Something was discovered in the year 1936 close to Red Creek in London, Texas. It has emerged as one of the most convincing pieces of evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a history of Earth that has been lost. Emma Han, a researcher, noticed a small piece of wood that appeared to be lodged into a rock. Because she found this peculiar, the researcher picked up the object in order to examine it more closely.
That researcher was so intrigued by the imbedded wood that he decided to take it home with him even though he had no idea what it was. A little over a decade and a half later, the researcher’s kid, Max, would pique his curiosity about what it might be. He smashes the boulder to pieces, and to their astonishment, they discover an old stone hammer hidden inside the rock. Currently referred to as the London Hammer.
It is believed that the rock that formerly grew around it stopped growing approximately 400 million years ago, which can only suggest that the hammer is considerably older.
What if the person who made this hammer around 500 million years ago took the concept for it from an ancient relic that he discovered on his own?.
But the question that has to be answered is how long ago our history could have been. It has been established that iron accounts for 96.6 percent of the composition of the hammerhead’s metal. 2.6 percent chlorine and 0.74 percent sulphur in its makeup.
It has not been affected by rust in any way since its discovery in the 1930s and subsequent return to the atmosphere. Carl E Baugh, a creationist, purchased the hammer around the year 1983.
Many prominent persons in the scientific and historical areas have vehemently disagreed with the notion that the hammer is many hundreds of millions of years old. There are even others who postulate that the limestone in which it was found might have only been a few hundred years old when it first developed.
The fact that creationists and scientists have different theories on the age of the artefact in question has not only added fuel to the fire of the ongoing controversy, but it has also helped to indirectly contribute to the denial that the artefact is indeed quite old.
However, there are some aspects of this item, along with so many others that fall under this criterion, that cannot be described by the academic standards that are currently in place. To begin, it is inconceivable that the current evolutionary theory could incorporate such artefacts because doing so would push the age of the debate back several millions of years.
They are, in reality, taking a stand against this item. Both sides of the modern coin have a handy tendency to neglect the hammer’s most significant characteristics. This is unfortunate because the hammer is a vital tool. As an illustration, the handle of the hammer is not made of wood like it was in the past.
It was formerly made of wood, but the technique was more organic and relaxed back then, so now it’s made of coal instead. Conventional geologists estimate that the age of the rock strata at the site ranges from approximately 110 million to 115 million years old.
The wood has been converted into coal, and whatever the reasons may be for the discrepancies in the reports, it is evident that the rock strata at the site or indeed Hensel Sam are members of the Travis formation, lower Cretaceous upper option stage.
This is a fact, so by inference, that hammer is older regardless of the ulterior objectives that may result from publicising such objects; the truth they can communicate should not be ignored, whatever how resistant it may be to your worldview.
Although the age of the rock formation could be a factor in determining the genuineness of the artefact, this information is not relevant to the existence of the hammer itself. And that these artefacts make a proposition for historical data that we should be approaching with open minds if we are to progress as a species in the future.