Discussion Topic Return to Forum List This thread has been locked Messages 1 - 20 of total 103 in this topic << First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >> illusiondweller



Trad climber San Diego, CA Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 15, 2010 - 03:29pm PT

"The July 2004 issue of Sedimentary Geology included a paper by five Japanese scientists reporting their experiments on the rapid petrification of wood as an indication that silicified wood (fossilized by impregnation with silica) found in ancient strata must likewise have been rapidly petrified. 1 After noting that "several researchers believe that several millions of years are necessary for the complete formation of silicified wood," 2 these authors state:



Snelling (1995) reviewed previous laboratory experiments, silica deposition of wood at Yellowstone National Park and various reports of natural petrification, and concluded that wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification under the right chemical conditions."



http://www.icr.org/articles/view/13/261/ dirtbag



climber Jul 15, 2010 - 03:32pm PT Wow...more creationist horesh#t. stevep



Boulder climber Salt Lake, UT Jul 15, 2010 - 03:37pm PT Cherrypicking...



A paper says that under certain ideal conditions, petrification of wood might occur more rapidly.



Somehow that becomes all petrification is thus, then on to the world must in fact be only a couple thousand years old? rrrADAM



climber LBMF Jul 15, 2010 - 03:38pm PT Why is the fossil record stratified into layers, with older ones containing simple organisms under newer ones containing more complex organisms? Why is it that we NEVER, EVER, find human bones in the layer with dinosaurs or earlier?



If, as you believe, all existed together, then they should all be jumbled in together, regardless of age. Why is this not what the evidence (the fossil record) shows, ID?





Please... Don't ignore this, but instead adress it.



I'll bet you'll ignore it though -- You HAVE to ignore it! illusiondweller



Trad climber San Diego, CA Topic Author's Reply - Jul 15, 2010 - 03:41pm PT Diamonds and Strata Have Too Much Carbon 14



Natural diamonds are believed to have been formed deep underground in the upper mantle of the earths crust. Under extreme temperature and pressure, pure carbon is formed into the diamonds crystalline form. Over time, the diamond is moved upwards by rising magma. Natural diamonds are commonly believed to have been formed millions of years ago.



If the rate carbon 14 decays has been consistent, any carbon 14 older than 100,000 years is undetectable by current measuring techniques.



But carbon 14 has been measured within natural diamonds. Either the decay rate of carbon 14 is not uniform, the diamonds are younger than believed, or both. Carbon 14 in diamonds is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not millions. dirtbag



climber Jul 15, 2010 - 03:43pm PT You'd think ICR's home page was created by "The Onion":



http://www.icr.org/ philo



Trad climber Somewhere halfway over the rainbow Jul 15, 2010 - 03:44pm PT You don't really believe that do you? TGT



Social climber So Cal Jul 15, 2010 - 03:45pm PT the earth is thousands of years old, not millions

Walk the Grand Canyon from rim to rim and back,



then come tell me that.





There's no earth age requirement in your theology.



Insisting on it only professes ignorance.



illusiondweller



Trad climber San Diego, CA Topic Author's Reply - Jul 15, 2010 - 03:49pm PT 1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.



The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2 philo



Trad climber Somewhere halfway over the rainbow Jul 15, 2010 - 03:53pm PT There were no dinosaurs. There is no universe. You are merely dreaming. tuolumne_tradster



Trad climber Leading Edge of North American Plate Jul 15, 2010 - 03:55pm PT The rate at which silica replaces wood (more rapid than previously thought or not) in no way has any bearing on the age of the earth and by any stretch of the imagination could support a 6,000 year old earth.



Don't confuse the scientific paper that was published in Sedimentary Geology ...here is an execrpt from that paper's conclusion





Silicification of wood reported in this paper was very rapid, especially when compared with the expected time for silicification (several millions of years) suggested by some researchers (e.g., Siever, 1972 and Crandall, 1977).



Silicified wood was formed naturally under various conditions, with a different rate of silicification within each specimen. Most of the silicified wood fragments formed in the geological record were generally found in strata belonging to terrestrial environments. Large sections of strata containing silicified wood were formed in the vicinity of volcanic regions. For example, in the area of the Miocene strata of the Green-tuff region in Japan, many silicified wood fragments are found in pyroclastic and terrestrial rocks. Such wood fragments are thought to have been silicified by hot ground water through the same mechanism of silicification that produced the silicified wood reported in this study.



Finally, we conclude that some silicified wood near volcanic or pyroclastic rocks could have formed due to the flow of hot ground water with high silica content during a fairly short period of time, in the order of several tens to hundreds of years, with the same mechanism as described in this study.



