2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $10064.65Goal: $10000

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. shale
  2. Cerro Venamo
  3. bedding plane
  4. cleavage
  5. hornfels
  6. crossed nicols
  7. cordierite
  8. micaceous
  9. quartz
  10. biotite
  11. Precambrian
  12. Imperial AT-AT Walker
  13. Mount Roraima
  14. Mya
  15. Gya
  16. m.y.
  17. microfossils
  18. intruded
  19. Cretaceous
  20. Tertiary
  21. Eocene
  22. Miocene
  23. Pleistocene
  24. Mesozoic
  25. Cenozoic
  26. cleavage
  27. matrix
  28. dolerites
  29. hornfels
  30. allochthonous
  31. macroscopic
  32. fluviatile
  33. meteoric waters
  34. sandstone
  35. Quartzite
  36. percolating
  37. metamorphosed
  38. cordierite
  39. andalusite
  40. acritarchs
  41. graphitized
  42. atm
  43. Raman analyses
  44. Taphonomic
  45. biological morphology
  46. Limonite
  47. bedding planes
  48. talus slope
  49. graded bedding
  50. matrix
  51. vascular plants
  52. sedimentary rocks,
  53. foraminifera,
  54. tepui
  55. aneroid barometer

--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. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.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? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)