40 Million year old Cowboy boot found!

Are not fossilisation and petrification two different processes? you often hear folk called petrified wood 'fossils" a misnomer i think.

Yes Fossils are an imprint in rock, left by the carcus of a dead animal, usually crustaceans s they had a hard shell and their bodies did not get devoured by swarms of other animals, they are also bottom dwellers so they pretty much died where they lived, in the mud, and were quickly buried in silt deposits.

This part of New Jersey used to be prehistoric swamp until the ocean receded, it used to be possible to find fossils in at the banks of the Passaic River, until all the industrial Dioxin and other chemicals made it a place not to go play in the mud.

Petrifiication is when minerals replace the organic matter of a thing.
A quick google finds an explanation
The process of petrification is dependent on certain conditions.

~The dead wood needs  to be protected from decay.

~The dead wood becomes saturated with mineral-laden water.  The porous nature of wood allows the movement of water-borne particles.

~The water itself needs to harbor specific and minerals necessary for petrification.

~The person discovering the petrified item must exclaim "I've found a petrified thing, Christian Creationists are ignoratng asses" (ok I made that part up)

yep -- I'm one of those folks who believe Byrd That's not saying I won't question her on something in the future (that is just my nature ) but even when I do I will probably think she is right

But does anyone have a picture -- all I see is image hosted by TriPod....no picture. I would still like to see the picture to see what all the fuss is about

Originally posted by Gazrok
Aw gee Byrd, you struck down my theory...

An inventor in 1936 invents a time machine and then starts a small select business of taking millionaire hunters back in time to go on dinosaur hunts.

OMG AWESOME, SIGN ME UP!



Not a fossil. End of story. Nothing to see here. Move along.

These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For (wave).

Zip

Actually, the process of fosillization doessn’t take that long. There are many instances of soft tissue fossils. I myself have a Mazon Creek fossil of a jellyfish.

The process HAS to happen quickly since all organic matter will eventually decay.

Is the impression of a leaf in a concrete sidewalk a fossil?

What is being implied here is that because fossilization does not take that long (and that boot is NOT an example of this), dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old. The problem is, Scientists establish the age of fossils based on the rock strata that they are found in.

But does anyone have a picture -- all I see is image hosted by TriPod....no picture. I would still like to see the picture to see what all the fuss is about

It's from the link in the original post. It showed earlier...bastards...

Originally posted by junglejake
Byrd, where did your information come from?

Archaeology and geology courses in college. I see a lot of rather loose layman's definitions online ("plant or animal remains dug up") but here's the one that's used in science courses:
encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com...

Originally posted by instar
Are not fossilisation and petrification two different processes? you often hear folk called petrified wood 'fossils" a misnomer i think.

They're actually approximate equivalents, but "petrification" has a somewhat different meaning in folkloric terms than "fossil."
encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com...

Fossil/fossilization is how it's used in geology/archaeology/science classes.

The sad thing about this is the lengths and depths that some will go to in order to try to "prove" that the creation story found in the book of Genesis is meant to be accepted as the completely literal eye-witness account of things that took place before humans even existed, or knew how to write down what they were seeing.

The biblical account of creation is actually a combination of two different creation stories. One is a priestly attempt to explain the beginning of things, the world, plants, animals, people. The other was taken from ancient desert campfire legends.

More information about this can be found in these articles by Doug Linder.

Personally, I find no conflict between the ideas of an omnicient creator and the theories of evolutionary development. In my opinion, science may simply be discovering the method by which God created.

There is plenty of room for both lines of thought in a rational mind.

Originally posted by Roadscholar
Personally, I find no conflict between the ideas of an omnicient creator and the theories of evolutionary development. In my opinion, science may simply be discovering the method by which God created.

There is plenty of room for both lines of thought in a rational mind.

Thank you for your prescience!

I've always thought that if God existed, and evolution was a method of adaptation to the environment, then why couldn't it be that God simply created that method? The big fight is an ideological one, and not a rational one. It won't go away until such time as there is a convergence of science and theology. Then we will ascend.

[edit]More to say on the subject...

