Former creationist Glenn Morton examines several famous young-earth creationist arguments and provides data to illustrate their flaws. The I found it odd that nowhere in the book was it indicated where Woodmorappe earned his degrees or his current professional affiliation (Where does he teach science? I believe that it's reasonable, when evaluating what purports to be a scientific paper, to inquire as to the author's expertise to write about the subject -- especially when the relevant information given is so vague. degree in geology from a secular university with which he's still affiliated and has published a couple of papers in mainstream geologic journals under his real name.
He plots Woodmorappe's collection of anomalous radiometric results and notices something remarkable. All of the papers were written by Woodmorappe and each address various topics relating to the young-earth creationist belief in a geologically-recent global deluge (Noah's Flood). A little research disclosed that "John Woodmorappe" is a nom de plume and a bit more research disclosed his true identity (confirmed by two separate sources). In the papers he's published under his real name, he affiliates himself with the geology department at that university, yet the 1996 American Geological Institute does not list him as a faculty member so I haven't been able to find any evidence that he currently teaches science or is a research fellow at any university.
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.
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.
The book has no publisher's information page but it seems clear from the Forward, written by the well-known young-earth creationist Henry Morris, that it was published by the Institute for Creation Research in 1993. To fairly represent Woodmorappe's thesis in this paper, I would like to reproduce his abstract in full (p.