nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 118:
Line 118: + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Young Earth Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 02:53, April 30, 2008
, 02:53, April 30, 2008→Zircon Dating: Proper response to MichaelK
:::: 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)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)