Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Zircon Dating
Line 97: Line 97:  
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
 
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
 
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section.  Thanks for the suggestion.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
 
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section.  Thanks for the suggestion.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Zircon Dating ==
 +
 +
I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
 +
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago.  While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly, the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not.  The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals.  Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant".  This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally).  ''
 +
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists.  Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
 +
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]
 +
 +
Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.
 +
 +
The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."
 +
 +
Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date).  Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals. 
 +
 +
I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment.  I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light". 
 +
 +
Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office.  I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering.  --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
79

edits

Navigation menu