Talk:Radiometric dating problems
Merge?
Does it make sense to have this as a separate article? Shouldn't we merge this into Radiometric dating? Ungtss 15:40, 22 December 2005 (GMT)
The problems with radiometric dating are numerous, and this article is expected to expand further. Merging them would cause the original article to be excessively long. --Chris Ashcraft 18:44, 22 December 2005 (GMT)
- sounds good -- i added a link to this article to the radiometric intro. Ungtss 19:14, 22 December 2005 (GMT)
Problems
A user on Conservapedia has expressed discontent with this article. Here's his own words:
An interesting article. It offers examples of inapplicable dating methods yeilding incorrect dates (which is why those dating methods would not actually be used in those situations) and completely neglects to mention that responsible scientists apply multiple dating methods to single samples to determine possible errors. Claims regarding K-Ar dating on volcanic rocks is discussed here, though I suspect that you will dismiss the claims made there as "biased" without actually explaining why the counter-argument is faulty. Ignoring important facts because they show a "refutation" to be faulty is a technique that I Have come to expect from creationist sources.
Now obviously, this can be expected from an evolutionist, but should it be taken seriously enough to change the article? Scorpionman 00:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
