Re: NBC's Mysterious Origins Show

From
Date
Tim Patterson wrote:

>In 1966 Virginia Steen-McIntyre, formerly of the USGS, dated some tools
>from a site somewhere in Mexico using two radiomateric methods (as she
>states) 1. using little uranium atoms, and 2. zircons (Last I heard these
>were part of the same method).  She then got a date of 250,000 years dating
>the tools (She dated the crystalization age of the rock making up the tool.
>In addition, if my memory is correct on this Uranium-Lead was the only
>method available at that time and that has a minimum dating capability of
>1,000,000 years BP.  Uranium-Thorium methodologies that could have dated
>the tools only came into general use in the 1970's).  No wonder that she
>had no future career at the USGS.

One thing people should be aware of is that crationist claims cannot be
trusted - after all, some creatioists claim that Steven J Gould does not
believe that _Archaeopteryx_ is a transitional form!
In this case Virginia Steen-McIntyre has worked for the anthropology depts
of Washington University and Colorado State University. Her speciality was
dating tephra (or volcanic ash).
It should be noted that the dating was of the *stone* and could not
possibly refer to the age of the *tool*.
So, did she actually state that the *tool* was 250,000 years old or did she
just state that the *stone from which it was made* was 250,000 years old?
These types of programs have been known to creatively edit people's
statements to make them fit. In other words, unless she actually stated
that this was evidence of people at least 250,000 years ago, I would
suggest she has been duped by the producers.

Chris

cnedin@geology.adelaide.edu.au                  nedin@ediacara.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Many say it was a mistake to come down from the trees, some say
the move out of the oceans was a bad idea. Me, I say the stiffening
of the notochord in the Cambrian was where it all went wrong,
it was all downhill from there.