Talk:Radiometric dating
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philip J. Rayment (talk | contribs) at 13:27, April 30, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
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)
- Err, thanks. Maybe. The bit I removed claimed that the (YEC) RATE project got it wrong. There were two references, one to an ICR article about the RATE project, and the other to an anti-YEC site claiming that the RATE project got it wrong. It was this second reference that I was referring to as bigoted, because it's first criticism was that creationist peer-review is by other creationists. As evolutionist peer-review is by other evolutionists, the only rationale here must be that creationary scientists are invalidated as peer-reviewers simply because they are creationists.
- I've probably just destroyed your reason for thinking that I've done good, but like you presumed, I do want the truth, and the truth is not what I think you were thinking.
- Philip J. Rayment 09:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)