What was the #1 MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY of "creation science" ?

[AV1611VET]

The belief? No. The lies about science conjured up by professional creationists like Ham, Hovind and Gish? Yes. Besides... I thought you guys held yourselves to a higher standard than us?

That's because you guys like to call them "lies," even though they aren't, so you can blame us for violating our own Scriptures (viz., the Ninth Commandment).

 

[Split Rock]

That's because you guys like to call them "lies," even though they aren't, so you can blame us for violating our own Scriptures (viz., the Ninth Commandment).

Repeating a lie isn't necessarily a lie.. if you do not know it is a lie. However, the perpetrators (Hovind, Ham, Gish, etc.) are most certainly liars and are violating scripture. My biggest beef with rank-in-file creationists is that most don't seem to care if they are being fed lies and do not hold their leaders accountable for their falsehoods.

 

[MrsLurking]

The greatest discovery of the creationist/ID movement, the discovery that forms the basis of the movement and underpins all of creation science, was when they figured out how to make money off of it.

Now I understand the name "The Discovery Institute".

 

[AV1611VET]

That's because you guys like to call them "lies," even though they aren't, so you can blame us for violating our own Scriptures (viz., the Ninth Commandment).

Repeating a lie isn't necessarily a lie.. if you do not know it is a lie. However, the perpetrators (Hovind, Ham, Gish, etc.) are most certainly liars and are violating scripture. My biggest beef with rank-in-file creationists is that most don't seem to care if they are being fed lies and do not hold their leaders accountable for their falsehoods.

QED

 

[AV1611VET]

Now I understand the name "The Discovery Institute".

Yes, they discover and expose antagonists.

 

[KWCrazy]

No it does not. There are rare situations where an object can wind up in a coal seam that was created a long time ago.

This was in a lump of coal, not just in the seam.

Now you tell me what such an object is doing there, in a coal seem created by your diety 6100 years ago.

I don't know. How you YOU explain how it got there when you claim the lump predated man by 300 million years?

In June 1936... Max Hahn and his wife Emma were on a walk when they noticed a rock with wood protruding from its core. They decided to take the oddity home and later cracked it open with a hammer and a chisel. Ironically, what they found within seemed to be an archaic hammer of sorts. A team of archaeologists checked it, and as it turns out, the rock encasing the hammer was dated back more than 400 million year; the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Additionally, a section of the handle has begun the transformation to coal. The hammer’s head, made of more than 96% iron, is far more pure than anything nature could have achieved without an assist from modern technology....

In 1944, as a ten year old boy, Newton Anderson dropped a lump of coal in his basement and found that it contained this bell inside. The bituminous coal that was mined near his house in Upshur County West Virginia is supposed to be about 300 million years old! What is a brass bell with an iron clapper doing in coal ascribed to the Carboniferous Period?
source

Don't think I didn't notice that you snipped that part of my post out.

Don't be foolish. I can't edit your posts, only my own. I respond to posts I wish to respond to, and to parts of posts I wish to respond to. Sometimes I respond only to portions due to limited time, and sometimes it's limited interest. Nobody can respond to everything that everyone posts unles they have no other life.​

 

[Loudmouth]

This was in a lump of coal, not just in the seam.

I guess you never heard of coal mining?

I don't know. How you YOU explain how it got there when you claim the lump predated man by 300 million years?

How was the lump dated?

 

[OllieFranz]

This was in a lump of coal, not just in the seam.

And where did the lump of coal come from? If you mine a seam of coal you get lumps of coal. If something is in the seam before you start mining, it will be in one of the lumps by the time you are done.

I don't know. How you YOU explain how it got there when you claim the lump predated man by 300 million years?

In June 1936... Max Hahn and his wife Emma were on a walk when they noticed a rock with wood protruding from its core. They decided to take the oddity home and later cracked it open with a hammer and a chisel. Ironically, what they found within seemed to be an archaic hammer of sorts. A team of archaeologists checked it, and as it turns out, the rock encasing the hammer was dated back more than 400 million year; the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Additionally, a section of the handle has begun the transformation to coal. The hammer’s head, made of more than 96% iron, is far more pure than anything nature could have achieved without an assist from modern technology....​

I recognize that hammer. I don't have the webpage I saw it on, and it may take a while to find it so I can verify my recollection and point to primary sources, but, to the best of my recollection, the "rock" is a lump of hardened clay, neither the rock nor the hammer date test out anywhere near as far back as this site claims they do, and the blackened wood is not evidence that the handle is turning into coal, it is flame charring, which means that the owner may have been a metalsmith.

In 1944, as a ten year old boy, Newton Anderson dropped a lump of coal in his basement and found that it contained this bell inside. The bituminous coal that was mined near his house in Upshur County West Virginia is supposed to be about 300 million years old! What is a brass bell with an iron clapper doing in coal ascribed to the Carboniferous Period?
source

Don't be foolish. I can't edit your posts, only my own. I respond to posts I wish to respond to, and to parts of posts I wish to respond to. Sometimes I respond only to portions due to limited time, and sometimes it's limited interest. Nobody can respond to everything that everyone posts unles they have no other life.

