Do your fossils match non-human made ones?

Wow, what a great question!

To start, I want to clarify two things. First, the fossils we made were quartz-based petrified wood, the most common type of non-microbial fossil that exists in the U.S. and the world. However it is only one type of many different varieties of fossils, so there is a lot of exciting research to be done by millennial science. I bring this point up so you know which type of fossils we are talking about.

Second, fossils are not able to be carbon-dated. This isn’t new information, all paleontologists and geologists are aware that fossils ages cannot be directly measured, so they measure them indirectly by comparing them to nearby rocks. I was quite shocked when I found how scientists derive their dates for prehistoric events. I’m sure you do not want to read me ramble on about scientific-dating procedure. In short, scientists cannot directly date fossils. You will be able to read in detail about this subject in Chapter 10 Volume II, of the Universal Model.

Ok, now to specifically answer your question, do “your fossils have the exact same properties as the ones found in nature?” The answer to that is yes. Our researchers (who have many decades of experience in petrology) have not seen any difference in our man-made fossils and natural ones. We are excited for other laboratories to replicate our work and expand the field in making different varieties of fossils.

Now, for your other question, “does carbon dating return results claiming your 2-day, garage fossils are thousands or millions of years old?” As I explained earlier, fossils cannot be directly dated. A lot of fossil dating deals with the theory of when different species lived on the Earth. The significance of our experiments show a tremendous fault in the theories of Evolution and Deep time. The idea that fossils take millions of years to form is just not substantiated and, therefore, not scientific.

Personally, I think the implications of this experiment on Science are even more interesting than on the study of fossils itself. It shows that modern science has moved away from an experimental, natural law based mindset. Into one of unproven theory and speculation. Essentially is unveils a dark age of modern science.

Let me know if you have more questions or want me to explain things further.
Thank you for posting!
Carter

Geologist here. We don’t claim that fossils take millions of years to form.

In academia today, the general consensus being taught in public school(s) is that quartz based fossils (the most common fossils) take millions of years to form. Geologists do admit and have found that the fossilization process may not take millions of years. However, even the geologists have failed to recognize the complete process of how it happens.

Volume II of the Universal Model (specifically chapter 10 The Age Model and chapter 11 The Fossil Model) will answer this and several other questions regarding fossils.

Carter,

I should probably clear some things up that you’re miscommunicating. A fossil is just “€œany remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal that has been preserved in the earth’€™s crust since some past geologic or prehistoric time.”

No one, as Preston said, argues that fossils always take millions of years to form. That’s simply untrue and makes reason stare, considering that by convention scientists typically think of a fossil as any trace of life that is older than 10,000 years old (that’s right, 10,000, and not 10 million).

The field of taphonomy is concerned with the mechanisms and processes of fossilization, and there are many different ones (some of which may take longer than others depending on the environment). Scientists have long understood how to replicate the process of silicification, so I fail to understand the breakthrough UM feels that it has made on this issue.

Ultimately, you have not answered the meat of John Brown’s question, which is really questioning whether you get similar radiometric dating results as other fossils in nature. And, of course, you don’t.

You have not explained why radiometric dating and phylogeny correlate successively as you move up or down section through a rock unit.

Using radiometric tools and phylogeny, we can actually 1) predict what an organism might look like within a so-called “gap” in the fossil record, 2) go looking for and find that fossil.

Let me leave you with an example of what I am saying (watch the whole thing, I guarantee you will learn something new and how paleontologists actually operate): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qTarQaUlqM

I would like to hear what the UM thinks of this video.