Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Discussion of the age of the animal is found starting on page five.
Granted, that's a lot of complex language for the lay-person such as myself. But from that link it sounds like they based their estimated age on the known age of the rock formation in which the specimen was found. Then they go on to reference the multiple times that formation has been dated, and by which method(s), which I don't entirely understand but it appears they're basing it on Uranium-lead based dating methods. And at the end of that section, they still state:
Quote:
Ultimately, the series of fossiliferous sites in the Tiaojishan Formation
in the Jianchang County should be directly dated, by more thorough field sampling of igneous and volcanic materials collected on the sites.
It seems they are suggesting that, even though the rock the fossil was found in has been dated, and thus the age of the fossil can be deduced from that, that ideally the fossil itself will be dated in order to confirm it matches the age of the surrounding rock formation.
The date of the fossil is based off of the date of the rock.
Where did you gather that information in the article? An excerpt would suffice, following which we will look into how they assigned an age to the rocks (which I don't think was covered in the article you alluded to).
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 08-29-2011 at 01:24 PM..
I think it's a valid question. You appear to be accepting it without validation.
As for field trip? As I mentioned...I am in school until December...so no traveling before then. We live a ways away from each other, but I wouldn't rule out meeting if I got to Kentucky. I am applying for jobs in Kentucky, so it's possible.
He did answer your question using a bit of sarcasm but he answered nonetheless. There are different types of elements used for dating; I believe Carbon dating can only be used for things as far back as 50,000 or 60,000 years. For older objects and fossils they use other elements that take longer to decay. Now the scientists don't actually sit there for millions of years and observe the decay process they simply observe the decay process within a certain time period and then they use mathematics and measurements of the how much it has decayed to figure out the estimated date.
160 million years ago seems to be magic number in science....
(no one ever takes the time or initiative to actually study the plausibility of finding one bone, that has stood alone, all by it'self, for 160 million years, totally not being effected by any other geological change around it during that time...but some how it just stood still...just sitting there, on the surface for 160 million years, for a scientist to suddenly trip over, and write an article and publish a book)
An agreed upon theory or idea...that they all follow blindly, like a herd....
Search the web...and this magic 160 million year date seems to come up everywhere....
No logic behind it...requires no thought...just kind of a pre-made template number for others, who don't think, to follow...
You, Calvinist, are right to question this fictitious, reckless assumption....
When I hear certain people repeat that premise...I think of that one annoying radio commercial 'double my speed.com'....and how in the commercial this guy just keeps repeating it over and over...double my speed.com....double my speed.com...double my speed.com...
160 million years ago seems to be magic number in science....
(no one ever takes the time or initiative to actually study the plausibility of finding one bone, that has stood alone, all by it'self, for 160 million years, totally not being effected by any other geological change around it during that time...but some how it just stood still...just sitting there, on the surface for 160 million years, for a scientist to suddenly trip over, and write an article and publish a book)
An agreed upon theory or idea...that they all follow blindly, like a herd....
Search the web...and this magic 160 million year date seems to come up everywhere....
No logic behind it...requires no thought...just kind of a pre-made template number for others, who don't think, to follow...
You, Calvinist, are right to question this fictitious, reckless assumption....
When I hear certain people repeat that premise...I think of that one annoying radio commercial 'double my speed.com'....and how in the commercial this guy just keeps repeating it over and over...double my speed.com....double my speed.com...double my speed.com...
The ignorance apparent in the above post just boggles the mind. Did you ever NOT sleep during science class in school? Did you ever go to school at all?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
