Glauconite radiometric dating speed dating danbury ct

The book has no publisher's information page but it seems clear from the Forward, written by the well-known young-earth creationist Henry Morris, that it was published by the Institute for Creation Research in 1993. To fairly represent Woodmorappe's thesis in this paper, I would like to reproduce his abstract in full (p.On the cover of the book, John Woodmorappe is credited with possessing an M. 102): The use of radiometric dating in Geology involves a very selective acceptance of data.

Fw-300 #ya-qn-sort h2 /* Breadcrumb */ #ya-question-breadcrumb #ya-question-breadcrumb i #ya-question-breadcrumb a #bc .ya-q-full-text, .ya-q-text #ya-question-detail h1 html[lang="zh-Hant-TW"] .ya-q-full-text, html[lang="zh-Hant-TW"] .ya-q-text, html[lang="zh-Hant-HK"] .ya-q-full-text, html[lang="zh-Hant-HK"] .ya-q-text html[lang="zh-Hant-TW"] #ya-question-detail h1, html[lang="zh-Hant-HK"] #ya-question-detail h1 #Stencil .

Bdend-1g /* Trending Now */ /* Center Rail */ #ya-center-rail .profile-banner-default .ya-ba-title #Stencil . Bgc-lgr #ya-best-answer, #ya-qpage-msg, #ya-question-detail, li.ya-other-answer .tupwrap .comment-text /* Right Rail */ #Stencil . Bxsh-003-prpl #yai-q-answer, #ya-trending, #ya-related-questions h2. Fw-300 .qstn-title #ya-trending-questions-show-more, #ya-related-questions-show-more #ya-trending-questions-more, #ya-related-questions-more /* DMROS */ .

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

In my opinion, Woodmorappe would have had a much stronger paper if he simply confined himself to a detailed discussion of what he believed to be the dozen or so strongest examples discrediting a specific technique of radiometric dating as it's applied to a specific rock type or geologic environment.

Following a short introduction, Woodmorappe's paper is divided into two main sections.

In the first section he discusses Phanerozoic geochronology and in the second section he discusses Precambrian geochronology.

113), that anomalous dates are not reported in the scientific literature (p.

114), that some geologists have "fudged" Rb-Sr isochrons (p.

Secondly, throughout the paper, Woodmorappe rhetorically refers to young-earth creationists as Creationist-Diluvalists and, one assumes, anyone who disagrees as either evolutionist-uniformitarians or simply uniformitarians -- terms I believe most geologists would take issue with given the common misrepresentations by young-earth creationists of the term "uniformitarianism" first popularized by James Hutton in his 1788 considers itself to be a scientific journal, yet much of the language used by Woodmorappe to describe the work of other geologists is highly inflammatory rhetoric not normally seen in the scientific literature.

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.

Former creationist Glenn Morton examines several famous young-earth creationist arguments and provides data to illustrate their flaws. The I found it odd that nowhere in the book was it indicated where Woodmorappe earned his degrees or his current professional affiliation (Where does he teach science? I believe that it's reasonable, when evaluating what purports to be a scientific paper, to inquire as to the author's expertise to write about the subject -- especially when the relevant information given is so vague. degree in geology from a secular university with which he's still affiliated and has published a couple of papers in mainstream geologic journals under his real name.