stevehut Posted September 24, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted September 24, 2004 I don't know why y'all have to make this so complicated... When I want to date sand, all I have to do is go to the beach, build the girl of my dreams on the shore, break out a couple of beers, and watch a movie on my portable VCR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted September 24, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Author Share Posted September 24, 2004 I prefer sand's cousin, rock, she's much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted September 24, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted September 24, 2004 I prefer sand's cousin, rock, she's much easier. Pssst.....SA, Rock is sand's BROTHER! You might want to break it off now! t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted September 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 25, 2004 SA: I'm sorry I have been procrastinating. Learning about this stuff is like learning about math. And I hate math. But I will do it. I really feel that God is telling me to come back here. I know you might laugh at that but that's the risk I'll take when telling you that. I'll head into this full tilt ... This time I promise... (Yikes did I do that?) on Monday. I'm going away for most of the weekend and right now I'm pretty tired and have to stick with things less intensive. You know my brain hurts when I read this stuff when I'm tired. And thank you Dad Ernie for jumping right in there. I'll read through the whole thread when I get back. Anyway, SA back to you. I did a quick search and found this site. http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjgg/2001/1.php This method is not full proof either. It doesn't match with carbon dating dates. I'm sure you'll counter argue but you'll have to wait 'til Monday. Again, I apologize for procrastinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted September 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 25, 2004 The calculated age is the time elapsed since the sample was buried as sunlight bleaches away the luminescence signal so resetting the 'time clock'." One more thing that seemed to be a glaring problem. What if the sample was FOUND in daylight? What if it was exposed to sunlight for a day or two? Wouldn't that affect the dating? Maybe I'm just too tired right now. It's bedtime where I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted September 25, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 25, 2004 My daughter's on her way to become a scientist. I should get her to jump in and join in too. Now there's the most brilliant thought I've had in months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted September 25, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Author Share Posted September 25, 2004 This method is not full proof either. It doesn't match with carbon dating dates. Hang on a second. There were several things said in the abstract of this article (which btw, is just one case study - I could find a few anomolous readings for almost *all* methods of dating). Firstly, the samples were highly weathered - in other words, they had been exposed to the elements for a long time. Secondly, their provenance (place of origin) apparantly presented difficulties, although without the full article I won't know any more about this. Secondly, as mentioned, Optically Stimulated Dating produced much more accurate results - although it still produced some that were significantly lower that C-14 ages. Lower ages, as I said, can be attributed to bleaching by the sun - the sample needs to be buried and not heavily tampered with in the mean time. Thirdly, the example I gave you, where the beads were found, was undisturbed, had no signs of weathering, and yielded dates *which agreed over several independent methods of dating, and over several samples*. There is anomoly that would produce such agreement. One more thing that seemed to be a glaring problem. What if the sample was FOUND in daylight? What if it was exposed to sunlight for a day or two? Wouldn't that affect the dating? Firstly, if the sample is found in daylight, only carefully collected buried samples are used. Secondly, if the sample has been bleached, this will give artifically YOUNG ages, not artificially old. This would mean that, if the samples I was talking about had been bleached, they would actually be older than 75,000 years. Lastly, the samples I described not only agreed independently, but were also found in a dark cave, and were buried. This means that bleaching is unlikely, so we can be fairly sure that they were not significantly older than 75,000 years. My daughter's on her way to become a scientist. I should get her to jump in and join in too. Now there's the most brilliant thought I've had in months. Sure, of course. Is she at university? What is she studying? I would appreciate another scientist on the boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted September 28, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 28, 2004 I know this response is lame and short. My apologies, but as promised, I am here monday to respond. Lots going on right now. I'll be back tomorrow with a clearer head. What do you think if we found one rock. Split it up into peices and then sent it out to different labs to get this one rock tested by the different methods. Would they all come up the same? any my daughter is majoring in Physics. She won't come . Says she doesn't 'have time for a message board', which is probably true. full time student, part time job. Oh well, maybe when she does her co-op in the spring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted September 30, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Author Share Posted September 30, 2004 What do you think if we found one rock. Split it up into peices and then sent it out to different labs to get this one rock tested by the different methods. Would they all come up the same? They usually do when they can (when more than one method is available), and that usually does yield consistant results. However, usually a site is not dated on one rock, but many in the surrounding area. These are dated individually by as many independent methods as possible to get as accurate as possible a date. any my daughter is majoring in Physics. She won't come . Mores the pity. She's probably real busy studying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts