ArchivedDinosaurs?Apparently Carbon isn't the only thing they use. I'm uncertain as to weather they've used potassium to "date" stuff, however I'd bet that if an object is suspected from around or more than 60,000 years they would try it. Well, that's what *I'd* do, not everyone is logical. BTW, the above is from HowStuffWorks.com - a pretty good site with pretty accurate information. I've heard the same thing about Carbon dating and it's innaccuracy with "recent" stuff, but I've also heard that it becomes (within reason) more accurate the older something is. Obviously, when you're talking a million years ago 1000 years isn't a huge gap. When you're talking 10 years ago 1000 years is enormous. I agree that the constants will change what is being tested, however I'm wondering how much? I mean, are the constants arbitrarily selected? I doubt it, however I could be wrong on that. I suspect that the constants were gotten from carbon dating items that they already knew the relative age of and figuring out what number got them close to that age. I assume (I know, I know) that it has been tested and is about as accurate as can be without the missing information. Of course, as I said, I find it easier to believe science most of the time. I agree that Science is not always correct, however I personally would trust the word of educated *learned* individuals than people that I've never heard of, never met, and only have their own word as to their basic honesty. That's just me, however... |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame