Changes

*''The circumstances ... make it extremely unlikely that terrestrial contamination could explain the results for this meteorites.''  

*''The circumstances ... make it extremely unlikely that terrestrial contamination could explain the results for this meteorites.''  

*''... a considerable excess of radiogenic lead in most fractions ...is difficult to attribute to contamination,“''  

*''... a considerable excess of radiogenic lead in most fractions ...is difficult to attribute to contamination,“''  

rather than starting to reckon with possibility to challenge the established figures and methods, after recalling that ''“Patterson was the first to show that several stony meteorites yield a ... model of 4.5AE,”'' he proposed the new explanation for discovered discrepancy: ''"discordant results can be attributed to contamination."'' Consequently, his research of the Earth’s age turned into calculation of ''"the correct sample ratios"'' from ''"observed ratios"'' so that the Table in his paper could finally show the “correct” preconceived age, established in this field of research.<ref name=GALE>{{cite web |author=Gale, N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R. |publisher=Nature Phys. Science |year=1972  |volume=240 57 |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/r741164v5162r447}}</ref>

rather than starting to reckon with possibility to challenge the established figures and methods, after recalling that ''“Patterson was the first to show that several stony meteorites yield a ... model of 4.5AE,”'' he proposed the new explanation for discovered discrepancy: ''"discordant results can be attributed to contamination."'' Consequently, his research of the Earth’s age turned into calculation of ''"the correct sample ratios"'' from ''"observed ratios"'' so that the Table in his paper could finally show the “correct” preconceived age, established in this field of research.<ref name=GALE>{{cite web |title=U-Pb studies of the appley bridge meteorite |author=Gale, N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R. |publisher=Nature Phys. Science |year=1972  |volume=240 57 |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/r741164v5162r447}}</ref>

Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>