34 replies to this topic

[usafjay1976]

First off, this is my first thread so be gentle. I'm quite excited to be here! It's great to see the heavy hitters coming out with blow after blow against evolution.

I did some searching on petrification and I was trying to find how long the process takes. I saw different numbers but the average I found on Google looked like one million years.

If that is accurate, how do evolutionists explain a petrified waterwheel? The article (with picture) can be found in the below link.

http://creation.com/...fied-waterwheel

[jason777]

A friend of mine knows someone that found a petrified gun stock when searching a civil war site with a metal detector. I also heard Kent H*vind say that a kid sent him some petrified acorns that had been sitting in a bucket of water for only one year.


Enjoy.

[usafjay1976]

Interesting. I have read that sometimes the petrification process can vary depending on the size of the object. I seem to remember learning the 'millions of years' thing back in school though.

[JayShel]

This millions of years paradigm is also used for other things, such as the formation of coal and oil, but in the lab it has been made rapidly. It all depends on the conditions, not the length of time.

http://www.0095.info...etrifiedwo.html

Many people were taught that coal and oil takes millions of years, and as always, it takes many years to reverse such false teachings, and replace textbooks in schools.

[Calypsis4]

This millions of years paradigm is also used for other things, such as the formation of coal and oil, but in the lab it has been made rapidly. It all depends on the conditions, not the length of time.

http://www.0095.info...etrifiedwo.html

Many people were taught that coal and oil takes millions of years, and as always, it takes many years to reverse such false teachings, and replace textbooks in schools.

Right. Plus the carbon14 found in coal and diamonds indicate a much younger age than the neo-Darwinian time frame permits. Then there is the polonium haloes in granite.

Say, JayShel, have you seen the talk/origins take on the polonium halo argument? Just curious.

[ChrisCarlascio]

"Fossilization is a process that can take anything from a few hours to millions of years ... The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks."[1]

They know fossilzation can happen within "a few hours" to "a matter of weeks", because they've seen this happen. They've never seen fossils forming over "millions of years", so it is an assumption that is not based on observation.

During the global flood, the groundwater would have been "heavily laden with minerals in solution".

"A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a 'way of life' although they may avoid the word catastrophe. In fact, many geologists now see rare, short-lived events as being the principal contributers to geologic sequences ... The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record."[2]

[1] Philip J. Currie & Eva B. Koppelhus, 101 Questions about Dinosaurs, (Dover Publications, 1996), p.11.

[2] Raup, David M., "Geology and Creationism," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 54, p. 21, (March 1983).

[JayShel]

Right. Plus the carbon14 found in coal and diamonds indicate a much younger age than the neo-Darwinian time frame permits. Then there is the polonium haloes in granite.

Say, JayShel, have you seen the talk/origins take on the polonium halo argument? Just curious.

No I have not but the point of that link was to show that coal and oil can be created rapidly in the lab, which destroys their argument that it must take millions of years. Radiodating in the Uinkaret lava flows and Mt. St. Helens has shown ages of millions or even billions of years, but we KNOW for a FACT that they are only 800-1000 years old. How then can we trust their claims on talkorigins? Their knowledge of the age of the earth is laid on a foundation of quicksand.

[gilbo12345]

I've seen a picture of a cup half embedded into petrified wood... Lol I guess dinosaurs used to use cups all those millions of years ago



Its funny since none of this information reaches the students in schools and universities.... Basically they are being taught outdated ideas and don't know any better so will not research the discrepancies with what they were taught. Its a crying shame

[supamk3speed]

These children are given the perception that these teachers are highly intelligent and what they say is not a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact. It doesn't help that when they go home to their parents who can't help them with basic math, yet want to teach them God is truth which flies in the face of what they are taught at school. Who would you believe in that situation? The teacher who teaches you things your parents can't even begin to grasp, or the parent who can't even help you with your 5th grade math? Some teachers are taking advantage of this situation, they can teach whatever they want and label it as fact without any resistance.

[Stripe]

Petrification? How long does it take concrete to set? Answer. It depends on the water content.

[Jake]

Is the water wheel petrified or calcified?

[Stripe]

Is the water wheel petrified or calcified?

Looks like both.

[Calypsis4]

Looks like both.

either or. Here's a fossilzed business hat that cannot be more than 80 yrs of age:

[Stripe]

either or.

Why?

[Calypsis4]

There are others who can answer you technically better than I can on that particular point.

Best wishes to you.

[Jake]

Looks like both.

Can you tell if something's petrified from a photo?

The Heritage Council of W. Australia says it's calcified, not petrified. Even the creation.com article says it's 'entombed in solid rock.'
For it to be petrified the wood would have to be replaced by minerals, not just coated. My kettle's calcified but not petrified.

I think whoever wrote the 'petrified water wheel' headline didn't check the facts. Proper review might have picked up on the grammatical error ('a false idea of the what 'old' really is') as well.

[Calypsis4]

Jake: O.k.

And the petrified hat I posted above?

Here's another: http://pocketanswers...es/image002.jpg

Petrified since 1886.

Here's another: a paper rose

http://creationtruth.../storenews.html

[Stripe]

Can calcification not replace original material?

[gilbo12345]

Can you tell if something's petrified from a photo?

The Heritage Council of W. Australia says it's calcified, not petrified. Even the creation.com article says it's 'entombed in solid rock.'
For it to be petrified the wood would have to be replaced by minerals, not just coated. My kettle's calcified but not petrified.

I think whoever wrote the 'petrified water wheel' headline didn't check the facts. Proper review might have picked up on the grammatical error ('a false idea of the what 'old' really is') as well.

.... according to this pro-evolution site calcified = petrified

"Below you can see an example of a calcified tree that is still white. This is a type of petrified wood that has had all of the wood cells replaced with calcite mineral. And since we just uncovered this tree stump, it is still white. After exposure to the ultraviolet light of the sun for a few years, the petrified tree stump will start to turn dark."

http://www.yourgemol...rifiedwood.html


There are also a series of pictures providing a step-by-step guide to the process where it also uses petrified and calcified for the same thing....

[Stripe]

So there is a difference between calcification and petrifaction. Petrifaction is replacement of original material. Calcification might just mean covered in calcium. But an item can have its original material replaced by calcium. So that would be both.

Right?

Doesn't help us define what happened to the water wheel though.