Re: Creation Evidence Museum

On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 11:18:56 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com
(LDagget):

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.
>

Good summation; thanks. As an aside, be prepared to have any
"response" from JTEM the Incredible Bore to truncate your
post to one or two lines (or less) and ignore what you
wrote.

>
And to the broader audience, yes, I know. But this isn't
Purina Troll Chow as it lacks the essential invectives.
>

Invective is not, strictly speaking, required, but it *does*
tend to generate more responses.

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov