It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It most certainly wasn't. It turned into stone over millions of years. The stone was then cut by water, over millions of years.
Some is stone now but may not have been when it was laid down .
No. Because the ash is not stone.
The same thing could have happened at the GC . just saying .
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: peter vlar
I know nothing about any dating but as the vid shows there as a forest and a lake that got changed very quick and there are remains of many many fine layers that has nothing to do with years but hours . As far as his paper is concerned I can't say . Someone must have written a paper in response to his as a kind of rebuttal by what you are saying . Where did you get what you are saying or trying to say ?
We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y. Was a prominent footnote on their site when they still did K-Ar dating.
Not saying he didn't make any mistakes and doesn't have his own bias because every one seems to have one .New and better methods are always being developed so none of the older standards and procedures are set in stone .Saying he lied may be going a bit far but its not something any should ascribe to . Using past claims in papers could also be considered a lie or something that is not true .take your pick ... Steve Austin gave me a different way of looking at some things that even he says the archaeology 101 didn't show . Maybe its time for a 2.0 version to add what ever knowledge MSH has taught us .
I'm not a geologist by any means but as an Anthropology major, we had to take our fair share of geology and I'm pretty confident in my analysis of his half assed methodology.
How the earth expands is something no one has the answers for though.
C14 is not used in geology. Its usefulness extends to about 50k years. Max.
C14 has shown on many cases to have missed the mark .Big variances using independent labs
originally posted by: MadhatterTheGreat
I've been thinking about this for a long time now. Maybe someone has thought of this already, but is there any evidence the Pangaea isn't as old as scientists say?
I've always considered with so much evidence civilizations who shouldn't have been in contact with each other but share such similar history, that maybe the Pangaea isn't as old as scientists believe and that the land masses were separated during the great upheaval the planet went through.
Maybe all the earthquakes and flooding that's recorded throughout civilizations were the land masses separating?