Talk:Petrifaction

Small but important

When writing the article, stick to either petrification or petrifaction - the article looks foolish if they are used interchangeably.

---

I would to find information on artificial [commercial] petrifaction - I recall a documentary charting a process & going so far as to illustrate a bridge currently in use made entirely of petrified materials.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.73.175 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

...

You know what? It would be just REALLY stupid to say it's only biology subject, as a very large number of articles (actually outnumbering the meaning which is "proper", according to some!) link here but they mean is petrfication magic in mythology and fiction. This approach was just retarded. So I fixed it. You're welcome. --Asperchu (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've moved your new content to two new articles: Petrifaction (architecture) and Petrifaction in mythology and fiction as this is about the geological/paleontological usage. Please now provide references and expand your two new articles. Vsmith (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

And this is why. Way to completely misunderstand the issue, good job. And if you still don't understand: all these links link HERE (to the completely different content). And if you fix all of them, there will be new very soon. This is how it is. So now I'll revert back all of you good faith vandalism, and you'll delete the two silly "mine" articles that you have created for no reason. Asperchu (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:Disambiguation. And yes, more of the "what links here" pages need to be fixed. I understand quite well - and an article should be about one usage of a word with disambiguation notes and links for other uses. Vsmith (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The content of Petrifaction (architecture) already existed at Classical architecture#Petrification so made that a redirect. Fixed a bunch of what links here links. Vsmith (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Artificial stuff

Removed the material about a 1986 patent as it was based on a nonWP:RS source and referred to a patent. Need reliable sources discussing the "patent" for inclusion here. A German creationist website is not a reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I must have posted the wrong reference, it rarely happens with me as I didn't check what I posted in the final draft! I agree with you that creationist sites should be avoided at any costs, as they pick out actual research papers and ptents and adapt some ideas in a way that suits their purposes ( their goal is to "prove" that all fossils, including petrified wood of extinct species, would not date back ealier than a few millenia before our era, which is completely stupid . They rely on the fact that manmade semi silicified wood , which emulates petrified wood, is feasible in a short span of time, therefore according to creationists, all petrified wood on earth would be "young", ins't that retarded). Instead I found Hick's US patent and used it as a ref instead of the previous unreliable ref. This being said, mentioning Girolamo and his supposed "petrifaction of human bodyparts" (which he supposedly acquired from "mystical journeys through Egypt" , this shows how unreliable bibliography concerning him can be) is really off topic in a geology article, it should be moved too mummification or embalming wikipedia articles . I've added a new industrial process (with refs) involving conversion of wood into novelty ceramic products which retain the microstructure of wood 82.240.163.245 (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going to reply but was prompted to seeing that the words "stupid" and "retarded" here on WP were allowed to stand for six years. I realize it's the minority view but as widely documented through membership organizations, signatories of public statements, and surveys conducted by mainstream institutions, there are thousands of advanced degreed scientists who reject unguided evolution as an explanation for origins of species and especially for the origin of human beings. When you include degreed medical doctors, educated in the applied science of biology, that number grows to the hundreds of thousands. There are also hundreds of scientists in relevant fields who work at many of the world's leading (astronomy) institutions who reject the big bang theory, and another 1000+ advanced degreed scientists who argue the reason that there is plentiful dinosaur soft tissue, and left-handed amino acids in dino eggshells, and carbon 14 EVERYWHERE it's not supposed to be, including in diamonds (as reported by ScienceDirect), a mosasaur fossil (see PLoS One), dinosaur fossils, fossilized wood, marble, natural gas, coal, oil and other petroleum products, geological graphite, and Mesozoic-layer limestone, is because those specimens are young. And before you bring up the flat earth, there are not thousands of advanced degreed scientists who are flat earth, but there are thousands rejecting an old earth, the big bang, and Darwinism. Just sayin'. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The difference between petrification and fossilization

Is there a difference? Should the articles become merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.155.124 (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's five years later and I agree that this should be addressed in the article. Perhaps there's an editor who is willing to do this. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)