Geochronology radiometric dating of rocks and minerals

For example, Woodmorappe claims that age data is routinely "explained away" (p. 113), that some age values are "arbitrarily" accepted or rejected as true (p.113), that anomalous dates are not reported in the scientific literature (p.The large spread of values for igneous and metamorphic rocks (especially of the Precambrian) may indicate artificial imposition of time-values upon these rocks.Once divested of all the time claims imposed upon it, the fossiliferous rock testifies to the Noahchian Deluge, and all life (fossil and extant) is then mutally contemporaneous as is demanded by a literal six (24 hr.) day Creation.The first criticism is in regard to the format of this paper, which may be more the fault of the than John Woodmorappe, is that the references are all referred to by a number and are listed by these numbers rather than alphabetically.

geochronology radiometric dating of rocks and minerals-41geochronology radiometric dating of rocks and minerals-33

Also included in Woodmorappe's paper is a single massive data table (Table 1, p.

Such a large volume of material means that Woodmorappe spends no more than a sentence or two (if even that) explaining each claim which results in an extremely superficial treatment of what, in many cases, are very complex, detailed studies.

Quantity does not equal quality and only serves to overwhelm anyone attempting to deal with this paper in a critical manner.

Discrepant dates capriciously relate to petrography and regional geology.

Neither internal consistencies, mineral-pair concordances, nor agreements between differing dating methods necessarily validate radiometric dating.

Leave a Reply