109
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 70:
Line 70: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Radiometric dating (view source)
Revision as of 13:43, January 16, 2009
, 13:43, January 16, 2009→Estimates and disagreements: reply
: Kallium, you've been deleting factual information. It's poorly kept secret that radiometric yields often widely different estimates of age. The statements that you've repeated deleted are well supported. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: Kallium, you've been deleting factual information. It's poorly kept secret that radiometric yields often widely different estimates of age. The statements that you've repeated deleted are well supported. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::TerryH, one wonders why you felt the need to open your overtly aggressive reply with a threat. "Because I can block and you can't" (''argumentum ad baculum'') isn't a productive response.
::The estimate is the hypothesis- ''that's'' the reason. ''<u>I said the estimate, not the measurement, "depends on context".</u>'' In fact, my '''entire first paragraph''' was ''solely'' about the estimate. Don't change my meaning then accuse '''''me''''' of bait-and-switch.
::When balancing your checkbook, you have an idea what total you expect to get (your <u>hypothesis</u>) based upon what the statement says and what your income/spending habits for the month were (the <u>context</u>). If you find a discrepancy with the bank, and then redo your math and find a different total that is in agreement, is that "fudging"?
::I did say "detail", because the example was a disagreement over whether an item was 40,000 or 60,000 years old (''internal'' argument), not a disagreement over the validity of the technique (''external'' argument). Using the former to represent the latter is a misrepresentation. Besides, you ignored the actual point.
::A "fact check on recorded history"? Show me written documents describing trilobites dying.
::Radiometric dating ironically ''is'' the next best thing to time travel in terms of determining dates, only because there's isn't a better technique in between.
::Your Parthion shot lacks substance and merely revisits your opening attempt at intimidation.
::Andy, the cited document did not support the interpretation. Perhaps the information is factual, but it should either be adequately sourced or removed as per ''your own rules''. Perhaps the statements really are well supported- in which case it should be easy to find a plethora of better examples- but they weren't so here, making them simply unsupported accusations.
::By the way, isn't "poorly kept secret" an oxymoron? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 08:43, 16 January 2009 (EST)