Re: Some Comments on Radiometric dating.

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 14:45:26 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Some Comments on Radiometric dating."

    This posting must get the prize for one of the most inaccurate supposedbits
    of science ever put onthe list.

    Allen wrote;
    As most every one knows,
    > radiometric dating is done primarily on igneous rock.

    Many many age-deteminations are done on metamorphic and sedimentary rocks
    and always have been. I flipped through my copy of the 1967 Geol Soc of
    London "Phanerozoic Timescale" Lots of samples were on metamorphic and
    sedimentary rocks.(Incidentally thiswas one of the sources Woodmarappe
    misquoted from in his 1970s list of 700 or so anomalous ages. I checked 100
    of his anomalous ages and found he hadmisquoted everyone.)

    So as Allen starts with such a howler I cant be bothered to refute him point
    by point.

    However I find his insinuations of shoddy practice by geochronologists
    offensive as they are basically charging them with dishonesty. Four of my
    teachers at university (Oxford) were leading geochronologists - including
    Stephen Moorbath so I am speaking with personal knowledge. Moorbath's
    research assistant (with aD.Phil form Oxford) who leftto be an evangelical
    misssionary dismissed creationsit attacks on geochronology as downright

    However I am forced to one of three conclusions;
    1) He is very careless and naive in his study
    2) He is invincibly ignorant
    3) He is aware he is misrepresenting radiometric age-dating.

    I would like to know whether scientific honesty is part of the Biblically
    based paradigm of Creationary Cataclysmism

    None of these are honouring to God. I would suggest Allen does something
    about it.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 12 2003 - 10:24:16 EST