I personally have not. The authors of the piece explained their deductive reasoning from the examination of fossils already carbon dated, finding branched whiskers instead of single strands (monofilaments), and from studying the development of feathers in baby birds.
BTW, who'd you piss off? All your comments are downvoted before I even look.
So youre just taking their word for it, then? Whats the accuracy of carbon dating and how can they possibly corroborate the accuracy back to such large time periods where nobody was around to monitor anything?
Carbon dating, also known as radioactive dating, can be used to detect the decay of the radioisotope Carbon 14 and measure it and its ratio to the constant, Carbon 12. It's similar to learning the age of a cut tree through its many rings. However, once the limits of carbon decay are reached, the age of the geological layer the fossil was discovered in must will be used to derive an age range for it. Just because you weren't around to observe something doesn't mean it's impossible to glean an understanding of it.
How do they know it works if they cant check to see if the numbers it gives are true or not? Sure they have a theory... but if they cant check their approximations with true known dates its just a compete guess
I coud say i have something that ages rocks. I can tell you the age is 50 billion years. K now prove me wrong.
(post is archived)