"Fishing for Proof"

[vbloke]

so, according to this logic, the Earth is only 100 or so years old then?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=7&itemid=2698

or then could it really be just a hoax, or a load of green badgers?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC130.html

[phildonnia]

Um, what the hell is an "evolution-based dating system"?

[vbloke]

probably using the same logic as a god based dating system

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Um, what the hell is an "evolution-based dating system"?

To give them the benefit of the doubt, they may be referring to the practice of dating rock strata by determining the ages of nearby fossils, ie if nearby fossils are 150 million year old trilobites, then the rock is assumed to be 150 million years old. I hear creationists harping on that one all the time, and I don't know if that is actually the way it works, but it seems to be the way creationists think it works

[vbloke]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
it seems to be the way creationists think it works

so, like the earth being created in 6 days, then?
"you can lead a believer to proof, but you can't make him think"

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by vbloke
so, like the earth being created in 6 days, then?
"you can lead a believer to proof, but you can't make him think"

Pretty much. Explaining facts to these people is the dictionary definition of "Exercise in fultility"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Um, what the hell is an "evolution-based dating system"?

You only date those you evolve well with?

[joesixpack]

Is that really rock or just cement? In the second picture (showing the rock being lifted by the reel) it appears to be wood, and it looks a lot different than the other two photos. None of the photos are very clear. I can't really tell exactly what I'm looking at in those photos.

[Krash]

Is it really phyllite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllite

Phyllite apparantly has a sheen to it. The "rock" in the photos looks dull like concrete.

It's difficult to compare two bad photos. But still smells like hoax to me.

[vbloke]

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. This is analogous to stalactites incorporating recent objects in their paths as they grow. The rapidity with which concretions and similar types of stone can form is evident in soil caliche development. "Rapid formation of limestone has been shown in coral atolls in the Pacific where World War II artifacts have been found in the matrix" (McKusick and Shinn, 1980).
from talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G4d)

[phildonnia]

The referenced "Habte Churnet" is a real person, but I couldn't find an official statement from him as to whether he really declared the rock to be a hallucination.