The London Hammer: It's Real but It's Not Fantastic
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- Every year or so a wave of social media posts hit FB groups, X and Instagram sharing the mystery of the "London hammer" or "London artifact." It's happened again the past month and I captured some examples of posts showing how this mystery is portrayed by both creationists and UFO/Ancient aliens enthusiasts as evidence of ancient technology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Duff (aka Dr. Duff or The Natural Historian) resources:
About: joelduff.org
Blog: thenaturalhist...
Twitter: / naturalhistoria
Facebook: / thenaturalhi. .
Photography "Portraits of Creation:" www.beechnutph...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd not heard of this hammer before, so I was curious what YEC shenanigans were at play here and then the reveal of Carl Baugh being a key player in it literally made me laugh out loud, spooking my dog and cat in the process.
This hammer, the cup in coal & the man-tracks were what kept me trapped in YEC until Glenn Kuban taught me why they've been misunderstood
As soon as I saw this image, my first thought was "Oh look, someone left a hammer near some limestone." 😅The discoloring of the surface is typical in secondary carbonates where iron/sulfides are abundant.
That the hammer was never 'encased' in rock, in the sense of being buried like a fossil, is obvious from the dry degradation and splintering of the wood, which I'm sure would yield a 19th-century radiocarbon age.
I would suggest that a 19th century worker operating a Lime Kiln may haver lost the hammer he was was using to break up limestone to make slaked lime. Then 100 odd years of rain leached lime out of the kiln site and deposited it in a hollow the hammer was sitting in. I would like to investigate if there were similar limey nodules formed on other sites, It would be more convincing if it wasn't a tool associated with the processing limestone,
I cracked up at "the blacksmith shop of Tubal-Cain!"
the song is hysterical!
Was the hammer ever mentioned before 1982?
That song was 💯💯
Geological Society of America - Geologic Time Scale (version 6.0, Oct. 2022):
Cretaceous Period: ~145 million to 66 million years ago
I've seen people argue for it being proof of time travel.
From in person viewing the concretion appears to be siderite.
Nice pants and great dogs!
According to Ian Juby, he argues the London Hammer’s source rock is Cretaceous sandstone of the Hensell formation. The concretion argument doesn’t make sense as it isn’t made of limestone as far as I’m aware.
@addish5022
It _really doesn't_ help make a case in favor of the absurd lies being spread around, for you to point out someone made an assertion about the thing people are lying about...
According to a non geologist, who happens to also churn out Young Earth Conspiracy stuff, the rock is...
Nothing that comes next matters, really.
For the obvious reasons, which I've highlighted above and also, regardless of whatever claim about the rock material put forth, it's still going to require an explanation of the _actual_ geological physics involved, which that man is in no way capable of providing.
Claims aren't now, nor are they ever, evidence of anything other than the claim itself existing.
That requires actual supporting evidence.
It also doesn't matter how many questions someone comes up with, pretending they pose a challenge to the massive bodies of scientific work and understanding in existence... As though they are relevant, meaningful and genuine.
They aren't evidence of anything other than people throwing out questions, that are meant to imply uncertainty exists where it really doesn't.
And they still don't actually equal evidence that supports wild claims about hammers, rock, and floods that we have evidence did not happen.
Have you actually examined the London Hammer? Ian Juby has, and according to him, it isn’t limestone. Obviously you shouldn’t just accept something based simply off of assertions but it’s also just as bad to be dismissive of things that are evident enough. Unless there’s other kinds of concretions that could have formed around this hammer it is an inadequate explanation.
I wasn’t suggesting this supports the idea of a global flood. I just wish anti creationists would do a better job at accurately representing the claims and viewpoints of young earth creationists. I’m not a young earth creationist myself, but I am pro-honesty and not simply cherry-picking poor takes on subject to try and discredit it.
@@addish5022 Ian Juby is a creationist hack with no science degrees therefore anything he says can be dismissed
@@Petticca Indeed Ian Juby's (A creationist hack with no degrees in science nor any science background)say so is irrelevant
"The Lower Cretaceous Hensel-Glen Rose Stratigraphic Couplet in the Llano Uplift, Central Texas"
"By Peter R. Rose"
"AAPG DataPage, April 2023"
"The Lower Cretaceous Hensel Sandstone and Glen Rose Formation are lateral facies of the transgressive clastic/carbonate leg of the Trinity Division (or Group), whose stratigraphy in the area of the Llano Uplift is here mapped and characterized as a single depositional episode. The Hensel Formation represents alluvial-fan, fluvial, and coastal plain depositional settings, whereas mixed terrigenous and carbonate sediments of the overlying Glen Rose Formation represent peritidal and shallow-marine environments of deposition."
"The Hensel-Glen Rose stratigraphic couplet (hence H-GR) thickens from the Llano Uplift eastward toward the Gulf of Mexico and southward toward the Rio Grande Embayment. The Glen Rose lithosome thins northward to zero across the southern and eastern margins of the Llano Uplift, primarily by facies change into Hensel arkosic clastics. Reciprocally, the Hensel lithesome thins eastward and southward by grading into Glen Rose strata, so that only thin terrigenous Hensel sandstones and mudstones are present at the base of the downdip H-GR."
You wrote, "The concretion argument doesn't make sense as it isn't made of limestone as far as I’m aware."
It isn't limestone, per se - however, as you are now made aware, it's directly overlain by limestone. Now, if some worker using this hammer lost it on some outcrop, and limestone directly above it is being weathered and eroded onto where it was laying on the rock, that could form a limestone concretion. This is the key piece of information - that it was left in the open directly below the Glen Rose Formation layer, which is exactly where the weathered limestone would come from.
Love i! If Science ever goes out of style, you've got a future in either music or adorable dog videos!
Out of place artifact,= OopArt.
Thank you Dr Duff
Out of place artifact,= OopArt.