What's the creationists thought on this?

Please, I would love to have a look at his "paper". If the moderaters could provide my e-mail address to you, I certainly would appreciate it. Woodmorappe doesn't provide any information, he just lies to the creationists.I wonder whether Woodmorappe included all those dates obtained from geologists, provided in peer-reviewed articles on South African rocks, from South African geologists, in his 'research'. There's way more than 500 of them. Geologists and articles. Try tens of thousands.I bet that Woodmorappe ignored that research.

Unless there are copyright concerns, if the PDF is email'd to Admin then I will post it here at the website.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thank you. I would love to see it.

Why? And what is this account? What methodologies do they use to date fossils? What do they measure in rocks that allows them to attach a date to the rock's formation? From my reading on the subject, scientists date igneous rocks. This can take the form of sedimentary layers, such as tuffs. These are rocks that formed from fallen volcanic ash. These tuffs are used to date the eruption. By finding a tuff below and above a fossil you can give an age range for that fossil (younger than the tuff below it, older than the tuff above it). Obviously, lava flows or intrusions above and below a fossil can also be used.

One thing creationists love to be wrong about is "circular dating."We can date fossil layers via various radiometric techniques, such as was mentioned above, by dating adjacent volcanic layers.And if there are unique marker fossils in a particular layer we can then date that layer in other areas by means of those marker fossils. That is a lot easier and cheaper and much quicker.Thus the creationists' (false) claim that we date fossils by layers and layers by fossils or some such silliness.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Indeed. If they start down this path ask them how scientists are able to date asteroids. If you are aiming for a less confrontational response you could state that index fossils are used, but that they are also checked against radiometric methodologies when appropriate. More importantly, the age range for any index fossil was first established by radiometric dating. Prior to radiometric dating the best a geologist could do was a relative age compared to other geologic structures.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I've posted Woodmorappe's paper: Radiometric Geochronology ReappraisedFor those of you with slower Internet hookups, be patient, it's over 3MB.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

From Woodmorappe's paper:

quote:

---

B. Radiometric Violations of Superpositional and Cross-Cutting Relationships

​

Radiometric dates routinely violate common-sense relationships of field geology. It is almost self-evident that in a depositional situation the topmost beds must be at least slightly younger than those below them, and in an intrusive relationship it is the intruding body which must be younger than the body it cuts.

​

In writing about tuffs (obvious depositional accumulation), Curtis et. aLzs6 write: These beds may appear to be pure . . . yet gave different ages from top to bottom; the younger age being on the bottom. The rationalization invoked for this absurd situation was that the first-deposited were uncontaminated while the upper beds were subject to influx of contaminating detrital minerals.\

​

A tuff yielding a K-Ar date of 40-41 m.y. was found intruded by a dike and sill yielding K-Ar dates of 49-50 m.y.28’ A diorite whose biotite yielded a 157 m.y. K-Ar date is intruded by a quartz diorite yielding a 204 m.y. K-Ar biotite date.87 Violations of cross-cutting relationships are not exceptional. HopsonZs8 states: This curious relationship, in which the pegmatites give mineral ages older than those from the host rocks, is now known to be common . . . . These gross anomalies are explained away by claiming that the pegmatite gives older K-r ages than the intruded country rock because the country rock is composed of fine-grained minerals that are more vulnerable to thermally-induced argon loss. This is ccommodating, because many coarse-grained pegmatites properly give younger K-Ar and Rb-Sr mineral dates than the fine-grained country rock. Furthermore, Leach et. a1.288 found coarse grained schists giving ages near 72 m.y. whereas fine grained varieties gave dates near 123 m.y., and they appealed to . . some other process to explain this.

​

A different set of violations involves Rb-Sr whole-rock isochrons. The Stony Creek Granite of 610* 50 m.y. Rb-Sr isochron age cuts the Monson Gneiss of 444* 15 m.y. Rb-Sr isochron age. *g0 Remobilization of Sr isotopes during metamorphism was the supposed cause of this.

​

285Dietrich et. al. 1969. Op. cit. p. 3 12.

​

286Curtis et. al. 1961. Op. cit. p. 344.

​

287’Yates, R. G., and J. C. Engels. 1968. Potassium-Argon Age of Some Igneous Rocks in Northern Stevens County, Washington. UG 600-D246.

​

288Hopson, C. A. 1964. The Crystalline Rocks of Howard and Montgomery Counties, Maryland. Maryland Geological Suruey. 1964, p. 201.

​

289Leech et. al. 1963. Op. cit. p. 36.

​

290Hills, F. A. and E. J. Dasch. 1968. Rb-Sr Evidence for Metamorphic Remobilization of the Stony Creek Granite, Southeastern Connecticut. GA-1968, p. 137.

