All right, let's forget about carbon dating for a second.

Why not give a sample of the wooden handle to an
expert botanist/forester, who would determine the
species of the tree from which it was manufactured?
I'm fairly sure woods are easily identifiable. By the
way, my late granddad was a pro carpenter and
furniture maker, and I bet he could ID the wood in
a millisecond, just by studying the grain etc.

If it's oak and it's 100+ million years old hehehe --
impossible.


[edit on 14-10-2004 by Aelita]

Hickory is the prefered wood for sledge/ spike hammers, unless it was originally from china, then it would be bamboo.

Oh, and it was also common to apply rosin to the handle where it was driven into the hole in the head.

A few comments

* The hammer wasn't found in Cretaceous rock. It was allegedly found on the ground in an area where there's Cretaceous rock. Cretaceous rock is all over Texas. I can walk outside and drop my cell phone in Duck Creek Park, but that doesn't mean that T Rex was making calls on it back in the Cretaceous era. If I drop it in Cave Without A Name, in 50 years it will be covered with a crust of limestone and embedded in an Edwardsian limestone formation (Cretaceous again)... but that still won't mean that T-Rex was messaging all his friends on it.

* The hammer appears to be a miner's hammer from the late 1800's. It's been examined by folks (but not held-and-examined.... just looked at.)

* Objects in caves (like this miner's hammer) get encased in stone fairly quickly. This is easily demonstrated... just visit any "show cave" (cave open to the public) in convenient distance and ask. They will have things (like the railings) that are covered with "flowstone" or other limestone materials.

* This particular "museum" doesn't let its materials be examined because they know that they would be debunked (that "cowboy foot in the boot" is actually the leg bone of a cow. If you look at any human skeleton, you'll see that the bones couldn't possibly be human.) This museum is also the source of the hoaxed Paluxy Man Track (the carver of it later confessed.)

* Yes, we do find things that are very old. Some of the fossils we have date to a billion years old.

* C-14 is not used to date rocks and not used to date anything beyond about 50,000 years. There's a LOT of different methods used by archaeologists, and they're really fascinating. You should read up on them.

* Yes, we CAN identify sites by various hominid species (including Australopithecines) up to about 5 million years ago (give or take. I'm going by memory) I'm working on the material from a site here in Texas that's only a few thousand years old, and you'd be astonished how much information is really available at a site. Before I got into this, rock just looked like... well... rock. Now I can tell if a rock has been used as part of a hearth or if someone was chipping arrowheads from it... and so on and so forth. I'd recommend archaeology field trips to anybody!

* Real scientists aren't afraid to present their controversial material to other researchers for dating and testing. If their evidence is solid, then the concept will (slowly) be accepted (archaeologists are a conservative bunch.) In fact, this is what happened with the Pre-Clovis site in Monte Verde: The researchers there claimed the material was 20,000 years old, others laughed, they invited some of the scoffers down to work the site and review the material, the scofferes were convinced, and THEY started promoting the evidence for humans being in the Americas some 20,000 or more years ago.

It's the frauds who won't let their materials be reviewed by just anyone.


I really need to make some sort of web page on this.



[edit on 14-10-2004 by Byrd]

I have a question. I need to ask this question because, as I'm more than willing to admit, I am far less than well educated when it comes to earth sciences.

My question is, just out of curiosity, can anyone offer a definitive length of time for the complete degradation of plastic? I've seen several different numbers, both here and via the search engines. I've seen everything from "more than a year," to "over 100 years," "450 years," and "a million years." Which is it?

Does it vary by composition, production methods, etc. ?

One last time. The hammer is only approx 6000-10,000 years old. The "Rock" it was found in, is what is mis-dated. Rock dating is based on a layering effect and assumptions as to how long it took to be layered. The rock "make-up" itself may be the age assumed, but the layer dating is what is flawed. If I make a "quartz" radio and bury it for 1000 years, how old is the radio? The age of the quartz, the age of the dirt it was buried in, or when I made the radio? Sorry guys, Archeology is very poor science, it is a house of cards..................One assumption holding up another.

The owner of the hammer WILL NOT allow it to be examined. Why? Because it's a fraud. We can argue in circles about carbon dating and all that. But, until this object is opened up for careful examination, it's all heresay. I'm confident that this will turn out to be a hoax.

[edit on 15-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]

Originally posted by AceWombat04
My question is, just out of curiosity, can anyone offer a definitive length of time for the complete degradation of plastic? I've seen several different numbers, both here and via the search engines. I've seen everything from "more than a year," to "over 100 years," "450 years," and "a million years." Which is it?

Does it vary by composition, production methods, etc. ?

Excellent question, and I think the answer is "no, we can't." It does depend on composition, production methods, and what happens to the plastic (landfilled or left on the surface)? We can make estimates, but we really can't say how long that six pack ring is going to last.

Anybody that says a particlar science is bunk is at the least, uninformed. If you knew about the subject than you know that any credible scientist admits that they don't have a complete picture. I do think that with paleotology and archaeology are on the right track. I suggest that a few of you actually read about thses subjects from credible, established sources before deconstructing years and years of hard work.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Mans current "tech" is not yet up to Pre-flood times.

If this hammer is an example of pre-flood tech, I dissagree...

[edit on 15-10-2004 by merka]

Ooops! Yes, you're right.. the contextless picture led me to think it was the larger hammer.

Appreciated the link, particularly this part:

However, for years Baugh refused to allow the hammer to be C14 dated. In an exchange of letters between creationist Walter Brown and Jim Lippard in Creation/Evolution, Brown (1989) suggested that the hammer handle has not been dated because Baugh had three "understandable" conditions for dating it: that it be done with mass spectrometry, that Baugh be present during the dating, and that someone else pay for it. However, Lippard countered that no one has objected to the first two conditions, and that Baugh had no right to expect the third, since he's the one making the claims, and thus the one obligated to back them up. Even so, even after others offered to pay for the dating, Baugh declined to have it done. As Day (1991) wrote in a follow up letter: "Far from being 'understandable,' Baugh's stipulations seem to be little short of evasive tactics...If four years have gone by and nothing has happened, I think it is safe to conclude that Baugh has no interest whatsoever in determining the truth about his marvelous hammer."

Finally, in the late 1990's Baugh supporter David Lines reported on a web site (Lines, 1997, 1999) that carbon 14 dating had "recently" been done on a specimen from the inside of the handle, and that the results indicated an age between the Present and 700 years. This reporting format seemed a little curious, since most C14 labs report a date with a plus-or-minus margin of error, rather than just a flat range. Furthermore, no information was given about when or where this was done, or by what C14 method, nor was any formal report referenced. Therefore, such results seem somewhat suspect until more documentation is available, especially considering Baugh's history of dubious and unfounded claims.

They were kind to Baugh... he has a history of outright lies.

Very interesting. Well for thoughs of u who have heard about the reptilian theory, there is also a theory that a humanoid reptilian race evolved on this planet as well as planet x and other planets in the draco, and orion costilations. If there was a humaniod reptilian race that had advanced technology that would explain where this hammer would have come from. Whats to say other species did'nt evolve on this planet, and are now living in holo earth, or built space ships to leave the planet. We all know the planet was alot different millions of years ago, and is always changing. Maybe the things in the atmosphere that a techno. advanced race needed to live back 10's or even 100's of millions of years ago, r'nt there anymore. Or maybe the temperature has gotten to cold for them to live here so they left. Or maybe they just simply died off for what ever reason. The hammer dos'nt have to be made by humans. Whos says it has to be made by any species that is native to this planet, it could be a hammer that belong to pp l of a race from another planet. Theres an infinite number of different theories you could come up with, and non of them should be over looked.

Originally posted by LordRothschild
Very interesting. Well for thoughs of u who have heard about the reptilian theory, there is also a theory that a humanoid reptilian race evolved on this planet as well as planet x and other planets in the draco, and orion costilations. If there was a humaniod reptilian race that had advanced technology that would explain where this hammer would have come from.

Or the warehouse that the hammer came from would explain it.

Whats to say other species did'nt evolve on this planet, and are now living in holo earth

Geology

or built space ships to leave the planet.

Physics and Archaeology

Maybe the things in the atmosphere that a techno. advanced race needed to live back 10's or even 100's of millions of years ago, r'nt there anymore.

The ancient atmosphere has been studied and appears to be broadly similar to what it is now. Or maybe the temperature has gotten to cold for them to live here so they left.

Or maybe they just simply died off for what ever reason.

Where are the cities, graveyards, bodies, buildings, mines, lumberyards, etc?

The hammer dos'nt have to be made by humans. Whos says it has to be made by any species that is native to this planet, it could be a hammer that belong to pp l of a race from another planet.

Sure, it could be. Nothing about it indicates this tho.

Theres an infinite number of different theories you could come up with, and non of them should be over looked.

Those aren't theories, they're just explanations made up outside of the evidence. Theories are based on observations and evidence. Theories shouldn't be overlooked or discounted out of hand, but these sort of 'maybe this maybe that' kind of stuff, well, a person isn't being dishonest if they don't go out looking for evidence to support it. The people promoting the ideas should by doing that.

scientist i am not,but if there is reticence on the owners part to have the hammer examined that is the indication that it is a fraud.
The mans reputation another indication....
I would however like to see the peculiar combo of the iron tried to be reproduced if in fact it does not rust and remains shiny to this day from its origonal test.(where the notch was chipped out.)
Is there anyone on this thread with enough savvey to extrapolate the manufacturing process?i was sure coal impurities are the common theme in modern steels.....
if it is really a new type of stainless steel (which seems correct to me lacking in moly ,nickel,manganese,etc,then perhaps we can alter our modern production methods to match.)
Chlorine is to my knowledge very unusual in steel production,anyone actually know about this?

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?
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.

Although I understand completely what you are saying here, I think that if you are truly a physicist, then you are aware that you are being disingenuous when you remark about predicting the decay of individual atoms versus the radioactive decay of samples as in the half-life argument that is being made here.

Also, I would think that any hard science afficionado would be aware that there is no such law as "the Law of Averages."

Harte

Hello! Facinating!! My contracters always leave tools behind. Who is to say there wasn't a visitor fixing their transportation? A smoking gun so to speak.... A real clue to the past. Funny how a hammer is still popular
and necessary today.