I came across this paper when I was referred to the book Studies in Flood Geology: This book is a compilation of seven Creation Research Society Quarterly reprints published by the Creation Research Societytwo reprints from the Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationismand one reprint of an Institute for Creation Research Impact pamphlet. All of the papers were written by Woodmorappe and each address various topics relating to the young-earth creationist belief in a geologically-recent global deluge Noah's Flood.
The book has no publisher's information page but it seems clear from the Forwardwritten by the well-known creationist Henry Morris, that it was published by the Institute for Creation Research in On the cover of the book, John Woodmorappe is credited with possessing an M. The Impact reprint in the book states that:. I found it odd that nowhere in Famous geologists that use radiometric dating book was it indicated where Woodmorappe earned his degrees or his current professional affiliation Where does he teach science?
At which University is he a research fellow? The reprints from the Creation Research Society Quarterly appear unusual in this respect since mainstream scientific journals routinely print the author's professional affiliation and a contact address.
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.
A little research disclosed that "John Woodmorappe" is a nom de plume and a bit more research disclosed his true identity confirmed by two separate sources.
He evidently does have a legitimate M. In the papers he's published under his real name, he affiliates himself with the geology department at that university, yet the American Geological Institute Directory of Geoscience Departments does not list him as a faculty member so I haven't been able to find any evidence that he currently teaches Famous geologists that use radiometric dating or is a research fellow at any university.
To fairly represent Woodmorappe's thesis in this paper, I would like to reproduce his abstract in full p. Once divested Famous geologists that use radiometric dating 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.
While I would strongly disagree that discrediting radiometric dating would in any way support the occurrence of a geologically-recent global flood, I will restrict myself to addressing Woodmorappe's main thesis which he summarizes as follows p.
Here I agree with the author, radiometric dating techniques are best understood in their geologic context. Unfortunately, I will provide evidence that Woodmorappe presents most of his examples devoid of any meaningful geologic context.
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. The Phanerozoic section is subdivided into Woodmorappe's claims regarding the selective publication of dating results, the dating of sedimentary rocks, supposed rationalizations for discrepant igneous dates from petrographic and regional geologic evidence, and what he considers to be problematic results from the radiometric dating of biostratigraphically-bracketed igneous rocks.
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. Also included in Woodmorappe's paper is a single massive data table Table 1, p. I would like to "Famous geologists that use radiometric dating" briefly mention three minor criticisms and one major criticism I have regarding Woodmorappe's paper as a whole.
The first criticism is in regard to the format of this paper, which may be more the fault of the Creation Science Research Quarterly than John Woodmorappe, is that the references are all referred to by a number and are listed "Famous geologists that use radiometric dating" these numbers rather than alphabetically.
Since there are references, all listed in small typeface with nonstandard journal abbreviations, I found it very difficult to refer back and forth between the text and the reference list and to quickly locate references by author names. Also annoying was the frequent use of the abbreviation Op. 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 Famous geologists that use radiometric dating creationists of the term "uniformitarianism" first popularized by James Hutton in his Theory of the Earth Shea My third Famous geologists that use radiometric dating is Woodmorappe's use of rhetoric in general.
This purports to be a scientific paper, and the Creation Research Society Quarterly 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. The general tone throughout the paper is that geologists who use radiometric dating are often intentionally dishonest in their handling of the data. Finally, a major general criticism of this paper is its sheer magnitude and its superficial treatment of data.
Table 1 in the paper lists over different radiometric dates from all geologic ages, there over references in the reference list, and each paragraph in Woodmorappe's paper literally makes completely different claims against the validity of radiometric dating.
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.
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.
Therefore, since it's practically impossible for anyone, Famous geologists that use radiometric dating 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 Famous geologists that use radiometric dating. I would like to provide several specific examples of how Woodmorappe mishandles quotations from the geologic
Famous geologists that use radiometric dating, relies on some clearly obsolete data to make his case against the reliability of radiometric dating, and cites data out of context thus giving a false impression of its validity.
In the example above, Woodmorappe misquoted McKee and Noble reference by omitting part of a sentence, without indicating this by ellipses, and by not completing their thought. This is a deliberate misquotation of McKee and Noble and this example alone would be enough to prevent publication of this paper in any reputable scientific journal.
I would also like to make a couple of other points about Woodmorappe's spin on this paper. He stated that the K-Ar dates were much younger than the presumed correct Rb-Sr dates which is true but may be misleading to non-geologists. The Rb-Sr method dated the basalts at 1,, years old and the K-Ar method dated the basalts at , years old -- a large difference of , years but both dates are still well within the Proterozoic late Precambrian.
We're not talking about a possibility of the lava being 6, years old as young-earth creationists might like you to believe. Well, what about that difference of , years? It's not a trivial discrepancy.
