Talk:The U-Th-Pb method, properly corrected for neutron capture, gives recent dates (Talk.Origins)

I have removed this from the article: Why did Talk.Origins list an article on Carbon dating as a source for this claim? An article that doesn't mention anything that's even remotely relevant to the core of this claim? Here is an article that is actually relevant to the claim from the AiG website: U-Th-Pb “Dating”: An Example of False “Isochrons”

It should be noted that the article that is actually relevant to the claim shows that the dating results yield an age of ZERO. Not "recent." Neutron capture isn't listed in the article either. The problem is that the AiG link is not to the article that TalkOrigins cites, but to an article that has replaced the original article. A later edition of TalkOrigin's source is here, and it can be seen that, although the title of the chapter refers to carbon dating, the chapter itself includes comment on other dating methods, including the matter that TalkOrigins refers to. The apparent discrepancy is the doing of AiG, not TalkOrigins.

Philip J. Rayment 04:11, 20 November 2012 (PST)


 * Okay. Thanks for the information. --TChapman500 18:07, 14 December 2012 (PST)