Index to Creationist Claims,  edited by Mark Isaak,    Copyright © 2007

Previous Claim: CD016   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CD031

---

Claim CD020:

Source:

Response:

1. Geologists cannot be selective about choosing results because measurements typically cost hundreds of dollars per sample. To date multiple samples and choose a concordant set from among them would require throwing out about $100,000 worth of data if dating methods gave chance results (Henke n.d.).
   
   
2. As creationists are fond of pointing out, radiometric dating is complicated by geological processes such as metamorphism and weathering, which can interfere with the assumptions that the dating methods use. As creationists do not point out, though, geologists know this. They examine the geological context of where their samples came from to determine whether a technique is likely to be valid, and they experiment with different techniques on different minerals subjected to different conditions to determine which combinations of techniques, minerals, and conditions are valid and which are not. Many so-called discordant dates are results from such experiments dishonestly portrayed as ordinary field measurements.
   
   All measurement techniques, from rulers to neutrino detectors, are invalid in some contexts. That does not make them invalid in all contexts. Woodmorappe and others who cite discordant radiometric dates are claiming that the method is entirely useless because it does not apply to some contexts.
   
   
3. The factors that one must consider when doing radiometric dating were ignored by Woodmorappe. He ignored geological context and well-known limitations of dating methods. His analysis is further flawed because
   • he uses obsolete data, such as data from years when the technique was still being developed.
   • his treatment of individual cases is extremely superficial.
   • his paper is written as propaganda, not as a technical analysis. If he believes what he writes, he should publish it in journals for professional geologists, not for creationists.

Links:

References: