01 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseySo it did that trick 300 million years ago just to trick a bunch of primates who hadn't even been born yet?
God made it like that to test our faith.
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.
01 Mar 12
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.
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by jaywillNot 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.
I mean of course the sand or minirals that REPLACED the wood would date older.
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.
01 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillTo 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.
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.
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
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by sonhouseWell if there really is a 300+ Million old petrified forest than the earth is
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229140825.htm
300+million year old petrified forest, how do you explain this?
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
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by KellyJayThat was as incomprehensible a statement as I have heard in quite a while.
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
01 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt depends on the method. I should have mentioned that.
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.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt does not take long for wood to be petrified. Wikipedia says, in general,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229140825.htm
300+million year old petrified forest, how do you explain this?
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.
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by KellyJayYou 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?
It is either as old as you think or not.
Kelly
Can you comprehend that?
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by sonhouseIf right is defined by what it actually is, and one of the two is correct the only
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?
one that is right is the one that has rightly reflected reality.
Kelly
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by sonhousewhy do you persist? at what point did any fundamentalist on this forum gave you the illusion they might be persuaded?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229140825.htm
300+million year old petrified forest, how do you explain this?
do you enjoy posting common knowledge (common to sane people) ? this is similar to bragging to a 10 year old you know some calculus
01 Mar 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziI just want to see what their rationalizations would be.
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