By the way, it doesn't look like McKee and Noble are doing what Woodmorappe slanderously says that geologists do p. Read the abstract and then read the entire quotation as it should have been reported by Woodmorappe. Since he reports only a part of the quotation, it seems as if the only explanation is "fortuitous" diffusive argon loss. McKee and Noble do, however, go on to hypothesize another reason, an episode of heating around Ma. Why didn't Woodmorappe discuss Elston and McKee's paper giving evidence for Why does Woodmorappe ignore this paper, and many others, which clearly have a bearing on the case he's trying to make?
A better explanation for argon loss, however, was proposed in a more recent study from Larson, et al. They both have beautiful correlations from different suites of samples.
Anyway, Larson, et al. Samples with anomalously high K2O values are associated with younger dates so they proposed a perfectly reasonable and testable! Therefore it's clear that Woodmorappe misquoted McKee and Noble and was very selective in the presentation of data to support his claims. A full examination of the data shows the reliability of the Rb-Sr method for dating the Cardenas Basalt and a testable explanation for the argon loss and unsuitability of the Cardenas for K-Ar dating methods.
This is a beautiful example of how science works in the real world. To begin, let's complete Wasserburg and Lanphere'sp. Woodmorappe wants to imply that a correlation between K-Ar and Rb-Sr dating results have no meaning.
He does this because correlations between different techniques are commonly taken to be evidence for the validity of the dates obtained as demonstrated by this passage from Dalrymplep. Is Dalrymple wrong given what Wasserburg and Lanphere found? No, since this is a special case of a single date from a biotite mica. It's well known Dalrymple and Lanphere, p. This sample is from a pegmatite, and it was shown to have lost both Sr and Ar due to contact metamorphism from the intrusion of younger granitic rocks into an older metamorphic terrane.
We have to therefore keep in mind the following advice Dalrymple, p. Woodmorappe's quotation of Wasserburg and Lanphere's work was incomplete and misleading. This denotes Famous geologists that use radiometric dating example of a biostratigraphically-bracketed bentonite an altered ancient volcanic ash fall in Tennessee yielded an Rb-Sr radiometric date from Famous geologists that use radiometric dating the b following Rb-Sr of 44 million years old when it should have been million years old according to Woodmorappe's reference number Adams, et al.
Since the Adams, et al. Of the four mica samples listed below, one gives an impossibly low apparent age 44 m. It is interesting to note that the maximum of 80 m.
Further refinements in technique should yield more accurate ages. The use of shorter-lived natural radioactivities e. Anyone seeing this reference should immediately be wary given that it was published in A search on GeoRef a large geologic bibliographic database on the keywords " Rubidium and Strontium or Rb and Sr " reveals that one of the earliest geological papers on Rb-Sr dating was published by Hahn in and that there were Famous geologists that use radiometric dating a total of 26 papers published on this subject before For comparison, GeoRef lists 1, papers with these keywords since While there were some geologists working in on the application of Rb-Sr dating to geology, this was a brand new field and they were severely constrained by the limitations of their analytical equipment, particularly the mass spectrometer.
Woodmorappe should be discussing the state of Rb-Sr dating today, not the state of Rb-Sr dating 40 years ago! Some may question if this is a fair criticism since Woodmorappe first published this paper in I believe it is for several reasons:. A more damaging indictment of this reference cited by Woodmorappe, however, is clearly explained in the following quotation from Dickenp.
Therefore, this data point does not, in any way, support Woodmorappe's thesis that present-day techniques of radiometric dating are unreliable. This example only calls into question Woodmorappe's judgement for including it.
In Table 1 p. The first column denotes the biostratigraphically expected ages for the sediments or sedimentary rocks in millions of years, the second column gives the radiometrically determined age using the mineral glauconite denoted by the gK-Ar or Rb-Sr is the dating method, the type and locations of the samples are given, and the last column refers to Woodmorappe's reference list.
Despite the different reference numbers Woodmorappe gives, all this data is found in a single paper by Hurley, et al.
Since Woodmorappe provides no other information, let's see what Hurley, et al. This paper, published inis one of the first studies of the suitability of the mineral glauconite for radiometric dating. What did they conclude p. Doesn't it look like they've found that glauconite isn't all that suitable for radiometric dating since it's consistently giving younger-than-expected ages?
InEvernden, et al. All this shows is that the mineral glauconite may be unsuitable for radiometric dating because it loses argon. It hardly shows
Famous geologists that use radiometric dating radiometric dating, in general, is fundamentally flawed.
Woodmorappe's inclusion of this data, from a preliminary study attempting to evaluate glauconite's usefulness, is hardly fair. Especially when the data is scattered throughout a several page data table without comment.
But is this the whole story? Radiometric Dating: Calibrating the Relative Time Scale. For almost the next years, geologists operated using relative dating methods, both using the basic. John Woodmorappe has examined numerous studies of radiometric dating creationist Glenn Morton examines several famous young-earth creationist The use of radiometric dating in Geology involves a very selective acceptance of data. Radioactive dating "Famous geologists that use radiometric dating" a method of dating rocks and minerals using an element to be useful for geochronology (measuring geological time).