Monday, July 13, Find: in News Forums. Welcome Guest Login or Register. Ancient Mysteries. The hammer was found near London, Texas.
He also maintained that inconclusive test results had dated the hammer back just years and that Baugh had delayed a full carbon dating test because he didn't want to be proven wrong. So does the London Hammer really date back several million years or is it simply a relic from the recent past? Jul 10, A hammer was found in London, Texas, in encased in stone that had formed around it. The rock surrounding the hammer is said to be more than million years old, suggesting the hammer was made well before humans who could have made such an object are thought to have existed. If this were true, it would be quite interesting. Oct 18, As far as how old the hammer is, the reported carbon dating done on the object has shown no specific dates, ranging from the present to years Author: Nicole Henley.
About us Our programming Become a supporter. A STEM-focused c 3 educational nomcauctionservicellc.comofit. All Rights Reserved.
What Is Skepticism? Live Shows Calendar Information. It came to us in a question: is this hammer, the London Hammer, an example of an out of place artifact OOPart that calls into question geology, archeology, and the natural history of the Earth?
Hammer carbon dating
Let's take a look. From the article: A hammer was found in London, Texas, in encased in stone that had formed around it. The rock surrounding the hammer is said to be more than million years old, suggesting the hammer was made well before humans who could have made such an object are thought to have existed. If this were true, it would be quite interesting.
How Does Radiocarbon Dating Work? - Instant Egghead #28
In fairness to Epoch Times and Ms. MacIsaac, the article does do a decent job presenting some of the evidence. I'd ask for a bit more of a scientific inquiry tone to the piece, but there have been far worse examples of reporting than this one.
You may recall that I blogged about OOParts last year. In that piece, I mentioned a good site to explore for bad archeology claims, named, of course, Bad Archaeology. They had a short write up on the London Hammer saying: One of the major problems with this object is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the nodule was ever part of the Red Creek's geology, which is the Lower Cretaceous Hensel Sand Formation.
These deposits are thought to be roughly million years old.
Having acquired the object in the early s, Baugh promoted it as a 'pre-Noachian' artefact in other words, dating from a time before the mythical Flood of Noah. However, it was soon pointed out by a geologist that minerals dissolved from ancient strata can harden around a recent object, making it look impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. In fact, the style of the hammer would lead us to recognise it as nineteenth-century in date and of definitely American provenance.
Carl Baugh is the current owner of the London Hammer. He is the director of the Creation Evidence Museum of Texas.
Congratulate, excellent hammer carbon dating share your opinion
The museum features the London Hammer London Artifact, as they call it as one of their displays of evidence for creation. Give the piece a read, he does a good job breaking the claims down. Retrieved 7 July An iron and wooden hammer, sometimes called the "London Artifact" or "London Hammer," found by local hikers in a creek bed near London, Texas inhas been promoted by Carl Baugh and other strict creationists as an out-of-place artifact.
They maintain that the hammer, which was partially embedded in a small, limy rock concretion, originated in a Cretaceous rock formation or an Ordovician or Silurian one, depending on the accountthus contradicting the standard geologic timetable.
However, the hammer was not documented in situ and has not been reliably associated with any specific host formation. Other relatively recent implements have been found encased in by similar nodules and can form within centuries or even decades under proper conditions Stromberg, The hammer in question was probably dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved limy sediment hardened into a nodule around it.
Although a brief rebuttal to Baugh's hammer claims was made by ColeBaugh and a few other creationists continue to promote it.
This review provides further analysis of the hammer and creationist claims about it. Retrieved 25 February Historic Mysteries.
First of all, there are conflicting reports as to where the object was actually located in the surrounding rocks. And there is no photographic evidence of the object prior to being disturbed.
Apr 03, According to Baugh, the tests found the hammer to have unusual metallurgy- percent iron, percent chlorine, percent sulfur, and no . Evolutionists have long used the carbon, or radiocarbon, dating technique as a "hammer" to bludgeon Bible-believing Christians. A straightforward reading of the Bible describes a 6,year-old universe, and because some carbon (14 C) age estimates are multiple tens of thousands of years, many think that the radiocarbon method has soundly refuted the Bible's historical accuracy. According to studies of the Metallurgical Institute of Columbia, the inside handle underwent the process of carbonization, the head of the hammer was built with an iron purity only achievable with modern-day technology.
One report states that the hammer was embedded in a rock formation dating from the Cretaceaus Period million years ago. But other accounts state that Mr.
Speaking, hammer carbon dating consider, that you
Skeptics argue that minerals could have cemented the hammer around the Cretaceous rock after it was dropped or left behind. This could easily lead novice geologists to believe that the hammer and the rock formation are from the same time period. The only true method of determining the age of the hammer is through Carbon 14 dating of the wooden handle, but Baugh has yet to authorize this procedure.
The handle appears to be partially fossilized, so this certainly adds to the argument that this a very ancient tool. But fossilization can occur prematurely through various natural methods.
Bad Archaeology. Retrieved 17 December Categories : Creationism Pseudoarchaeology Out-of-place artifacts Hammers.
condition has already been acknowledged in creationist accounts. Independent evidence for the hammer's age could be gleaned from a number of methods, including Carbon 14 dating on the wooden handle. If there was no appreciable amount of C14 in it (beyond expected residual contamination) it would imply the hammer was more than. Jul 20, The only true method of determining the age of the hammer is through Carbon 14 dating of the wooden handle. However, Baugh has yet to authorize this procedure. The handle appears to be partially fossilized, so this certainly adds to the argument that this a very ancient tool. But fossilization can occur prematurely through various natural methods. In later years, carbon dating of the rock (and hammer) allegedly revealed it was more than million years old. Reports said a section of the wooden handle of the hammer started to metamorphosize into coal, suggesting its ancient old age.