One day in 1936, Mr. and Mrs. Hahn were hiking near London, Texas when they found something out of the ordinary. It was a chunk of rock with clamshells in it and wood protruding from it. When they cracked it open they discovered it was a hammer. It acquired the name “The London Artifact” and has been the center of controversy ever since.
The controversy arises because some Creationists say this hammer is an artifact from before the flood because it is encased in stone. Evolutionists don’t agree and say this could be a hammer from the last few hundred years and that stone formed around it when chemically soluble rock dissolved from somewhere nearby and reformed around it. Both are determined to interpret the evidence their way.
Some of the arguments against the hammer as a pre-flood artifact are not very credible. One argument is the number of times the rock has been re-categorized. The different dates suggested by Creationists would put it in the Ordovician, Silurian or Devonian. Using this to discredit the hammer as genuine would seem to be a very weak argument because any incompetence in assigning a geologic period to the rock does not erase the fact that it is in stone. Perhaps both sides in this issue should stick to basics and not rely on putting down the other side to enhance their position.
Another argument against the hammer was brought up in 1985, by a researcher for NCSE (National Center for Science Education – defends evolution in public schools) John Cole.
“The stone 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 (Cole, 1985).”
Cole’s answer to his own question illustrates one of the problems with Evolutionists. Since in their mind it is completely impossible that people were around in the time period they label Ordovician then his conclusion is the rock can’t be Ordovician. But is it or isn’t it? This is a question that needs an answer and highlights the problem in this controversy – too little facts to evaluate! This is the one point that is valid against the hammer: the lack of testing done. A potential discovery of this sort should be willingly subjected to any and all testing possible. Unfortunately any testing that has been done has not been made clear or available.
One point in favor of the hammer comes from Cole’s comments. He said, “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.” The rock that the hammer was found in was sitting unattached to surrounding rock and thus on top of the other rocks. If surrounding rock was dissolved and re-solidified then how did this chunk get up on top of other rocks instead of being in a low point such as a crack?
One would also have to wonder how fossil clamshells were found in it. Why were the clams unable to move out of this slowly forming rock if indeed that is how it was formed? Clams move through dirt and water and should not have been trapped unless they were buried quickly as would be expected with a flood.
So… Fact or Fiction, You Decide! Is this strange artifact a relic of a pre-flood civilization or as some suspect a lost miner’s hammer from the early 1800’s. To own a replica of The London Hammer see our store.