Changes

:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition.  Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to.  I fixed it above.  --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition.  Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to.  I fixed it above.  --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "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", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook.  But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits.  They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...".  The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now.  However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it.  Consider this an objection to reinserting the material!  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "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", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook.  But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits.  They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...".  The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now.  However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it.  Consider this an objection to reinserting the material!  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)