron age civilization to account for this tool, but
all preceding levels of technology.

...assuming one does not merely roll out of the
primordial ooze and jump directly into iron works.

And I know there are some extremely loose parallels with
fossils that do APPEAR to exist without antecedents but, even
they aren't technically the same. After all, you assume a
"New" species evolved and for the most part you can find
species that preceded it, regardless of how distantly they
may seem related on the surface.

Post by LDagget
The consensus seems to be that it looks very much like a type
of mining hammer what was in use in Texas (where it was found).
The design is consistent with other mining hammers used in the
early 1800s. There are similar artifacts known to be mining
hammers in existence.

Absolutely.

Post by LDagget
Two obvious things to test would be the iron in the hammer head
and the wooden shaft. I'd suggest metallurgical testing of the
atomic composition of the head including isotopic analysis to
be compared with a range of other artifacts known to have been
used in Texas, and of course comparison to a range of iron
artifacts from other sites around the world and other times.

I think carbon dating from within the handle would be a slam
dunk. Even if they used a 2,000 year old tree to make it, it's
impossible to explain conventionally, as it is iron, but it's
a mere fraction of the age of known human habitation sites. And,
again, that's if it's 2k years old... which it both know it
isn't.

Post by LDagget
I would however test the haft to determine the species of wood
and a C14 date. Special care is needed when doing that date
because the artifact is likely to be partially mineralized with
contamination from the limestone that feed the concretion that
it appears to be embedded in. The carbon in the limestone is
of course a distinct source of carbon from the wood of the shaft.
And of course the carbon in the limestone will be older than
a range relevant to C14 dating.

It just has to be younger than the 10 hundred gazillion years old
that they're claiming.

The problem is that the claims are so far fetched that nobody wants
to waste resources testing it.

If the people holding it were the least bit confident, they'd fund
the tests. That is circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

Post by LDagget
I will add that the fact that none of this, or perhaps better
alternative testing, has apparently be done suggests that the
keepers of this artifact are more interested in marketing a
manufactured controversy than in understanding it.

Yes.

[John Harshman]

Post by JTEM
I wonder if anyone can actually counter this or if the
best you can manage, emotionally, is to act out like an
eight year old child.
Guess which one I'm banking on. Go on: guess.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1709960086403655

I believe an explanation can be found in a prophecy from the Book of
Brian: "At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the
young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers
that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight
o'clock."

[Pro Plyd]

Post by John Harshman

Post by JTEM
I wonder if anyone can actually counter this or if the
best you can manage, emotionally, is to act out like an
eight year old child.
Guess which one I'm banking on. Go on: guess.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1709960086403655

I believe an explanation can be found in a prophecy from the Book of
Brian: "At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the
young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers
that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight
o'clock."

Is that daylight saving time?