As an archaeologist I still have to see a single Oopart (out-of-place artefact) that is not a blatant fraud. Reading all those articles I just can’t help myself but to remember a quote from full metal jacket that goes something like : « i didnt know they were able to staked shit up that high!» Im just gonna take 2 exemples to illustrate how the information are twisted and manipulated. Many other exist like for exemple the 500 millions years old steel bolt inside a rock but those are soo funny that im not gonna address them. The LONDON HAMMER is amongst the best and well known «out of place» artefact that seems to prove that the human were there at the same time as the dinosaurs. «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» -wiki 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 hammers 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.» paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm there is 20+ sources at the bottom of this article^^ The wood of the handle still...wood. It is not petrified like we are to be expecting form an 300millions years old piece of wood so it can be dated. We could use other methods if you want...c14 is not the only one. But the guy dosent want to date the thing. I think we have our answer. You make your mind. Bottom line, the artefact have no archaeological context... he was found by a creationist and the guys always refuse the hammer to be dated or analyse by others. I Agreed! Its not a proven fraud but « As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. » By the way the hammer REALLY looks like an old spike hammer use to build railway… just saying -------------» antiquesnavigator/d-725640/vintage-striking-sledgespike-driver6-railroad-spikes--large-striking-sledge.html --------------------------- Another great story was the dinosaur/modern man footprint There is soo much to say about it but many have done the job before me and guess what ? It is another hoax. All thoses sources are well documented. Be my guess. ncse/cej/2/4/paluxy-man-creationist-piltdown talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paluxy_River During my research on this particular topic I’ve try to look at both side. On this creationist webpage bible.ca/tracks/dino-human-coexistence-implications.htm they quote Richard Dawkins alleged human bones in the Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these bones would blow the theory of evolution out of the water. (Free Inquiry, V.21, No.4, 10/11/2001) Richard Dawkins ! He is an ethnologist, evolutionary biologist and most of all one of the biggest critic on creationism around. So I found that interesting and start digging … The problem is that the real quote was in fact Dawkins quoting another creationist: Kurt Wise. The complete quote should read : I (Dawkins) have seen a published letter in which he (krut wise)comments on alleged “human bones” in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these “bones” would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific […] https://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_2.php So, my question is : are you aware of any Oopart that discredit evolution and that is not a pathetic fraud ?
Posted on: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:29:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015