Radiometric dating percent error
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.We will now look at several arguments, which may or may not be supported by Dr. I will also present a couple of arguments indicating that the earth is much older than a few thousand years.Former creationist Glenn Morton examines several famous young-earth creationist arguments and provides data to illustrate their flaws.
When you consider that each radiometric method is subject to different types of error, that the different "clocks" run at different speeds, such an agreement would be extremely rare on the basis of pure chance.This super-anomaly was explained away by claiming some strange metamorphic effect on the Sr.(Woodmorappe, 1979, p.122) Sounds pretty grim, huh?But even schoolboys need to know what the right answers are in order to cheat, and there was no absolute age list when radiometric dating was first applied to the strata.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.(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.(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.Thus, we clear away the first illusion spun by creationism, namely that most of the dates are bad, that the radiometric picture is totally chaotic.This cannot be done by merely citing the numerous ways in which one can get a bad date; nor is it achieved by concentrating on atypical cases.Such information is certainly interesting, a healthy reminder of what can go wrong, but it is no threat to the radiometric dating methods which, after all, measure their successes on a statistical basis.