figure this one?

Question

of the austrailian coast they found the wreckage of a ship that sank in the 1800's buuuuuuuut the ship was incased in stoned not sediment actual stone.When the stone was dated it was dated to 40000 yrs old. the way it was incased shows it wasn't random chance falling into and blending into a stone.the stone formed in the last 200 yrs and dates 40000.
could we be wrong on just how old the earth really is if this testing can't be correct or explianed.
And yes it was tested in several was and labs all with the same results..

Answer 1

I suspect the stone is a turbidite or debris flow that encased the ship after it sunk. You don't mention which coast it is off of, but it is likely that after the debris flow (consisting of older material eroded off the continent and transported to the ships location), cementation occured as calcium carbonate precipitated in the pore spaces of the debris flow deposit.

I suspect the stone was dated with U/Pb, Rb/Sr or maybe Ar/Ar dating. For a start, all of these dating methods have to be applied carefully as fluids moving through the rocks can leech out important elements and throw the dates off. Second, these methods would date the older material in the debris flow deposit, not the cement, which is much younger.

There is no great mystery here and there is certainly no need to assume its goverment labs covering up some big religous secret. Good scientists should use Occams Razor - the simplest answer, given all the facts, is almost always the correct answer. What's simpler, my answer, or that a God we don't know exists did it to confuse us?!

Answer 2

This is the classic thing the YEC's always do. They pick one obscure lab test, and give ZERO data, and it seems to destroy the foundations of radiometric dating or evolution.

And remember, you are talking about 40,000 years. That does not explain away fossil successions or fossils that are millions and billions of years old.

Tell me the peer-reviewed scientific journal that this is published in. If this discovery is as you say, it would be very important and would be in a top journal.

Also, even if there was an error with this date, does that mean we throw out the entire history of radiometric dating? That would be like watching one batter strike out in baseball and concluding that it's impossible to hit the ball.

Answer 3

What is your first question you should be asking yourself?

How was it dated? Carbon dating? We all know by now that carbon dating is just some scientists 'rumour' and that it doesn't work!

The earth (and the whole universe) is about 6000/7000 years old...

Now, about those lab's... Are they govement funded?

I think you need to get some truth! Do you believe everything everybody else says?

Check these sites out for more answers: www.AbsouteTruth.org as well as www.ChristianAnswers.org and give me some feedback ok? (you can click on my avatar and then you get to my profile click Contact Chelle!)

Answer 4

Could be that stone is made of particles that are that old, but cemented, by some natural process, in the last 200 years

Answer 5

they don't age it by when the stone formed around the ship but when the stone came to be

Answer 6

Please give more information...... name of ship, location, date of analysis or discovery, who did the analysis..... I can't find any details of the wreckage with the information you have provided. Sounds like somebody was twisting the truth when they told you this story.

Answer 7

Sounds to me as if the test is wrong.

Answer 8

Please identify the stone, ie igneous, sedimentry or metamorfic,
then we can compare with the ship.