On the covergence of science and religion, this is what I believe is the logical next step. One cannot prove or disprove the other, but they do not cancel each other by any means. Science is useful for improving our lives just as religion, but when used by selfish men for selfish purpose, they have the same negative effects. Science and religion have been historical power-plays in all stages of humanity. They have also both enlightened us to some degree.

I think that right now we are all in a dark age of both science and religion. They have both run amok. Capitalism is the result of the misuse of these gifts, and it is brining us all down. If the end of times are upon us as prophesized, then it is because we fulfilled that prophesy ourselves, and we cannot blame God for that.

Anyway, too much coffee. Just rambling now...

[edit on 30-4-2005 by DeltaChaos]

The sad thing about this is the lengths and depths that some will go to in order to try to "prove" that the evolution therory correct, while disproveing creation as taught in the bible.

truth is both need "faith" to belive in.

I'm sorry but I've got to say that a cowboy boot with turtle fossils in it presented as evidence to support creationism and 'refute' evolution is what is sad.

One of the reoccuring themes I've noticed in attempts to debunk sound science is the tendency to conduct the proceedures in an unsound manner. I've been taken in by such things a time or two, but I find it alarming that while I have more or less outgrown the desperate search for loopholes in reality to protect my "pet beliefs" that many can live their whole lives either completely lost in disinfo or actively and knowingly perpetuating it.

One of my favorite memories (which I really wish was in a book or online so that I could share the experience with you better) is my grandmother trying to tell me about how carbon dating told "them" (whoever the heck "they" are) that a bunch of manufactured goods such as rocking chairs etc were thousands if not millions of years old.
Later I learned a little more about carbon dating and started thinking about that. Was the chair varnished, and what effect might that have had- etc etc etc. Some of the stuff she told me they dated wasn't even entirely composed of organic material!

At the end of the day, there's really only one question that I think a believer has to answer, and it only need be answered for the believer- not justified to the rest of the world. That question is simply this: when you look at the world, do you see coincidence or design?
If you see design then go ahead and believe. You don't have to worry about the fact that the people who wrote the bible didn't possess omniscience. They were PEOPLE. Even if God spoke to them, they were still people. It only figures that they got a lot of stuff wrong, regardless of the validity of their belief in God. I hate to borrow a serious religious point from the movie Dogma, but it's far better to have ideas than to have beliefs. Ideas are flexible and realistic. Beliefs are rigid and can get very out of touch with reality.
I've got an idea that there is a God. I don't have any beliefs about how or why he did everything that is.

Right, over in Japan a team of five scientist's performed an experiment, the fossilization itself is NOT a reliable method of dating something but they managed to partially Petrify (Fossilize may be an incorrect term where this is concerned) some wood by placing it in a volcanic waterfall that has a constant warm temperature and was very rich in sulphate's.
From there study it may be possible for wood or other forms to petrify completely in as short as a few century's in extreme condition's.
This site is a creationists one but it does reference the correct scientific paper so you can of course track that down.
www.icr.org...

What the implications are of course is for instance there is a stone age site in Ireland which incorporated a petrified tree trunk, the bark of the tree though petrified has axe mark's in it and bark peel mark's that could not have been made while it was stone and only when it was wood, now prior to this the period believed for fossilization would be on the order of million's of year's but if that tree found itself in the right conditons it may have been later used as a curio by the stone age people who could see it was a tree complete with wood grain but was also solid stone.

Now of course it also bring's to light the stone ship of Noah investigated by Ron Wyatte, for eg on the port bow just slightly astern of what may be the bow Mr wyatte removed loose debris revealing timber like structure's similar to others that are eroded out and visible on the opposite side, they are not a natural formation, even for a sceptic it is worth looking at this.
www.6000years.org...

originally posted by: LABTECH767

Now of course it also bring's to light the stone ship of Noah investigated by Ron Wyatte, for eg on the port bow just slightly astern of what may be the bow Mr wyatte removed loose debris revealing timber like structure's similar to others that are eroded out and visible on the opposite side, they are not a natural formation, even for a sceptic it is worth looking at this.
www.6000years.org...

From your link:

Petrified wood deck timber - note that there are no tree rings found in any of the timber samples.
This is as we would expect from the pre-flood world, where there were no seasons due to the
protective water canopy surrounding the earth.

What a load of crap.
No tree rings means no wood. Period.

Harte