Talk:Radiometric dating/Archive 1

message: Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared.  Also currently being worked upon is Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page.  It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting.  People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here.  And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting.  :) Barnaby dawson 21:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean every geology and archaeology article will have to contain creationist explanations as well?  adamsan  23:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No of course not.  This page is only meant to refer to pages who's principle aim is a comparison of scientific positions (or in the case above positions where there is dispute over the scientific nature of a position).  Barnaby dawson 11:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They should contain creationist explanations. Everone on here uses the excuse "pseudoscience" to keep creationism from "leaking" onto the articles. Scorpionman 14:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because creationism is not science, it is a religious belief.  Radiometric dating establishes facts through objective, verifiable methods. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Scorpionman is an avowed creationist, so we'll just ignore his blathering because he's pissed that a bunch of scientist-friendly folk over on Age of the Earth aren't letting him and others turn it into a bullet-point bitchfest comparison of science and creation "science". Rolinator 01:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Invitation

message: We seem to be missing information on U238/U234 dating--nixie 01:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of those two U isotopes alone for dating is quite rare, perhaps best discussed under 238U-234U-230Th dating in which they play an essential part.  Actinide 11:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a uranium-uranium dating article now.  The glaring omission is uranium-lead dating. Actinide 03:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Radiocarbon dating is mentioned here, but not cosmogenic nuclide dating.  Is this simply accidental omission of a relatively obscure technique, or are cosmogenic techniques seen as somehow less "absolute"?  The list of techniques in this article seems to emphasize "hard rock" formation-decay type techniques (exceptions are radiocarbon, o.   I'll be the first to admit there are non-absolute dating applications of cosmogenic nuclides (erosion rates, non-unique solutions, etc), but they are certainly not the rule.  I'll add something on cosmo techniques if no one objects. Also, can we organize the long list of techniques at the beginning of the article?  --BlueCanoe 01:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, cosmogenic nuclide dating is a calibrated radiometric technique rather than an absolute radiometric technique (the only constants requied for the latter are half-lives).  But this article is about "radiometric dating," not "absolute radiometric dating," so of course cosmogenic dating should be mentioned here.  And yes, this article needs a lot of work. Actinide 13:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed additions

message: The POV fork Controversy on Radiometric dating is inappropriate, as there is plenty of room here for anything that could be contained there.  I propose merging that article back here and deleting/redirecting it. Peyna 15:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note I've listed that article for AfD. Peyna 02:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Controversy on Radiometric dating inappropriately handled religious reaction to radiometric dating with a POV slant. However, the existence of a separate article discussing the religious and sociological impact of radiometric dating results (as opposed to the scientific practice of radiometric dating) should be preferred to the alternative of squeezing both topics into one article. This was recently discussed in the Talk page of the radiocarbon dating article: Talk:Radiocarbon_dating#Controversy. I'm currently drafting a new article (not a recreation of the rightly deleted Controversy on... article) to handle this separate non-science topic. However, before I post the new article, I would like to hear from contributors to this article: are you agreement with the outcome of the debate in the radiocarbon dating article's Talk page? Thanks. jdbartlett 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from POV fork 

message: :Controversy on Radiometric dating inappropriately handled religious reaction to radiometric dating with a POV slant. However, the existence of a separate article discussing the religious and sociological impact of radiometric dating results (as opposed to the scientific practice of radiometric dating) should be preferred to the alternative of squeezing both topics into one article. This was recently discussed in the Talk page of the radiocarbon dating article: Talk:Radiocarbon_dating#Controversy. I'm currently drafting a new article (not a recreation of the rightly deleted Controversy on... article) to handle this separate non-science topic. However, before I post the new article, I would like to hear from contributors to this article: are you agreement with the outcome of the debate in the radiocarbon dating article's Talk page? Thanks. jdbartlett 16:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New article: religious controversy

message: There should be a section on this page entitled "Problems with radiometric dating". Scorpionman 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source in a serious, peer reviewed journal that says there are problems, and it isn't a quote mine, you are welcome to discuss putting it in. Otherwise, please stop trolling all the science pages that make you feel uncomfortable and try to actually make some productive edits in article space. Thanks. JoshuaZ 21:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition 

message: Please explain granularity of one half-life staement in the section. Vsmith 03:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for asking. It meant granularity used as in physics and statistics, similar to resolution in graphics. Anyhow, it was incorrect to apply it to the method described. The expression was a remnant of a previous attempt to describe an intuitive method. I have eliminated the section. Jclerman 05:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Course dating simply means unrefined dating as when no calibration is applied. Granularity refers to the degree of coarseness as in significant digits of a measurement. In essense refering to a whole half-life versus any decimal fraction thereof.  ...IMHO (Talk) 05:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coarse dating 

message: The carbon-14 stuff has been replaced by a more general section valid for all parent-daughter decays. Carbon 14: (a) is only one of many isotopes used, and (b) is treated extensively in several other articles. Jclerman 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this equation have problems if the daughter is unstable? Dan Watts 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See . Jclerman 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The date equation 

message: Please, Pce3, don't introduce variable number of half lives where they don't belong to. Jclerman 11:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  replace constant with variable number of half lives 

message: Please note at the bottom of the table that while  {\left(1+\frac{D}{P}\right)}  can not be mathematically determined as the result of a divide by zero error when the value of P is zero (but is presumed to equal infinity) that P is in fact equal to zero when D is equal to 20. (BTW I no longer advocate replacement of the constant 1 with the variable n making calculations for it a mute point.)  ...IMHO (Talk) 16:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Pce3@ij.net/draft| Conclusion ]] 

message: Attn Pce3@ij.net aka IMHO: 
You have been discussing the big bang and the biblical experiments on radioactive natural reactors and have been rebuked by everybody in many help desks and discussion pages. You have been dscussing also the scientists who hide intermediate results and those in the elitist towers of ivory, with about the same negative comments. Did you ever think that "others" might be correct in their assessments of your admittedly very creative approaches? BTW, we used to teach the hourglass model for radiocarbon dating already in the 1970s. See also comments below. --Jclerman 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have tried to make connections which do not exist and you have failed to recognize the deliberate and extensive effort I have made to give you (and anyone else with your misconceptions) the benefit of understanding the basis for your miscomprehensions. Not only have you failed to appreciate this extraordinary effort but to deny that any miscomprehension exists. I suggest that you STOP STALKING, GROW UP and GO BACK TO SCHOOL!  ...IMHO (Talk) 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pce... please stop the nonsense. And please be be civil, your shouting of childish taunts do not belong in a civil discussion. The rather absurd calculations that you are trying to insert into the article fall under Wikipedia:Original research and for you to continue to attempt to push your OR POV by edit warring amounts to little more than vandalism. If you can find published concerns regarding the equation you are attempting to discredit, post the sources (note: as the equations and theory of radiometric dating have been well established in the scientific literature, only peer reviewed sources will carry much if any weight). --Vsmith 23:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stop nonsense, please 

message: #I favor the expression of the second point of view as being neutral for the following reason:
:*Since atoms are indivisible then the number of parent isotopes atoms remaining when the variable P in the age equation  t = \frac{1}{\lambda} {\times} {\ln \left(1+\frac{D}{P}\right)}  is less than one will be zero.  ...IMHO (Talk) 22:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those who favor the "eventually gone" point of view (POV number two) 

message: #The following facts are known and have been established: Atoms of Carbon-14 decay as units and all units of Carbon-14 can decay completely.Lomn It is calculated that a mole of Carbon-14 atoms would decay to less than one atom within about a half million years. The age equation represents a statistical prediction of the rate of decay rather than an infinite curve.Woodstone Suppose that we could take the entire atmosphere and put it in a perfectly-sealed container for a million years. The atmosphere has a mass of about 5*10^21 g of which about 0.053% is CO2 Density and Mass. Thus the atmosphere contains about 6*10^16 mol C, and so roughly 4*10^28 atoms of 14C. Consider any one of those atoms: after 5730 years, the probability that it has not decayed is 0.5; so after a million years, the probability that it has not decayed is about 3*10^(-53). The probabilities for the different atoms decaying are independent. Thus the probability that even one atom of 14C is left in the container after a million years is about 10^(-24), i.e. effectively zero.Daphne A. There are two equations that may be used to calculate age.imho The first equation is based upon the percent of isotope in the archaeological sample as compared with the amount of isotope in a recent sample as being equal to 100%. Whether utilizing or modeling this equation a zero amount of isotope in the recent sample is not accepted and attributed to sample error. Although the second equation is based upon the proportion of daughter to parent isotope in the archaeological sample and an ‘’initial’’ zero amount of parent isotope would likewise be rejected in the case of ‘’’’’modeling’’’’’ the equation a value of parent isotope greater than zero amount would be accepted and then decremented. However, since a divide by zero error occurs whenever the value of the parent isotope amount reaches zero in the equation making it appear that the number of parent isotopes can never reach a zero amount it must be clarified when this equation is used in the article that the number of parent isotope atoms will equal zero whenever the parent isotope amount in the equation is less than one.imho  ...IMHO (Talk) 18:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you look very closely at the three little continuation periods at the end of last sentence in the paragraph above and read the edit summary statement that accompanied this post you will see that it was offered simply as an introductory suggestion for anyone who might want to come down off their high horse and actually make a contribution to the Wikipedia rather than being a complete summary unto itself.  ...IMHO(Talk) 18:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Mine and that of three other teachers and forty-five of our students who are discouraged that this article and others like it are being dominated by old timers who have no clue what the use of computers to model equations is all about.  ...IMHO (Talk) 18:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we are all suitably castigated that you and your ill-informed lackeys used a computer to do this equation and you got a !DIV/0 in your excel spreadsheet, thus proving the rest of us wrong. You know you can't argue with computers guys! So everyone stop, lay down your pens and papers and abaci and go home. His computer proved you wrong when it spat out a !DIV/0.
*May I suggest closing and archiving this section?--Jclerman 20:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This subsection is for the purpose of providing a summary statement for the benefit of readers who may be confused by this point and not the place for you to reiterate your inability to comprehend the problem from a lay or student point of view. Hiding information from students will not solve the problem but only make them question why the problem has not been addressed in the past only to learn that it was hidden away as if that would make it forever go away. Please give others who are confronted by this question the right and the opportunity to review previous coverage. Thanks.  ...IMHO (Talk) 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary statement