How to explain this petrified wood?

No, Orion you fail to understand what a scientific theory is, it’s not the same as “theory” used in normal conversation.

A hypothesis is abstract thought; speculation, rather than a fact, an educated guess.

A scientific theory hinges on evidence and fact, and attempts to explian the observation. Capable of being tested through experiment or verified through empirical observation.

For example, evolution is a fact and scientist attempt to explain it.

Do you see the difference Orion?

As for the other, you are oblivious to the fact that you deserve rude behaviour? Just look at your first comment completly rude to others beliefs, and science. If you want your beliefs to be respected you should respect others. If you think God is interesting, that’s great, but there is nothing there to talk about other then superstition. If you’ll get off your “high-horse” and stop acting like a spoiled child and spewing how science is false, because of your beliefs, I’ll apoligize

…heh.

rnealw, in science a scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it.

Even doubting a mechanism used to explain it doesn’t affect evolution as a whole. We weren’t there to observe THE evolution obviously, but we have, and we have fossil records.

Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity.

I was looking through old posts. I forgot all about this but last time I checked there were responses. What is creepy is that you are older(according to your profile) then both of my parents, and must have been waiting for me to respond or lurking my profile. Creepy.

Orion, ..again, way to lie. Evolution is accepted as fact by main stream science, biology doesn’t make sense without it. Creationists definatly aren’t taken seriously, it’s not science, it’s not true. Creation was a story by ancients. It’s time to move on.

Nebula said: “Lol, uh no that’s not all I have I don’t waste time on stupid people, who can’t comprehend . As a matter of fact, Evolution is a fact, but I wouldn’t want to ruin your silly beliefs.”

I’d like to know the point behind the rudeness you continually spew forth at anybody who thinks differently than you. FYI calling people name because of what they believe is juvenal and allows others to see how shallow you are. Pray tell please explain yourself.

Theory is just an abstract thought; speculation, rather than a fact. An unproved assumption, a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation.

Fact, on the other hand, hinges on evidence. Something that has actual existence such as exploration is now a fact. Fact is the quality of being actual, a true occurrence. Fact IS true reality. Do you see the difference nebula? Evolution is not a fact it is, however, a theory. It is unproven = theory.

Now, if you’ll get off your ‘high-horse’ and talk like an adult maybe people will respect what you have to say, BUT if you continue to act like a spoiled child by calling people liars and degrading names just because they don’t agree with you and throwing a fit while demanding that you are right; people will see you for what you really are and I can assure you that they will not care what you think…so, grow up.

Lol, uh no that’s not all I have I don’t waste time on stupid people, who can’t comprehend . As a matter of fact, Evolution is a fact, but I wouldn’t want to ruin your silly beliefs.

We are in the year 2008 A.D. The Earth has existed for 4.54 billion years. The Universe has existed for 13.7 Billion years. The Multiverse has existed for 156 trillion years.

No nebula I don’t lurk of stalk. . . I didn’t notice till you responded again on april 7th, Then I read several post to refresh myself.

* “One might wonder why corrected carbon 14 dates only go back as far as 6200 B.C. “

It’s not much of a mystery, since you already explained it. There aren’t a whole lot of 8600+ year old trees around. (it’s amazing there are any in my opinion)

Apparently, there must have been another world wide flood about 2200 years ago, since in the Redwood forest of California, none of the trees are older than that, and the forest sits at an elevation of nearly 2000 ft.

More scientist are creationists than evolutionists. Reason is because they’ve studied the false theory of evolution and have learned it is just that…false.

It’s a theory in where there are overwhelming amounts of evidence. That it’s true. :)

Yeah, rnealw evolution is a theory, but it’s important to understand what that means, it’s also a theory the Earth revolves around the sun, it’s a theory in the same way gravity is. The logic that we are decendant from simplier less evolved creatures is a fact in the normal sense of the word.

Again I’d like to back this up, carbon dating is a well tested reverified method of dating. It gives them an accurate date of an object, or base the date of. If it didn’t it wouldn’t be used and they would come up with a more accurate method of dating. Creationists aren’t new at taking things out of contax, and making opinions on things they don’t understand the science of.

nebula is that all you have? Just a little boasting to support your (false) theory? LOL!

Hey, listen . . . if you want to believe in evolution that’s your business, but please do try to bring some evidence to the table next time.

You are correct warmheart. Carbon dating is full of flaws. There have been many examples of miss carbon dating such as stalagmite and stalactites. They are said to be millions of years, but what about fountains that make them in about ten years?

And don’t look too close when you go under a bridge because often there are stalatites growing, and the bridge is only a few years old!

The evolutionists don’t want you to know this because then their (false) theories would be shattered. LOL! Very funny stuff.

Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts). In the first place, they assumed that the carbon 14 content is consistent in the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the organism while it is living. In the second place, they believed that cosmic rays which produce carbon 14 have remained constant in our atmosphere.

In June of 1985 the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference met in Trondheim, Norway to discuss the flaws in radiocarbon dating. From this conference a correction curve was developed for carbon 14 dates based upon the fairly exact dating method of dendrochronology (tree ring dating). Unfortunately, there are a limited number of tree types that are suitable for providing an accurate correction curve for carbon 14 dates. The ideal tree is the Bristle Cone Pine which is only found in the buildings of ancient North American Indian sites. The oldest of the Bristle Cone Pines found are only 4600 years old. Using living samples and ancient trunks, scientists were able to develop a correction curve for radiocarbon dates going back 8200 years.20 In other words, radiocarbon dates can only be corrected as far back as 6200 B.C. Any samples that date further back than 6200 B.C. cannot be corrected, and therefore their age cannot be accurately determined.

One might wonder why corrected carbon 14 dates only go back as far as 6200 B.C. One might also question the reason there are no Bristle Cone Pines older than 4600 years. The reason may simply be that the flood occurred approximately 4600 years ago. Why can carbon 14 dates only be corrected as far back as 8200 years ago? Is it because the earth did not exist much more than 8200 years ago?

Paleontologists are reluctantly beginning to realize the limitations of radiocarbon dating. David Hurst Thomas grudgingly proclaims that radiocarbon dating is accurate when it reveals a date for an object which is within a range of just over 75,000 years ago.21 Unfortunately, he is still in denial of the facts. However, he at least recognizes that radiocarbon dating cannot be used to prove that ancient “primitive man” goes back 4 million, or even 100,000 years ago.

Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record: Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution By Brett A. Rutherford

* Lol, uh no that’s not all I have I don’t waste time on stupid people, who can’t comprehend . As a matter of fact, Evolution is a fact, Actually it is called the Theory of evolution. Even by National geographics and the smithsonian. And I sure see you waisting a lot of time on us people you consider stupid here. As a matter of fact all your post are in the religious section so I guess your just here to talk Religion. also A theory is not considered a fact.

* I wouldnt trust anyone who is suggesting there was a global flood. Likewise I would not trust the knowlegde of anyone who insisted there wasn’t.

* carbon dating is a well tested scientific method reverified over many years it proves the the world is over 4.5 billion years, Would you care to show us some research stating that.

Sorry it’s not the theory of gravity. . . it’s the law of Gravity. And could you point me to a document stating the earth revolving around the sun is a theory? Wow it took over a month for you to come up with that?

people who believe in a global flood are not that bright, George washington and Ben Franklin both believed. . . so According to your statement they are not that bright. opinianated information Show me some information that is not based on someones opinian. * evolution is considered a scientific fact. Would you care to show some proof on that. . . . I’m beginning to think you can’t.

millions of years ago all the land was joined together, and after millions of years passed things suck as fossils, amber, petrified wood and suck things survived…they could be earlier ones or they could be millions of years old…or they could be fake…yo cant really know without looking at it

I’m still waiting on someone to ruin my silly beliefs. . . .

Carbon dating doesn’t verify anything about billions of years- only up to about 50,000 years.

There was a world-wide flood..is the hypothesis; the scientifically supported ice age, fossils finds, geological layers, etc., are the evidence that support the hypothesis and the predictions.

Trees got petrified as a result of being submerged and/or quickly covered by mud. Evidence supports the creationism hypothesis that that they were covered during the flood. For instance, in Yellowstone, the evidence of a catastrophic event is hydraulic action evident in the tree and sediment, location of the trees versus tree roots, and the actual minerals and deposits in the sediment that surrounds the trees.

If you want to know more about petrified wood, go to the link below:

http://funadvice.com/r/bnfs79ne5mf