Some funny thing can happen to fossils, petrified wood,amber,silicified whale bones and they all require special conditions
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
fossils
- Thread starter sulphur
- Start date
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
All I know about it is that I have seen wood that has petrified within 100 years. As a carpenter, I have worked on houses where the wood has gotten so hard that it was impossable to drive a nail into it. As hard as a stone.
Now I do not know how long science says it takes for wood to get petrified, but I know it does not take that long. Esp, the post WW2 homes when they used green wood without curing it, or allowing it to dry out. Before they started to kilm dry the wood. That sap will turn that wood very hard in no time at all, maybe 25 to 50 years.
Upvote
0
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
John... Do you know what pertified wood is? And the difference between it and resin laden wood?
Upvote
0
"Hijacking Fossils"
Under that title, the French daily Le Monde reported the case of a paleontologist in India who "for 20 years . . . apparently deceived his colleagues concerning the origin of fossils that he submitted to them for their appraisal." It is claimed that the "hijacking" consisted of sending them fossils obtained in the United States, Africa, Czechoslovakia, and the British Isles, saying they had been discovered in the Himalaya Mountains. This scientist published his findings in over 300 articles. The fraud was brought to light by an Australian scientist via the British scientific journal Nature. He wondered 'how it could be that such a large quantity of doubtful findings remained unchallenged for such a long time.'
One possible reason, according to Le Monde, was the law of silence heeded by many members of the scientific community. The article noted that this fossil "hijacking" has "made useless practically all the facts accumulated [over the past 20 years] on the geology of the Himalayas."
Obviously, this case of fraud in science does not cast doubt on the entire scientific world. It does, however, provide further evidence that arguments of paleontology when pitted against the unfailing accuracy of the Bible record are often nothing more than what the apostle Paul called "the contradictions of the 'knowledge' which is not knowledge at all." 1 Timothy 6:20, The New Jerusalem Bible.
Under that title, the French daily Le Monde reported the case of a paleontologist in India who "for 20 years . . . apparently deceived his colleagues concerning the origin of fossils that he submitted to them for their appraisal." It is claimed that the "hijacking" consisted of sending them fossils obtained in the United States, Africa, Czechoslovakia, and the British Isles, saying they had been discovered in the Himalaya Mountains. This scientist published his findings in over 300 articles. The fraud was brought to light by an Australian scientist via the British scientific journal Nature. He wondered 'how it could be that such a large quantity of doubtful findings remained unchallenged for such a long time.'
One possible reason, according to Le Monde, was the law of silence heeded by many members of the scientific community. The article noted that this fossil "hijacking" has "made useless practically all the facts accumulated [over the past 20 years] on the geology of the Himalayas."
Obviously, this case of fraud in science does not cast doubt on the entire scientific world. It does, however, provide further evidence that arguments of paleontology when pitted against the unfailing accuracy of the Bible record are often nothing more than what the apostle Paul called "the contradictions of the 'knowledge' which is not knowledge at all." 1 Timothy 6:20, The New Jerusalem Bible.
Upvote
0
Carl Baugh discovered a fossilized tooth beside some dinosaur tracks in the area of Glen Rose Texas in 1987, and quicky decided the tooth belonged to a human who lived contemporaneously with dinosaurs (apparently undaunted by the humiliating revelations about the "man track" fraud some years earlier).
Still playing "scientist" Baugh dubbed his find Humanus Daviddii, a.k.a. "little David." The fossil was claimed to be of human origin because a Dentist seemed to recognize similar dentition.
Leading creationist Don Patton imediately joined in to back Baughs claims.
Baugh and Patton took the tooth for identification to Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, and the Vertebrate Paleontology Lab, Balcones Research Center, University of Texas at Austin. The two were told that the tooth came from a primitive type of bony fish called Pycnodonts.
Then they went to Washington D.C. and cunsulted the National Museum of Natural History, where they learned that human teeth share certain similarities with the teeth of such fish, explaining the dentists mistake.
Patton seemed to concluded that there was a mass conspiracy to discredit Baugh's fossil, and the two maintained faith it was of human origin.
Baugh then took "little David" to young earth creationist David Menton, who performed electron microscope scans. Menton announced that it was impossible for Baughs tooth to have come from a human. Matson observed the dentin microstructure of most fish teeth, not the enamel micrograph pattern necessary for human identification.
Still unable to give up, Baugh and Patton clung to their "Glen Rose Man" myth until 1989, when Baugh finally conceded that it was not a humans tooth. Clearly embarrased, both he and Patton then tried to whitewash their incompetence by summoning the myth that the "Nebraska Man" pigs tooth had been used as evidence for evolution in the trial of John Scopes (when in fact, the defense was not allowed to provide any evience at all).
Still playing "scientist" Baugh dubbed his find Humanus Daviddii, a.k.a. "little David." The fossil was claimed to be of human origin because a Dentist seemed to recognize similar dentition.
Leading creationist Don Patton imediately joined in to back Baughs claims.
Baugh and Patton took the tooth for identification to Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, and the Vertebrate Paleontology Lab, Balcones Research Center, University of Texas at Austin. The two were told that the tooth came from a primitive type of bony fish called Pycnodonts.
