Radiometric dating a christian perspective demi lovato and joe jonas dating pictures

Once divested of all the time claims imposed upon it, the fossiliferous rock testifies to the Noahchian Deluge, and all life (fossil and extant) is then mutally contemporaneous as is demanded by a literal six (24 hr.) day Creation.While I would strongly disagree that discrediting radiometric dating would in any way support the occurrence of a geologically-recent global flood, I will restrict myself to addressing Woodmorappe's main thesis which he summarizes as follows (p.Neither internal consistencies, mineral-pair concordances, nor agreements between differing dating methods necessarily validate radiometric dating.

113), that anomalous dates are not reported in the scientific literature (p.114), that some geologists have "fudged" Rb-Sr isochrons (p. The reprints from the appear unusual in this respect since mainstream scientific journals routinely print the author's professional affiliation and a contact address.Discrepant dates, attributed to open systems, may instead be evidence against the validity of radiometric dating.I would like to first briefly mention three minor criticisms and one major criticism I have regarding Woodmorappe's paper as a whole.

The first criticism is in regard to the format of this paper, which may be more the fault of the than John Woodmorappe, is that the references are all referred to by a number and are listed by these numbers rather than alphabetically.Therefore, since it's practically impossible for anyone, such as myself, to properly evaluate all of the hundreds of claims made in this paper in any systematic manner, I decided to only evaluate a randomly-selected subset of claims and show why I believe they're invalid.While demonstrating that a subset of Woodmorappe's claims are invalid doesn't invalidate all of his claims, it does show that the quality of this work is highly suspect.Secondly, throughout the paper, Woodmorappe rhetorically refers to young-earth creationists as Creationist-Diluvalists and, one assumes, anyone who disagrees as either evolutionist-uniformitarians or simply uniformitarians -- terms I believe most geologists would take issue with given the common misrepresentations by young-earth creationists of the term "uniformitarianism" first popularized by James Hutton in his 1788 considers itself to be a scientific journal, yet much of the language used by Woodmorappe to describe the work of other geologists is highly inflammatory rhetoric not normally seen in the scientific literature.For example, Woodmorappe claims that age data is routinely "explained away" (p. 113), that some age values are "arbitrarily" accepted or rejected as true (p.102): Here I agree with the author, radiometric dating techniques are best understood in their geologic context.