A CHALLENGE TO MIKE WEAVER REGARDING LONDON HAMMER

If London hammer has an archaeological bearing in terms of consensus then it would be a dissoluble agent or refutation to the infamously acclaimed evolution. Here is the issue:

As you can see, the London hammer if its concept as a pre-flood artifact is true dated to be 400million years old negates the evolution concept of Human ancestors to have lived from 8-6 million years ago. The london hammer implies a human civilization predating its so-called and assumed human ancestors thus nullifying any thread of evolution reality. The problem is, the london hammer seem to be an archaelogical dispute as some reported:

The London Hammer is well known to those who follow the debates and discussions around OOParts. You may recall that I blogged about OOParts last year. In that piece, I mentioned a good site to explore for bad archeology claims, named, of course, Bad Archaeology. They had a short write up on the London Hammer saying:

One of the major problems with this object is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the nodule was ever part of the Red Creek’s geology, which is the Lower Cretaceous Hensel Sand Formation. These deposits are thought to be roughly 110-115 million years old. Having acquired the object in the early 1980s, Baugh promoted it as a ‘pre-Noachian’ artefact (in other words, dating from a time before the mythical Flood of Noah). However, it was soon pointed out by a geologist that minerals dissolved from ancient strata can harden around a recent object, making it look impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. In fact, the style of the hammer would lead us to recognise it as nineteenth-century in date and of definitely American provenance.

Carl Baugh is the current owner of the London Hammer. He is the director of the Creation Evidence Museum of Texas. The museum features the London Hammer (London Artifact, as they call it) as one of their displays of evidence for creation.

A good scientific discussion of the London Hammer comes from Glen Kuban on his Paluxy site. Give the piece a read, he does a good job breaking the claims down. He concludes:

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.

I couldn’t have said it better. Another interesting read on this artifact comes from J. R. Cole from the National Center for Science Education. He writes:

The stone concretion is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in 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 confounding factor in all this, of course, is that Baugh will not release the artifact for independent testing. He has had it tested, it is claimed, but not in a transparent way.

The best conclusion I can draw from this is that the artifact probably isn’t an out of place artifact.

Be well.

About Mike Weaver

Husband, father, skeptic, technologist, motorcyclist, hunter, outdoors-man, and evil genius. I am formally trained in computer science, physics, mathematics, and emergency medicine (paramedic, former).

View all posts by Mike Weaver 

Mike Weaver, apparently an intellectual in his field, has injected a doubt to the archaeological dating of the London hammer to have it pre-supposed as discreetly done and not done in a formal transparent way. I’m a poor researcher wanting clarity on this matter as too, I’m biblically inclined believer but wanting sufficient proof for my belief. I’m obviously anti-evolution in that aspect of human evolution as proposed by atheists thus expectedly, i have high hopes for the london hammer as a real piece of evidence. But having doubts, i want to challenge a verifiable response from Mike Weaver who sowed the doubt how his inadequate words “not in a transparent way” been a valid reality.
Mike, would you answer please? In addition, is there no consensus from the archaeological field regarding london hammer as originally proposed?

Lastly, Regarding the artistic style of the hammer thought of as modern, it was only thought of as modern, it was not proven modern. Why, cannot ancient people create crafts resembling modern creation? Its called coincidence. The ordovician rock that encapsulates the hammer is not actually ordovician as J.R. Cole expressed but minerals from the ordovician strata that dissolved and hardened around it. Could that not happened during the Ordovician timeline? The mere fact that Glen Kuban necessitates burden of proof from the proponents is that, there was not yet any conclusive factor that could harness certainty. Thus my challenge is firm, the claimed archaeological team that dated the hammer, was the dating formally acknowledged or not?

Sincerely,

Denn

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s