What do you think?
Rate this book
Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
A detailed survey of the following dating methods in actual use: K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Fission track, Rb-Sr, U-Pb, Pb-Pb, Sm-Nd, Re-Os, Lu-Hf, La-Ce, etc. Addresses and refutes the common defensive statements used by proponents of the dating methods. Special emphasis is on demonstrating that discrepant results are not the exception, but the rule, and that arguments used to justify so-called good dates are, when closely examined, arbitrary and without foundation.
Paperback
First published July 1, 1999
1 person is currently reading
24 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 31, 2024
THE “YOUNG EARTH” CREATIONIST STRONGLY ARGUES AGAINST RADIOMETRIC DATING
Author John Woodmorappe wrote in the Introduction to this 1999 book, “Isotropic (radiometric) dating is the cornerstone of the uniformitarian belief that the earth is very old. There seems to be no end to the dogmatic claims which are incessantly repeated in favor of these dating methods… The present author did an extensive critique of isotropic dating, and this study was published in the September 1979 issue of the ‘Creation Research Society Quarterly,’ and then reprinted in my 1993… book ‘Studies in Flood Geology.’ While scientific creationists have done individual studies on the isotropic dating methods in recent years, no one has performed an overall review of isotropic dating. This particular book accomplishes just that, while offering a broad-based, yet incisive, rebuttal to the status of these presumed geochronometers… I address the various bogus claims based on the alleged rarity of discrepant dates… I also delve into the question of the measurements of decay constants, the alleged convergence of dating results in 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth, and the questionable significance of extinct radioactivity.”
In Chapter 1 [‘Rebuttal to Critics’ Misrepresentations of my Previous Work’] he states, “some critics have suggested that a systematic study be done of the relative numbers of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ dates. The trouble with this intellectual-sounding suggestion is this: I HAD ALREADY CONSIDERED such an approach in the opening paragraphs of my 1979 paper, showing that it is unworkable because most discrepant results are not published.” (Pg. 1)
He continues, “Some of the criticisms of my previous paper are nothing short of laughable. For instance, Arthur N. Strahler [‘Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy’] has written a widely-quoted anti-creationist geology book… Strahler’s tome contains statements that have no semblance of reality. For instance… the upshot of Strahler’s complaint is this: A discussion of Hawaiian basalts, and their dates, exists NOWHERE in my 1979 paper! If Strahler is genuinely concerned about those who propound misrepresentations and misstatements of quoted authors, he would do well to look himself in the mirror.” (Pg. 2)
He states, “MYTH: If isotropic dating methods were false, we would expect to see as many ‘future’ ages as million to billion year ages, and/or as many zero ages as the same… These arguments … are actually somewhere between extremely dubious and bogus. In actuality, what kind of ‘dates’ we would obtain on a young earth would very much depend upon many things, not the least of which is the dynamics of inheritance of the isotropic systems… This is not to say that there are no zero of future ages derived from ancient rocks. Future ages do occur, and are relatively common when geochronologists figure model ages using the Sm-Nd method… Future ages are fairly common as a result of the so-called reverse-discordance that occurs in some U-Pb dates… However, most future ages never see the light of day. Very likely, negative ages and zero ages are seldom published because they are not usually considered to have any geologic meaning in the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm.” (Pg. 24)
He points out, “Another line of evidence against the claim that all methods give an age of the earth of 4.5 billion years is the recurrent appearance of isotropic-dating results in excess of that figure… Of course, no uniformitarian is suggesting that the earth’s age has now been increased to 4.9 or 5.2 billion years, even though these results are corroborated from different regions of Precambrian crust. Instead, all the sets of unwanted dating results are simply explained away, as they always have been.” (Pg. 25)
He suggests, “one could make a case that, in actuality, isotropic dating methods and their results had been accepted rather uncritically because the results seemed to fit with uniformitarian ideas about the great antiquity of the earth. Far from being rigorously tested, the unspoken attitude in uniformitarian geochronology seemed (and still seems) to be as follows: ‘Use whatever dating method you have that seems to substantiate the belief that rocks are millions to billions of years old, until some better dating method comes along. Then use that method.’” (Pg. 34)
He summarizes in the final chapter, “We have seen over and over again that dates are rejected primarily on an after-the-fact basis. They are all essentially trial balloons. And this is not only true of individual dates, but also groups of them. Thus, virtually ANY pattern of dates can be explained a posteriori… And, contrary to the claims about discrepant dates being rare, they are, in fact, more than common. It has been shown they are THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION! If uniformitarians are free to reject dates that don’t fit their ideas, then so are creationist scientists. And, if it is correct that only a relatively small number of dates are (supposedly) ‘highly reliable,’ this means that creationists end up rejecting only a relatively few more dates than uniformitarians already do. With the aforementioned fact that so-called reliability criteria are themselves subjective, this takes on further significance.” (Pg. 95)
This book will be of keen interest to “young earth” creationists seeking critiques of radiometric dating methods.
