Do creationists try to find and study fossils?

Good grief...Those are not fossils, nor are they "petrified". This type of object is no more a fossil than my kettle is a fossil when it develops lime-scale. That's all these types of object are; ordinary items coated in calcium carbonate. If you had the least bit of intellectual curiosity, you could have found this out for yourself.This is why people laugh at creationists.If you want to really challenge the fossil record, try and find an opal boot or a pyrite clock.Mutate and Survive

No. I am correctly interpreting them as claiming similarity between these absurd sideshow exhibits and fossils. I am correctly interpreting you as claiming similarity between these items and fossils. In this you are absolutely wrong. There is no comparison. Let's take a look;

quote:

---

"There is a well known petrifying stream of water at Knaresborough, Yorkshire, England, three miles from Harrowgate, the well known sanitarium. It is a cascade from the River Nidd, about 15 feet high and twice as broad, and forms an aqueous curtain to a cave know as Mother Shipton’s Cave. The dripping waters are used for the purposes of petrifying anything sent to be hung up in the drip of the water ledge, which flows over, as it were, the eaves of the cave. This ledge of limestone rock is augmented unceasingly by the action of the waters which flow over it. This cascade has an endless variety of objects hung up by short lengths of wire to be petrified by the water trickling over them, as sponges, books, gloves, kerchiefs and veils, hunter’s cap, fox, cat, dog, bird, boots, etc., just as fancy prompts people to seek petrifying results. A sponge is petrified in a few months, a book or cap in a year or two, cat or bird a little longer....One cat shown in the museum had the head broken off at the neck showing the whole was limestone throughout, with not a trace of organic structure of the original cat."

---

this is quite a well known tourist attraction in the UK. I've visited similar sites in Matlock Bath and seen these items for myself.It's nothing more than I described in my last message; calcium carbonate deposition, just like lime-scale in a kettle. These waters have a high quantity of dissolved calcium in them, so they deposit calcium carbonate on anything left in them. Check it out;

quote:

---

A petrifying well is a well which give objects a stone-like appearance.

​

If an object is placed into such a well and left there for a period of months or years the object acquires a stony exterior. At one time this property was believed to be a result of magic or witchcraft, but it is an entirely natural phenomenon and due to a process of evaporation and deposition in waters with an unusually high mineral content.

​

This process of petrifying is not to be confused with petrification wherein the constituent molecules of the original object are replaced (and not merely overlaid) with molecules of stone or mineral.
Examples

​

Notable examples of petrifying wells in England are the spring at Mother Shipton's Cave in Knaresborough and Matlock Bath, in Derbyshire, while in Ireland, such wells were noted by John Rutty on Howth Head,[1] among other locations.

​

The Knaresborough petrifying well was first opened to the public in 1630 and still amazes people by its 'abilities' to this day.

---

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrifying_wellAs you can see, this is simply a process of items being covered in lime-scale, nothing more. Nothing like a fossil.As for the claim about the cat, well, that's simply because bones are porous. They absorb the lime-scale to the point where the bone and lime become fused and difficult to tell apart. The bone is not actually becoming petrified. It might be similar enough to fool you, but that's because you have no interest in fossils. It's not enough to fool a palaeontologist or even a hobbyist. Real fossil bones look nothing like this. Again, he is talking about the same process. Lime-scale invading a porous object. He is simply wrong to say that the material is replaced though, that's not what happens. If you disagree, show us these bones. These examples do not show that. A false statement. Read it again;

quote:

---

Here is a picture of a clock embedded in rock. Clocks have not been around for millions of years, so it is easy to see that fossils do not always take long periods of time to form.

---

Quite clearly, the author is trying to draw a false comparison between the clock concretion and fossils. Take a look at that boot; Why does the lime-scale conform to the shape of the boot, rather than the shape of a leg?Why didn't the boot petrify?Take a look at those bones; don't they look a little odd to you? To me, they do not look anatomically correct. Plus, they are clearly not mineralised, They look like ordinary bones that have been soaked in lime-rich water, that's all. Real fossil bones look nothing like that.The whole thing is utterly foolish, as foolish as Just Being Real's silly hat avatar. This whole line of argument is an embarrassment.If you want to really challenge the notion that fossils take long periods of time to form, then you need to replicate the actual conditions of real fossils. Of course, you can't do that.Can you show me an clock in amber? No.Can you show me a shale Boot? No.Can you show me any modern item preserved in slate, sandstone, chalk, oolite, calcite or chalcedony? No, you cannot.Show us that and you will really have something. Until then you are only inviting ridicule.Mutate and Survive

And the phenomenon that you have showed us is not one of them. I'm sorry Faith, but you have been misled by your sources. But the site does imply that it is a fossil when it is clearly not. Look at what it says;

quote:

---

Here is a picture of a clock embedded in rock. Clocks have not been around for millions of years, so it is easy to see that fossils do not always take long periods of time to form.

---

Quite clearly the site author is trying to pass this off as a fossil when it is nothing of the kind.And even if we use your interpretation, that it was merely showing an encased object, then the observation becomes pointless. There are plenty of fossils that are preserved in very different ways. This observation does nothing to challenge those. The pores are not mineralised because they are merely empty spaces. What is important is that the bone itself is not mineralised, replaced or altered in any way other than to coat it in lime-scale. This is not what we see in genuine fossils.Seriously Faith, does the fact that the entire foot is allegedly mineralised whilst the boot remains intact not bother you? Or how about the fact that the boot was produced by known hoaxer Carl Baugh? That alone ought to be a warning sign.Mutate and Survive

No, it demonstrates that lime-scale doesn't take a long time to form. There is, believe it or not, more than one kind of rock, and each forms in it's own way, taking it's own sweet time.Just because calcium carbonate can form quickly, it doesn't follow that any rock can form quickly. I remember growing my own crystals when I was a kid, but that doesn't prove that all crystals can grow so fast.Equally, just because one fossil-like object can form quickly, it does not follow that any fossil can form quickly. This is why I challenged you to show me a chalcedony or slate fossil of a modern item; you can't show me those because they can't form quickly enough.Mutate and Survive