Jump to content


Photo

Q For Evolutionisists About Petrification


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 03 May 2012 - 02:57 PM

These are not examples of petrifaction. Petrifaction occurs when minerals actually replace the original material, which has not occurred in these examples, they are merely covered but they exist in their original form under the coating.

#22 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 03 May 2012 - 02:59 PM

As someone pointed out this can occur very quickly, as quickly as you can pour concrete.

On a somewhat related note, the fact that things are petrified is not used as evidence of their age, so I am not sure how this could be used as evidence against an old earth or evolution or anything like that.

Sorry for the double post, I was a bit hasty and then realized I had more to say!

#23 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:28 AM

These are not examples of petrifaction. Petrifaction occurs when minerals actually replace the original material, which has not occurred in these examples, they are merely covered but they exist in their original form under the coating.

That would mean the description of "petrification" is incorrect, but the description of "calcification" is OK.

Right?

#24 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:46 AM

I'm not sure which descriptions you're referring to, but petrifaction has a rigorous definition:

"petrifaction is the process by which organic material is converted into stone through the replacement of the original material and the filling of the original pore spaces with minerals."

Petrifaction does not necessarily take "millions of years", but it will not occur in only a few years either. Of course it depends on the conditions of the environment and how well they promote permineralization and silicification.

The real point is, the fact that something is petrified is not used to determine it's age, at least I have never heard of such a thing... So the argument presented in this thread is not very relevant.

#25 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:52 AM

The only authoritative source of information I could find states that plant stem material can petrify in less than 100 years, so there you go, certainly not millions. Bones are of course a different story, but I still believe it to be far less than a million years.

Again, the point is no one claims that something is petrified it must be millions of years old, with the possible exception of your highschool science teachers depending on the quality of the school you attended (my highschool science curriculum certainly didn't state this)

#26 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:50 AM

Cool. Thanks. :)

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:30 PM

100 years is much less than "100s of millions"


Consider all the "modern" objects that have been found inside petrified wood, or have been petrified it defies the evolutionist perspective that all such things are millions of years old.

Consider the T-Rex blood INSIDE petrified bone and how long biological material takes to decompose.... Clearly this cannot be millions of years.

#28 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 05 May 2012 - 04:57 AM

Hey Gilbo,
I looked up your link in post #19. It really confirms the point that the 'millions of years' idea for petrification is passed on in common literature, rather than observation. Here's the first paragraph of your link.

Nothing is more fun that to be walking across a field and find a piece of petrified wood. Because it tells a story of a beautiful tree that once existed perhaps millions of years ago. and it has been preserved in its original shape and look for you to enjoy millions of years later.http://www.yourgemol...rifiedwood.html


But wouldn't it make sense that slightly acidic and mineralized groundwater would speed petrification? Slightly acidic conditions would speed up degradation in wood, and penetration. Obviously we have empirical backing for rapid petrification, which gives no basis for the ideas that are taught to science students.

Here's some research showing that acidic water from a Japanese volcano petrifies wood in seven years!

The scientists, led by Hisatada Akahane, studied a small lake cradled in the explosion crater of the Tateyama Volcano in central Japan (fig. A). A mineral-rich solution gushes from the bottom and fills the 15-m pond with steaming acidic water. It cascades over the edge as a waterfall. The scientists found that the naturally fallen wood in the overflow was hard and heavy because it was petrified with a mineral called silica. Yet the wood was less than 36 years old.

As an experiment, they fastened pieces of fresh wood in the lake with wire. After seven years the wood had turned into stone, again petrified with silica.Under a powerful microscope, they saw that the silica had deposited like opal, as tiny spheres smaller than the diameter of a human hair. It filled the pore spaces in the wood and covered the cell walls. Silica was deposited in the same way in the naturally fallen wood and in some wood found in nearby volcanic ash. Hot mineral-rich water had soaked into the spaces in every case. http://creation.com/...aims-recognized


Codex in post 21 thinks all these examples are "coated," for which he has no evidence. Notice the similarity below in C) the experimental 7 year wood, and D) the naturally occuring petrified wood. The wood is not "coated."

Posted Image

Posted Image

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 May 2012 - 05:03 PM

Hey Gilbo,
I looked up your link in post #19. It really confirms the point that the 'millions of years' idea for petrification is passed on in common literature, rather than observation. Here's the first paragraph of your link.



But wouldn't it make sense that slightly acidic and mineralized groundwater would speed petrification? Slightly acidic conditions would speed up degradation in wood, and penetration. Obviously we have empirical backing for rapid petrification, which gives no basis for the ideas that are taught to science students.

Here's some research showing that acidic water from a Japanese volcano petrifies wood in seven years!


Codex in post 21 thinks all these examples are "coated," for which he has no evidence. Notice the similarity below in C) the experimental 7 year wood, and D) the naturally occuring petrified wood. The wood is not "coated."

Posted Image

Posted Image


Great find :) Yeah its an idea that is palmed off to the younger generation..... The amount of mis-information out there does frustrate me at times :(

#30 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:26 PM

One would expect that the process of petrifaction would act at the same rate all the time. :)

#31 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 06 May 2012 - 04:45 PM

One would expect that the process of petrifaction would act at the same rate all the time. :)


It would be interesting to petrify wood in solutions with different pH levels and different mineral levels. I think an acidic pH would break down the cellulose cell walls faster than a nuetral pH. And this would allow the minerals to fill in and crystallize. But one would have to experiment. One thing is sure--the millions of years thing is a farce!

