Young Earthers, explain this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229140825.htm

300+million year old petrified forest, how do you explain this?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.