51 points | by gumby a day ago ago
6 comments
I thought this was a well known effect - it's certainly filtered down to some paperback popsci archaeology books I've read in the past few years.
This appears to be a comment, highlighting a case study that demonstrates the effect in detail.
It is not purporting to show it as 'new'.
I remember reading about it as a kid, in 1990s creationist books that were attempting to argue that carbon dating couldn't be trusted and the world was actually only 6,000 years old.
Yep. I suspected that that arctic shark couldn't be so old.
I think the age is calculated counting the "rings" in ... [looking at google] ... the vertebrae.
Defiling the dead bodies of monks...
I thought this was a well known effect - it's certainly filtered down to some paperback popsci archaeology books I've read in the past few years.
This appears to be a comment, highlighting a case study that demonstrates the effect in detail.
It is not purporting to show it as 'new'.
I remember reading about it as a kid, in 1990s creationist books that were attempting to argue that carbon dating couldn't be trusted and the world was actually only 6,000 years old.
Yep. I suspected that that arctic shark couldn't be so old.
I think the age is calculated counting the "rings" in ... [looking at google] ... the vertebrae.
Defiling the dead bodies of monks...