#32 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 06 May 2012 - 07:32 PM

Great find :) Yeah its an idea that is palmed off to the younger generation..... The amount of mis-information out there does frustrate me at times :(

I heard a Ronald Reagan quote the other day. It was speaking of liberals, but it could be applied to evolutionists. "No, our liberal friends are not ignorant at all. It's just that they know so much that isn't so!"

#33 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:03 AM

I heard a Ronald Reagan quote the other day. It was speaking of liberals, but it could be applied to evolutionists. "No, our liberal friends are not ignorant at all. It's just that they know so much that isn't so!"


Man, if that isn't the truth. Years ago I debated this professor from Pinceton on imdb and it got real heated. And though he knew much more than I did about his particular field of expertise he didn't know diddly squat about origins...(none of them do!). Years later I debated a PhD in biology on C.A.R.M. and I found the same thing; he could run circles around me as it pertained to his line of expertise but again, he knew nothing about origins nor could he even begin to explain how the various parts of the DNA mechanism originated. But you seen friend, that is their weakness. I've never let the high education or pedigree of some neo-Darwinian debaters intimidate me because no matter how well educated or intelligent they are they can't handle origins...nor can they handle natural law that flies directly in the face of Darwinian theory.

The things they have the most difficulties with:

1. What was the origin of the matter that came forth from the 'big bang'? They don't have a clue.
2. Biogenesis. No matter how they spin things no one has ever observed life generating from non-living matter.
3. The first two laws of thermodynamics. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed and entropy. They insist we 'don't understand'. Ha. They don't understand.
4. Cause and effect. They can't describe even one thing that ever occurred in nature that is without a cause.
5. Genetics: They can describe the DNA with great eloquence but can't ever demonstrate how it assembled itself to begin with.
6. Fossils: those nasty gaps between the different types of organisms is unexplainable in Darwinian terms

There is much more, of course, but these are the main problems they have and they have great difficulty trying to patch the holes in their theory in these matters.

#34 Raptor5

Raptor5

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denver,Colorado

Posted 30 May 2013 - 10:18 PM

The things your talking about are caused in a process called per-mineralization, were the gaps in the organic matter are filled with mineral-rich water. This is not petrification, though this is the first step in full petrification. In short the minerals form in the spaces in between the gaps and build-up around the cell walls. C and D are coated with the silicate because the minerals were deposited inside the cell walls. It is also true that this does NOT happen at the same rate. The rate heavily depends on the mineral that is dissolved in the water. It is also crucial to note that environments with low pH and high mineral composition would affect how fast this would happen. While it is true that complete per-mineralization can happen in less then 1000 years generally, complete petrification would take a lot longer.

 

It is also good to note that this is an anaerobic environment, so in theory extending the time for the remains to decompose. 



#35 Raptor5

Raptor5

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denver,Colorado

Posted 30 May 2013 - 11:23 PM

The things they have the most difficulties with:

1. What was the origin of the matter that came forth from the 'big bang'? They don't have a clue.
2. Biogenesis. No matter how they spin things no one has ever observed life generating from non-living matter.
3. The first two laws of thermodynamics. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed and entropy. They insist we 'don't understand'. Ha. They don't understand.
4. Cause and effect. They can't describe even one thing that ever occurred in nature that is without a cause.
5. Genetics: They can describe the DNA with great eloquence but can't ever demonstrate how it assembled itself to begin with.
6. Fossils: those nasty gaps between the different types of organisms is unexplainable in Darwinian terms

There is much more, of course, but these are the main problems they have and they have great difficulty trying to patch the holes in their theory in these matters.

 

I'm sorry you feel that schools are miss leading the young :( but am glad to hear that you are not intimidated to speak your beliefs :) kudos to you.

I'm going to try to answer these question to the best of my ability.

 

1. It is true we don't know, and truthfully it is scientific to disbelieve these theories. I myself am not well versed in physics. however this does not mean by default that the universe was created, it just means we don't know yet.

 

2. This is another thing I am not well versed in. However if I remember correctly DNA and proteins could be synthesized through a combination of elements. I sorry that I can't give more but again I'm not that knowledgeable about the subject.

 

3. I'm not sure exactly what this question is asking but I'll try. First off, as you said the first law is that matter is created or destroyed. For this I'm guessing that you mean about the big bang. For this again I'm not a physicist say much on the subject other than that is why the singularity theory exists. As for the second your right it does deal with entropy, more specifically that more time equals more chaos. I suspect your meaning that simple organisms could not have come out of that entropy. however this is only in a closed system where energy does not enter or exit. The earth is not a closed system as it gets energy from the sun.

 

4.The law of cause and effect is the transfer of matter from one stat of being into another state of being. In essence if I melt a glass ball into a puddle, the puddle of glass is the effect and the melting is the cause. I hope I got the question right but if I didn't please tell me.

 

5. DNA is actually replicated from other DNA in a process called very simply DNA replication. The molecules used to make our DNA are replicated too by enzymes in the cells, just needing to put into place. This usually happens in a stage called mitosis. This is also how mutations occur.

 

6. While yes there are still gaps in the fossil record, that gap is getting smaller every day. It is also good to remember that fossilization doesn't occur to every organism and is actually sort of rare.

 

I hope I have answer these questions and if I haven't please tell me and I'll try to clear things up.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users