It is rare opportunity to directly observe the formation of minerals in nature, with the exception of a few cases involving mineral growth on the earth, such as ice, salt, sulfur, calcite, and aragonite in calcareous caves. However, the present study area allowed the direct study of the formation of opal and silicified wood in situ. This is a very important area for the study of silica precipitation and related sciences.

with this statement in the Institute for Creation Research article



These experimental findings validate, and vindicate, the evidence documented by Snelling (1995) in Creation magazine "that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification," and "thus the timeframe for the formation of petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood." Furthermore, because the silica in the rapidly petrified wood in these experiments is in the form of opal, this also confirms creationist documentation of other experiments that demonstrate opals form rapidly within months

This statement is a gross abuse of scientific findings to support a religious agenda. TGT



Social climber So Cal Jul 15, 2010 - 03:58pm PT Finally, we conclude that some silicified wood near volcanic or pyroclastic rocks could have formed due to the flow of hot ground water with high silica content during a fairly short period of time, in the order of several tens to hundreds of years, with the same mechanism as described in this study.



Translation;



Boil a log in a volcanic hot spring and weird things happen. dirtbag



climber Jul 15, 2010 - 03:58pm PT This statement is a gross abuse of scientific findings to support a religious agenda.



Ya know...when someone has to twist words like this to make a point, then maybe there wasn't a very good point to be made in the first place. tuolumne_tradster



Trad climber Leading Edge of North American Plate Jul 15, 2010 - 04:02pm PT exhibit in creationist museum





showing humans & dinosaurs co-existing. Mighty Hiker



climber Vancouver, B.C. Jul 15, 2010 - 04:04pm PT Whether or not the Earth is young - clearly it's not - this thread got old real fast. rrrADAM



climber LBMF Jul 15, 2010 - 04:04pm PT Re: Diamonds and C-14 dating...



Not that you'll even attempt understand it, but here ya go:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm







And, as i said, I knew you were just gonna ignore my question above. You are predicatble, ID.





"Ignore... Ignore... Deny... Deny..."



TKingsbury



Trad climber MT Jul 15, 2010 - 04:04pm PT I thought this was gonna be link to this article



http://www.geojunk.com/geographic-topics/geology/6964-is-the-earth-younger-than-previously-thought



Researchers say their investigation shows the Earth is 70 million years younger than the 4.537 billion-year-old planet "we had previously imagined".

WandaFuca



Social climber From the gettin place Jul 15, 2010 - 04:14pm PT Id,



you are the poster child for inductive fallacies.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inductive_fallacies illusiondweller



Trad climber San Diego, CA Topic Author's Reply - Jul 15, 2010 - 04:28pm PT Often, people believe that if human bones arent found with dinosaur bones, then they didnt live at the same time. Actually, all we know for sure is that they werent buried together. It is very easy for creatures to live at the same time on earth, but never even cross paths. Have you ever seen a tiger or a panda in the wild? Just because animals are not found together does not mean they do not live in the same world at the same time.



A great example is the coelacanth. Coelacanth fossils are found in marine deposits below dinosaurs and in other marine layers that date about the same age as dinosaurs.9 It was once thought the coelacanth became extinct about 70 million years ago because their fossils are not found in any deposits higher than this. However, in 1938 living populations were found in the Indian Ocean.10 It appears that coelacanths were buried with other sea creatures during the Floodas we would expect. The example of the coelacanth shows that animals are not necessarily buried in the same place as other animals from different environments. We dont find human bones buried with coelacanths, either, but we live together today, and people are enjoying them for dinner in some parts of the world.



Coelacanths arent the only example. We find many examples like this, even with creatures that did not live in the sea. One popular example is the Wollemi Pine, which was fossilized in Jurassic deposits, supposedly 150 million years ago.11 However, we find these trees living today. Another great living fossil is the Ginkgo tree, which supposedly thrived 240 million years ago, prior to the dinosaurs.12 Yet, they are not found in layers with dinosaurs or post-Flood humans, even though they exist today. The list of living fossils goes on. Because animals and plants arent buried together, it is no indication that things didnt live together.



In fact, based on human nature, we can assume that humans probably chose not to live in the same place with dinosaurs. So, the real issue is what happened to the local environment where humans lived. illusiondweller



Trad climber San Diego, CA Topic Author's Reply - Jul 15, 2010 - 04:35pm PT Nothing on spiral galaxies? Adam? Messages 1 - 20 of total 103 in this topic << First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >> Return to Forum List