Posted: Aug 29, 2013 1:36 pm
Transilvanian wrote:http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9676/is-knm-er-1470-evidence-that-other-dating-methods-other-than-the-fossil-record-a
They say that the skull was dated wrongly, because the tuff was dated wrongly, but this was later corrected.
But how was the tuff dated wrongly with 4 different methods giving the same wrong result of 2,6Ma?
http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-workSo Curtis and others redated the KBS tuff using selected pumice and feldspar samples, and obtained an age of 1.82 million years. This new date agreed with the appearance of the new skull.
Can somebody explain me this?
Transilvanian, why are you referencing creation sites?
As it has already been explained to you, they post false information. Don't use them for science inquiries.