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

This was in a lump of coal, not just in the seam.

I don't know. How you YOU explain how it got there when you claim the lump predated man by 300 million years?

In June 1936... Max Hahn and his wife Emma were on a walk when they noticed a rock with wood protruding from its core. They decided to take the oddity home and later cracked it open with a hammer and a chisel. Ironically, what they found within seemed to be an archaic hammer of sorts. A team of archaeologists checked it, and as it turns out, the rock encasing the hammer was dated back more than 400 million year; the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Additionally, a section of the handle has begun the transformation to coal. The hammer’s head, made of more than 96% iron, is far more pure than anything nature could have achieved without an assist from modern technology....

In 1944, as a ten year old boy, Newton Anderson dropped a lump of coal in his basement and found that it contained this bell inside. The bituminous coal that was mined near his house in Upshur County West Virginia is supposed to be about 300 million years old! What is a brass bell with an iron clapper doing in coal ascribed to the Carboniferous Period?

​

I can't yet post links to websites but you can go to:

BadArchaeology. com

....and then use the search prompt at the upper left to find "London hammer".

This infamous and silly "find" is a money-maker for fraudster "Dr." Carl Baugh. He sells replicas at his "Creation Evidence Museum".

You will find Baugh's bogus "discoveries" debunked on many websites including TalkOrigins.org. (I think it's on that site.) You will also find a lot of discussion of various tools and work-boots left under waterfalls in caves, so that they would get covered by minerals and gradually "turn to stone" by accretion processes. Creationists have often sold these "fossil finds" as "petrified" discoveries and "proof of modern-like civilizations thriving long ago, before the flood."

Most of the major young earth creationist organizations now distance themselves from Carl Baugh's shams and laughable "science". But you can still see him on TV sometimes on various Christian cable TV channels hawking his wares. Common sense is about all that is needed to debunk his "fossils". Whenever creationists complain about Piltdown Man, they usually get hit by reminders of Carl Baugh as well as such creationist fraudulent finds like Moabite Man/Malachite Man, the Calveras Skull, and the Paluxy River Tracks. Scientists expose bad data and leave it behind. Creationists keep using their worst frauds---because they aren't intended to convince scientists; they are meant to keep faithful donors onboard.​

 

[OllieFranz]

It did not take nearly as I thought it would long to find a page with an alternate explanation for the hammer. This is not the same page I remember reading many years ago, but it has much the same information. Reading it, I see that the "rock" is not clay, but limestone. That detail reminded me of something on the page I read that is not on this page. The other page went on to show a cave where several objects were placed in order to encase them in limestone and create just this kind of anomaly. The owner of the cave would sell them to tourists.

 

[Split Rock]

This was in a lump of coal, not just in the seam.

I don't know. How you YOU explain how it got there when you claim the lump predated man by 300 million years?

In June 1936... Max Hahn and his wife Emma were on a walk when they noticed a rock with wood protruding from its core. They decided to take the oddity home and later cracked it open with a hammer and a chisel. Ironically, what they found within seemed to be an archaic hammer of sorts. A team of archaeologists checked it, and as it turns out, the rock encasing the hammer was dated back more than 400 million year; the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old. Additionally, a section of the handle has begun the transformation to coal. The hammer’s head, made of more than 96% iron, is far more pure than anything nature could have achieved without an assist from modern technology....

In 1944, as a ten year old boy, Newton Anderson dropped a lump of coal in his basement and found that it contained this bell inside. The bituminous coal that was mined near his house in Upshur County West Virginia is supposed to be about 300 million years old! What is a brass bell with an iron clapper doing in coal ascribed to the Carboniferous Period?
source
​

And where did the lump of coal come from? If you mine a seam of coal you get lumps of coal. If something is in the seam before you start mining, it will be in one of the lumps by the time you are done.



I recognize that hammer. I don't have the webpage I saw it on, and it may take a while to find it so I can verify my recollection and point to primary sources, but, to the best of my recollection, the "rock" is a lump of hardened clay, neither the rock nor the hammer date test out anywhere near as far back as this site claims they do, and the blackened wood is not evidence that the handle is turning into coal, it is flame charring, which means that the owner may have been a metalsmith.

Thank you OllieFranz for doing the research to respond to this story. Yet another example of how professional creationists spread misinformation to create doubt about standard scientific methods that produce data they simply don't like.

It doesn't really matter to you though, does it KWCrazy? You'll just dig up another internet story proving "evolution is a lie" from the multitude of disengenuous ones put up by "creation ministries," and won't think twice about swallowing it hook, line and sinker.​

 

[OllieFranz]

I can't yet post links to websites but you can go to:

BadArchaeology. com

....and then use the search prompt at the upper left to find "London hammer".

This infamous and silly "find" is a money-maker for fraudster "Dr." Carl Baugh. He sells replicas at his "Creation Evidence Museum".

