Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 56:
Line 56: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Radiometric dating (view source)
Revision as of 04:06, January 16, 2009
, 04:06, January 16, 2009→Estimates and disagreements
I don't know why my other edit regarding scientific disagreements was reverted; it is misleading to suggest that the whole method is flawed because not everyone (or in the example, two people) agrees on a detail. There have been ''huge'' arguments in all areas of science, when seemingly contradictory results have been found by different people. Some historical examples include how brain cells connect (neuronists vs. reticularists), the identity of the genetic material (nucleic acids vs. proteins), and the phenomenon of plate tectonics, but this doesn't mean that their histology, biochemistry, or geological measurements (respectively), were poorly performed or fundamentally wrong- likewise with this subject. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:48, 15 January 2009 (EST)
I don't know why my other edit regarding scientific disagreements was reverted; it is misleading to suggest that the whole method is flawed because not everyone (or in the example, two people) agrees on a detail. There have been ''huge'' arguments in all areas of science, when seemingly contradictory results have been found by different people. Some historical examples include how brain cells connect (neuronists vs. reticularists), the identity of the genetic material (nucleic acids vs. proteins), and the phenomenon of plate tectonics, but this doesn't mean that their histology, biochemistry, or geological measurements (respectively), were poorly performed or fundamentally wrong- likewise with this subject. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:48, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: I reject the above analysis out-of-hand.
: Those sentences are going right smack back in there, and if you so much as touch them again, I ''will'' block you. Let that suffice.
: There is no reason ''at all'' for specifying an estimated date. That is an open invitation to the very sort of fudging that we allege.
: Radiometric dating is ''suppposed'' to be ''absolute''. '''''How can any determination be absolute and yet at the same time depend upon context?''''' This is classic bait-and-switch. It goes to the heart of the conclusion by the RATE Group that ''all'' radiometric dating should be re-examined.
: Detail, you say? We are talking about how the scientific establishment dares regard radiometric dating as a gold standard, capable of rendering an absolute date and thereby actually acting as a fact check on recorded history. Radiometric dating has been represented to the public at large as the next best thing to time travel for fixing the date of a volcanic eruption, or the deaths of large numbers of anything from [[trilobite]]s to [[dinosaur]]s. This is not a quibble here.
: Lastly, I no more consider myself obliged to explain than if I had reverted an edit that tried to allege that two plus two was equal to five.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:06, 15 January 2009 (EST)