Posted: Aug 29, 2013 9:31 am
I`ve found this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n3/pigs
http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work
Here writes that
After that they have corrected the 2.6 Ma dato 1.9Ma. But different dating methods have correlated in 2,6. Then how was it wrong??
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n3/pigs
http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work
Here writes that
In 1974, a third chronology of the area was published in Nature, based on palaeomagnetism.5 The conclusion of 2.7 to 3.0 million years seemed to represent a 'bulls-eye' for the correlation of the various dating methods.
By late 1974, the KBS Tuff had been dated five different times by four different dating methods. The alleged compatibility of the different methods would seem to be a geologist's dream.
After that they have corrected the 2.6 Ma dato 1.9Ma. But different dating methods have correlated in 2,6. Then how was it wrong??