Christians upset over Golden Compass

Well this does not happen to often, but I would say on the hammer it would be nice to see it handed over to a lab for an indepth independent study. I like everything in the open, and I don't like anything filed away. As for the pot found in coal, I believe there is more substance to that find because of the people involved. Jim Stull and Frank Kennord who found the pot swore in a written statement, that they both saw the pot fall from the center of the coal, and that the pot was molded to the center of that coal. And when Frank broke open the coal with a sledge hammer that is when the pot came out. Julia L. Eldred of Sulpur Springs Arkansas was the one who took the sworn statement from the two men that found it. And that was back in 1948. Since other artifacts have been found in coal, I would think that would be a more conclusive artifact. There would be no extensive debate on the age of the coal as there would be with the hammer. It appears that there have been many such discoveries of this nature. As early as 1820 from the Journal of Science and Arts, comes an account of an ancient tool discovery. At a quarry near Aixen-Provence, France, in 1788, 40 or 50 feet below ground in a layer of limestone were found coins, petrified wooden handels of hammers, pieces of other petrified wooden tools, and a quarrymen's board. The limestone was said to be 300 million years old. If you click the link below you will find another 55 accounts of such discoveries, from Embedded Anomalies.

Embedded Anomalies, by Patrick Cooke

Bible... UFO... dot com?

Why yes, having the hammer and what it was found inside, along with the iron pot and the coal it was found inside, sent in for testing would be quite nice. Unfortunately because of the refusal of both parties to hand over their "artifacts" this cannot happen.

Because of this, nobody can give a date for the origins of these artifacts. Have them examined by several independent groups (as is done with all scientific findings), then come back with a claim.


Until then all you've got is a pot and a hammer.

Your link provided includes many hoaxes (the Paluxy Man-Tracks for example), which sadly brings a decent amount of skepticism to the entire thing. Also, what dating methods were used during this time. According to this, you've got a "verified" date from a find in 1572. How about in 1820? What dating methods did they use to verify this?

Lots of claims and very little evidence to back it up. Again, you're in the same boat here as you are with the hammer and pot. You're going to need more than what you have supplied to start refuting scientific claims.

Over the years there has been a great deal of evidence, but what happens is when they discover that the evidence flies in the face of the Theory of Evolution this evidence is shelved. This has happened time and time again.

In 1921, an Arkansan named Rowlands was digging in one of the many gravel pits on a line of small hillocks know as Crowley's Ridge, located two miles north of Finch. At a depth of 10 feet, Rolands shovel suddenly struck something large and solid. The object appeared at first to be a boulder, but excavating around it, Rowlands soon discovered that it was a large rock-sculptured head of a man. It stood about 4 feet high, and the figure had a squared, protruding chin, small, tight-lipped mouth, a short nose, and a furrowed brow and stare accented by two flat "buttons" of inlaid gold for eyes. Two more gold discs ornamented the figure's ears, and a heart-shaped plug of copper was embedded in the chest. The top of the head was covered by a carved hood that draped down the nape, and attached to a piece around the neck. Near the head, and in the same layer, Rowlands dug up a number of smaller objects: gold ring, a small coffer made of volcanic pumice (which does not exist in this region), and tiny carvings of men, animals, moons and stars.
Several investigators authenticated the find, though they could not explain its presence in the ten-foot layer of gravel-geologically dated at 175,000 years. The head and objects were sent to the Arkansas Natural History Museum in Little Rock. The museum curators, who also examined the artifacts and had double checked and documented their discovery, were confident in the findings authenticity to place them on public display. At the same time, however, some of the small carving samples were mailed to the Smithsonian in Washington. The Smithsonian-being a far more conservative institution-described the carvings as truly"unexplained items," but could not reconcile the antiquity of the stratra in which they had been brought to light. Finally, after fifteen years of vacillating on the subject, orthodoxy triumphed: The Smithsonian concluded that the Crowley Ridge artifacts could not be 175,000 yeats old as this contradicted established theory of the age of human civilization, and therefore declared the artifacts fakes.

This is what happens all the time, look at the dinosaur figurines from Mexico. Even when they do carbon testing and it shows the figurines to be 1200 years old, they dismiss the findings because it does not agree with their belief system or Evolution. They use and unproven Theory as the litmus test for all other finds. This is not science, this is a white wash. It's not that the evidence does not exist, it is because the orthodoxy refuses to consider such evidence, especially if that evidence dares to challenge their established Theory of Evolution.

http://www.thotweb.com/content-549-page3.html