Beware of Pseudo-History like the Claims of a Hammer in a 400 Million Year Old Rock

Beware of Pseudo-History like the Claims of a

Hammer in a 400 Million Year Old Rock

The Lingering Harm of Religious Lies

In atheism, I am sad to say, I see a never-ending problem that we forever are receiving the victims of often lifelong indoctrinations in anti-critical thinking like I was until seeing the truth of atheism in college at 35.

I am one of the millions that are trying to rise to reason. We don’t just easily remove ourselves from everything religion once told because it is a lifestyle of untruth, lies even to oneself, general, accompanied by reality misunderstanding, which religion is striving to teach so their lies seem more real.

Often religions teach the distrust of science in general as well as rejecting good philosophy thinking. So we don’t generally step out clean, rather we must dig out the rotten roots as we realize them but even that for many takes time as if one needs more a life change than one change in belief as this was not a single belief in the god concept but rather a leaving of one’s old outdated life manual religion had authored without us realizing it that had controlled most factors of our thinking and lives.

This thinking harm is often hidden to the ones afflicted and this indoctrinated world of anti-intellectualism is one religion seems to enjoy championing, to sell their myths as real. One must leave these religious culturalism mindsets built on pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality hurting our intellectualism.

I was a fool that became open to researching and learning. I had an odd belief about the Häagen-Dazs® brand of ice cream and my wife’s challenging me and showing me how wrong and illogical my belief was including how bad a belief assessment process I was employing. It was embarrassing, to say the least as it was humbling but also quite helpful as an introduction to critical thinking when I was an early atheist who was not well informed at 35, do to a life of religious indoctrination before realizing the truth of atheism in college.

“Damien, have you looked into the artifacts that the Texas creationist museum is hoarding? Think they add to your claim. The fact that they were found in the U.S. certainly shows why the museum would have them.” – Questioner

My response, It’s not real. Get a valid link and see it’s not true.

“Get a valid link my ass. I looked in the museum’s website.” – Questioner

My response, Then give me the link. It is actually only 700 years old.

ref

The London Hammer (also known as the “London Artifact”) is a name given to a hammer made of iron and wood that was found in London, Texas in 1936. Part of the hammer is embedded in a limy rock concretion, leading to it being regarded by some as an anomalous artifact, asking how an obviously man-made tool could come to be encased in a 400 million-year-old rock. It has been stated that carbon dating” showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago.”

Other observers have noted that the hammer is stylistically consistent with typical American tools manufactured in the region in the late 1800s. One possible explanation for the artifact is that the highly soluble minerals in the ancient limestone may have formed a concretion around the object, via a common process (like that of a petrifying well) which often creates similar encrustations around fossils and other nuclei. J.R. Cole states: “The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes.

How could a modern artifact be stuck in an Ordovician rock? 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.” The Hammer began to attract wider attention after it was bought by creationist Carl Baugh in 1983, who claimed the artifact was a “monumental ‘pre-Flood’ discovery.” He has used it as the basis of speculation of how the atmospheric quality of a pre-flood earth could have encouraged the growth of giants. The hammer is now an exhibit in Baugh’s Creation Evidence Museum, which sells replicas of it to visitors. ref

Here is info from the National Center for Science Education,

on this Hammer artifact: Issue 15 (Winter 1985)

“If I Had a Hammer from the Creation-Evolution Journal”

Carl Baugh Claims Anti-evolutionist Evidence.

One of his principal pieces of evidence for human contemporaneity with supposedly ancient geological strata is an iron hammer with a wooden handle found near London, Texas by others in the 1930s in an “Ordovician” stone concretion “in the scenario” (but not in the Glen Rose region). “Humanists,” Baugh said, claim it is an “18th-century miner’s hammer.” Noting the appearance of the handle, Baugh said a similar-looking piece of wood from Michigan had just been radiocarbon dated 11,500 years old. (He gave no reference and did not blink at the date earlier than his view of creation.) Apparently, this was meant to suggest that the hammer was earlier than the 19th (not 18th) century date other observers have suggested and to imply that the hammer itself had been subjected to radiocarbon dating, although it had not been (Baugh, 1983b).

The stone concretion is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in an Ordovician rock? 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. This is analogous to stalactites incorporating recent objects in their paths as they grow. The rapidity with which concretions and similar types of stone can form is evident in soil caliche development. “Rapid formation of limestone has been shown in coral atolls in the Pacific where World War II artifacts have been found in the matrix” (McKusick and Shinn, 1980).

Lang (1983b:1) writes

. . . Dr. Baugh had a laboratory in Columbus test the hammer that was found at London, Texas. They used a microprobe to examine the elements in the hammer and the rock in which it was found. As a result of these tests they concluded that the hammer was made by an advanced process of metallurgy which used the equivalent of coke rather than coal to develop the metal. They were convinced the iron formation of the hammer could not have been formed by a meteor. They were also convinced that the rock itself could not have been formed except where there was a great deal of water and a great deal of pressure. They seemed to feel that something equivalent to volcanic pressures was involved here. [Baugh (1983b) said the presence of kaolin [clay] is evidence of vulcanism, and vulcanism speeds hardening.]

– page 47 –

Except for the odd note about volcanic pressures, a sort of Baugh idea fixee, this confirms what evolutionists have been saying about the 19th-century miner’s hammer! Why was there no attempt to date the hammer stylistically (it is of recent American historical style) or to subject the metal and/or wood to radiocarbon analysis instead of only doing this to some unrelated stick from Michigan?

Baugh (Baugh, 1983b, Lang, 1983a) further suggested that the hammer might hold the key to the nature of the antediluvian atmosphere which encouraged the growth of giants, because, he said, its chemistry suggested that there was once ten times as much ozone in the atmosphere than there is today. He did not say why this would produce giantism. The claim is absurd. An atmosphere with ten times the current amount of ozone would not produce conditions for a Garden of Eden or cause people to grow into giants living hundreds of years; rather, it would be fatal to most trees and cause a massive plague of animal and human cancer and mucous membrane searing.

Baugh (1983b) implied strongly that as a result of his tests of the hammer he was on the track of a wide range of other scientific breakthroughs concerning the early earth’s atmosphere and chemical compositionexciting stuff indeed! (Or was he trying to show people a wide range of technical-sounding jargon which could intimidate a layman?) His intermittent Texas research is supposed to be on the track of all sorts of ancient mysteries without half tryingmaking a joke out of the hard work of doing science.

Besides his other efforts, Baugh has discovered a genuine dinosaur skeleton which he says virtually proves that his man tracks and dinosaurs were contemporary; he identifies it as a sauropod (Bailey, 1984). (According to the paleontologist Dr. Wann Langston, it is a carnivorous three-toed bipedal dinosaur!)

His dinosaur fossil bones are real, however strangely interpreted. On the other hand, his recent claims to have found fossil skulls of a child and a saber-toothed tiger are not simply misinterpretedthey are baseless. Baugh has found odd-shaped limestone chunks or concretions and called them skulls. As Schadewald (1984) notes, they are merely natural silicified limestone nodules with a few needle-like crystalline spurs which have been called teeth. Limestone consolidates and weathers unevenly, yielding odd-shaped lumps such as the “dinosaur bones” in Emmett McFalls’s front lawn and at the Thayer site, lumps that are nothing but funny-shaped rocks. “You just kinda have to use your imagination,” said a creationist guide leading people to trackways in 1982 (Turner 1982:149). ref

Glen J. Kuban‘s Analysis:

In order to claim the hammer as a reliable out-of-place artifact, one would need either

1. Convincing documentation that the hammer was once naturally embedded in an ancient rock formation, or

2. Independent scientific evidence indicating a problematic age for the hammer.

So far neither has been provided. The lack of evidence for the first 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 50,000 years old, and if younger than that, C14 could help pinpoint its actual age.

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 website (Lines, 1997, 1999) that carbon 14 dating had “recently” been done on a specimen from the inside of the handle, and that the results “showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago.” No information was given by Lines about when or where the dating was done, nor was any formal report referenced. The date range also seems a little curious, since most C14 labs report a date with a plus-or-minus margin of error, rather than a wide range. Perhaps a number of tests were done with different results, but Lines does not clarify this. Evidently preferring a date in the thousands of years, Lines asserted that the dating results provided “graphic evidence that the handle has been contaminated by current organic substances.” However, C14 labs have ways of minimizing modern carbon contamination, and it would not likely produce ages orders of magnitude in error.

At any rate, if the reported date range is even roughly indicative of the hammer’s age, it is more supportive of the mainstream view of the hammer than Baugh’s. After all, Baugh considers the hammer to be a “pre-Flood” relic– presumably at least a few thousand years old. Baugh reportedly dismissed the results as only evidence that C14 is untrustworthy. However, even many creationists consider C14 dating reasonably accurate to several thousand years or more.

Another potentially useful exercise would be to analyze the composition of the concretion, comparing its lithology and fossil content (both macro and micro) with the nearby creek strata. A shell and other shell fragments are readily visible in the nodule, and Mackay (1985) stated that the fossils in the nodule “are similar to those in the surrounding area.” Likewise, Helfinstine and Roth (1994) suggest the lithology of the nodule is the same as the nearby rocks. However, to my knowledge, no one has positively identified the clam species or confirmed whether they are a fossil or modern forms, or made a detailed comparison of the lithology or other aspects of concretion with that of nearby rocks. From the brief examinations I made of the object in 1986 and 2006, my impression was that the large clam shell was probably a recent species.

One problem for hammer advocates is that careful analysis of the nodule’s composition could conclusively refute Baugh’s claim that it is an out-of-place artifact, but could not confirm it. That is, if the nodule contained only geologically recent material, there would be no reason to consider the hammer any older. However, as noted by Cole, if the nodule contained or was composed of an ancient material, the hammer itself could still be of recent origin, since it could have been left in a place where a solution of ancient sediment collected and hardened around it. 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.

The early American style of the hammer, and the largely undistorted and poorly mineralized condition of the handle, further suggests a relatively recent date. Well-preserved wood from Mesozoic or Paleozoic formations would not be expected to have such an appearance, nor to my knowledge have any similar wood specimens been documented in the nearby formation. Lines asserts on Baugh’s website that the hammer is partially “petrified” but I saw no evidence of this when I examined it in person, and other creationists have agreed that the wood in the handle looks relatively fresh, not much different from modern hardwood hammers (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). In view of these considerations, It seems highly unlikely that the hammer was ever a natural part of the nearby Cretaceous beds, and more likely that it was dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years. It’s also possible that the nodule was brought or washed into the area from some distance away, or from a higher stratum.

Lacking any rigorous geologic evidence for their claims, hammer advocates have tried to make hay from the composition of the hammer head. Mackay (1985) and Lang (1983) reported that the hammer was studied at the renown Batelle Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio, where the head was found to consist of 96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine, and 0.74% sulfur by weight. Baugh suggested this profile was impossible to duplicate with modern technology under present atmospheric conditions (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). However, this claim would be difficult to substantiate. Even if the composition were truly unique, it would more likely indicate a lost or abandoned technology, not evidence against mainstream geology. According to Helfinstine and Roth (1994) a “tomographic x-ray” of the hammer, taken by Texas Utilities in 1992, showed no inclusions or irregularities in the head. Curiously, they and Baugh interpreted this as evidence of “advanced metallurgy” from a superior pre-Flood culture, rather than further evidence that it is a relatively modern hammer.

Mackay (1994) stated that “research continues into the unusually shiny transparent layer which surrounded the hammer when it was discovered and why it did not corrode for several months.” However, such statements contradict other creationist comments (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994) that the hammer had a brown (and thus presumably not shiny) surface when first broken from the concretion, and only when scratched was a shiny subsurface revealed.

Lines (1996) noted that the file cut made in the hammer head in 1934 has remained “corrosion-free” in over 60 years, and some creationists have suggested this indicates some unique or mysterious attribute. However, as long a metal object is kept dry and clean, this would not be unexpected, and the bulk of the head already in a somewhat rusted condition would be expected to oxidize somewhat faster than the scratched mark.

In the Bible-Science Newsletter, Walter Lang (1983) stated that Batelle lab technicians “were convinced that the rock itself could not have been formed except where there was a great deal of water and pressure,” and that the “partly coalified” condition of the handle indicated to the technicians that the wood was “under pressure with water and volcanic action.” However, one has to wonder whether these statements come from the technicians or hammer advocates themselves, since 1. Limy concretions are generally thought by geologists to form in calm rather than violent conditions, 2. Very little of the hammer handle is carbonized, and such features can and normally do originate without any “volcanic” action, and 3. No formal report of the Batelle analysis was ever produced (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). Moreover, all assertions about Batelle work on the hammer appear to be suspect in view of a leaflet inserted into the February 1985 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo, which stated that all hammer research discussed in their article was privately done, and “all references to inferences that research or reports on the Hammer were done or prepared by Batelle Laboratories are in error.”(Mackay 1985)

Another weak attempt to counter “evolutionist” skepticism toward Baugh’s hammer claims was a comment by Mackay that “If it had been dropped under present atmospheric conditions and had to lie waiting to be buried, it would have lasted no longer than five years, after being buried.” However, the hammer need not “lie waiting” very long before being buried; it could have fallen into an area where it would be soon if not immediately subject to a sediment solution. Once buried, it would be largely protected from decay in either the mainstream scenario or his own.

During a June 2006 talk at his Creation Evidence Musuem, Baugh again left the impression that the hammer was found embedded in a Cretaceous formation–telling the audience that it was found “in Cretaceous strata”– and again failing to clarify that the hammer and nudule combination was found loose rather than in situ. As recently as September 2008 Baugh supporter Ian Juby encouraged the same unfounded notions on his website, implying that it was known to be from Cretaceous rock (Juby, 2008).

Perhaps the most bizarre claim about the hammer was Baugh’s statement that “Both the wooden handle and metal shaft were completely encased in the sandstone, indicating that man was not around to make the artifact [sic] before the sandstone encased it.”(Baugh, 1987). Besides contradicting other accounts that the hammer was partly exposed when found, Baugh fails to explain how the hammer could have been made in the first place if “man was not around…before the sandstone encased it.”

Conclusions

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. ref

My response, The hammer’s age is fake as offered because it’s not actually old. If you have a link stating otherwise produce it as It is an intentional error, this is not that old at all, so to call it older is a fake.

“Here is a link (Creation_Evidence_Museum).” – Questioner

My response, So a fake education museum. Got it. So it’s not an error it is intentionally done scam. I only address that which is real.

“He is using it as evidence for pre-Noah society. Why would he buy artifacts that are older than the bible? Seems it would debunk the bible but Christians will buy into anything to support their delusion and rational people wouldn’t care to look in a creationist museum for truth.” – Questioner

My response, Please get that these people lie about lots of things, for lots of reasons.

“They are hiding evidence of pre-American history much like the Vatican does.” – Questioner

My response, Creationist nonsense is not true so they use pseudo-archaeology. They support pseudo-history as a general rule. You are believing in the lie as that is not an old artifact and to claim otherwise is to lie.

But I do thank you for addressing it again. It has been a long time since I’ve seen someone claims it as real, so I am going to make a blog on this. 🙂

“I’m not saying its real. I’m asking why would a creation museum buy artifacts or thought to be artifacts of antiquity when the bible claims the bible to be only five thousand years or so?” – Questioner

My response, Well, they could be old earth creationists, or as a tactic to say see the dating is wrong so science can’t be trusted. I don’t know what lie they are trying to push but it is a lie.

“I was raised in the bible belt and grew up in the church here. These people take the bible literally as they can to fit their own pleasures and prejudices. I’m sure if they had Leprosy, they’d be dipping a live bird in dead birds blood and rubbing their bodies with it.” – Questioner

My response, Yes, it is sad but I get what you’re saying. I was raised in a Christian cult until around 13. I have a video of the oldest artifacts on religion if you like. I have been working on the subject for over 10 years.

Here are a few hipper links, one on: Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago), all contain my art too, here is one on: Animism (around 100,000 years ago as seen in Africa), here is one on: Totemism (around 50,000 years ago as seen in Europe), here is one on: Shamanism (around 30,000 years ago as seen in Siberia), here is one on: Paganism (around 12,000 years ago as seen in Turkey), here is one on: Progressed organized religion (as in Egypt: around 5,000 years ago), here is one on: CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago), here is one on: Around 2,570 to 2,270 Years Ago, there is a confirmation of atheistic doubting as well as atheistic thinking, mainly by Greek philosophers.

“That’s awesome. I can draw as well. I will watch the video. I’ve watched and read multiple books and videos on the origins of religions. I like artifacts and ancient architecture. I am fascinated at how the hermetics were aware of the mental universe quantum physics is catching up to a claiming as truth. Thier interest and understanding of sacred geometry. I like alchemy . not saying their is truth to afterlife consciousness. I do know heaven and hell are mental conditions of the here and now not locations. I just find interest in the science behind the beliefs. The Sumerian cuneiform and the Emerald tablets do give a more interesting origin story.” – Questioner

My response, Great, then you will like my blogs and videos.

Blog

“Thanks again for those. I will definitely watch them.” – Questioner

My response, I have many more.

Real facts.

“Awesome. thanks. I’m about to take a shower and I’m going to look at them. That’s awesome.” – Questioner

My response, Great and after you do please let me know.

“I will, thanks again.” – Questioner

My response, Here is a funny meme:

Questioner – Great, think I can make a living installing these:

My response, ha ha ha, there are ignorant Christians who sadly could be faith-drunk that much, so who knows they may buy it. Let’s say it would not surprise me. Lol

“They totally put reason aside. I try to tell them this. You don’t believe in the bible . you believe in traditions. For you to believe in the bible . you think the world is flat. that animal got their stripes because Jacob parked his herd beside trees and carved shapes into the trees and left his herd there overnight. That an all-knowing god wants to be worshiped, which is a shallow attribute by the way. The fact he is quick to violence over things he should’ve seen coming shows he is incredibly stupid.

He made his own enemy which in turn tricked the first people in the form if a snake. He kicked them out the garden and the kept being bad and tried to make a building to him. He didn’t like that so he confused their languages but he overlooks us shooting a space station passed him. He forgets that his plan is to send his self as his son for our sins so he decides to drown us. that didn’t work so I guess he has to go back to plan b and split his chromosomes to come as his own son to die as atonement for the sin he created and as a sacrifice to himself.

Once again this isn’t going to work so now he has to come riding in on a horse and defeat the snake that has now morphed into a dragon so his golden cube spaceship can come land on earth. Seems legit. People don’t follow Jesus. Jesus said don’t go to church . Don’t be like the hypocrites . pray in silence god will reward you openly. Jesus said lay hands on the sick and they will recover but hospitals are full of Christians. A Christian in a hospital not there to heal a child should be a crime to Jesus.

Why would an all-knowing God need prayer? Surely you realize this is a showing of your lack of faith. If everything is God’s will. what are you asking for? You think he forgot his will? Or your need in his will. If it don’t happen what is your excuse? Its gods will let it be then get up and quit acting like a trained animal.

If a Christian was fishing and a dude walked across the water to him and told him the kingdom of heaven is in your mind. They would flip out and not in anyway associate it with Jesus. If Jesus was here and did anything he was said to have done .they’d kill him and say he was a witch. They believe in oppression. Whether its spiritually or government people still have the mental disease that makes them more comfortable to be told what to think and how to live.” – Questioner

London Hammer – RationalWiki

The London Hammer is a name given to a hammer made of iron and wood that was found in London, Texas in 1936. Part of the hammer is embedded in a limy rock concretion, leading to it being hailed in some quarters as an anomalous artifact: if an obviously man-made tool is old enough to have been encased in rock, the argument goes, then conventional history is wrong. The creationist Carl Baugh latched on to the hammer in the eighties, even using it as the basis of speculation of how the atmospheric quality of a pre-flood earth could have encouraged the growth of giants. The hammer is now an exhibit in Baugh’s Creation Evidence Museum, which sells replicas of it to visitors. Since then, various Internet cranks have used the hammer as evidence of ancient astronauts, a government conspiracy, and Thor. Baugh’s claims were countered by researcher John Cole, who pointed out that the rock concretion could have been the result of dissolved sediment hardening around the hammer, something which can happen in a relatively short amount of time; Cole also concluded that, judging by its style, the artifact is a 19th century miner’s hammer. In the conclusion to his own debunking of the artifact, paleontologist Glen Kuban agreed with the recent age of the hammer and stressed that unless Baugh or any others could provide evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it would remain a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact. ref

Skeptoid: The London Hammer: An Object Out of Time?

Here are some Theistic memes about the hammer:

Beware of Pseudo-History like the Claims of a Hammer in a 400 Million Year Old Rock

Beware of Pseudo-History like the Claims of a

Hammer in a 400 Million Year Old Rock

Glen J. Kuban‘s Analysis:

Conclusions

London Hammer – RationalWiki

Skeptoid: The London Hammer: An Object Out of Time?

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest