Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Fungi

“Lepre said a layer of volcanic ash below the tool site set a “floor” on the site’s age: It matched ash elsewhere that had been dated to about 3.3 million years ago, based on the ratio of argon isotopes in the material. To more sharply define the time period of the tools, Lepre and co-author and Lamont-Doherty colleague Dennis Kent examined magnetic minerals beneath, around and above the spots where the tools were found.

The Earth’s magnetic field periodically reverses itself, and the chronology of those changes is well documented going back millions of years. “We essentially have a magnetic tape recorder that records the magnetic field … the music of the outer core,” Kent said. By tracing the variations in the polarity of the samples, they dated the site to 3.33 million to 3.11 million years.”

It seems that the article has a very clear and understandable explanation of how the site was dated. Now, unless, of course you reject physics, geology and biology, the article makes a great deal of sense.


28 posted on 05/20/2015 9:27:26 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: JimSEA
Hogwash. One after another premise that have never been proven. Nonsense. Copernicus revisited.
31 posted on 05/20/2015 9:35:05 PM PDT by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: JimSEA

.
>> “The Earth’s magnetic field periodically reverses itself” <<

That’s an idiot’s explanation for something much more sensible: Pieces get fractured off and rotated in tectonic fissures resulting in variation in magnetic orientation.

But some like fairy tales better than reality.


32 posted on 05/20/2015 9:38:17 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: JimSEA

One more point please. Have you ever done the math on human reproduction in a 3 million year time frame? Try it, it does not make sense to put it lightly, to put it more truthfully and bluntly, it is nonsense from a scientific viewpoint. Use a base of two children per couple and a 25 year generation period. Do the math and get back to “us.” Thank you.


35 posted on 05/20/2015 9:55:25 PM PDT by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: JimSEA

“It seems that the article has a very clear and understandable explanation of how the site was dated. Now, unless, of course you reject physics, geology and biology, the article makes a great deal of sense.”

JimSEA, you have been on FR for while... Surely you know that there is a group here that is willfully ignorant, disbelieving, and downright hostile to common physics, geology and biology, if they perceive it conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible; and they will pounce with gusto on any of these sorts of articles. You are wasting your time trying to discuss things rationally with them.

Don’t even bother.


68 posted on 05/21/2015 1:19:33 PM PDT by LaRueLaDue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson