Mythology of Modern Dating Methods

Rating:
Summary: If he hasn't read it, it isn't worth reading!
Review: Rather than analyse the logical and philosophical assumptions upon which radiometric dating is based, Woodmorappe has collected vast amounts of data and shows that the data does not support the idea of concordance. For every supposed instance of concordance, just as many instances of discordance can be found.

The author explains how it is that radiometric dates are accepted and rejected not based on objective science but on many factors other than the measurements of radiometric isotopes. Radiometric dating is largely subjective. If it fits, then it is true. If it doesn't fit there is ALWAYS an explanation why the data are incorrect but methodology is still valid.

This is a must read book if you want to know about radiometric dating, or if you think you know something about radiometric dating.

Woodmorappe has a MS in Geology and is one of the most amazing literary reserarchers I've seen in the field of Geology and Creationary Catastrophism. If he can't find it, it doesn't exist. If he hasn't read it, it isn't worth reading.

Allen

Rating:
Summary: Difficult, but thorough
Review: The book is very difficult to read without a very good background in geology. However Mr. Woodmorappe has done an exhaustive amount of research, and the book is well worth the money and the time!!

Even if you're not a geologist, you will get something from the book if you read it.

Rating:
Summary: Worth Digging Through
Review: This book by John Woodmorrappe is technical, but certainly worth digging through. He exposes the many fallacies and flaws in isotopic or radiometric dating methods that evolutionists would prefer the public know know. Each chapter addresses the myths and dispatches them with thoroughness of research and analysis. Woodmorrappe does not allow the evolutionists to gloss over or ignore the data that does not fit they pre-concieved notions. An excellent book for every geologist or anyone who is interested in arming themselves with true information. This would go very well with John Woodmorrappe's book, "Studies in Flood Geology".

Rating:
Summary: Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
Review: This book is written for people with some technical background, particularly in geology or chemistry. It highlights a number of problems with radiometric dating.

Of particular note is the fact that 90% of all dates for the age of the Earth are less than 100 million years. Yet scientists have fixed the Earth's age at 4.5 billion years. As Mr. Woodmorappe points out, they are clearly guilty of picking and choosing.

Another problem highlighted in this book is the closed system argument. In order for radiometric dates to be accurate, the rocks must not have exchanged matter with their surroundings during their entire lifetime. Quite obviously, this is not possible. All matter, living and inanimate, is an open system.

This book also employs a little bit of irony. By quoting the writings of evolutionary scientists, Mr. Woodmorappe points out that they are well aware of the flaws in radiometric dating. The problem, of course, is that they choose to ignore them.

Rating:
Summary: Well Documented and Informative.
Review: This monograph is a critical review of inorganic radioisotope dating and the difficulties involved in interpretation of the raw data. Woodmorappe establishes the fact that other factors (besides the passage of uniformitarian time) must be considered as potential major contributors to any given isotopic array. The isochron method, developed to overcome these difficulties is found to be subject to non-temporal factors as well.

The question is not "is radioisotope dating perfectly accurate" so much as it is "how inaccurate is radioisotope dating?" MMDM demonstrates that it requires faith to believe that time "must" pass for a given parent/daughter ratio to exist in a given geologic setting. Inheritance of mantle source isotopes, leeching, and other more exotic factors must also be considered, and can never be completely ruled out. Radioisotope data thus provides only a guideline and not a "factual" absolute date. This is exhaustively documented with usual Woodmorappian thoroughness.

Rating:
Summary: Demolishes dating deception
Review: This thoroughly documented study (>500 references) demonstrates the faulty assumptions and special pleading behind much radiometric 'dating'. The book even deals with supposedly foolproof methods such as 'isochron' plots, as well as disproving the myth that different dating methods agree and provide independent checks. Much of the book is technical but well worth the study.

