Is radiometric dating accurate Usa xxx web cams
So it shouldn't be surprising that these belief systems go to great lengths to reject radiometric dating as a field (except in the instances when it corroborates biblical history).
I aim to cover the many aspects of their claims and faults with the process of dating rocks and fossils, as well as to explain why radiometric dating makes the argument of "Evolution vs Creation (six days)" and open and shut case.
B) ATM or "Appeal to Marginalization"Woodmorappe essentially repeats the first "fallacy" and notes that blaming anomalous circumstances is a cop out of sorts.
He points to Rb-Sr dating (despite that this method has been largely abandoned for methods with less room for error, for example, SHRIMP for isotope analysis).
He has three fallacies which he uses to "combat" Radiometric dating methods. A) CDMBN or "Credit Dating methods for frequent success, but Blame Nature for failures"Woodmorappe seems to have this idea that geology is constant and without anomaly.
He sees thousands upon thousands of correct and corroborated dates (through multiple methods) each year, but if a single date is strange and geologists remark that it may be a new phenomena it's suddenly fallacious.
He then suggests "we should not be surprised if we find evidence that God has supernaturally intervened".
It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these.
Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves"In all the history of radiometric dating, the maximum change in decay in a laboratory environment was 1.5% in 1999 by altering environmental conditions chemically.
Four U-Pb methods can yield four dates, and may be unique from a K-Ar age obtained from the same rock.
To them, this seems suspect at worst and faulty at best.