There's two sides to the explanation of petrified wood not sure yet about what creationists say about petrified dung. On one side evelutionists say it's a long process the creationists say it happen rapidly caused by Noah's flood and after. Has anyone really looked into this argument to see if there a decisive way to show the Bible believers wrong. Rapid petrification does seem possible with hot mineral water. Is this a stalemate of an argument? Maybe animal dung is a better way to go, I have read that they have found remains of animal bones in the dung showing animal ate meet before the flood, but not sure if animal dung can be petrified faster then evelutionists claim.
The argument over wood petrification and the pertification of animal dung?
by Crazyguy 13 Replies latest social current
-
-
cofty
not sure if animal dung can be petrified faster then evelutionists claim
What is an "evelutionist"?
Is somebody who accepts gravity a "gravitationalist"?
People who accept the fact of evolution are just normal, rational, intelligent humans.
creationists say it happen rapidly caused by Noah's flood
There are a million ways to prove there was no global flood.
Try google search for "coprolite".
-
Floodguy
Fence posts have been pulled out of the ground with the bottom 12"-18" petrified. Silica rich sediments would cause that to happen in a short amount of time. Supercritical water erupting from under the crust would cover the earth with such sediments, thereby creating a one time record of that event. But that would indicate a global flood, and that obviously never happened. Right. -
Anders Andersen
Supercritical water erupting from under the crust would cover the earth with such sediments, thereby creating a one time record of that event. But that would indicate a global flood, and that obviously never happened.
Well the Biblical account would still be wrong then. See also footnotes in NWT for Gen 6:6, 11
-
rebel8
Rapid petrification does seem possible with hot mineral water.
Why not do an experiment in your own home to confirm?
-
brandnew
I have heard ....😆that my wood is verrrrrrr petrified😉
Mad Puppy
-
ScenicViewer
Well the Biblical account would still be wrong then. See also footnotes in NWT for Gen 6:6, 11
I'm curious. What should I dig out, the original NWT or the Revised NWT? Or does it matter?
-
Anders Andersen
@ScenicViewer,
Lol.
Just take whichever you like. Both are crappy translations of ancient myths and tales for which the originals have never been found.
On a more serious note: I look this stuff up on wol so I think it is the rNWT.
-
Half banana
Crazy guy, you say "there are two sides to the petrification of wood!?" Not quite sure which sides you are referring to.
However on this subject it is worth understanding that the stone like covering which can be deposited on a number of objects from certain mineral springs by its water passing over them in an evaporating situation... has nothing to do with petrification.
Petrification takes a long long time. I believe that crystals of the mineral apatite have been known to form on and inside the bones in an undisturbed cave containing the right mineral environment, sometimes as soon as 25,000 to 28,000 years as a beginning of the process. Petrification, as opposed to mineral coating; is the replacement of the molecules of living tissue with silicaceous (silicon) compounds from the overlying silts and normally takes a minimum fifty to a hundred thousand years. I am familiar with handling bones of bison, horse, elephant and mammoth etc, including teeth and ivory and also wood with ages up to approaching a quarter of million years old, all from local archaeological sites in southern central England, most of which material is not petrified.
Petrification for dead matter is not the norm, it only happens under very specific circumstances and that is why when specimens are found in good shape it is a great boon to paleontology.
The whole subject of death, burial and fossilization comes under the discipline of "taphonomy". It is useful to the police forensics as well as archaeologists and paleontologists.
Fossil dung has to meet the same criteria for preservation so it is extremely hard to see how a global (or local) flood could contribute anything other than the total dispersal of any fecal matter.
-
Vidiot
Mad Puppy notwithstanding, how long before this thread becomes buried in poorly-disguised euphimisms about "butt stuff"? :smirk: