Everything We Have Been Taught About Our Origins Is A Lie!!

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I was sent this and I thought it would interest alot of you guys :-)

Sorry in advance if this has already been posted.


In June 1936 Max Hahn and his wife Emma were on a walk beside a waterfall near to London, Texas, when they noticed a rock with wood protruding from its core. They decided to take the oddity home and later cracked it open with a hammer and a chisel. What they found within shocked the archaeological and scientific community. Embedded in the rock was what appeared to be some type of ancient man made hammer.

A team of archaeologists analysed and dated it. The rock encasing the hammer was dated to more than 400 million years old. The hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Additionally, a section of the wooden handle had begun the metamorphosis into coal. The hammer’s head, made of more than 96% iron, is far more pure than anything nature could have achieved without assistance from relatively modern smelting methods.

Pictures and more are via this link :-

www.maltanow.com.mt...




posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Of course, the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs would destroy the evolutionary theory, interesting indeed


An an older thread about this somesay it was a hoax.
2007 thread
London Hammer Hoax
edit on 23-6-2014 by skyblueworld because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

A team of archaeologists analysed and dated it. The rock encasing the hammer was dated to more than 400 million years old. The hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Additionally, a section of the wooden handle had begun the metamorphosis into coal.


The London Hammer is clearly a hammer from the mid to late 1800s. There's nothing about that handle that is "turning into coal." It's a hammer in a concretion.
edit on 2014-6-23 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Hoax then??? Everything mentioned in the article??



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: tizza2k

It's too bad our dating system is so flawed or things like this might be able to be "proof"....I dated the hammer without running tests and my date was between 1,400-3,000,000 years old....There is no way to be able to find a date to old relics with our flawed systems, carbon dating is such a joke I never believe anything they put dates on. Not saying this couldn't be possible, just saying the system in which we use is garbage.

That would be something to find out that we had advanced technology as humans millions of years ago though!



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: tizza2k
....There is no way to be able to find a date to old relics with our flawed systems, carbon dating is such a joke I never believe anything they put dates on. Not saying this couldn't be possible, just saying the system in which we use is garbage.


Yes, the carbon dating system is a joke. In fact, it constitutes a religion. Like religion, scientists make assumptions that they have no way of ever verifying, especially not within the near short-term. But I guess whatever floats one's boat. "Carbon dating is science. I'll subscribe to that religion."



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: tizza2k

there's a group of people with a vested interest in undermining the established world order & present scheme of things..
what better way to do it than stunts that get everyone talking about ancient aliens, forbidden history & leprechauns,
check the topic about egyptian runes carved in an australian cliff (..pretty much the same thing going on over there)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
An obscure news site if ever I saw one. Not to mention the conspicuous lack of documented sources and peer-reviewed expert opinions, and abundance of yellow journalism not-so-subtly nudging us towards a predetermined conclusion via a multitude of thoroughly documented propaganda devices. In short, the crappiest attempt at an anti-evolution article I have ever beheld. Holy crud. I can't stop laughing.

Scrap this pile of garbage and back to business, peeps.


My vote: HOAX!!!
edit on 23-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
People want so bad for their religion to be true they will believe anything...... I bet there's not an atheist here who buys this kinda stuff.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

It's too bad our dating system is so flawed or things like this might be able to be



Yes, the carbon dating system is a joke. In fact, it constitutes a religion. Like religion, scientists make assumptions that they have no way of ever verifying, especially not within the near short-term.


Carbon dating isn't perfect but it's a very useful tool. Most people deriding carbon dating are exaggerating it's shortcomings in an attempt to bolster a creationist agenda or some other such woo. I don't need carbon dating to look at a wooden handle and know it's not 500 myr old.

EDIT:

I searched to ATS threads on the London Hammer and I came across a link in one of the posts to this page by Glen J. Kuban that contains a pretty fair assessment.

edit on 2014-6-23 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
sorry wrong thread. will come back and read this one.
edit on 23-6-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
If the hammer was really old the wood would have long rotted away. The "team of archaeologists" would not use radiocarbon dating for the rock, which could well have been concrete. In fact, this is such a hoax as to be silly.


originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
There is no way to be able to find a date to old relics with our flawed systems, carbon dating is such a joke I never believe anything they put dates on.


Are you able to give a reason why you think radiocarbon dating is a joke. On the whole it is accurate and this is supported by "in the field" evidence by archaeologists. In fact, do you know anything of the science behind RCD?

Regards



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Its a joke since they discovered the radioactive decay rates ( which we use to date things) are infact changing

So if the decay rate isnt constant it is useless as a timekeeper



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Not only were there much older cycles, and some with large populations that went into the solar system and colonized, but....one has to ask, was earth always here?

