Hammer found in Cretaceous rock (75 to 100 million years old)

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 12:34 PM
And in what shape would a piece of steel or iron be after subjected to the forces you describe? By all reason the wood would be, at best, fossilized.
I would expect iron to be just a rust colored stain. Escpecially when this object was not hacked out of the rock, but found exposed.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 12:45 PM
Carbon dating hasneverclaimed to give an accurate date...
it works out roughly how many half-lives have passed, room for error increases crazily every half life that passes. radioactive decay is not that predictable.
As for this hammer.. complete BS in myopinion.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:11 PM
If the hammer is made of metal that is hard to reproduce today owing to its purity, which implies a technology at least as equal as ours. Then WHY does it looks such an "old" style hammer, like on from the 19th century?

How many new hammers today that that primitive looking head to them?

Sorry but this one doesn't cut the ice in terms of believability.
This exhib goes well with the Fosillized boot and hat... - looks like the same era.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:18 PM

would expect iron to be just a rust colored stain.

Ahh...but one in the shape of a skyscraper, hehe.... Regardless, the six pack ring will remain

Future Archeologist: "This appears to be some kind of wrist restraint... Either the ancient ones had 6 hands, or this was used to hold 3 prisoners at once...."

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:32 PM
Well, yeah......

If they're lucky, they'll find a cooler with cans intact!

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:38 PM
*wonders what millions year old Fosters would taste like...*

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:42 PM
Browha says:

Carbon dating hasneverclaimed to give an accurate date... it works out roughly how many half-lives have passed, room for error increases crazily every half life that passes. radioactive decay is not that predictable.

That is incorrect. Radioactive decay is very predictable.

Carbon-14 (C14) dating is considered accurate to within about five percent of the actual date, as cross-checked by other dating methods, including dendrochronology and historical written records.

The C14 atoms that cosmic rays create combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis. Animals and people eat plants and take in C14 as well. The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to C14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant, about 1 C14 to a trillion C12 The C14 atoms are always decaying, but they are being replaced by new C14 atoms at a constant rate. At this moment, your body has a certain percentage of C14 atoms in it, and all living plants and animals have the same percentage.

As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of C12 to C14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the C14 decays and is not replaced. The C14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of C12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of C12 to C14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.

Because the half-life of C14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old; by this time the residual C14 level has dropped to about 0.0018 of its original level -- which was, remember, only one in a trillion atoms of C12 to begin with! So the problem is that our best equipment simply can't measure deltas that small; nonetheless, the half-life process is remarkably consistent.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 02:08 PM
Plastics do not last as long as some here seem to belive.The first "Barbie Dolls",as well as our first "space suits" are rotting away in museums as we speak.The oils in plastic begins to leech out after about 30 years,then more rapidly as time goes.Plastic degrades within 100 years normally,or leaves a very brittle shell,minus the oils.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The hammer is real. Been there seen it.

No one disputes if the thing exists

C14 dating is not reliable.

Yes, it certainly is. Its given 'wrong' dates when used completely inappropriately. Radio-carbon dating is extremely reliable.

Fact, testing in 1000 year old living pine in CA showed to be 25,000 years old.


C14 dating does not account for variations in the surrounding environment. Fire, etc, etc.

'etc etc' eh? Waving one's hands in the air doesn't make radiometric dating disapear.

Mans current "tech" is not yet up to Pre-flood times.

Since there was no flood, this is kind of a silly statement.

Also the atmosphere has changed since the flood. Castings made in an experiment at 2.5 current atmospheres and increased O2 levels produced similar "steel" composition.

Why would one think thats a valid method to determine the prehistoric atmosphere?

Is baugh thought radiometric dating was innaccurate, then why'd he agree to do it? (Well, I have a good idea as to what the answer to that is.)

Think about all the changes in the earth that would occur over 100 million years. Ours is a planet in constant change.

But there -are- things left over from 100 mya. There are even some rather delicately preserved fossils. At the least there should be radioactive piles, or lumps of weird isotopes, or heck, fossilized cemetaries.

radioactive decay is not that predictable.

Yes it is, its one of the more predictable things in the universe.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 02:24 PM
I can see that this is going to degrade into a "bible vs. science" thread again.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 02:34 PM
btw i am a physicist..
if i showed you two uranium atoms and asked you to tell me which would decay, and when, do you think you could do it correctly?
admittedly, c-14 dating is one ofour best dating methods because it uses the law of averages, instead of a calculated figure, so we have an average value for the half-life of c-14
but if it's a calculated value then you're open to extrapolation/interpolation errors.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 03:06 PM

Originally posted by browha
btw i am a physicist..
if i showed you two uranium atoms and asked you to tell me which would decay, and when, do you think you could do it correctly?

Thats hardly relevant to whats being discussed. No one can determine which atom will decay, but that doesn't change the half life of a sample.

but if it's a calculated value then you're open to extrapolation/interpolation errors.

If there are any errors involved then they are resulting in +/- a few years, not thousands or hundreds of years. Also, radio-carbon has the advantage of being able to be verified/calibrated against an interesting standard. Tree rings. The tree ring record covers a large, if not entire, portion of the radio-carbon use range.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 03:25 PM

I can think of sdomething approaching 100 million years old.
It is the remains of plants and animals called oil-plant and animal matter decomposed.

