At 09:56 AM 4/6/2006, you wrote:
> > I'm with you Jim, they make so many crazy extrapolations.  One thing
> > I notice about these discovery articles is they never mention what
> > method they used to date this stuff, I'd really like to know myself.
>
>The most common dating method is to find bracketing layers of igneous
>rock that can be dated using a radionuclide with an appropriate
>half-life.  (For instance, one wouldn't use C-14 decay to date anything
>over about 50K years old.)  In this instance, they'd probably use K-Ar
>dating or U-Pb dating, given that the age is around 375Myr.  If they
>don't have  a local stratum that can be used that way, it's common to
>use fossils that are known from datable beds that are found in the same
>location.  Such indicator fossils have known times from other deposits
>and change rapidly enough to be uniquely identified.
>
>You should be able to find a full treatise on how dating is done in the
>talk.origins FAQ if you actually want to know.

Thanks for the info Hal, but what I'm looking for is for them to 
actually list the dating method used so that I could read up on the 
specific method used for specific finds.  Since you can't empirically 
prove anything other than about 5,000 to 6,000 years, I find dating 
methods fascinating.


>         --Hal Heydt
>           My opinions only.


Regards,

Shawn Gordon
President
theKompany.com
www.thekompany.com
www.mindawn.com
949-713-3276

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *