Paging Dr. Lamanna …

Apparently, I had/have the flu.

Fever? Check!
Stuffy head? Check!
Body aches that make you feel like you went a few rounds with Tonya Harding? Check!
The strong strong desire to take a nice long bath with a plugged in toaster to finally put yourself out of the misery of having to lie on your couch for four days while watching Bob Barker? ……………. CHECK!!!

But enough of me being a sissy baby about it. Let’s put down the toaster and do some math.

Far be it from me to question years and years of research and whatnot, but …

300 million years old? How the hell do you determine that rockish looking hunk is in fact 300 million years old? What if it was actually 299 million years old? You’d still be off by …. one million years!!

Please. I doubt you, you carbon daters you.

Wait, now this article says that carbon dating works for things up to 60,000 years old … or as old as Bob Barker. And that there are ways to determine age up to billions of years by blah blah blah blah BLAH. They lost me after “t=”.

So I’m going to just assume that these dudes are pulling huge numbers out of their asses. Or someone carried one too many ones.

However, if Matt Lamanna wants to call me and explain it to me …


  1. Mark Denovich
    March 3, 2006 2:46 pm

    It’s all rubbish anyway. The universe is only 6000 years old, right? Ha.

    Actually, they use other radio-isotopes (ones with longer half-lives) for calculating the age of older specimins.

    It’s described here:

  2. Libby
    March 3, 2006 3:22 pm

    I think you might understand it better if Matt Lamanna explained it to you IN PERSON. Over coffee. Or dinner. heh.

  3. Pat
    March 6, 2006 11:26 am

    How do you date a 300-million-year-old fossil? Check his bank accounts first. Aha! Ahahahaha.

    And yeah, they probably used either rubidium/strontium or potassium/argon.

    If you remember your high school chemistry, 300 has one significant digit and 299 has three. So they can’t say it’s 299 million years old unless they can get it down to that precision, so they say 300 million years.

  4. Anonymous
    March 7, 2006 9:58 am

    I love your devotion to Matt Lamanna, because, sadly, I feel the same. Did you see him on TV a month ago on the Science Channel? He is much, much cuter in person, and I am amazed that you’ve formed such an attachment to him from just the crappy pictures available on the web.

  5. pittgirl
    March 7, 2006 12:29 pm

    Damn. He was on the Science Channel and I missed it? Must go research.

    Actually my attachment stems from his first week on the job when the PG did a big article on him coupled with some photos of him giving a tour to some kids at the museum. Hot!