Talk:Roraima pollen paradox

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Carbon dating?[edit]

Carbon dating is useless for dating billion-year-old minerals. "Radiometric dating" may be the words you seek. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks! Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of links to WP[edit]

Which ones are superfluous?

  1. shaleWikipedia
  2. Cerro VenamoWikipedia
  3. bedding planeWikipedia
  4. cleavageWikipedia
  5. hornfelsWikipedia
  6. crossed nicolsWikipedia
  7. cordieriteWikipedia
  8. micaceousWikipedia
  9. quartzWikipedia
  10. biotiteWikipedia
  11. PrecambrianWikipedia
  12. Imperial AT-AT WalkerWikipedia
  13. Mount RoraimaWikipedia
  14. MyaWikipedia
  15. GyaWikipedia
  16. m.y.Wikipedia
  17. microfossilsWikipedia
  18. intrudedWikipedia
  19. CretaceousWikipedia
  20. TertiaryWikipedia
  21. EoceneWikipedia
  22. MioceneWikipedia
  23. PleistoceneWikipedia
  24. MesozoicWikipedia
  25. CenozoicWikipedia
  26. cleavageWikipedia
  27. matrixWikipedia
  28. doleritesWikipedia
  29. hornfelsWikipedia
  30. allochthonousWikipedia
  31. macroscopicWikipedia
  32. fluviatileWikipedia
  33. meteoric watersWikipedia
  34. sandstoneWikipedia
  35. QuartziteWikipedia
  36. percolatingWikipedia
  37. metamorphosedWikipedia
  38. cordieriteWikipedia
  39. andalusiteWikipedia
  40. acritarchsWikipedia
  41. graphitizedWikipedia
  42. atmWikipedia
  43. Raman analysesWikipedia
  44. TaphonomicWikipedia
  45. biological morphologyWikipedia
  46. LimoniteWikipedia
  47. bedding planesWikipedia
  48. talus slopeWikipedia
  49. graded beddingWikipedia
  50. matrixWikipedia
  51. vascular plantsWikipedia
  52. sedimentary rocks,Wikipedia
  53. foraminifera,Wikipedia
  54. tepuiWikipedia
  55. aneroid barometerWikipedia

--Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

With or without the WPL links, it's not a very easy piece for the layman to read. Is there an equivalent article at WP? If so, then I think it's probably unnecessary to go into so much detail as we're likely to be retreading the same ground. If it's not covered at WP (I couldn't find it with a couple of search attempts) it may be justified, but it would be better to use less jargon or where it's really necessary to (briefly) explain the meaning of terms within the article rather than prompting the reader to click back & forth between here & WP every few words. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no such article on this subject at WP or, as far as I can tell, at any skeptical website. (Hence why I wrote this.) Reducing the number of WPLs and adding explanation does seem useful, tho. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
On whether any of the WPLs (or alternate inline explanation) is unnecessary: did you know any of the terms before the WPL? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Of what use is that question? I'll answer anyway: the list starts With "shale" and ends at "aneroid barometer" with "sandstone" somewhere in the middle, so, yes, I knew some of them.
More seriously, the question should be "does each link help an interested reader understand the topic?"
The first question, in any such writing project, is "who is the audience?"
My own personal assessment is that many of those links are indeed helpful. The neat thing about hypertext has always been the way it allows reading to proceed uninterrupted, along with easy instant access to end-note type material. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I was asking to find out if the links were useful -- because if they explain something, then they've got a point.
I'm sure some of these could be better explained inline -- such as tepui. But I agree that most of them have useful pages of their own.
On the barometer: I was mostly mentioning it because it's old, but you made it into a point all its own. :P Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Moving on, I would lose the links to Mya, Gya, and atmosphere as a unit of measurement, but that's just me. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The obvious question[edit]

Given that the original sampling was 50 years ago - why hasn't there been another expedition and collection of new samples - things do get misunderstood/misinterpreted/unobserved contamination (the German female mass murderer who turned out to be contaminated swabs) and 'all the other reasons one can think of.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Lack of interest? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)