Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!earthli!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation Evidence Museum
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 12:46:42 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <viadqi$lakg$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vi6j0t$3tl6g$2@dont-email.me>
 <ce9750ffdde32cbf721f49298e703940@www.novabbs.com>
 <vi7kqm$3934$1@dont-email.me>
 <666e70e5-4162-4427-a318-d06482310d81@gmail.com>
 <0100a5ccafc8d8afdb043ce18c7ff1fc@www.novabbs.com>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="80782"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dTmK1r3DzJ1tZn7noPm1WRPk18M=
In-Reply-To: <0100a5ccafc8d8afdb043ce18c7ff1fc@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: en-US
	FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 7674

On 11/27/2024 11:53 AM, LDagget wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:34:19 +0000, erik simpson wrote:
> 
>> On 11/27/24 9:27 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/27/2024 5:18 AM, LDagget wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 7:50:53 +0000, JTEM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if anyone can actually counter this or if the
>>>>> best you can manage, emotionally, is to act out like an
>>>>> eight year old child.
>>>>>
>>>>> Guess which one I'm banking on. Go on: guess.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/reel/1709960086403655
>>>>>
>>>> It's pretty easy to suggest a reasonable explanation that could
>>>> be readily tested. A brief review of the web fails to find
>>>> documentation from tests performed.
>>>>
>>>> The consensus seems to be that it looks very much like a type
>>>> of mining hammer what was in use in Texas (where it was found).
>>>> The design is consistent with other mining hammers used in the
>>>> early 1800s. There are similar artifacts known to be mining
>>>> hammers in existence.
>>>>
>>>> Two obvious things to test would be the iron in the hammer head
>>>> and the wooden shaft. I'd suggest metallurgical testing of the
>>>> atomic composition of the head including isotopic analysis to
>>>> be compared with a range of other artifacts known to have been
>>>> used in Texas, and of course comparison to a range of iron
>>>> artifacts from other sites around the world and other times.
>>>>
>>>> Special note: if anyone tries to make a claim about C14 in the
>>>> hammer head they are a complete moron.
>>>>
>>>> I would however test the haft to determine the species of wood
>>>> and a C14 date. Special care is needed when doing that date
>>>> because the artifact is likely to be partially mineralized with
>>>> contamination from the limestone that feed the concretion that
>>>> it appears to be embedded in. The carbon in the limestone is
>>>> of course a distinct source of carbon from the wood of the shaft.
>>>> And of course the carbon in the limestone will be older than
>>>> a range relevant to C14 dating.
>>>>
>>>> I can't help but notice that the haft is broken, much like a
>>>> mining hammer haft would break.
>>>>
>>>> So ultimately, I speculate it is a mining hammer from the
>>>> early 1800s that was broken and discarded in an active limestone
>>>> cave. The active cave subsequently produced a concretion that
>>>> enclosed the broken hammer. Concretions can form rapidly in
>>>> active caves. They are what stalactites and stalagmites are.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not well versed in how to test the age of concretions but
>>>> there are likely ways. It would be best to know exactly where
>>>> the hammer was found so tests could also be made on the surrounding
>>>> limestone sources.
>>>>
>>>> I will add that the fact that none of this, or perhaps better
>>>> alternative testing, has apparently be done suggests that the
>>>> keepers of this artifact are more interested in marketing a
>>>> manufactured controversy than in understanding it.
>>>>
>>>> And to the broader audience, yes, I know. But this isn't
>>>> Purina Troll Chow as it lacks the essential invectives.
>>>
>>> The hammer is supposed to be preflood according to Baugh, so a carbon
>>> date of less than 1,000 years would mean that it was not preflood.  Noah
>>> must have thrown it overboard when the Ark was drifting around for a
>>> year, and it must have been drifting over Texas at the time Noah threw
>>> it overboard.  I do not think that Baugh would think that Cain's
>>> descendants (they were the ancient metal workers) had gotten to Texas
>>> before the flood.  It sounds like this has more problems for
>>> creationists than for anyone else.  How are they going to get a 19th
>>> century hammer onto the ark or anywhere before the flood?
>>>
>>> It would be nice if the hammer was made out of the same gopher wood as
>>> the ark was made of, but no one knows what gopher wood was.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>> Gopher wood is just a misprint.  Noah actually said "go for wood".
> 
> That in turn was a misunderstood translation. The lord used a wormhole
> to supply and ultimately remove the vast mass of water needed for the
> flood, obviously. But at the same time the wormhole was used to help
> supply Noah with materials needed to build the Ark and for that he
> sourced spam mailers from the early 21st Century CE, materials that
> were in abundant supply and that nobody would miss. The precise nature
> of the pharmaceutical spams is something I'm too shy to discuss but
> the phrase "go for wood" might point the way.

It must have also been scam pharmaceuticals because it took Noah a 
hundred years to build the Ark out of the spam supplies and he obviously 
never got effective product because his progeny production was pretty 
dismal in his first 4 hundred years, and did not improve when he started 
to build the Ark.

Ron Okimoto
>