Author John Woodmorappe wrote in the Introduction to this 1999 book, “Isotropic (radiometric) dating is the cornerstone of the uniformitarian belief that the earth is very old. There seems to be no end to the dogmatic claims which are incessantly repeated in favor of these dating methods… The present author did an extensive critique of isotropic dating, and this study was published in the September 1979 issue of the ‘Creation Research Society Quarterly,’ and then reprinted in my 1993… book ‘Studies in Flood Geology.’ While scientific creationists have done individual studies on the isotropic dating methods in recent years, no one has performed an overall review of isotropic dating. This particular book accomplishes just that, while offering a broad-based, yet incisive, rebuttal to the status of these presumed geochronometers… I address the various bogus claims based on the alleged rarity of discrepant dates… I also delve into the question of the measurements of decay constants, the alleged convergence of dating results in 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth, and the questionable significance of extinct radioactivity.”
In Chapter 1 [‘Rebuttal to Critics’ Misrepresentations of my Previous Work’] he states, “some critics have suggested that a systematic study be done of the relative numbers of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ dates. The trouble with this intellectual-sounding suggestion is this: I HAD ALREADY CONSIDERED such an approach in the opening paragraphs of my 1979 paper, showing that it is unworkable because most discrepant results are not published.” (Pg. 1)
He continues, “Some of the criticisms of my previous paper are nothing short of laughable. For instance, Arthur N. Strahler [‘Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy’] has written a widely-quoted anti-creationist geology book… Strahler’s tome contains statements that have no semblance of reality. For instance… the upshot of Strahler’s complaint is this: A discussion of Hawaiian basalts, and their dates, exists NOWHERE in my 1979 paper! If Strahler is genuinely concerned about those who propound misrepresentations and misstatements of quoted authors, he would do well to look himself in the mirror.” (Pg. 2)
He states, “MYTH: If isotropic dating methods were false, we would expect to see as many ‘future’ ages as million to billion year ages, and/or as many zero ages as the same… These arguments … are actually somewhere between extremely dubious and bogus. In actuality, what kind of ‘dates’ we would obtain on a young earth would very much depend upon many things, not the least of which is the dynamics of inheritance of the isotropic systems… This is not to say that there are no zero of future ages derived from ancient rocks. Future ages do occur, and are relatively common when geochronologists figure model ages using the Sm-Nd method… Future ages are fairly common as a result of the so-called reverse-discordance that occurs in some U-Pb dates… However, most future ages never see the light of day. Very likely, negative ages and zero ages are seldom published because they are not usually considered to have any geologic meaning in the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm.” (Pg. 24)
He points out, “Another line of evidence against the claim that all methods give an age of the earth of 4.5 billion years is the recurrent appearance of isotropic-dating results in excess of that figure… Of course, no uniformitarian is suggesting that the earth’s age has now been increased to 4.9 or 5.2 billion years, even though these results are corroborated from different regions of Precambrian crust. Instead, all the sets of unwanted dating results are simply explained away, as they always have been.” (Pg. 25)
He suggests, “one could make a case that, in actuality, isotropic dating methods and their results had been accepted rather uncritically because the results seemed to fit with uniformitarian ideas about the great antiquity of the earth. Far from being rigorously tested, the unspoken attitude in uniformitarian geochronology seemed (and still seems) to be as follows: ‘Use whatever dating method you have that seems to substantiate the belief that rocks are millions to billions of years old, until some better dating method comes along. Then use that method.’” (Pg. 34)
He summarizes in the final chapter, “We have seen over and over again that dates are rejected primarily on an after-the-fact basis. They are all essentially trial balloons. And this is not only true of individual dates, but also groups of them. Thus, virtually ANY pattern of dates can be explained a posteriori… And, contrary to the claims about discrepant dates being rare, they are, in fact, more than common. It has been shown they are THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION! If uniformitarians are free to reject dates that don’t fit their ideas, then so are creationist scientists. And, if it is correct that only a relatively small number of dates are (supposedly) ‘highly reliable,’ this means that creationists end up rejecting only a relatively few more dates than uniformitarians already do. With the aforementioned fact that so-called reliability criteria are themselves subjective, this takes on further significance.” (Pg. 95)
This book will be of keen interest to “young earth” creationists seeking critiques of radiometric dating methods.
September 2, 2025
Thorough research into the inconsistencies and fallacies rampant within the evolutionists' poster-boy of deep time.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews