Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hammer found in Cretaceous layer
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 160 (175233)
01-09-2005 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Buzsaw
01-09-2005 1:14 PM


It would be subjecting it to analysis observed by yc creation scientists.
Well, hell, they don't have to be there to observe the process. They just have to read the paper. The methodology of the analysis is always presented in a scientific paper.
If you want to see how scientists are doing the analyses that lead to their conclusions, read the paper. It's all in there.
AbE: Er, that is, by "read the paper" I mean read the scientific journal article the analysis was published in, not "pick up a copy of the New York Times."
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-09-2005 13:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 01-09-2005 1:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by NosyNed, posted 01-09-2005 4:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 92 of 160 (175252)
01-09-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Buzsaw
01-09-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Hmmm, Makes one wonder.....
Hi Buzz,
Did you see my Message 83? And my Message 55 before that? They both raised the same issue, and you responded to neither. I understand you're once again attracting a number of correspondents, but as the responses to Message 55 make clear, this is a key issue.
The issue is one of credibility, and the question concerns the rationale by which you confer credibility upon the claims of someone like Carl who makes spectacular claims but keeps his evidence to himself.
Replying to multiple messages from you, this is from Message 85:
1. Hmmm, all this talk about bogus real looking archeological stuff makes one wonder just how much of you people's ideological alleged evidence has been proven not bogus and how much of it has been subjected to the analytic scrutiny of creation scientists for fairness an balance.
The evidence of science is available to all. No one is withholding evidence from creation scientists. This is the difference between scientific evidence and Carl Baugh evidence. Scientific evidence can be examined, replicated, etc. Carl evidence is locked away from scrutiny.
2. Has it been shown that coal can be faked or molded so as to encase things like cups and hammers, etc,...
The hammer has a simple explanation, and it has already been provided for you. Regarding the cup, even if it were absolutely certain that it's a modern artifact embedded in coal and even if we could divine no explanation for how it became embedded in coal, somehow it *did* become embedded in coal, because there were no humans around at the time of the coal's formation.
A larger question is why anyone should be motivated to study how coal can come to encase modern objects if Carl isn't going to make his evidence available for study. What would be the point?
and is there such a thing as young coal mines a few centuries old?
There are certainly coal mines less than a few centuries old, but I think what you meant to ask is whether there are any coal mines with coal less than a few centuries old. The answer is that all coal is ancient. Radiocarbon dating indicates that it is older than the furthest back radiocarbon dating can go, making it older than 50,000 years by that measure. Other dating indicates that most coal is from the Pensylvanian and Mississippian eras, which makes it at least 250 million years old.
From your Message 87:
Doubtless, an expert, and for that matter even a novice, would be able to observe readily the difference between the appearance of a solid chunk of coal and cemented crumbled coal. I've handled coal for fuel, including larger chunks and I see no way crumbled stuff could be made to appear like a virgin chunk, either in color or in texture. That, imo, is far fetched desperation strawman.
Your inability to convince yourself that a cup could become encased in coal is irrelevant. It is possible that the cup was completely encased in coal, but we can't be sure. The big question is why you're investing so much credibility in something which isn't available for examination, and for which the original in situ evidence is no longer available. What you've got is a cup that Carl won't allow to be examined and whose evidence for encasement in coal no longer exists. You *are*, I hope, aware that archeology attaches great importance to the details of the original context of a find. Oftentimes the context is more important than the artifact itself, and that is certainly the case with a cup claimed to have been embedded in coal.
It needn't by be by creation lab perse. There may or may not be such. I don't know. That's not what I said. It would be subjecting it to analysis observed by yc creation scientists.
Once again, no one is keeping any secrets from "creation scientists". The secrecy runs in the other direction.
Please give some consideration to the credibilty issues I mentioned in my earlier posts.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 01-09-2005 12:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 160 (175253)
01-09-2005 2:56 PM


topic drift - is hammer issue closed?
I take it from the lack of further comments on the hammer, one way or the other that this is pretty resolved in most peoples minds.
the cup is a different issue and should be another thread if people want to continue that, imho.
I think admin should close this for topic drift and because the hammer issue is as done as it is going to be.

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 94 of 160 (175259)
01-09-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Buzsaw
01-09-2005 10:35 AM


Re: Mine Trixters
quote:
1. .....And you know by mine experience?
Actually, yes. I have worked at an underground mine, several surface mines, and toured many more. Miners are all the same - crazy - though by far, undergound miners are much better jokesters. The darkness, eeriness, and just plain creepiness of working thousands of feet below the surface, surrounded by solid rock makes perfect fodder.
quote:
2. I see nothing produced by skeptics as to how the tricks were allegedly done, that is to produce items embeded in actual coal deposits artificially. Can you show how the tricksters allegedly did it?
Well, I'm not sure I would call the iron cup a trick. It looks more like it was accidental - similar to the hammer. A cup falls in an ore (or waste) dump, gets buried, etc. I'd actually have to see it before I could make a guess. I'd like to see how the coal looks, IS it real coal rather than coalified wood, does it have bedding features, and whether all the broken parts are consistently the same. The 'cup' looks pretty stout, like it could withstand a bit of pressure.
Also, that cup is not the sort of cup one would drink from. To me, it looks like a cup used in some sort of smelting or assaying process. Since it's a coal mine, likely smelting. I've seen these types of cups before, but can't remember what they are called or how they're used. However, it looks like it was used to pour molten metal.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-09-2005 15:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 01-09-2005 10:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 95 of 160 (175264)
01-09-2005 3:09 PM


