Glauconite radiometric dating

6854933580_2c8b688306_z

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.

glauconite radiometric dating-52glauconite radiometric dating-83glauconite radiometric dating-14glauconite radiometric dating-32

Discrepant dates, attributed to open systems, may instead be evidence against the validity of radiometric dating.113), that anomalous dates are not reported in the scientific literature (p.114), that some geologists have "fudged" Rb-Sr isochrons (p.Therefore, since it's practically impossible for anyone, such as myself, to properly evaluate all of the hundreds of claims made in this paper in any systematic manner, I decided to only evaluate a randomly-selected subset of claims and show why I believe they're invalid.While demonstrating that a subset of Woodmorappe's claims are invalid doesn't invalidate all of his claims, it does show that the quality of this work is highly suspect.118 & 120), and that geologists "cover-up the basic failure of the paradigm" (p. The general tone throughout the paper is that geologists who use radiometric dating are often intentionally dishonest in their handling of the data.

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!