Dinosaurs Are Ten Million Years Older Than Previously Thought

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pandaman said:
you'd kill the poor thing.
2qso4z8.png
Exactly.
It's better to ride a Deinonychus.
 
Teknoman said:
I had no idea something like that existed.

ya, if any of you ever visit Austin go check out the texas memorial museum ITS FREE. especially now that the 4th floor is all about evolution, and there's a huge model of an HIV virus raping the shit out of a human cell :D
The bottom floor is all natural history from cosmic solar system evolution, to Silurian, to Ice Age ---- TONS of fossils, including the Quetz in the lobby:

Quetzalcoatlus%20northropi%2001.jpg
 
<3 fossils. Need moar. It's fascinating that the percentage of fossilized organisms is likely extremely low, yet we found thousands of species.

sammy said:
so they weren't descended from proto-mammals and reptile-like mammals like we and dinosaurs are.

Wut? Dinosaurs aren't descended from either of these clades.
 
This has probably been brought up before, but I have to ask...when they're carbon dating fossils, which are rock, aren't they simply dating the rock that replaced the bone in the first place? Therefore, how do they really know how old any of their fossils are? It's not as thought they cate date when the beast died by examining the material that has taken the shape of their remains...
 
Raist said:
Wut? Dinosaurs aren't descended from either of these clades.

ooops, yea you're right I was thinking mammal-like reptiles like dimetrodon were Archosaurs but they aren't. the mammal-like reptiles evolved into gorgonopsids and after their massive extinction many other mammals came about.

Evilink said:
This has probably been brought up before, but I have to ask...when they're carbon dating fossils, which are rock, aren't they simply dating the rock that replaced the bone in the first place? Therefore, how do they really know how old any of their fossils are? It's not as thought they cate date when the beast died by examining the material that has taken the shape of their remains...

Radiometric dating is the most common I think, but there's quite a few methods there's potassium and lead but i don't know much about them. fossils aren't dated so much, usully this information relates more to the geology of the surrounding areas. so it's more a geologist and chemist discipline, but the layers above and below the fossils are investigated. but yes, fossilization of the bones is a pretty random process it depends entirely on the surrounding geology (pressures, types of rocks, minerals, etc)
 
methane47 said:
Well I was taught Carbon dating in maybe 2nd Form.. which is == to 8-9th grade
But I was taught Carbon Dating has upper and lower bounds defining its usefulnesss.. Certainly no where Even in the same vicinity as 10 million years... Which is why i asked how they know the age.

they normally use a different material with a longer half-life.

probably super beaten on this one
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom