Speedy Gonzalez

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4617466.stm

The announcement, in July last year, created a flurry of excitement, but was then promptly dismissed by a second team of researchers who re-dated the rocks at 1.3 million years old, impossibly ancient to bear human traces.
the announcement of 40,000-year-old footprints from Mexico was greeted with scepticism and caution.

More controversial still are the dates. Colleagues of Silvia Gonzalez at Oxford University used a technique called optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) that records the last time rocks were exposed to sunlight or heat. That gave a variety of dates from the overlying sediments, but when applied to small fragments of what looked like brick or burnt clay within the volcanic ash, it produced a date of about 40,000 years. it fitted in with dates of up to 38,000 years based on carbon 14 in shells in the sediments above.

Paul Renne of the Berkley Geochronology Center in California published dates for the volcanic ash itself based on the powerful argon-argon technique. That gave an age of 1.3 million years

there do not seem to be the signs of erosion and weathering that would be expected if there had been a gap of more than a million years between the ash and the overlying sediments. Gonzalez

the magnetic polarity was the opposite of the Earth's present magnetic field. The last time the Earth's magnetic field had consistently reversed polarity was about 790,000 years ago, so the fact that we found reversed polarity magnetisation in this rock tells us that it's older than 790,000 years Renne says

Silvia Gonzalez' view? "We know that there are short-term 'excursions' of the magnetic field, and one of those happened 40,000 years ago, very interestingly."

"I'm not averse to the idea of 40 000-year-old people in the New World - but I'm skeptical because we've been fooled before. We want to see it confirmed with all the evidence laid out so that we're not buying in to something that isn't there." Professor David Meltzer, from Southern Methodist University, Dallas

Don’t confuse me with the facts.

Me mind ISSS already made up ! !

A little argument - 30,000 years – No! 1,300,000 is irrelevant. 30,000 plus or minas 1,270,000 years – not bad aver ages ….. Evolution IS a fact.

“Powerfullll argon-argon technique” my foot ! EVERY one of those dating methods have the same basic challenge with their major premise, NO one knows what things were like at the beginning of the experiment !

It is all by guess and by golly !

Wow ! “We want to see it confirmed …”
That is what I have been saying for YEARS and YEARS now; “with ALL the evidence laid out” !! Yes, And a little bit of proooooof ! !
There is NOT an evolutionist alive today – nor was there ever – who would deem it a fair trial if they were put away for life in the slammer on evidence like they themselves use to claim that evolution IS a fact.

Not one !