Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <595@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Aug-85 11:12:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.595
Posted: Sat Aug 24 11:12:54 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 01:03:56 EDT
References: <14600027@hpfcrs.UUCP> <14600038@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 21

>      It's true that I am not familiar with dating techniques as such.  I
> had always assumed that it was the source material itself that was being
> dated rather than the time of deposition.
> 
>      Obviously, radiometric techniques are not used directly for dating
> the time of deposition, right?  If interpolation is used, then that means
> that there exists at least 2 fixed known points to be used as reference.
> What is usually used for these reference points?  And how can one interpolate
> unless he assumes uniformation?

I don't see how it is possible to interpolate between 350 million years and
380 million years and get 5000 years.  Perhaps Leif would enlighten us.

-- 
"Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from
	religious conviction."  -- Blaise Pascal

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(uucp)
	bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA		(ARPANET)