Skip to comments.
Ancient site hints at first US settlers
newscientist ^
| 01/04/04
| NewScientist.com news service
Posted on 01/02/2004 8:02:29 AM PST by Pikamax
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
1
posted on
01/02/2004 8:02:30 AM PST
by
Pikamax
To: Pikamax; *Gods, Graves, Glyphs; abner; Alas Babylon!; Andyman; annyokie; bd476; BiffWondercat; ...
Gods, Graves, Glyphs List for articles regarding early civilizations , life of all forms, - dinosaurs - etc.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this ping list.
2
posted on
01/02/2004 8:10:39 AM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: farmfriend
Please add me to your ping list-- thanks.
3
posted on
01/02/2004 8:14:26 AM PST
by
expat_panama
(just call me Mr. Grinch.)
To: Pikamax
4
posted on
01/02/2004 8:16:29 AM PST
by
blam
To: expat_panama
Consider yourself added. If you ever change your mind, or I get you on the wrong list, just let me know.
5
posted on
01/02/2004 8:16:35 AM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: LibertyThug
bump for future reading
6
posted on
01/02/2004 8:24:38 AM PST
by
LibertyThug
(Dagny Taggart's Alter Ego)
To: Pikamax
The site along the Yanu River, carbon-dated as 30,000 years old...NewScientist.com also has articles about how bad global warming is (Global warming 'kills 160,000 a year').
OK, let's get this straight. A 'site' cannot be carbon-dated. A 'stone' cannot be carbon-dated. Only 'carbon' can be carbon dated. Forgive my irritability but every time someone discovers an earliest whatever, some jock wants to make the new record by 'discovering' an earlier one.
It's easy. Some where near the site (dig if you gotta) find some charcoal and date it. If it ain't a record, keep digging. Eventually you'll make it to NewScientist.com and who knows, if you can bad mouth dubya enough the Nobel people will give you cash money.
7
posted on
01/02/2004 8:27:59 AM PST
by
expat_panama
(just call me Mr. Grinch.)
To: farmfriend
put me on your ping list for Gods, Grave, and Glyphs, please?
8
posted on
01/02/2004 10:02:16 AM PST
by
Old Student
(WRM, MSgt, USAF (Ret.))
To: Pikamax
Daniel Mann of the Institute of Arctic Biology at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks The climate sorts out certain types for extinction. At the same time the climate allows other types to thrive that wouldn't last a day in normal regions: survivors have a certain practicality in behavior, balanced by a freely floating belief system.
9
posted on
01/02/2004 10:08:25 AM PST
by
RightWhale
(Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
To: farmfriend
Add me to the list, if you please!
10
posted on
01/02/2004 10:09:52 AM PST
by
NukeMan
To: Pikamax
Does this mean Kennewick Man might be a Rooskie?
11
posted on
01/02/2004 10:14:04 AM PST
by
Spok
((Just Curious))
To: Pikamax
12
posted on
01/02/2004 11:02:34 AM PST
by
mjp
To: Professional Engineer
ping
13
posted on
01/02/2004 11:53:34 AM PST
by
msdrby
(US Veterans: All give some, but some give all.)
To: Old Student
Consider yourself added. If you ever change your mind, or I get you on the wrong list, just let me know.
14
posted on
01/02/2004 1:34:18 PM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: NukeMan
Consider yourself added. If you ever change your mind, or I get you on the wrong list, just let me know.
15
posted on
01/02/2004 1:36:29 PM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: VOA
...and here.
16
posted on
01/02/2004 9:00:32 PM PST
by
blam
To: expat_panama
Only 'carbon' can be carbon dated. AND only when there is a regional correlation with dendrochonology. If there is no synchronized, overlapping tree-ring record for the area going back an appropriate amount of time, then any carbon dating is merely a guesstimate and may be wildly off.
To: Pikamax
At least the 4th thread on this topic. Russia can't have Alaska back. It was a fair sale.
18
posted on
01/10/2004 4:52:05 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(How many technological objections will be raised?)
To: Swordmaker
AND only when there is a regional correlation with dendrochonology. If there is no synchronized, overlapping tree-ring record for the area going back an appropriate amount of time, then any carbon dating is merely a guesstimate and may be wildly off. I can't remember where I read it but recently I read a comparison between carbon dating and dendrochonology, using bristle cone pines and carbon dating lost big time. It seems it was off by 10 or 15% possibly more.
19
posted on
01/11/2004 12:57:24 PM PST
by
Holly_P
To: Spok
"thousands of kilometres" was just a quick rhinocerus ride away in those days...
20
posted on
01/11/2004 1:14:20 PM PST
by
PoorMuttly
("No jockey was ever ruled "Off" for trying." - W. C. Fields)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson