Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
1,712 bytes added ,  16:16, June 13, 2015
→‎The Scientific Dogma of 4.5 billion years: contamination at centre of conflicting opinions
Line 87: Line 87:  
*''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 |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>
+
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."''{{#tag:ref|The claim on the contamination explaining the "discordant result" is in direct contradiction with previous statements that neither analytical nor extremely unlikely terrestrial contamination could explain the results. According to Ryan Dobson, author of a book on [[moral relativism]], a person that holds conflicting opinions about something and starts disagreeing with himself of herself is in trouble.<ref name="Dobson">{{cite book
 +
|author=Ryan Dobson, Jefferson Scott
 +
|title=Be Intolerant in Love: Because Some Things Are Just Stupid
 +
|publisher=Tyndale House Publishers
 +
|location=Sisters, OR, USA
 +
|year=2007
 +
|isbn=978-1590-521526
 +
|page=23-26
 +
|pages=121
 +
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=yvSEGgAACAAJ
 +
|quote= You can't recognize that you hold conflicting opinions about something and hang on to both of them for very long. When you start disagreeing with yourself, you're in trouble.}}</ref> The trouble maintaining a train of thought in logical and coherent manner is regarded by [[medical science]] as symptom and characteristic of [[schizophrenia]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Schizophrenia: Symptoms, Types, Causes, and Early Warning Signs |publisher=helpguide.org |url= http://www.helpguide.org/articles/schizophrenia/schizophrenia-signs-types-and-causes.htm |accessdate=13 June 2015 |quote=Fragmented thinking is characteristic of schizophrenia. Externally, it can be observed in the way a person speaks. People with schizophrenia tend to have trouble concentrating and maintaining a train of thought. They may respond to queries with an unrelated answer, start sentences with one topic and end somewhere completely different, speak incoherently, or say illogical things.}}</ref>|group=note}} 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>
Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947

edits

Navigation menu