Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating A Few Examples of the Many Misused References in

The following material may be freely copied and distributed as long as the author is properly acknowledged and the material is not altered, edited or sold. 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. For example, Woodmorappe (1999, p. 41) quotes the following statement from Swisher et al. (1993, p. 1994) to "demonstrate " that dates from Evernden et al. (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. (1964) at 66.4 Ma [Ma = millions of years]. 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? We find the answer in the proceeding sentences, which Woodmorappe (1999, p. 41) chooses to ignore. Here's a more complete quotation from Swisher et al. (1993, p. 1993