Then they went to Washington D.C. and cunsulted the National Museum of Natural History, where they learned that human teeth share certain similarities with the teeth of such fish, explaining the dentists mistake.
Patton seemed to concluded that there was a mass conspiracy to discredit Baugh's fossil, and the two maintained faith it was of human origin.
Baugh then took "little David" to young earth creationist David Menton, who performed electron microscope scans. Menton announced that it was impossible for Baughs tooth to have come from a human. Matson observed the dentin microstructure of most fish teeth, not the enamel micrograph pattern necessary for human identification.
Still unable to give up, Baugh and Patton clung to their "Glen Rose Man" myth until 1989, when Baugh finally conceded that it was not a humans tooth. Clearly embarrased, both he and Patton then tried to whitewash their incompetence by summoning the myth that the "Nebraska Man" pigs tooth had been used as evidence for evolution in the trial of John Scopes (when in fact, the defense was not allowed to provide any evience at all).
Upvote
0
Commenting on the continuing competition among evolutionists as to who has found the oldest/best humanlike fossil, an editorial in The New York Times (1983) observed that paleoanthropology is a "science long on dramatic assertions and short on sure knowledge. Paleoanthropology draws upon the rigorous disciplines of anatomy and geology but includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject."
The Times editorial noted the example of "English anatomists [who] uncritically accepted the Piltdown fossils that came to light around 1910"-later proved to be a hoax. To show that little has changed among today's evolutionists, the book Missing Links is cited: "[Modern paleoanthropologists] are no less likely to cling to erroneous data that supports their preconceptions than were earlier investigators." Why this lack of scientific objectivity? The Times suggests: "One reason may be that some theories attract more material support than others [or, "better" fossils get better funding]. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else's skulls on side lines leading nowhere."
In any event, said the editorial, "Most of the [fossil] evidence would fit on a billiard table," making anyone's interpretation subject to sudden change.
The Times editorial noted the example of "English anatomists [who] uncritically accepted the Piltdown fossils that came to light around 1910"-later proved to be a hoax. To show that little has changed among today's evolutionists, the book Missing Links is cited: "[Modern paleoanthropologists] are no less likely to cling to erroneous data that supports their preconceptions than were earlier investigators." Why this lack of scientific objectivity? The Times suggests: "One reason may be that some theories attract more material support than others [or, "better" fossils get better funding]. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else's skulls on side lines leading nowhere."
In any event, said the editorial, "Most of the [fossil] evidence would fit on a billiard table," making anyone's interpretation subject to sudden change.
Upvote
0
Oh... Well! The NY Times! I'm glad you chose to quote a reliable, peer reviewed scientific source. Sorry, but this is all part of the deal. Competing scientists are more likely to find eachothers' errors. I have no problem with this.
Oh, good. It was an editorial as well!
I'm sure glad they used a modern example.
Well, how about an example? They were happy to present Piltdown Man to us. I hate to say it, but it is interesting that you have not divulged the name of this columnist. From the use of Piltdown, I have to assume that it is some committed creationist rather than a scientist, and I have to say, 'So what?'
No, no, no. A columnist suggested...
Yes, money follows success. And evolutionist paleontologists aren't floating in dough as some of our creationists seem to think.
I challenge the columnist to support this statement. Perhaps maybe you can give us supporting evidence.
Upvote
0
If it is the same article in the Times which was discussed in the article ripped off from Awake! magazine that forms the opening post of this thread, then the author of the editorial is one Irving Kristol, a hard-line conservative political pundit - who is to the best of my knowledge completely lacking any scientific credentials.
Upvote
0
Please give us the name of that article, and the date it was published in Le Monde --- or if you would prefer, the name of the paleontologist who supposedly perpetrated the fraud, and the name of the British scientist who exposed it, together with the title of the paper that it was exposed in, and the date of the issue of Nature in which that paper appeared.
Reason I ask is because there is something very fishy about that story, and I do not think that it truly represents the facts the way it was presented. Since the person who posted it is also the sort who will copy someone else's writings and try to pass them off as their own, I find any such story suspect, particularly when such care has been taken to leave out any information that might help someone check its accuracy.
Upvote
0
euphoric
He hates these cans!!
- Jun 22, 2002
- 480
- 5
- 50
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Copying an article, pasting it here and providing a reference that credits the author and gives basic details about where and when it was published, or providing a link to an online resource would be fair use. Doing a copy and paste job and giving no indication that you're reproducing the work of others is plagairism.
-brett
Upvote
0
Fair use is a theory used in the defense of a copyright infringement case. Although fair use would not likely be an adequate defense if Awake! sued Christian Forums or the member that copied their article in their post for a copyright violation, it doesn't matter to the question of plagiarism, because plagiarism and copyright violations are not the same thing.
You can plagiarize material that isn't copyrighted legally, but not ethically. You can reproduce copyrighted material and it be illegal but not plagiarism if you cite your source.
Plagiarism is the using another person's words or ideas and trying to pass them off as your own. Copying large chunks of published articles and posting them without any kind of note that it is copied from someone else's work is plagiarism.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
