Rapid limestone petrification: Yorkshire teddy bears “turned to stone” in three to five months

I recently came across this frankly unbeleivable article on rapid petrification. If I type in 'how long do stalactites take to form' the answer google gives me comes from a science and technology website called science focus.

Limestone stalactites form extremely slowly – usually less than 10cm every thousand years – and radiometric dating has shown that some are over 190,000 years old.

Source

In Yorkshire (One of the largest areas of limestone in the UK is found in the Yorkshire Dales ) there is the so-called Petrifying Well at Knaresborough and has been a tourist attraction since 1630.

I will quote from the article...

I was surprised to read recently that small teddy bears placed under a waterfall in Yorkshire “turned to stone” in three to five months. After all, I had been told by my geology lecturers at university that stalactites and stalagmites take many thousands of years to form, so how could teddy bears petrify so quickly? So, I decided to investigate these claims and take a trip to Knaresborough, a town some 21 km (13 miles) west of York, England.

When I saw the stone teddy bears hanging under the waterfall, along with clothes, top hats, shoes, trainers and even an umbrella, I realized that I was observing an amazing geological spectacle. I couldn’t resist adding an Answers in Genesis necktie to the line-up.

Source



Thanks for looking

You're quoting Answers in Genesis. That alone is an epic fail.

Had you bothered to read even the Wikipedia article on the topic you would have seen that it is NOT fossilisation:

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.

Tl;Dr don't get your science info from creationist propaganda websites

a reply to: GetHyped

Had you bothered to read even the Wikipedia article on the topic you would have seen that it is NOT fossilisation:

Who said anything about fossilisation, apart from you?

Petrification is not fossilisation mate.

a reply to: PickledOnion
Your first source contradicts your second source which only makes a bunch of claims. Evil science knows why this is happening.

Been there and seen it.
Lovely place Knaresborough good pibs.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: GetHyped

Had you bothered to read even the Wikipedia article on the topic you would have seen that it is NOT fossilisation:

Who said anything about fossilisation, apart from you?

Petrification is not fossilisation mate.

The AiG article is HEAVILY implying (either through ignorance or intellectual dishonesty to their scientifically illiterate readers) that this somehow counteracts the fossil record. None of this is even remotely true.

As I surveyed the petrified teddy bears at Knaresborough, I thought about how often I had been fed the myth that petrification needs millions of years. The Creator asked Job (Job 38:4), in effect, “Were you there when I laid the foundations of the Earth?” Taking this as our cue, we need to challenge those who promote millions of years, “Were you there to observe these processes taking place?” There, at the Petrifying Well, I observed first hand that objects can petrify in months and years. Those teddy bears demolish a powerful cultural myth that prevents people believing what the Bible says about the true age of the Earth.

So either the author doesn't know what they're talking about, or they're hoping their readers don't (a safe bet if there ever was one).

Sorry Pickled Onion, but your sources are basically an instant 'ignore'. Answers in Genesis is perhaps THE most fraudulent source of information when referencing Scientific matters. It's intrinsic to their reputation to attempt to twist and misrepresent information is so consistent and prevalent in every one of their 'scientific-based' articles that every word they write should be considered verbal bile.

I suggest crosschecking your sources with various others before posting

originally posted by: Ghost147
Sorry Pickled Onion, but your sources are basically an instant 'ignore'. Answers in Genesis is perhaps THE most fraudulent source of information when referencing Scientific matters. It's intrinsic to their reputation to attempt to twist and misrepresent information is so consistent and prevalent in every one of their 'scientific-based' articles that every word they write should be considered verbal bile.

I suggest crosschecking your sources with various others before posting

So the fact he believes the book of genesis is true means the place doesn't exist?

a reply to: PickledOnion

Nice straw man.

The fact that he dismisses any science that contradicts his literal interpretation of Genesis and is willing to lie and deceive others in the name of spreading his fundamentalist gospel makes his opinions on such science incredibly suspicious of agenda.

Case in point: his article.

a reply to: GetHyped

I was just interested in the place he mentioned, you don't have to dig a trench every-time the bible is mentioned blimey.

a reply to: GetHyped

Ahh...right...i get it now.

(a slow day today, forgive me)

originally posted by: PickledOnion
a reply to: GetHyped

I was just interested in the place he mentioned,

Ok...

you don't have to dig a trench every-time the bible is mentioned blimey.

...so you figured posting an intellectually dishonest from Answers in Genesis of all places, wasn't digging a trench with a blatant creationist bias?

What next, quoting Flat Earthers when marvelling at ISS photos?

"No need to dig a trench with the whole 'round earth' thing every time the Earth gets mentioned!".

Stalactites and such are formed by the salts in the water. Teddy bears are already preformed, all they get is a 'stiffy' and coating after saturation, it even says so in the story, the more porous the quicker....

To add,
"In geology, petrifaction or petrification is the process by which organic material is converted into a fossil through the replacement of the original material and the filling of the original pore spaces with minerals"

So the story is basically true.

originally posted by: PickledOnion
So the fact he believes the book of genesis is true means the place doesn't exist?

No. It's the fact that they flat out deny any science that conflicts with his worldview and cherry pick certain pieces to fit their pre determined conclusion.

AIG has been caught in many lies and has made many fraudulent claims over the years. In case you didn't know, these are the same people sponsored by Ken Ham (the creationist museum guy) that support the absolute literal bible interpretation and 6000 year earth with man and dinosaur living together. They are using the information to justify their worldview.

We're not saying the rapid limestone petrification is wrong, but the attempts made by the AIG article to relate it to the fossil record and stalactites are completely unfounded.

originally posted by: PickledOnion

originally posted by: Ghost147
Sorry Pickled Onion, but your sources are basically an instant 'ignore'. Answers in Genesis is perhaps THE most fraudulent source of information when referencing Scientific matters. It's intrinsic to their reputation to attempt to twist and misrepresent information is so consistent and prevalent in every one of their 'scientific-based' articles that every word they write should be considered verbal bile.

I suggest crosschecking your sources with various others before posting

So the fact he believes the book of genesis is true means the place doesn't exist?

No. His beliefs have nothing to do with it. His group (AIG) is known to consistently misrepresent the actual facts, and they spread that misrepresentation like a disease, and no matter how much evidence goes against their claims, they simply continue to be dishonest.

If your link was from a staunch atheist, who is also a well known scientist, with tons of degrees, I would say the same thing if they had such a tarnished record as they do.

Personal beliefs have nothing to do with it, blatant, obvious and consistent fraudulence is the concern.

Is this Mother Shipton's cave? If so, I remember going there as a child and being fascinated and a little scared by her.

a reply to: Scallywwagg

Yes it is Mother Shiptons Cave. Yes the items left there do turn to stone. Mother Shipton was a "Witch" and executed for being one. Mother Shipton was also a prophet of sorts that predicted various worldly events (no links- It's late and I have work in the morning, but a quick Google search on Mother Shipton will answer any questions) the water is full of minerals that over a short time encrust the items with a stone like substance.

That reminds me, I need to get some CLR onto my bathroom faucet. It appears to have 'petrified.'
Either that, or it has heavy calcium deposits...

So as these abosbant materials soak up this strong base solution it precipitates and builds up in layers on the objects.


Case closed proves nothing for or against the bible or the age of the earth but says a lot about chemistry in geology....




a reply to: PickledOnion

a reply to: PickledOnion

Essentially what you have there are the beginnings of concretions
It is not petrification nor an unknown phenomenon.

Edit to add: this is also why members have an issue using AiG. The article purposefully misrepresents known geologic processes that are taught in intro to geology classes at the university level. They target processes that a majority of people have never heard of to cast doubt on the subject claiming geologist can't (or lie about) explain it....