Difference between revisions of "Talk:Radiometric dating"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(On my rewrite) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
If there are any questions, I spent some time back in college writing software for a radiocarbon laboratory and have more than passing knowledge of the material that is written about. Feel free to ask any questions here. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT) | If there are any questions, I spent some time back in college writing software for a radiocarbon laboratory and have more than passing knowledge of the material that is written about. Feel free to ask any questions here. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Philip's edits== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Philip, I have to point this out to everyone. You are a rare person who has placed productive information in an article that you obviously disagree with and also removed information that would have supported you position on the topic, but you removed it anyway because you had identified it as a bigoted reference. I can not express the level of gratitude towards you for doing this. Thank you.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 13:01, April 30, 2007
On my rewrite
Major diffs include
- change of ref to printed text "Wile, Dr. Jay L. Exploring Creation With General Science. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000" to http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
- removal of section on accelerated decay - pure conjecture without citation. Reference was link to another wiki.
- expanded assumptions
- Added C14 creation rate at flood and creation (probably still needs a reasonable citation that is more than conjecture)
- expanded outside influences, show where metamorphic rock is incorrect and RATE using this infomration to improperly date Grand Canyon. Included refutation of RATE data at answers in creation
If there are any questions, I spent some time back in college writing software for a radiocarbon laboratory and have more than passing knowledge of the material that is written about. Feel free to ask any questions here. --Mtur 00:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Philip's edits
Philip, I have to point this out to everyone. You are a rare person who has placed productive information in an article that you obviously disagree with and also removed information that would have supported you position on the topic, but you removed it anyway because you had identified it as a bigoted reference. I can not express the level of gratitude towards you for doing this. Thank you.--TimS 09:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)