140 Million Years Old Iron Hammer

The Hammer was not indeed as old as claimed and the owner resisted every attempt to authenticate it. If you read the link I posted you will see that. If you wish to stick to your Theory about the hammers age, then back up your claim with some data that refutes the evidence pointed to in the link I provided earlier. If you can't offer any data then there is little point to sticking to your theory when the authenticity of the claims of the hammers owner have been proven to be false

I never said it was 140, 000, 000 years old, i am sorry for making the mistake to use that title but did you noticed what i said about the time machine?
I believe too that it's not so old. That's the key! it's not so old, just the clay around it!!!



[edit on 28-1-2007 by Dragonlike]

OK then offer some data that indicates a time machine and not just normal sedimentary concretion as the scientific findings indicated.

From the link I posted earlier:

The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble.

Such limy concretions can sometimes form in decades or less, and have been found around modern objects such as World War II artifacts (McKusick and Shinn, 1980). It's even possible that the nodule might contain a mixture of ancient and modern sediments or organic remains, as might occur in muddy muddles and pits in a mining operation.

Another indication that your time travel theory doesn't hold up is the handle. If it was indeed deposited by a time traveler ages ago and over time embedded in ancient rock, then the handle would not be so well preserved. The handle is wood and not fossilized as one would normally find in anything of such age. If a time traveler dropped a modern hammer millions of years ago then the handle would not still be wood, It would be mineralized.

Guessing and imagination are fun but if you wish to call it a theory you have to back it up with evidence and facts.

take a look at the hammers in both of the photos?
I see different hammers and the rocks they are in......

paleo.cc...

www.s8int.com...

pandorasfiles.com...


What is strange about them they are suppose to be the same one

From your link Terapin,

As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer's artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact.

Moreover, the hammer's artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age

Ummm yes ... the hammer is recent, as is the concretion of the mineral around it. How does that fit your time travel theory????

If you read the article clearly, it states that it is not ancient but entirely modern. No need to go back in time at all as it is just a recent occurrence.

well, the clay around the hammer is millions of years old while the hammer is stated that is about fifty thousands years old. The arstistic style is suggested to be resent, so if anyone has travelled to the past he must had travelled fifty thousands years ago and probably left this hammer behind

Originally posted by Dragonlike
well, the clay around the hammer is millions of years old

There is no evidence that the "clay" is that old. There are only unverified claims from one man who is not a scientist. If you had read the link I posted you will realize that, and it is explained in very clear detail. While the owner of the find has resisted many efforts to have it examined, there is enough evidence to seriously doubt his claims. It has been proven that concretions, like the one in which the hammer is found, can happen in short periods of time. There are other examples of objects embedded in similar concretions that date as recent as W.W.II. The mineral in which it is imbedded, is of a type that can easily form such concretions.

In addition, as I said earlier, If the hammer was recent, but lost by a time traveler millions of years ago, then the wood in the handle would not be in it's present state. It would either be entirely gone, rotted away, or it would be fossilized. It would not still be regular wood. Wood does not survive for millions of years without rotting, or becoming fossilized.

Your time travel theory doesn't hold water.

reply to post by Dragonlike
you cant seriously believe that a wooden handle that old wouldnt be petrified or fossilised i joined this site because i thought there were intelligent people here but i guess i cant calssify the whole site by a few peoples thoughts and opinions

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by Dragonlike

 

you cant seriously believe that a wooden handle that old wouldnt be petrified or fossilised i joined this site because i thought there were intelligent people here but i guess i cant calssify the whole site by a few peoples thoughts and opinions

There are a number of intelligent people on this site and there are also intelligent people here who are unfortunately influenced by religions and other bias which distort their perceptions.