Spark plug dating guide
As discussed by Stromberg and Heinrich (2000, 2004), the details of either the dating technique or evidence on which this estimate were made was neither revealed nor published.Rather, this date was based solely on the opinion of an anonymous "geologist" as repeated second hand by one of the people, who discovered this artifact.Joshua Z , 9 January 2007 (UTC)I suggest that an OOPART is only one as long as it is "out of place", yes?Once it has been identified as being a valid artifact from that era, then it should no longer be an OOPART.I found this article as I was looking for more information on this artifact, having originally read about it as an OOPArt.If it had not been listed on the OOPArt page I might not have found it.Sun Sw0rd , 9 January 2007 (UTC) It should be listed as such in that it is commonly described as one by people who don't know any better and we can veriffy that description.In fact, all OOPARTS are almost certainly not really OOPARTS, but we still list them.
I added articles and a peer-reviewed book, which discusses how nodules containing iron or steel artifacts can form in a period of a few years to decades, to this section such that it now reads: “Originally it was believed that the artifact must be very old, perhaps 500,000 years old, as claimed by Virginia Maxey, one of the people who discovered it.
They don't look anywhere near as primitive as the Coso object.
Here are a 1916 and a 1920 Champion plug which do not look that different from a modern spark plugs.
Hammer Film Fan (talk) , 13 February 2013 (UTC) Certain young-earth creationists have hailed the artifact as evidence for a young earth, arguing that if a modern item such as a spark plug can become encased in stone then the entire idea of rocks taking millions of years to form can be shown to be false. That is why it isn't cited by any YEC, because there is no science to refute.124.1 (talk) , 16 February 2011 (UTC) The report seem to have much more meat than the speculation on extra terrestrials and time travellers, yet the "Origin" section is being lead by the supernatural explanations.
It is true that Young Earth creationists make the argument from either hats, leaves, and forth encrusted with either rust, travertine, or concretions and objects found in beachrock that the "idea of rocks taking millions of years to form can be shown to be false." However, I have yet to find any specific author, who uses the Coso Artifact to make this specific argument. I was thinking of reversing the paragraphs, because I think reports should come before the ill-sourced supernatural speculations.