London Hammer, watchu think /sci/?

What kind of rock is that?
I'm not a geologist, I don't know minerals.

Has there been an attempt to date the wood?

>>8734444
Older than most things you know

>>8734447
Not that I know. But the wood itself started to turn to coal.

>>8734439
>The hammer appeared embedded inside a rock

That is very accurately stated.

>>8734439
Meanwhile in reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrifying_well

>>8734490
Cool. Still avoiding thread topic.

>>8734502
No, your underlaying premise is wrong. It formed completely naturally in a petrifying well.

File: wreck concretion.jpg (291KB, 1018x576px)

291KB, 1018x576px

>>8734439
It is a miners hammer, so whenever it was made presumably was used underground, for mining. It matches the style of miner's hammer made in the 19th century.

A hammer dropped into water with a lot of dissolved calcium would be encased in mineral concretions fairly quickly. Although it is often stated that it was found in strata of ancient date, with a huge range of variation in what age is claimed, nobody has ever put forth evidence of this.

By way of an interesting comparison, here is an X-ray of a concretion that formed around a small grouping of artifacts, found off the shore of NC in an area fraught with shipwrecks from the golden age of sail...

>>8734509
>According to analysis, the rock encasing of the hammer was dated to the Ordovician era, more than 400 million years ago.

do you even read?

i believe the rock is called falsite. commonly found in shitposts and clickbait.

>>8734439
Looks like a crappy fake you'd see in one of those 'mystery spot' type tourist traps.

>>8734519
>According to my uncited analysis this hammer is pretty much magic.
Vs.
>This hammer was encased in minerals from a petrifying well

Well I wonder which I'll pick.

>>8734527
>>8734528

>In denial.
>Actual carbon dating
>Wood turned to coal

>>8734532
I know you're curious. You can find it the truth for yourself.

>>8734546
Translation:
>I can't substantiate my claims.

Thread dropped.

File: stock-photo-wood-and-coal-with-pick-axe-sources-of-energy-concept-on-white-background-290775413.jpg (26KB, 450x320px)

26KB, 450x320px

>>8734534
>>Actual carbon dating

Source for that. SOurces I read say that the owner, an ardent creationist, refused to allow carbon dating. I did see a source that noted a claim that carbon dating had eventually been done, but that said no specifics of this were given by the one claiming this had happened, so it is impossible to know how accurate the report is.

Nonetheless, the dating was said to have shown the artifact to be a few hundred years old.

Also, the wood is visibly not turned into coal. Attached is a picture that includes some wood, and some coal, for your enjoyment.

>>8734439

That's the most impractical hammer I have ever seen. The Annunaki who built it must have had coal powered spaceships or something.

>>8734439
ancient aliens

>>8734519
Cite such analysis.

It is CLAIMED that the rock is that old, or that it is from anything from Devonian to Cretaceous in age. None of those claims that I can find are attached to any study backing them up. If you can link to such a study, please do so.

>>8734534
>Carbon dating
>Hundreds of millions of years

I don't think so anon.

>>8734447
Since the earth has been confirmed to be 6,000 years old, it can't be older than that.

>>8734565
Of course, the creationists who get excited about this do not think it is actually hundreds of millions of years old. They think it is a comparatively recent artifact, found in rock that elitist East-Coast science erroneously claims to be that old.

They believe it so be a pre-flood artifact, several thousand years old.

Which is why the owner does not want to have it carbon-dated, as it is a miners hammer from the 19th century, and way too young to prove what they want it to prove, much less to be what the "artifact out of time" guys want it to prove..

>>8734576
see >>8734578

The owner will not let it be dated because it is in fact so much younger than that, that it does not say anything about the age of the earth, or of man on the earth, at all. We all, creationist and scientist, already agree that people lived in Texas in the 19th century.

File: crickets.jpg (5KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 480x360px

Got real quiet in here after a request for sources on these supposed studies...

Petrifies the wood in the wrong rock for petrification.

Doesn't dissolve or oxidize the iron based alloy.

Hoax.
"There is a sucker born every minute."
- Donald Trump...errr P.T. Barnum.


We really need to identify these people in utero and abort them.

>>8734439
> metal
> rock
...
> not using CARBON dating on WOOD!

>>8734551
You can't carbon date petrified objects as there's no carbon to test

>>8734608
The wood isn't wooden anymore it's petrified by minerals

>>8734614
There is a wooden handle sticking out of the side of the damn thing. Wood has a bit of carbon in it, here and there.

>>8734578
Carbon dating doesn't work on shit older than 54k years old

>>8734619
If it was petrified completely then there is no wood or carbon left

Clearly its not completely petrified

It's not the first time some retarded creationist did "carbon dating" on an object with no carbon in it

>>8734617
>>8734614

The handle is described as "largely unmineralized wood, with some areas of carbonization on the ends."

But testing it for C14, and finding none because it is millions of years old, would at least prove that it is older than around 50,000 years old, which would make it a major archeological find. Carbon dating the handle and discovering it is too old to be dated by that method would be a huge deal.

Owner has not allowed that test to be made.

>>8734622
>It's not the first time some retarded creationist did "carbon dating" on an object with no carbon in it

A wooden hammer-handle found in Texas that cannot be carbon dated would establish it is too old to be carbon-dated, and thus WAY too old to be what it is, a 19th century mining hammer. Carbon dating would, in that case, be extremely important, not to establish how old it is, but to establish it is way too old to be what it appears to be.

>>8734439

Why this doesn't prove that believing in an old earth is ridiculous is beyond my imagination.

>How did this soft connective tissue from a T-Rex survive 63,000,000 years intact?

This is what the godless actually believe.

>>8734620
>Carbon dating doesn't work on shit older than 54k years old

Works fine on things younger than that. Since the most likely explanation for the artifact is that it is a few hundred years old and not actually having anything to do with the Ordovician, or the "pre-delude" era a few thousand years ago, such a test could end the speculation. Owner of the Creationist Museum that houses the thing does not want it dated, for some reason that can be left as an exercise for the student.

I'd also be interested in some geologist being given a sample of the "rock."

>>8734622
It would, actually. There has never been any C14 test on organic material that did not detect C14. Including coal beds and diamonds.

For those sufficiently interested, a good skeptical account of the hammer can be found ere.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

>>8734600
NB4 no links to claimed studies is ever posted.

File: coso_geodet.jpg (16KB, 262x298px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 262x298px

>Starting a crappy Out of Place Artifacts thread
>Not starting with the Coso Artifact, a fucking fossil spark plug.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html

>>8734793
>talkorgins.org

topkek, do you know what board your posting on?