A bit more digging found this:
Source: The Wilburton Gazettee - April 1, 1910
There was an explosion at the Great Western Mine No. 2, Thursday morning about 3 o'clock in which six men lost their lives. They are:
Wm. Pahlon
Thad Cunningham
Ben Coffman
Olya Boyd
Billie McMahan
Geo. Belcher
All were married men with families. They were working on the night shift and had quit work and started out. It is supposed that a "windy shot" caused the explosion. Five of them were found his a heap and Geo. Belcher was found higher up the slope. All were badly burned and must have died instantly. There was some delay in recovering the bodies on account of bad air and a fall of rock on the slope. The force of the explosion cracked the roof on the fan house. This was to have been the last days work as there was to be suspension the first of April.
[SOURCE]
There was also a large fire and explosion five years earlier in 1905.
I believe it's quite likely the cup was buried and baked in one of the explosions. Explosions result is a lot of pressure, too, so it's not too hard to imagine the cup being formed in such a way.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 96 of 160 (175283)
01-09-2005 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by crashfrog
01-09-2005 1:49 PM


Reading the paper
Not in this case Crash. There is some suspicion of dishonesty (something these folks know something about). There is need to maintain a "audit trail" of the whole process by parties from both sides. This is not a typical lab analysis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2005 1:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 97 of 160 (175302)
01-09-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Buzsaw
01-09-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Hmmm, Makes one wonder.....
quote:
1. .....And you know by mine experience?
Actually, yes.
quote:
2. I see nothing produced by skeptics as to how the tricks were allegedly done, that is to produce items embeded in actual coal deposits artificially. Can you show how the tricksters allegedly did it?
That is not the point. The point is that nothing you have is actually, scientifically documented. In fact many times the artifact is not found in the coal, but only SAID to have been there. From that point, credulity takes over.
Next post:
quote:
1. Hmmm, all this talk about bogus real looking archeological stuff makes one wonder just how much of you people's ideological alleged evidence has been proven not bogus and how much of it has been subjected to the analytic scrutiny of creation scientists for fairness an balance.
Most of it has, or else there is some other independent, objective evidence for the object.
quote:
2. Has it been shown that coal can be faked or molded so as to encase things like cups and hammers, etc, ...
Molds can be created easily, especially when the audience is credulous. Just look at some of the 'human footprints' tracking along dinosoar prints. Some are only human with the greatest of imagination, others are clear hoaxes, but still believed by those who want to believe.
quote:
... and is there such a thing as young coal mines a few centuries old?
Do you mean coal a few centuries old, or mines a few centuries old?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Buzsaw, posted 01-09-2005 12:49 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Buzsaw, posted 01-24-2005 8:29 PM edge has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 98 of 160 (175356)
01-10-2005 12:12 AM


Buz, what do you think about the fire and explosion that happened two years before the cup was discovered? Is this a plausible enough explanation?

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 01-24-2005 8:07 PM roxrkool has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 160 (175425)
01-10-2005 7:26 AM


Things found in ancient coal or rock layers are standard fare in the Mysteries of the Unexplained or conspiracy type stuff. My favourite is a pterodactyl supposedly unleashed by railway tunnel diggers in France, which staggered about 20 feet before dropping down dead (allegedly). Then there are sundry frogs found in coal nodules and what have you.
I was going to provide a link but now I fear merely starting the thread over again. So I won't.

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 100 of 160 (175603)
01-10-2005 6:16 PM


This is the second time I've attempted to answer your question, Buz, and the second time you appear to have ignored the reply.
If you're busy, then I apologize for my impatience, but it would be nice to hear your thoughts.

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by NosyNed, posted 01-10-2005 7:57 PM roxrkool has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 101 of 160 (175623)
01-10-2005 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by roxrkool
01-10-2005 6:16 PM


Reply button
Did you miss the reply button?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by roxrkool, posted 01-10-2005 6:16 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by roxrkool, posted 01-10-2005 9:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 102 of 160 (175658)
01-10-2005 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NosyNed
01-10-2005 7:57 PM


Re: Reply button
No, not really. It was just a general reply to Buz. I suppose I could have linked to Buz's last post, however...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NosyNed, posted 01-10-2005 7:57 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 103 of 160 (179931)
01-23-2005 12:29 PM


No Reply
Well, It's been over two weeks now since I officially offered to analyze the chemical composition of the hammer.
As yet there have been no replies at all.
I offered a FREE analysis and a way to get their data published in a regular and well respected scientific journal.
I also made the offer that one of their "scientists" could be present during the entire analysis to observe, help out and generally make sure that the data was not tampered with in any way.
Their complete lack of response only leads me to beleive that they are hiding something and are afraid to have the "real" data published.
I suppose it is possible that they could be just slow but if I were in their shoes and I was sure of my results then I would jump at the chance to prove my point to everybody.
I will give them a couple more weeks and after that, I will consider this cretaceous hammer well and truly debunked due to their complete unwillingness to let a real lab get their hands on it.
PY

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 01-23-2005 3:31 PM PurpleYouko has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 104 of 160 (179965)
01-23-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by PurpleYouko
01-23-2005 12:29 PM


Re: No Reply
Would you consider a side-bet on whether or not they respond? Even though you have offered them something too good to turn down I'd be willing to bet they do just that. Of course, I'd want odds.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-23-2005 12:29 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PurpleYouko, posted 01-24-2005 10:49 AM jar has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 105 of 160 (180189)
01-24-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by jar
01-23-2005 3:31 PM


Re: No Reply
What kind of odds are you thinking of?
I would guess at about 100:1 that they won't reply at all
Perhaps we need to get Syamsu and Razd in here to debate the odds
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 01-23-2005 3:31 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024