Since I only just now discovered this thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67800.0I'd like to weigh in, but apparently we're not supposed to debate in there. Here goes.
There's a
MASSIVE chemical difference between basalt and petrified wood. Basalt is an igneous rock that cooled quicky (small crystals), and usually consists of crystals of plagioclase, pyroxene, maybe some olivine and/or amphibole. In general, it consists of only 45-50% SiO2 (that doesn't mean its quartz, by the way). Now petrified wood is something completely different. When wood petrifies, the organic components are replaced by quartz. 100% SiO2. This happens as water flows through the sediments/rocks, and in that water is a lot of dissolved quartz. Maybe some trace elements get in there too, which you can find back as the coloration, as petrified wood usually isn't white. But it's chemically not even close to basalt.
Then the fact that basalt forms usually hexagonal pillars. This happens when the basalt cool down and the volume decreases, which is generally what happens when you cool down a liquid and have it solidify. Water and ice being the exception on the rule. As the mass of basalt shrinks, it'll have to give way somewhere. As it happens, hexagons are the most efficient repeatable geometry, circumference vs surface wise. Nature is clever. Now in petrified wood, we can often find back textures that actually resemble trees, like growth rings, irregularities, even cells. Good luck finding those in basalt.
Additionally there is zero evidence for massive trees of such sizes to have ever existed. Nothing in the fossil record. I don't even think its physically possible.