I propose merging that article back here and deleting/redirecting it.Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared.
But this article is about "radiometric dating," not "absolute radiometric dating," so of course cosmogenic dating should be mentioned here. Actinide , 23 February 2006 (UTC) The POV fork Controversy on Radiometric dating is inappropriate, as there is plenty of room here for anything that could be contained there.
Rolinator , 13 April 2006 (UTC)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"?
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?
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.
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. 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 , (UTC)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".