Where was earth 2 million years ago?

100 million years ago during the dino days?

Did it get moved? Did the moon get moved too?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: UNIT76


check the topic about egyptian runes carved in an australian cliff...


Egyptian what? HUH ???



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE

People want so bad for their religion to be true they will believe anything...... I bet there's not an atheist here who buys this kinda stuff.


This has NOTHING to do with religion and for me, whether the hammer is genuine would have NOTHING to do whether I believe in a creator, have whatever spiritual or religious belief.

It's as simple as that: This hammer looks EXACTLY like a 1800s hammer. Since it looks, feels and smells like a 1800s hammer, any assumption it's millions old is BY DEFAULT wrong or nonsense. (I could as well claim it's a BigFoot fetus embedded in stone, ignoring that it looks like an ordinary hammer).

The sad fact that this hammer is displayed somewhere in a creationist museum just speaks for itself. On a positive side-note, I hope and I believe there are SOME religious people out there who would actually agree it's simply just an old hammer from the 1800s, not ALL of them are denying reality.
edit on 6/23/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
If the hammer was really old the wood would have long rotted away. The "team of archaeologists" would not use radiocarbon dating for the rock, which could well have been concrete. In fact, this is such a hoax as to be silly.


originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
There is no way to be able to find a date to old relics with our flawed systems, carbon dating is such a joke I never believe anything they put dates on.


Are you able to give a reason why you think radiocarbon dating is a joke. On the whole it is accurate and this is supported by "in the field" evidence by archaeologists. In fact, do you know anything of the science behind RCD?

Regards


Sure....When about 90% of the carbon dating articles date something like so..


The Wild Dates of Carbon Dating
A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. 3
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old. 4
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. 5
“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” 6
“Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”7
Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.8


This is just a minor example of what I am talking about, anytime I read a carbon dated OLD object it is dated between 60,000 and 2 million years old....Now how in the world would anyone look at the range and believe a word they are saying? Even if it is a 10,000 year range, how could intelligent people like everyone on here actually believe that to be fact? Some things people have beaten into their minds about this stuff is just amazing to me.


They might have to test a sample 5 or 6 times until they get the age that they want. How would you know any of the dates given are right if you are getting a different one every time?



“With their short 5,700 year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980’s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old. [ii]



Now think about that for a minute. If radiocarbon is still forming faster than it is decaying, that means the earth is less than 30,000 years old. It also means that you cannot carbon date anything! The reason is because you would have to know when the fossil was alive to know how much carbon 14 was in the atmosphere at that time. It simply does not work.
If you find a fossil in the dirt, the amount of carbon 14 can be measured and the rate of decay can be determined. However, that is all that can be determined. It is impossible to know how much carbon 14 was in it at death and it is impossible to know if carbon 14 has always decayed at the same rate.
If the earth had a canopy of water above the atmosphere, or a canopy of ice, that would have blocked out a lot of the radiation from the sun. This would have prevented most of the carbon 14 from even forming. Animals that lived before the flood would have lived in a world with much less carbon 14 to begin with. There may have been none at all, but the amount would certainly be less than what we have today.



Here are some things to consider about carbon dating. When something of known age is dated: it doesn’t work. When something of unknown age is dated: carbon dating is assumed to work. That is not science!


www.truthingenesis.com...

www.nytimes.com...

Now there are TONS of sites that speak about the major flaws in carbon dating, but most people just don't want to read about them. It is a system that is nowhere near accurate and the dates given are mostly a joke. I hope some people will read a little more into carbon dating and see for themselves it is not a reliable source for dating objects.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

The building look exactly like they were destroyed by demolitions. Since it looks smells and feels like a controled demolition any assumption that it was nnot a cd is by default wrong or nonsnse. I might as well say it was a sparrow that flew int the building's.

See how your example fails?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Yes, I am sure there are loads of examples where radiocarbon dating produces anomalous results. RCD is effected by a variety of external factors, including contamination. However, I prefer to agree with the mainstream field approach to use RCD and context to arrive at a scale of age. If you want the exact date with no margin of error then you'll always be disappointed. Just like the hammer in concrete which is the OP.

Regards



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tizza2k

This is an old subject with books written about stuff discovered that "doesnt belong' . One I remember being a human footprint with a crushed trilobite from the dino days together.

Another was human footprints alongside dinosaur tracks.

Go to the site OOPARTS to begin searching and Ill get back with a few titles for you....alot more like this have turned up before.





top topics
 
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join