Even for the non-technical reader, the first chapter provides excellent training for one's "baloney detector". It was helpful to examine several fallacious argument styles, e.g. CDMBM [Credit Dating Method (for alleged successes); Blame Nature (for proven failures] = heads I win, tails you lose; ATM [Appeal To Marginalization] which paints contrary evidence as rarer than it is; and ATT [Appeal To Technicalities] which rejects a date contrary to expectations on a technicality discovered after the fact.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent expose on radiometric dating methods
Review: Woodmorappe has produced yet another wonderful work in this book. He meticulously uses references and footnotes, providing documentation from the evolutionists themselves, showing the inaccuracies and shortcomings of radiometric dating. Little known facts about radiometric dating are brought to light (which most evolutionists would prefer not be known), and, quoting from scientific literature, Woodmorappe shows how illogic and conflicting dating techniques tend to be the norm instead of the standard. I recommend this work as a great technical reference for everyone interested in the evolution/creation issue.

As a professional zookeeper, I often give speeches to the public and am asked about the origins and beginnings of animals in my care, and this book reinforces by belief, grounded in evidence, that the world is young - not old. Radiometric dating has inherent flaws, which the author points out with clarity in his book. I also recommend his other works.

Rating:
Summary: Not only refutes radiometric dating, but anticipates critics
Review: Woodmorappe thoroughly refutes the myth of infallibility of radiometric dating. I agree that the first chapter was a useful baloney detector, because critics have already tried to blow people away by appeals to technicality and marginalisation. Such critics rely on most people being unwilling to check what they say about Woodmorappe's meticulously documented references, and totally misrepresent Woodmorappe's points.

The special pleading to explain away dates like the millions-of-year dates of 10yo Mt St Helens lava domes is breathtaking. The researchers were indeed careful to remove xenocrysts, and they were there (and have at least equal competence to a specialist in mercury extraction, for example). In any case, an appeal to xenocrysts to explain away `bad' dates seems to be made regardless of whether they have been found.

Critics also show their own atheistic agenda by trying to sidetrack by alleging contradictions in the Bible (hey, I thought we were reviewing MOMDM), but of course not dealing with thorough refutations on sites like Answers in Genesis or Tekton Apologetics.

Rating:
Summary: Devastating critique of dating methods
Review: Woodmorappe's work totally destroys the idea that radiometric dating is an inherently accurate age determinator. His extensive research shows that the way dates are obtained, accepted and rejected is very unscientific. In fact, they way the defenders of radiometric dating argue, it seems that such methods are inherently unfalsifiable. ie. there can never be anything wrong with the method itself, so if "bad" results are obtained it must be the scientist's collection methods, natural contamination, or specific conditions in which certain methods will not work.

Yet the critics don't seem to get the point. One critic complains that Woodmorappe is suggesting a huge discrepancy between dates obtained by Evernden et al and Swisher et al (p. 41), when in actual fact, the difference is relatively minor. But note that it was Swisher et al who rejected the Evernden et al dates because of the discrepancy so it was certainly a significant discrepancy, and in any case, Woodmorappe is discussing the supposed self-checking of isotopic dating: dates that were once regarded by all as being completely reliable suddenly turn out to be not so reliable.

The critic also complains that Woodmorappe is exaggerating a 1% disagreement between dates obtained by Renne and Dalrymple (p. 42), when in actual fact, Woodmorappe is discussing the claim that dates can be easily identified as being "credible" or "non-credible" and that isotopic dates are inherently self-checking.

The same critic also claims Woodmorappe misquotes Peterson regarding a discrepant 6th date obtained using 40Ar/39Ar, when the 6th date is not that different from the other 5. But again, Woodmorappe is misrepresented. He is actually discussing the application of 40Ar/39Ar method to check for xenocrystic contamination. It was actually Peterson himself who rejected the 6th date, calling it "almost certainly in error". And there are many more of same kinds of pathetic criticisms which result from such critics' own minunderstandings or misrepresentations, and therefore their criticisms are totally unjustified.