Nevertheless, despite Woodmorappe's best attempts to hide the numbers in the above quotations, the revealed errors of less than 1-7% are far too trivial to serve the needs of young-Earth creationism. Errors in radiometric dating aren’t anomalies, They are common.Flagstaff Rim Ash J, for example, had been K-Ar dated at 32.5 million years, but laser-fusion 40Ar/39Ar methods gave a date of 34.4 ...[reference to figure omitted].”Clearly, this discrepancy is a serious challenge for geologists that want high resolution (less than 1% error) in the geologic time scale. In another attempt to undermine radiometric dating, Woodmorappe (1999, p. 27-28), where Dalrymple, Renne and other scientists "cannot agree" about which dates are "real" and which are "spurious" for some Siberian basalts and associated rocks:"Over time, Dalrymple concludes, some of the argon-40 had leaked out of the trap's rocks, making them look 1 or 2 million years younger than they are. However, Prothero’s relatively minor adjustment of the 32.5 million year old date to 34.4 million years provides no comfort to young-Earth creationists that want to destroy the reliability of the geologic time scale and reduce all dates below 10,000 years. 40-41) fails to mention the magnitude of the discrepancies because they hardly undermine the reliability of radiometric dating and support young-Earth creationism. Renne, however, says that he is 'very confident about the new data' ... We find the answer in the proceeding sentences, which Woodmorappe (1999, p. Here's a more complete quotation from Swisher et al. 1993-1994): “Obradovich and Cobban (1975) and Obradovich (1984) dated biotite from dacitic pumice located approximately 22 [meters] above the K-P [Cretaceous-Tertiary (Paleocene)] boundary at 65.9 Ma by K-Ar and 65.8 /- 0.3 Ma (2 sigma) by 40Ar/39Ar methods. The same unit was most likely the one dated by Evernden et al. These ages are most likely too old, owing to the inclusion of detrital grains in the mineral separates.”Swisher et al. 1993-1994) are arguing over trivial errors of about 1% and Woodmorappe (1999, p. 60) and argues that K-Ar dates from Evernden et al. First they test UNALTERED rocks, get results that can’t be accepted, then pervert the rocks, calling this process CORRECTING the rocks.
And there you have the perfect example of how radiometric dating really works.What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?- At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method.Woodmorappe (1999) presents numerous examples of what he claims are "discrepant" radiometric dates that contradict each other, fossil data, field structures and/or stratigraphic evidence. 41) quotes the following statement from Swisher et al. 1994) to "demonstrate" that dates from Evernden et al. Nunez-Betelu, 1994, "40Ar/39Ar Geochronology of Late Cretaceous Volcanic Events in the Canadian Arctic Islands: Arctic Biotic Heterochroneity Revisited," in Swisher, C. (1964), which were once highly regarded and characterized as state-of-the-art, are now considered unreliable: “The same unit was most likely the one dated by Evernden et al. These ages are most likely too old, owing to the inclusion of detrital grains in the mineral separates.” Yet, how anomalously old are Evernden et al.'s results?
But my favorite, was Lunar Sample # 10084 which was determined to be 8.2 billion years old To quote from - Age determinations and isotopic abundance measurements on lunar samples. As noted, our results were CORRECTED to account for the blank determined with the extraction and hence any modern lead component must in fact represent a CONTAMINANT in our sample.