nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 26:
Line 26: + + + +
Talk:Radiometric dating (view source)
Revision as of 09:59, January 31, 2008
, 09:59, January 31, 2008Reversion to earlier version
I've just removed the bits about methods by which radiometric methods can be "cross-verified". The first example, which seemed a bit convenient anyway, seems at the very least to be disputed and at worst to be simply wrong. See [http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/middle/petraglia_toba_india_continuity_2007.html here]. The second is not a method of calibration with independently-''known'' dates, but with other dates that have also not been calibrated. And this is mentioned further down in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:41, 24 November 2007 (EST)
I've just removed the bits about methods by which radiometric methods can be "cross-verified". The first example, which seemed a bit convenient anyway, seems at the very least to be disputed and at worst to be simply wrong. See [http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/middle/petraglia_toba_india_continuity_2007.html here]. The second is not a method of calibration with independently-''known'' dates, but with other dates that have also not been calibrated. And this is mentioned further down in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:41, 24 November 2007 (EST)
== Reversion to earlier version ==
I just reverted two paragraphs to an earlier version. Feebasfactor had edited the two paragraphs, and in so doing incorrectly claimed that the problem that YECs have with radiometric dating is the size of the margin of error. This is not the issue. He also changed "Young-Earth creationists therefore claim ..." to "However, [[young earth creationist]]s claim...". This was fair enough, as the sentence did not logically flow from the previous sentence. However, this was because of a previous edit[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=next&oldid=213492] that changed the flow of the previous sentence, and which introduced a contrary thought which was unsupported by a valid reference. It had been there plenty long enough for a reference, but none was forthcoming, so I've reverted those paragraphs to prior to that edit, with the result that the "Young-Earth creationists therefore claim ..." is again valid, and the incorrect claim about the size of the margin of error is gone. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)