Where do we find most of this oil-burried deep in the earth. Also lots of it is in rock requiring steam and other methods of extraction.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 03:43 PM
My stupid. My point is the method of dating rock is wrong. It is based on asumption and not science. Also C-14 dating does not account for catostrophic changes. The pine tree inproperly dated had been through several fires and its growth retarded, which changed its C-14 absorption. Thus is was dated much older. The same absorption rate for dating anything is an asumption not based on fact. C-14 decay is not in question, quantity of content in the bio-"thing" being tested is a question. All data for C-14 dating is based on a recent "living" database (50 years?) and (is) flawed.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 03:49 PM
How the hell do you carbon date a rock, anyway. It's inorganic. So isn't our arguments here irrelevant? I mean in reference to this thread.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 03:53 PM
No I was not refering to dating rock. Two different subjects.

Read this :
This note touches on a few questions about radiocarbon dating, especially regarding its reliability, and how we can know whether, and by how much, the dating may vary. Knowing where C14 comes from is a good start.

C-14 is produced in the atmosphere primarily by thermal neutron interaction with ordinary nitrogen-14 [specifically: N14 + n -> C14 + p]. The rate of *natural* C-14 production can be increased either by an increase in cosmic radiation (leading to increased neutron production), such as happens with a solar flare and the cycle from sunspot-minimum to sunspot maximum; or by an increase in atmospheric nitrogen.

Increased cosmic radiation should result in increased amounts of *other* cosmogenic radionuclides such as beryllium-10 (half-life 2,700,000 years) and chlorine-36 (half-life 380,000 y). The impact of increasing atmospheric nitrogen I leave to the reader's imagination.

"Based on track etch studies of meteorites, the cosmic ray fluence rate has remained more or less constant for at least 2000 years. Studies based on terrestrial cosmic ray induced and meteoritic radionuclides suggest that the fluence rate had not changed by more than a factor of 2 over the past 10^9 years (UNSCEAR 1977). Maximum levels occurred 700,000 years ago as a result of magnetic field reversals, but only represented a 10 percent increase in fluence rate."

I referred to natural C14 production above. "Unnatural" C-14 levels rose dramatically in the decades after Hiroshima, thanks to testing fallout; the peak was 70% greater than that from natural sources, and occurred in 1965. The ratio has been falling off ever since.[2]

The burning of fossil fuels has been *reducing* the C14/C12 ratio for as long as we've been burning them in quantity, releasing into the atmosphere "old" carbon, C12 -- the C14 having largely decayed away.

Incidentally, "[E]quilibrium is reached between [human] tissue and atmospheric CO2 after about 1.4 year,"[3] so if Eldridge's curious source is right and C14 is increasing "28-37% over its decay rate", we should be seeing that same increase in human tissue -- with its attendant dose concerns. Ordinarily you can expect that you receive about one mrad per year from cosmogenic (non-fallout) C14 [4].

"In addition, comparison of radiocarbon dates with tree ring values has shown some fluctuation in the C14 concentration in the atmosphere between 1400 and 1700 BC. Comparison of radiocarbon determined ages with ages of archeological materials accurately established by other methods have revealed that for the period from 100 BC to 1400, radio- carbon dating gives values that are too large; prior to 100 BC the radiocarbon values are too small. At about 1600 BC, the radiocarbon values are about 175 years (5%) too small, increasing to about 300 years (6%) at 3000 BC. The discrepancy appears to be a result of slight variations in the earth's magnetic field over the years, which would alter the cosmic ray intensities and hence C14 production near the earth. Suitable corrections are available, however, and the useful range of radiocarbon dating is at least 1000 to 100,000 years; in the range of 1000 to 50,000 years, the time frame of great archeological significance, the uncertainty in the method is less than 5 per cent (Aitken 1974, Baxter and Walton 1971)." [5]

[1] Kathren, Ronald L., _Radioactivity in the Environment: Sources, Distribution, and Surveillance_, 1984, p. 23.
[2] Ibid., pp. 111-112.
[3] Ibid., p. 112.
[4] Ibid., p. 36.
[5] Ibid., pp. 366-367.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 03:57 PM
Wow. 2 flamers. Wasn't trying to hork you off. I was just asking. Now with that aside, haven't scientist started using a different dating method because of the c-14 shortcomings?

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 04:03 PM
My understanding is that there is a push to validate C-14 dating by using Uranium-thorium dating of coral formations. But that too has similar problems. I am a scientist and have peer reviewed many papers. One would be suprised at the "bull#" that passes as science.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 04:06 PM
I'm not surprised at all. I visit this site daily. Somewhere along the line a bunch of people stopped paying attention in school. I would say that science, for me, is about as close to religion that I will ever have. Please forgive me if I'm abit daft about some of the details.

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 04:49 PM
The level of understanding of some of the basic principles of science that shows up some times on this board is a sad indictment of our educational system.

More importantly, many people fail to understand the basic concepts behind the scientific method. I can accept that some people do not understand physics or chemistry, but they should be able to accept the fact that the process of scientific method ensures that theories and data are properly validated.

Thus, when the global, mainstream, scientific community ignores someone like, say, Tom Bearden (as one example, or the owner of the spike hammer in this thread, as another) it is pretty fair bet that these maverick theories are full of it.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by HowardRoark]

new topics
top topics
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in