Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,146 Year: 5,403/9,624 Month: 428/323 Week: 68/204 Day: 10/34 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists try to find and study fossils?
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(5)
(1)
Message 65 of 182 (698182)
05-03-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
05-02-2013 4:05 PM


Re: Fossilization does NOT take a lot of time
Here's some evidence for you:
It's about CONDITIONS, not time.
This one gives some examples of "petrification," meaning the substitution of mineral matter for organic matter, that were observed to occur in short periods of time.
And here's another page on the subject: see boot example
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 05-02-2013 4:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 3:06 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 74 of 182 (698212)
05-04-2013 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
05-04-2013 3:06 AM


Re: Fossilization does NOT take a lot of time
You are misrepresenting those articles I linked.
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.
The page on petrification clearly describes bodies of humans and a cat that had been mineralized throughout, not just covered on the surface,
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_well
As 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.
and there is one quote on the other page by an Alfred Romer writing in Natural History in 1959 saying that it only takes five to ten years to completely replace chicken bones and wood with minerals.
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.
Complete replacement with minerals IS fossilization.
These examples do not show that.
The clock example was meant only to illustrate its having been encased in rock.
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.
And the claim about the boot is that the bones inside were completely replaced with minerals.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 3:06 AM Faith has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 82 of 182 (698230)
05-04-2013 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
05-04-2013 12:35 PM


The term fossilization covers many different phenomena,
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.
and I think the embedded clock that Granny Magda is ridiculing is only meant to illustrate the fact that a modern object can be encased in real rock, certainly not implying that the clock itself was mineralized or altered, merely encased.
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.
If they say the pores of the bone were mineralized why isn't that sufficient to call it fossilized?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 12:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 1:03 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 84 of 182 (698232)
05-04-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
05-04-2013 1:03 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 1:03 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024