Talk:Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33K years old (Talk.Origins)

Post comment,
or browse more talk.

Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Re: "1. It is doubtful that the sample was even wood. Snelling was not even sure what the sample was.

Nothing could further from the truth. The sample is definitely petrified wood, this fact is evident from the fossil itself, since the wood's original character is preserved in the fossil."

Since petrified wood that is completely mineralized is not wood, this objection is irrelevant.

Roy 16:18, 23 Sep 2005 (GMT)

I don't understand your objection to the objection. Is T.O. saying that the sample is not unpetrified wood, or not petrified wood? If the former, I don't follow what they are getting at. If the latter, the CreationWiki response is relevant and I therefore don't understand your objection. Philip J. Rayment 08:55, 3 May 2006 (GMT)

T.o. is saying that the sample might not be wood, i.e. it contains none of the original vegetable matter. The response is that the sample is petrified wood. But petrified wood may be completely mineralised, i.e. have all of the original vegetable matter replaced by minerals. Thus a claim that something is petrified wood does not mean that it is wood.

In any case, you persuaded me to investigate further. It turns out that following the t.o links leads to http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm, which has a picture and comments from the lab that did the dating - and neither the picture nor the lab's description suggest that the categorisation as "petrified wood" is evident from the fossil itself. Roy 14:20, 8 May 2006 (GMT)

T.o. is saying that the sample might not be wood, i.e. it contains none of the original vegetable matter.

I read it the other way. I understood them to be saying that it is has never been wood, but something else. Given that, the article is correct (if inadequate) in responding that it is petrified wood, rather than something else. However, I have edited the article to make the response a bit clearer. What do you think now?

...neither the picture nor the lab's description suggest that the categorisation as "petrified wood" is evident from the fossil itself.

This point has been answered in the article already.

Philip J. Rayment 03:54, 9 May 2006 (GMT)

If the sample was entirely petrified, it would contain no carbon; therefore it would not have yielded a meaningful date. Oelphick 18:54, 15 October 2006 (EDT)