FTL is not possible, but Dr. Jones proceeded to offer great insight with the words, "the process can be prolonged, but it is not infinite". As far as the practical application goes, one can probably extrapolate that the current state of the fossil record suggests that fossilization might in fact happen rapidly, and the more we find, the more likely it is that this applies to other fossil hunters who are also searching. On another note, in addition to the information given above on fossilization itself, the Wikipedia article on the topic also offers some interesting information that is pertinent to the question, "Is fossil formation a matter of science or of luck?", particularly with the following statement: "Though the processes of fossilization are still not fully understood, it is clear that any organism that is buried quickly in a watery environment is likely to be fossilized" To add on to the above statement, it was noted that a recent study performed by LSU paleontologist Dr. George Carlton Schultz states that a large specimen (comprising of hundreds of bones) would most likely be fully fossilized in the same manner (which included mineral deposition, and the production of fine-grained sediments). The importance of this statement, and the information provided above, lies in the recognition that (in this case) the process can be shortened due to the conditions surrounding the organism. While the fossil record as a whole has undoubtedly shown that fossilization has a history of success, it has yet to illustrate that any organism with the potential to fossilize has ever been found to be extinct, without the discovery of a new specimen, but rather simply because the fossil record has not yet extended to the point of the fossil being identified. Until that time, the issue of how long it would take to be able to detect a new fossil is likely an endless mystery, and as such the answer is that, in this case, time itself may be the answer to the question. However, it has been clearly demonstrated that time is not required for the mineralization process to occur, which may mean that the presence of a new specimen could feasibly be identified relatively soon after the organism has died. A: There is a huge difference between “sinking in mud”, which leads to preservation of the fossil and “petrification”, that turns dead material into a stone. Both processes depend heavily on water being present and a fairly rapid burial. However, “petrification” needs a lot more than a wet environment, as long as several decades have passed and an organism that was killed after a very fast fall into water are likely to be petrified. In this article we learn that some bacteria and algae that died in watery environments, which were slowly covered by sediments and covered by more sediments, have been found in a petrified state even several kilometers beneath the surface: “Fossilization-favourable environments of the deep-sea floor are very complex, dynamic and often subject to dramatic environmental changes.” For example, deep sea animals which died in a flash flood were subsequently covered by sediment and subsequently buried. It is likely that such fossil fuels accumulated over geologic time – which eventually turned into the deep sea basement that is more than 2 kilometers thick, with more sediments constantly added over time – will be preserved in petrified form after more than two billion years. It is possible that fossilization was very common in the past, but we currently have no way to find fossils on the surface (apart from in the Arctic region, where there is no soil due to permafrost) and so we have no way to prove this. A: There is actually no difference between these two terms, despite what the question title says. Wikipedia says: The modern terms [fossil] and [petrified] date from c. 1660–1650.[16] The terms "petrified" and "fossil" were commonly used interchangeably during the 19th century,[18] but petrified now has a specific definition, which is the preservation of organic material in a fossilised form. So all the fossils you ever saw are in fact petrified, because they are not of the former living organisms. Fossils are those remnants of the organisms which were alive in the past, not petrified ones. And, as was pointed out, any organism buried after a short period of time can be considered a fossils. Hope that helps. A: Short answer: No. Longer answer: The definition of fossil depends on the process of formation. All fossils are 'petrified' (in the sense that they were once alive), but they can have been petrified by different processes. The processes at play depend on the physical and chemical conditions and how long ago the fossils formed. In the case of plants, we know that petrification can happen (in other words, the mineralization process can stop the decomposition process of an organism, allowing them to be preserved as petrification) by either silicification, when silica replaces the cells' water-filled protoplasm with crystalline silica (basically an extremely hard and light form of rock), or permineralization, when the organics are replaced with minerals. There are other processes that can preserve the chemical signature of an organism (sometimes for millions of years), but the question of how much time passed between the formation of an organism and its fossilization is not answered by definition, but rather with probability. How likely is it for an organism to be preserved as a fossil? It depends on how much erosion takes place. So with the information above, one would infer that fossilization does not necessarily happen in a matter of minutes. Additionally, the site you linked to gives us this advice: The Fossil Museum The fossil museum offers many different types of fossils. It is a collection of specimens, but it is also a teaching tool. All of the fossils and fossils types are from a limestone quarry in Texas. The entire museum was made in Texas out of this limestone. It is a good idea to take a photograph of yourself in the museum with one of the fossils before you leave. Many of the specimens also come with a very informative handout as well as a display case for your fossil. The entire museum and its collections are listed on the Texas Education and Research Center of Science and Math's website. There is even more information about the museum at their website here. The museum is an excellent example of rocks and minerals from Texas. This fossil museum is a good example of petrification and thus can be considered a fossils as well. To back this answer with evidence, here is a question similar to yours about a fossil "discovery" made by Thomas Jefferson: The article also includes information about how this fossil discovery was questioned, and concluded that it was likely a "misidentified fossil or petrified plant root." To make a complete answer, here are a few questions to research: Does the earth have a memory? I think this question is beyond the scope of history. But since fossilization is essentially like time traveling, it fits. A popular book, The Knowledge by Lewis Dartnell, explores this question, asking whether or not the Earth does have a memory, based on the "information theory" concept that the universe can create order out of chaos. It seems fitting for our situation as well. Why are some minerals more fragile than others? The chemical composition of the rock, ocean, land, and environment all play a role in the preservation of fossils and fossils. A website like Earth's crust minerals could be a start for some good research.