Customer Reviews

Mythology of Modern Dating Methods

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

When teaching my college level geology course, the topic of dating always comes up. In every class I have students who hold a range of beliefs from young age creationist to atheist, and I try to deal with this topic without upsetting anyone. After all, our goal is to learn, not alienate. One approach is to stress that all dating methods are based on various assumptions. Students should understand this and realize that we do not know for certain how old the earth is, or the age of anything else that is beyond human historical records. Students should not be taught this material dogmatically, but must be taught to question dogma in science. Only by questioning can they push the boundaries beyond what is known. This book will help the reader be aware of some of the many problems in arriving at age estimates using modern dating systems. As such it is must reading for not only geology teachers and students, but anyone interested in science. I have also noted that many of our once solid dates in geology are now being questioned in the literature. This book helps one to understand some of the reasons why. Highly recommended!

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.

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.

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

Woodmorappe has done a very thorough analysis of the fatal fallacies of isotopic dating. At least some of the criticisms of his work show a boundless amount of mendacity or foolishness, as should be obvious to anyone who has actually bothered to read Woodmorappe's work. For instance, Woodmorappe's analysis of the fact that dating methods are not inherently self-checking has been egregiously misrepresented as some sort of check of the SCATTER of isotopic dates. In reality, he has elsewhere shown that dates frequently disagree by an order of magnitude or more. In fact, it is only when the scatter is small that supposed reliability criteria are used to determine which isotopic dates are supposedly real and which are not. And Woodmorappe shows that reliability criteria fail to distinguish between them: THAT is the point which Woodmorappe was trying to make and which was completely ignored and misrepresented by his critics. The claim that Woodmorappe has ignored mineralogical, petrological, and other relevant data, in the evaluation of isotopic dating results, is totally false. Anyone who has read Woodmorappe's book knows that he actually has devoted considerable attention to such geologic information, and why it does not add up to a credible defense of isotopic dating. Finally, it is obvious that some critics evidently have a five year olds understanding of elementary statistics in their confusion of LOCAL patterns of isotopic dating results with GLOBAL patterns of isotopic dating results. It is the latter which Woodmorappe had considered in his statistical analysis of chance concordances, and it is his critic, and not Woodmorappe, who is engaging in voodoo statistics (if the critics remarks even be dignified as such). Finally, Woodmorappe has done the exact opposite of overstating the flaws of isotopic dating. He has carefully documented their frequency and their seriousness, allowing every possible supportive argument for isotopic dating to be voiced and analyzed. Even then, isotopic dating is shown by Woodmorappe to fail virtually every test!

John Woodmorappe has done a thorough job of exposing the flaws in radiometric dating methods in his book "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods." I have personally interviewed Mr. Woodmorappe for a television program called "Rocks are not Clocks." He sets up the criteria for accurate geochronology and shows why current radiometric dating methods do not meet this criterial. This book is quite technical and detailed, yet within the grasp of the average college-educated reader. If you are interested in geology, creation research, and the question of the age of the earth, this book is a valuable resource.

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.

John Woodmorappe's book provides an interesting review of the philosophy and science used to support and defend various uniformitarian age-dating methods. While I would not consider this book "light reading" it does provide very useful information about the variety of radiometric dating techniques and the multitude of pitfalls that they present even within the framework of the evolutionary model. I would recommend this book for anyone who wishes to learn more about the problems of radiometric dating. This is an excellent book. The nature of the information and technical details presented in this book gear it for the college or professional level.

This book is a very well documented rebuttal to the common misperception that radiometric dating is "rock solid" science, free of bias and robustly demonstrated. Woodmorappe is very thorough and presents a compelling case that one should take a very skeptical view of these geochronometers.

This is easily the most succinct book on radimetric dating methods I have encountered. While myths, properly speaking, may be true (and some radiometric dates, perhaps, also), the title belies the author's conclusion that radiometric dating methods fall woefully short of the goal set for them. My limited personal experience and what I have heard from colleagues corroborates this, and not surprisingly, since philosophically these methods are unscientific, i.e. historical, in their assumptions. This book is not a compilation of opinions, which is refreshing. Nor is it a detailed description of isolated cases or "outliers." No one is in a position to debate the adequacy of radiometric methods who has not given careful attention to this book.