|W. Kevin Vicklund
Joined: Oct. 2005
evopeach, both the 10**6 and the 300,000 year figures came from sources you provided for our reference. On the first post of page 3 of this thread, you provided three sources. The second provides the 10**6 figure. GCT is as justified to use the 10**6 figure as the 300,000 figure. The third provides the 300,000 figure. In essence, you are ridiculing yourself for providing two sources that were so wildly off in their estimates!
In reality, a timeline of this nature is only expected to be accurate to within an order of magnitude, which it is (eg, when mapped on a logarithmic scale, 300,000 is approximately halfway between 10**5 and 10**6, and 10**6 is preferred due to our numbering system)