1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    01 Mar '12 14:26
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229140825.htm

    300+million year old petrified forest, how do you explain this?
  2. Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    69622
    01 Mar '12 14:36
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229140825.htm

    300+million year old petrified forest, how do you explain this?
    God made it like that to test our faith.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    01 Mar '12 15:101 edit
    Originally posted by lausey
    God made it like that to test our faith.
    So it did that trick 300 million years ago just to trick a bunch of primates who hadn't even been born yet?

    I was thinking more along the lines of how young earthers could explain how that forest could have been turned into stone in a few thousand years.
  4. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    01 Mar '12 15:17
    I am probably more of an Old Earther. But the question I have about dating is this:

    When you date a piece of petrified wood what is being dated, the wood or the particles that REPLACED the wood ?

    I mean of course the sand or minirals that REPLACED the wood would date older.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Mar '12 15:50
    Originally posted by jaywill
    I mean of course the sand or minirals that REPLACED the wood would date older.
    Not necessarily. It depends on the dating method. Most atoms are as old as the earth and some are nearly as old as the universe. Atomic reactions are not that common and most take place in the heart of suns.
    Many dating methods take advantage of the very few atoms that are radio active to determine when a given chemical compound was formed, or, in the case of Radiocarbon dating, to determine when the atoms were last in the upper atmosphere (where some atomic reactions take place).
    When minerals replace wood in fossilization, I presume there are chemical reactions involved, thus, a method that is based on dating when a compound formed may tell us when the fossilization took place. However, I suspect that the dating was not based on the material that replaced the wood.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    01 Mar '12 15:561 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    I am probably more of an Old Earther. But the question I have about dating is this:

    When you date a piece of petrified wood what is being dated, the wood or the particles that REPLACED the wood ?

    I mean of course the sand or minirals that REPLACED the wood would date older.
    To me it's more about the time it takes for the minerals to displace the wood. Clearly those 300 million year old trees did not take that long to mineralize but it would have taken a lot more than 10 thousand years. Of course YEC's can criticize the methods used to calculate the time it takes for complete mineralization but we have direct lab results that shows X amount of mineralization in Y amount of time and from that can extrapolate the time for complete mineralization, which from what I have heard is around 50,000 years or more.

    If YEC's say it goes ten times faster than they would have to show how, not simply say time went differently 5000 years ago. But of course there would be no such work from YEC's, just more spouting of silly assumptions where other men who were not being inspired by their god, just making analysis to come up with numbers, yet still deceiving people all these hundreds of years later.

    Here is a modern paper dealing with this subject and if YEC's want to refute it they have to have their own evidence:

    http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org/Permineralization.htm
  7. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148447
    01 Mar '12 16:52
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229140825.htm

    300+million year old petrified forest, how do you explain this?
    Well if there really is a 300+ Million old petrified forest than the earth is
    older than a few thousand year, if the earth is only a few thousand year old
    than more than time can fossilize a forest. You needed me to tell you that?
    Kelly
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    01 Mar '12 17:28
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Well if there really is a 300+ Million old petrified forest than the earth is
    older than a few thousand year, if the earth is only a few thousand year old
    than more than time can fossilize a forest. You needed me to tell you that?
    Kelly
    That was as incomprehensible a statement as I have heard in quite a while.
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148447
    01 Mar '12 17:38
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    That was as incomprehensible a statement as I have heard in quite a while.
    It is either as old as you think or not.
    Kelly
    Can you comprehend that?
  10. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    01 Mar '12 17:571 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Not necessarily. It depends on the dating method. Most atoms are as old as the earth and some are nearly as old as the universe. Atomic reactions are not that common and most take place in the heart of suns.
    Many dating methods take advantage of the very few atoms that are radio active to determine when a given chemical compound was formed, or, in the ca ...[text shortened]... place. However, I suspect that the dating was not based on the material that replaced the wood.
    It depends on the method. I should have mentioned that.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    01 Mar '12 18:141 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229140825.htm

    300+million year old petrified forest, how do you explain this?
    It does not take long for wood to be petrified. Wikipedia says, in general,
    it takes less than 100 years for wood to petrify. No one, but God, can
    say for sure why the forest was petrified, but my guess is that it may of
    had something to do with the flood of Noah's day.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood

    P.S. The 300+ million year old claim is due to the fact they are eat up
    with the dumb butt.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    01 Mar '12 18:15
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    It is either as old as you think or not.
    Kelly
    Can you comprehend that?
    You could have said that in the first place, makes more sense. So if people just assume the fossil wood is say, 5,000 years old, then they are just as right as someone who says more like 300 mil?
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148447
    01 Mar '12 18:38
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You could have said that in the first place, makes more sense. So if people just assume the fossil wood is say, 5,000 years old, then they are just as right as someone who says more like 300 mil?
    If right is defined by what it actually is, and one of the two is correct the only
    one that is right is the one that has rightly reflected reality.
    Kelly
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    01 Mar '12 18:45
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229140825.htm

    300+million year old petrified forest, how do you explain this?
    why do you persist? at what point did any fundamentalist on this forum gave you the illusion they might be persuaded?

    do you enjoy posting common knowledge (common to sane people) ? this is similar to bragging to a 10 year old you know some calculus
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    01 Mar '12 18:52
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    why do you persist? at what point did any fundamentalist on this forum gave you the illusion they might be persuaded?

    do you enjoy posting common knowledge (common to sane people) ? this is similar to bragging to a 10 year old you know some calculus
    I just want to see what their rationalizations would be.
Back to Top