Radiometric dating christian perspective roger wiens Sexy aunties chat on live
If this is the case, the consistency of these apparent ages is fortuitous." In the example above, Woodmorappe misquoted Mc Kee and Noble (reference 268) by omitting part of a sentence, without indicating this by ellipses, and by not completing their thought.
What they actually wrote was (Mc Kee & Noble, 1976, p.
Neither internal consistencies, mineral-pair concordances, nor agreements between differing dating methods necessarily validate radiometric dating.
The large spread of values for igneous and metamorphic rocks (especially of the Precambrian) may indicate artificial imposition of time-values upon these rocks.
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.
The Precambrian section is subdivided into claims regarding the consistency and concordance of radiometric dates, the alleged violations of superposition and cross-cutting relationships from radiometric age data, and supposedly problematic age values for igneous and metamorphic terranes.
A systematic and critical review of dating applications is presented; emphasis being placed on the geologic column. It is, however, demonstrated that most discrepant results are not published.
Discrepant dates capriciously relate to petrography and regional geology.
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.