What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
40 Comments
- Asianwaste, on 03/14/2009, -1/+25Can I digg you down if I believe in evolution but think you're retarded?
- neonoodle, on 03/14/2009, -0/+12we'd all be extinct right now because he would have destroyed our ancestor's desire to procreate.
- inactive, on 03/13/2009, -2/+14Do they taste as good as the ducks?
- murquiza, on 03/14/2009, -0/+8And the problems with the chinese and their reported age continue! The Olimpics was just the tip of the iceberg!!!!
- inactive, on 03/14/2009, -0/+7His jokes are 200,000 years old.
- Kaiern, on 03/14/2009, -1/+7Yes. I just did.
- inactive, on 03/14/2009, -4/+10Where is the proof that the Peking Man was a *****?
- Garlik, on 03/14/2009, -4/+10Why couldn't Dane Cook have lived 200,000 years earlier?
- ItsTwentyBelow, on 03/14/2009, -1/+6Are you retarded? Did you not read the article? The scientists used a mass spectrometer to measure the amount of radioactive decay of isotopes from quartz crystals found in the same rock strata as the fossils. It's a method of absolute dating and is very accurate. So yes, the fossils were tested using the scientific method, and yielded some hard evidence. The rates at which certain isotopes decay do not lie.
Unfortunately mass spectrometry hadn't been used to date fossils yet in the 20's as it was still relatively new tech, so the original discoverers of Peking Man had to rely on relative dating, estimating the age of the rocks containing the fossils based on their relation to the other sorrounding layers. This explains the difference in the original given date versus the new one. Anthropologists basically didn't have the technology to accurately date Peking Man until more recently. I should know a thing or two about this because I am studying to become one. - inactive, on 03/14/2009, -0/+5No no no. There were no Christians that early. Everyone was a jew in the garden of Eden. I think.
- tourettes1992, on 03/14/2009, -2/+7I don't know why this was buried, this was funny. I dugg you btw.
- jorazzle, on 03/14/2009, -18/+23But... the earth is only 6,000 - 7,000 years old? That's when the velocaraptors and Christians frolicked together under the apple tree. Right?
Right?? - Kaiern, on 03/14/2009, -1/+6Yes, you can.
- aduric, on 03/14/2009, -0/+4Exactly....I'm sick and tired of all this "science" BS
- Asianwaste, on 03/14/2009, -0/+3So sayeth the nerd in the Green Lantern shirt.
- kromem, on 03/14/2009, -3/+6When I first saw this headline out of the corner of my eye, I thought it said "Pac-Man Lived 200,000 Years Earlier Than Thought"
Prehistoric arcade games ftw. - inactive, on 03/14/2009, -0/+3I miss the days when trolls actually worked on being trolls, not just using easy bait.
- Asianwaste, on 03/14/2009, -0/+3Still on Dane Cook?
- monkeyrun, on 03/14/2009, -1/+3I believe in evolution and I think you are retarded ..... what should I do...
- inactive, on 03/13/2009, -9/+11man, these evolution nutjobs are getting SO desperate in their quest to disprove god's desire to test our faith..
(unfortunately necessary /s tag..) - Lewie, on 03/14/2009, -1/+3Faith never tasted so good!
RAmen - inactive, on 03/14/2009, -0/+2never.. I thought that would be obvious..
- SpinningHead, on 03/14/2009, -0/+2I want what youre smoking
- ItsTwentyBelow, on 03/14/2009, -1/+2Kirado: You clearly don't know the first thing about natural history. I'm guessing you're religious, but that's beside the point. Anyway, it's usually a very safe assumption to say that a fossil or artifact is the same age as the rocks it was found in, otherwise, how would it have gotten there? The last time I checked, rocks are very hard and unforgiving, and it's not the easiest thing to plunk a fossil right in the middle of a formation after it has formed. Still, geologic processes like uplifting and redeposition can and occasionally do displace fossils out of their original context, but this more often than not destroys the fossil and leaves obvious signs that these processes have occurred. No evidence for this has been associated with the Zhoukoudian hominid fossils (plural as in Peking Man is far from being the only individual discovered there, just one of the first) meaning that we can accurately guage the age of these fossils from the age of the rocks they were found in.
To answer your other question, of course there are techniques to directly date fossils. It's called radiocarbon dating and can be even more accurate than the methods they use on rocks. The problem with radiocarbon dating is that the couple main carbon isotopes it measures, C12 and C14, decay rapidly and are really only affective at dating material that is younger than about 60,000 years. Peking Man is much, much older and the fossil no longer contains measurable amounts of these isotopes to make the procedure viable, hence the method the scientists performed instead.
Class dismissed. You lose. Tell your churchie friends. - sarcasm, on 03/14/2009, -0/+1But when did Thought occur?
- rawnzilla, on 03/14/2009, -1/+2Looks like there are a lot of retarded people on digg tonight.
- inactive, on 03/14/2009, -1/+2You're studying to become a Peking man?
Ah but the important question to ask would be how does the age of the rock strata accurately give a date of how old the bones are? It will surely only give you a date of how old the rocks are or more accurately the radioactive decay of the isotopes in the crystals you mention.. so all you have is how old the rocks are.. not how old the bones are.. so come up with a way of testing the bones.. yes.. and everyone will be pleased. - mystcnurse, on 03/14/2009, -1/+2Yeah, but everyone knows that the Earth is only 6000 years old, so there's no way this can be right. Geez!
- penguinofspades, on 03/14/2009, -1/+2i did!
- whoreable, on 03/14/2009, -0/+1I think whatever he was peeking at made him erect.
- inactive, on 03/14/2009, -1/+1Kirado: The bones don't move around in the rocks, sunshine.
- diceau, on 03/14/2009, -1/+1," said the person named whoreable.
- Pillar007, on 03/14/2009, -7/+7Lies. The results were manipulated by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He was there with his noodly appendage altering the results.
- aristotle0dude, on 03/14/2009, -4/+3So, this is based on new evidence that can be tested using the scientific method or is it just something someone allegedly discovered and we are all expected to believe them blindly?
It seems a little odd that they were supposedly wrong before but now they are absolutely certain and yet we have yet to see any hard evidence for either this new claim or the previous claims. - tourettes1992, on 03/14/2009, -5/+2So the ***** got erect and wanted a peek?
- whoreable, on 03/14/2009, -4/+1Your starting of a sentence with the word and, coupled with your bad spelling, as well as your irresponsible usage of exclamation points is just the tip of your stupidity.
- Kral, on 03/13/2009, -8/+4I could have told them this. Men have always wanted to peek.
- TonyTheTerrible, on 03/14/2009, -8/+2guns, germs and steel
theres only one earliest of anything. theres always going to be claims like this. - CrankMyBlueSax, on 03/14/2009, -11/+2What about atheist retards?
- rawnzilla, on 03/14/2009, -30/+6Digg me up if you believe in evolution. Digg me down if you're retarded.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is