They concluded that the carbon particles are younger than the rock:
quote:
Hudson Bay region shows carbonaceous particles are millions of years younger than the rock in which they're found, pointing to the likelihood that the carbon was mixed in with the metamorphic rock later than the rock's earliest formation -- estimated to be 3.8 to 4.2 billion years ago.
I found it interesting also, but is a few million years much when we are talking about something that is 4 billion years old? It is a new technique also, maybe there may be problems with it.
The article never says how much the dating difference was, is there an acceptable amount of error in something 4 billion years old, and if so would a few million years fall within that accepted amount of error? All it says is millions of years difference, which could mean a few or 10, 100, 500???...
"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
™ Version 4.2