Speed dating events in southern california
Today, we have some 100,000 radiometric dates, the vast majority contributing sensibly to the overall picture.
Woodmorappe's main theme, minus the diplomatic wording, is that geologists are cheating like so many schoolboys to make their dates come out right.
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.
This super-anomaly was explained away by claiming some strange metamorphic effect on the Sr.
(Woodmorappe, 1979, p.122) Sounds pretty grim, huh?
(Matson, 1993, p.1) Either we have a worldwide conspiracy among geologists, which no sane person believes, or else the numerous radiometric dates were consistent enough to allow that kind of close agreement. Dalrymple, an expert in radiometric dating with lots of hands-on experience, puts the percentage of bad dates at only 5-10 percent.
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 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.(Matson, 1993, p.2) Thus, Woodmorappe is acting more like a mechanic who informs a car owner of the many ways that her car can break down, who quotes numerous horror stories to illustrate his points.Even if those horror stories were true, the mechanic has failed to prove that the lady's car needs repair, let alone junking.
Search for speed dating events in southern california:
The interpretation that the data represent a 34-billion-year isochron is solely Woodmorappe's  and is patently wrong.