---

Well, I really just glanced at it but it does seem interesting. Pretty long read. He also gets into "Precambrian" rocks just after where I left off on the above comment. Is it everyones opinion that this paper has no merit whatsoever? Even with all the references and sources listed? Are you all saying that his entire paper is a complete bald faced lie?Edited by Chuck77, : spellingEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Took out extra line feeds and added blank lines (paragraph breaks were a bit of a guess). Put in quote boxes.

Yes. More an example of misrepresentation, quote mining and selecting the desired evidence while ignoring the evidence that does not support his desired outcome. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : .See official message content reprimand here. Also add off-topic banner (for lack of having a better banner).

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yeah, that's because it's pictures of the document with OCR'd and selectable text lurking behind the pictures. That's how Acrobat handles scanned documents. Yes, as detailed at the links I already gave. Creation "science" is composed of lies and nothing else. Believe what you wish for whatever reasons make sense to you, but when you start claiming scientific respectability you're in an arena with particular ways of investigation, and creation "science" has consistently failed in that arena.Number of refrerences doesn't mean much. Intellectual honesty and integrity, weight of evidence, logical thought… they count.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

As has been pointed out to you, the soft tissue was mineralized. As Schweitzer et al wrote: What no-one has yet mentioned is that the scientist who discovered this, Mary Schweitzer, is a former YEC who left the young-Earth cult as a result of her scientific studies. As she explains: If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.[/qs]Thanks for the info Dr Adequate. I never heard of her before and find this REALLY interesting. Are you SURE she was a TRUE YEC?Without having read up on her whole story yet maybe she just had a change of opinion on the age of the earth? So is she a OEC now? But still a Creationist?Im assuming that if this story checks out like you say, then she obviously was a mole working on the side of Evolution the WHOLE time. Brilliant! Insert laughing smiley here? Edited by Chuck77, : spelling

She describes herself as having been a "hard-core young-earth creationist", so I guess that that is what she was. She's not a creationist any more, but she remains a Christian (per the link I've already supplied). I trust that you're being facetious.

When the beds are deposited, yes, that’s what normally happens. We do have exceptions to that, too.After deformation, this is not common-sense at all. Occurrences like recumbent folds and overthrusts are very common. So, no, the youngest rocks will not necessarily be at the top. Just on this quote, every geologist in the world can determine that his ‘paper’ is ridiculously flawed and won’t ever be accepted by any real geologist. Yes, he doesn’t even know the basics of geology. It’s either a lie, or just complete ignorance. Seeing that Woodmorappe (aka Peczkis) claims to be a geologist, I think that it is a complete bald faced lie.He ‘s trying to mislead the faithful on what sedimentary rocks actually are, how they are deposited and how they get altered by geological processes.

It’s amazing how Woodmorappe can lie. That’s all he can do. He probably thinks that nobody can get hold of the ‘references’ he lists. Unfortunately for him, we can. I’ve got one of the references he vaguely provides to try and deceive people.
In Table 1 of his ‘article’ he has a list of a few ages ‘expected’ and what was found after dating. His table has 5 columns, headed by, Age Expected, Age Obtained, Method and material, Common or Formational Name and Locality and the last column, reference.On page 109 he lists the Cape Granite Suite as: >400, 330 and 238 30, 236PB/U238 and , 238PB/232, Cape granite/ Republic of South Africa, 152
His reference is numbered 152: Allsopp, H. L. and P. Kolbe. 1965. Isotopic age determinations on the Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments, Cape Peninsula,
South Africa. GC 29: 11 15-6.Woodmorappe actually forgets that some people can get hold of his references. The real reference is: Allsopp, H. L. and P. Kolbe. 1965. Isotopic age determinations on the Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments, Cape Peninsula, South Africa. Geochimica et Codsmochimica Acta 1965, Vol. 29, pp.1115 to 1130. Pergamon Press Ltd.I’ve got this paper in my hands. The abstract reads: In Woodmorappe’s Table 1 on page 109 , under the Cape Granite Suite:1. Expected age (Woodmorappe lists >400). The expected age was around 500 million years, actually. All in the reference Woodmorappe provided.2.Age obtained: Woodmorappe lists: 330 and 238 30. He lies. Allsop et al got ages of 500 15 million years.3. Method and material: Cape granite: 553 8 my. Aplogranite: 500 15 my. Malmesbury 595 45 m.y. Woodmorappe lies.4.Common or formational name: Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments (the simplistic names).5. Reference already given. Woodmorappe lies. And lies. And lies. Don’t ever believe anything he says.Some creationists wonder why scientists think all creationists lie. And lie. And lie some more. This 'paper' is a good example of why we know that creationists always lie.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Removed a comma that altered the explanation and meaning of the sentence.Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Changed sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Fixed mistakes