You will find Baugh's bogus "discoveries" debunked on many websites including TalkOrigins.org. (I think it's on that site.) You will also find a lot of discussion of various tools and work-boots left under waterfalls in caves, so that they would get covered by minerals and gradually "turn to stone" by accretion processes. Creationists have often sold these "fossil finds" as "petrified" discoveries and "proof of modern-like civilizations thriving long ago, before the flood."

Most of the major young earth creationist organizations now distance themselves from Carl Baugh's shams and laughable "science". But you can still see him on TV sometimes on various Christian cable TV channels hawking his wares. Common sense is about all that is needed to debunk his "fossils". Whenever creationists complain about Piltdown Man, they usually get hit by reminders of Carl Baugh as well as such creationist fraudulent finds like Moabite Man/Malachite Man, the Calveras Skull, and the Paluxy River Tracks. Scientists expose bad data and leave it behind. Creationists keep using their worst frauds---because they aren't intended to convince scientists; they are meant to keep faithful donors onboard.

Here's the link. Another good page about it. Thanks.

 

[KWCrazy]

I guess you never heard of coal mining?

Okay, I give up. What exactly is this supposed to mean?

Obviously if things were found in lumps of coal, then the coal was mined. Since it wasn't mined more than once, things weren't left in a col mine and embedded into the coal. Obviously, the coal formed AFTER the items fell into the material that formed the coal.

How was the lump dated?

Some lying "scientists" claimed that coal takes a long time to form.

Coal is a fossil fuel created from the remains of plants that lived and died about 100 to 400 million years ago when parts of the earth were covered with huge swampy forests. Coal is classified as a nonrenewable energy source because it takes millions of years to form.
link

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

KWcrazy, do you feel at all embarrassed after your fraudulent hammer has been exposed (again and again.)

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

Okay, I give up. What exactly is this supposed to mean?

KWCrazy, instead of giving up, why not READ what everybody explained to you?

You appear to be oblivious to what everybody has told you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Obviously if things were found in lumps of coal, then the coal was mined. Since it wasn't mined more than once, things weren't left in a col mine and embedded into the coal. Obviously, the coal formed AFTER the items fell into the material that formed the coal.

Um, no. The coal collapses onto the items.

Some lying "scientists" claimed that coal takes a long time to form.

Coal is a fossil fuel created from the remains of plants that lived and died about 100 to 400 million years ago when parts of the earth were covered with huge swampy forests. Coal is classified as a nonrenewable energy source because it takes millions of years to form.
link

So when I find a pick axe in a coal mine this means the picke axe is 400 million years old? Really?

 

[KWCrazy]

Thank you OllieFranz for doing the research to respond to this story. Yet another example of how professional creationists spread misinformation to create doubt about standard scientific methods that produce data they simply don't like.

Either that or you're lying through your teeth. Do you SERIOUSLY think someone who shovels coal for his livelihood wouldn't know coal from clay? Morover, considering how many other instances there are of things being found of coal, DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT NOBODY WHO USES COAL KNOWS WHAT IT IS??? "A team of archaeologists checked it, and as it turns out, the rock encasing the hammer was dated back more than 400 million year; the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old." So out of a team of archeologists, NOT A ONE OF THEM knew what coal was?

Ollie's rebuttal was so weak only a complete dingbat or a desperate old earth evolutionist would believer it. A team of archologists don;t know coal from clay.

It's unbelievable what people will claim to avoid acknowledging that God is real.

It doesn't really matter to you though, does it Split Rock? You'll just dig up another lame dismissal of things you can't explain from the multitude of disengenuous ones put up by old earth evolutionists and won't think twice about swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

 

[Loudmouth]

Either that or you're lying through your teeth. Do you SERIOUSLY think someone who shovels coal for his livelihood wouldn't know coal from clay? Morover, considering how many other instances there are of things being found of coal, DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT NOBODY WHO USES COAL KNOWS WHAT IT IS??? "A team of archaeologists checked it, and as it turns out, the rock encasing the hammer was dated back more than 400 million year; the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old."

Sources? What tests did they do?

 

[KWCrazy]

So when I find a pick axe in a coal mine this means the picke axe is 400 million years old? Really?

If you're digging in a fresh mine and find ANYTHING in the coal it means someone was there before you. This gets increasingly strange the deeper you dig.

 

[MrsLurking]

Either that or you're lying through your teeth. Do you SERIOUSLY think someone who shovels coal for his livelihood wouldn't know coal from clay? Morover, considering how many other instances there are of things being found of coal, DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT NOBODY WHO USES COAL KNOWS WHAT IT IS??? "A team of archaeologists checked it, and as it turns out, the rock encasing the hammer was dated back more than 400 million year; the hammer itself turned out to be more than 500 million years old." So out of a team of archeologists, NOT A ONE OF THEM knew what coal was?

Ollie's rebuttal was so weak only a complete dingbat or a desperate old earth evolutionist would believer it. A team of archologists don;t know coal from clay.

1) Names of the archaeologists?

2) Citation for who/where/when published? Peer-review editors?

3) Dating method used? Laboratory conducting the tests? [All of this should be easy to find in the footnotes to the article.]