Q For Evolutionisists About Petrification

[usafjay1976 47]

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 1]

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 47]

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 32]

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 640]

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 14]

"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 32]

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 860]

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

[supramk3speed 21]

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 27]

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

[Jake 1]

Is the water wheel petrified or calcified?

[Stripe 27]

Is the water wheel petrified or calcified?

 

Looks like both.

[Calypsis4 640]

Looks like both.

 

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

[Stripe 27]

either or.

Why?

[Calypsis4 640]

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

 

Best wishes to you.

[Jake 1]

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 640]

Jake: O.k.

 

And the petrified hat I posted above?

 

Here's another: http://pocketanswers.net/fossilized_manmade_objects_files/image002.jpg

 

Petrified since 1886.

 

Here's another: a paper rose

 

http://creationtruthministries.org/storenews.html

[Stripe 27]

Can calcification not replace original material?

[gilbo12345 860]

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.yourgemologist.com/Kids/petrifiedwood/petrifiedwood.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 27]

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.

[Codex 9]

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.

[Codex 9]

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!

[Stripe 27]

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?

[Codex 9]

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.

[Codex 9]

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)