Odd news story this week. Probably in the last place anyone would
expect, a fossilized animal footprint about the size of a human
hand was found on Prince Edward Island, Canada and thrown the..
Rob Mccart wrote to ALL <=-
Shows there's always room for surprises and to learn new things.. B)
It could also be that we know so much that isn't so. We think we know
all of the things then something comes along and remind us that we know
so little.
Odd news story this week. Probably in the last place anyone would>completely accurate or reliable.
expect, a fossilized animal footprint about the size of a human
hand was found on Prince Edward Island, Canada and thrown the..
I'm not convinced that methods to date things like that is
Shows there's always room for surprises and to learn new things.. B)>all of the things then something comes along and remind us that we know
It could also be that we know so much that isn't so. We think we know
Rob Mccart wrote to DIGIMAUS <=-
I always liked the Mark Twain quote, he said when he was 14 that
his father was so ignorant he couldn't bear to be around him, but
when he was 21 he said he was astounded how much the old man had
learned in just 7 years.. B)
Rob Mccart wrote to AUGUST ABOLINS <=->completely accurate or reliable.
Odd news story this week. Probably in the last place anyone would
expect, a fossilized animal footprint about the size of a human
hand was found on Prince Edward Island, Canada and thrown the..
I'm not convinced that methods to date things like that is
Probably not totally accurate but I'm sure they are using the same
methods that have been used to 'date' other specimens, or in this
case it's more like estimating the age of rock in that area, so
the numbers may be inaccurate but should be comparative..
It's like the carbon dating, we think of it as being pretty
accurate but you often find that the older the specimen is,
the wider the margin of error, like you start getting the age
of a sample may be plus or minus 5,000 years old when you're
getting close to the maximum it can do, about 50,000 years old..
> > all of the things then something comes along and remind us that we knowIt could also be that we know so much that isn't so. We think we know
It's been said over the years that we know more about outer space than we do>ut the ocean depths. Now that we have vehicals that can reach the ocean bott
It's like the carbon dating, we think of it as being pretty>at the dating of the trees buried during Mount St. Helens.
accurate but you often find that the older the specimen is,
the wider the margin of error, like you start getting the age
of a sample may be plus or minus 5,000 years old when you're
getting close to the maximum it can do, about 50,000 years old..
And of course carbon dating is not historically accurate. Look
It's like the carbon dating, we think of it as being pretty>at the dating of the trees buried during Mount St. Helens.
accurate but you often find that the older the specimen is,
the wider the margin of error, like you start getting the age
of a sample may be plus or minus 5,000 years old when you're
getting close to the maximum it can do, about 50,000 years old..
And of course carbon dating is not historically accurate. Look
And whether this will be good or bad remains to be seen.. I've read a
lot of books where waking something up down there didn't work out well.. B)
Rob Mccart wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=->at the dating of the trees buried during Mount St. Helens.
It's like the carbon dating, we think of it as being pretty
accurate but you often find that the older the specimen is,
the wider the margin of error, like you start getting the age
of a sample may be plus or minus 5,000 years old when you're
getting close to the maximum it can do, about 50,000 years old..
And of course carbon dating is not historically accurate. Look
My impression is it doesn't matter what the carbon based matter
is buried in, they check the age by the break down of the
radioactive isotope of the carbon which occurs at a relatively
predictable rate over time, although it's harder to nail down
as accurately when it gets quite old.
Mike Powell wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=->at the dating of the trees buried during Mount St. Helens.
It's like the carbon dating, we think of it as being pretty
accurate but you often find that the older the specimen is,
the wider the margin of error, like you start getting the age
of a sample may be plus or minus 5,000 years old when you're
getting close to the maximum it can do, about 50,000 years old..
And of course carbon dating is not historically accurate. Look
Did something about the volcanic erruption prevent them from being
dated properly? I had never heard that before.
And of course carbon dating is not historically accurate. Look>at the dating of the trees buried during Mount St. Helens.
My impression is it doesn't matter what the carbon based matter>during the eruption that came out to be thousands of years old.
is buried in, they check the age by the break down of the
radioactive isotope of the carbon which occurs at a relatively
predictable rate over time, although it's harder to nail down
as accurately when it gets quite old.
Right - but my point is they 'carbon dated' trees that were buried
Did something about the volcanic erruption prevent them from being>thing again, and I had it wrong. The "thousands of years old"
dated properly? I had never heard that before.
Quick correction on my part. I checked into that Mt. St. Helens
Rob Mccart wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=->thing again, and I had it wrong. The "thousands of years old"
Did something about the volcanic erruption prevent them from being
dated properly? I had never heard that before.
Quick correction on my part. I checked into that Mt. St. Helens
That was my first thought as well, materials from earlier eruptions,
but there was some wild inaccuracy there. It sort of sounds like
the numbers were thrown off when the organic materials rather than
just dying normally were subjected to the super high heat of the
lava flow there. There was talk about layers of charred bark from
other eruptions too which added to the confusion.
That was my first thought as well, materials from earlier eruptions,
but there was some wild inaccuracy there. It sort of sounds like
the numbers were thrown off when the organic materials rather than
just dying normally were subjected to the super high heat of the
lava flow there. There was talk about layers of charred bark from
other eruptions too which added to the confusion.
Interesting. So it might be hard for them to accurately date any of it...
Rob Mccart wrote to JIMMY ANDERSON <=-
I think the most accurate results they've gotten were on plants
and animals that died in the far north and have been frozen and
buried under the ice for the last XX,000 years..
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 244:33:33 |
| Calls: | 164 |
| Files: | 769 |
| Messages: | 94,493 |