|
|
Post by rockds on Jun 25, 2006 23:09:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rockyraccoon on Jun 25, 2006 23:22:28 GMT -5
guess they won't be tumbling it. ought to be alot of petrified poop around too from all those animals.
kim
|
|
stefan
Cave Dweller 
Member since January 2005
Posts: 14,113
|
Post by stefan on Jun 26, 2006 13:18:43 GMT -5
Hmmmm Interesting to say the least-
|
|
|
|
Post by BAZ on Jun 27, 2006 17:32:13 GMT -5
That is cool, imagine if it were proven to be the real thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by deb193 on Jun 27, 2006 18:21:29 GMT -5
Yeah, well petrified wood takes millions of years to form. So any calim that this was tested and found to be petrified wood proves it cannot be an object from biblical times - or any time after man had shipbuilding industry.
Second, no geologist would ever confuse or be uncertian about basalt vs petrified wood - so who was this guy??. Especially if he had a 10x loop.
At best it is ironwood. The key would be evidence of joints. Very easy to spot grain at 90 degrees.
All sounds very fishy to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cher on Jun 27, 2006 18:56:50 GMT -5
I remember seeing a show about this on either the discovery channel or the history channel many years ago so their claim of "until today" is a bit off.
Also, to become petrified, doesn't wood have to be buried in something like under tons of mud/ash from a volcanoe or something? For some reason I thought that wood would just rot if it was exposed to air.
|
|
|
|
Post by akansan on Jun 27, 2006 21:04:37 GMT -5
I'm wondering if the is the expedition I heard about a couple years ago. I remember someone was getting a team together to investigate a spot high in the Iranian mountains that was visible from satellite. Sounds like this just might be the "find" they could see.
|
|
|
|
Post by deb193 on Jun 28, 2006 10:01:18 GMT -5
I remember seeing a show about this on either the discovery channel or the history channel many years ago so their claim of "until today" is a bit off. Also, to become petrified, doesn't wood have to be buried in something like under tons of mud/ash from a volcanoe or something? For some reason I thought that wood would just rot if it was exposed to air. Yes Cher - It does need to be buried. While getting covered with ash and sediment and then the whole formation uplifted to form mountians, is a very likely senario for pet wood up in high places, thiss too happens in geologic time - millions of years. The uplifting takes even longer than the petrification. So many basic facts that are completely inconsistient with the thesis of Noah's Arc are just plain being ignored or not even questioned. |
|
stefan
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2005
Posts: 14,113
|
Post by stefan on Jun 28, 2006 13:19:57 GMT -5
I think the claim is that Earth is not as old as we think- and that the Wood was petriefied as a devine intervention- Still an intersting bit of photography-
|
|
|
|
Post by deb193 on Jun 28, 2006 21:32:05 GMT -5
Thats the claim for general petrified wood and other fossils - created in place. I am not sure it is the claim for former Arks.
And, yes, nice photography.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockds on Jun 29, 2006 19:12:05 GMT -5
How do you know it takes millions of years? What if the earth is only say 20-30 thousand yrs old. I figure with enough heat, presure anythings possible. Heck they make diamonds in 30 minutes now and those use to take 'millions' of years to creat.
|
|
|
|
Post by deb193 on Jun 29, 2006 19:40:11 GMT -5
Comon now. They duplicate in a short time, with great effort and energy, the conditions that in the wild take 20-30 thousands of years naturally. The can make stalagmites too. And a sandblaster or high pressure hose can imitate millena of erosion.
As for the millions of years for pet wood, I did have to trust the geology reference books. Because I do not personally "know this." But, I think the figures came from the age of the fossil record buried with the wood and the timing of volcanic events that produced the silica.
Your thesis that a few thousand years ago conditions were so sufficiently different (i.e., as different as the lab environment needed to make diamonds) that pet wood formed in millena instead of millions of years it a very weak thesis. It is up there with "technically anything's possible" - technically I could wake up tomorrow 6 inches taller. Not likely, but technically possible. In short, to have sufficiently accelerated formation of pet wood all without leaving any other evidence of the rapid change in environmental conditions - well I don't know what else to say.
It is one thing to play Devil's Advocate, it is another to make these kinds of "what ifs"
|
|
|
|
Post by deb193 on Jun 30, 2006 9:29:07 GMT -5
I got curious about whether petrified wood had been created in a lab yet. Turns out yes: www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-01-25-petrified_x.htm?csp=15An excerpt: Natural petrified wood occurs when trees are buried without oxygen, then leach their wood components and soak up the soil's minerals. For instance, at the Ginkgo Petrified Forest, a state park on the west shore of the Columbia River in central Washington, trees were believed to have been buried without oxygen beneath molten lava millions of years ago.
To create petrified wood, the researchers bought pine and poplar boards at a lumber yard. They gave a half-inch cube of wood an acid bath, then soaked it in a silica solution for days. The wood was air-dried, cooked in an argon-filled furnace at temperatures as high as 1,400 degrees and cooled in argon to room temperature.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockds on Jun 30, 2006 10:58:31 GMT -5
Hey deb, not trying to get you going, heck I couldn't even figure out what they were trying to prove with the pics. I guess my point was that just cause an expert says something, doesn't make it right. There a lot of things out there I can't explain and so sorry but I don't buy what the 'experts' say in losts of cases.
Just tring to keep an open mind.
robert
|
|
blarneystone
spending too much on rocks
Rocks in my head
Member since March 2010
Posts: 307
|
Post by blarneystone on Jun 30, 2006 11:24:36 GMT -5
My personal opinion about the theological theory that fossils and pet wood are created in place through divine intervention is that it's not scriptural. God doesn't lie. The fossilized remains of ancient plants/animals, the geologic record and the epic time periods of some radioactive isotope decay rates are nearly irrefutable evidence of an Earth that is billions of years old. Why would God 'create' evidence of a falsehood? That really doesn't make any sense to me.
If you really want to keep an open mind why not shed the belief that science and religion are mutually exclusive!
Not trying to offend anyone here. I grew up in a Catholic family went to Catholic schools and studied theology. I've always had to reconcile my religious beliefs with scientific knowledge. The more I understand the true meaning behind the scriptures the more I come to realize that religion and science do not have to be at odds.
I hope I'm not offending anyone here and I don't want to hijack this thread. I apologize if I have but this is a subject that is near and dear to me. Would love to discuss this with anyone who is interested.
|
|
