Simple definition radiometric dating

The interpretation that the data represent a 34-billion-year isochron is solely Woodmorappe's [1979] and is patently wrong.

simple definition radiometric dating-64simple definition radiometric dating-57simple definition radiometric dating-49

He plots Woodmorappe's collection of anomalous radiometric results and notices something remarkable.

Eat one of those and your tummy will curl right up!

But even schoolboys need to know what the right answers are in order to cheat, and there was no absolute age list when radiometric dating was first applied to the strata.

Anyone can make up a list of bad cars, bad people, bad neighborhoods, or bad radiometric dates. Is it unsafe for you to drive a car, to meet new people, or to live in a neighborhood? The thing that is lacking in Woodmorappe's argument is statistical balance.

In fact, it is not at all unusual for several different radiometric methods to agree within a few percentage points on a date.

When you consider that each radiometric method is subject to different types of error, that the different "clocks" run at different speeds, such an agreement would be extremely rare on the basis of pure chance.

Seriously speaking, a favorite attack on radiometric dating involves dangling "horror stories" about gross errors before the reader, thus giving the impression that radiometric dating is totally unreliable.

Woodmorappe (1979), with his collection of some 350 bad radiometric dates, must surely be the master of that technique.

In a number of instances, more than you might imagine, dates are further corroborated by methods that have nothing to do with radioactivity.

Thus, the big, statistical picture painted by radiometric dating is excellent.

This cannot be done by merely citing the numerous ways in which one can get a bad date; nor is it achieved by concentrating on atypical cases.

Tags: , ,