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.
Radiometric dating is accurate all the way back to the formation of the planet and then some. You know, I think the only reason you are here is because you want to bypass our education system and get it all for free. Why don't you take some classes? Who knows? You might actually learn something. Or you could just go on a geology field trip - Well?
I can't tell you what method they used because I haven't read the actual paper. Very likely they used more than one, which would include producing the geologic column for the outcrop where the specimen was discovered, comparing it with other nearby outcrops and then using the relative geologic time scale to get in the ball park. Then, if there were any volcanic deposits within those outcrops, they can be radioisotopically dated to get a more precise date. Now don't come back with creationist whine that radioisotopic dating doesn't work or is fake, because, Calvin, they were developed by the same scientists that gave us nuclear power and the atomic bomb, and secondly thousands of laboratories all over the world use these methods successfully every day. They would't be using them if they didn't work because:
1) That would be a huge waste of time and resources, and;
2) They'd lose their arses financially.
...did you not understand? They used standard relative and absolute dating methods, for sure. If you need more detailed information, you have two choices: You can either pay the $32 to gain access to the research paper online, or you can go to the library and look it up in their periodical section for free.
I'll give you this freebie, but you have to do the rest of this work on your own (I'm not your mommy):
Rubidium 87 to Strontium 87 decay can date rocks older than 100 million years.
But let me give you one more bit of advice. This is a forum where people discuss the events of the day or argue the merits of facts or philosphy. This is not the place to find the facts you want to discuss. That's why we have so many other resources on the internet.
...did you not understand? They used standard relative and absolute dating methods, for sure. If you need more detailed information, you have two choices: You can either pay the $32 to gain access to the research paper online, or you can go to the library and look it up in their periodical section for free.
So then, really...you are accepting it on faith that they are correct in their assessment that it's 160 million years old.
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.
