More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
This age is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, . In fact, I think this is a very telling argument against radiometric dating. Sr ( another non-radioactive isotope of strontium) that is critical to the situation. Geochronology: Radiometric Dating of Rocks and Minerals. . As with all methodologies in science, awareness of assumptions is a critical part and a methodology . That the long age of the Earth is necessary for conventional thinking on the. Uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating is a staple of the billions-of-years claims the method is thought by modern geologists to provide a reliable clock. . Another critical step was the determination of the U-Pb ratios, which in SIMS . to either make no correction at all, based on the assumption that zircon has no.
Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation: There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.
The current age estimate accepted by most Evolutionists for the Earth and our solar system is 4. What is this based on? This estimate was deduced from the ratios of different lead isotopes found in meteorites, Moon rocks, and Earth rocks.
By other means, the oldest age estimate, to date, for an Earth rock is 3. The oldest age estimate for a meteorite is 4. These calculations result in ages for the Earth of 4. These estimates range from 7 to 20 b.
Stanford University Press, Evolutionists have since attempted to lend increased credibility to these assumptions by use of radiometric dating which, of course, is also based on uniformitarian presuppositions - as shall be shown.
Penguin Books,pp. Do They Really Tell Time? Inquiry Press,pp. Funkhouser and John J. Noble and John J. Institute for Creation Research, February4 pp. Institute for Creation Research, April4 pp. Not only is there no way to verify the validity of these assumptions, but inherent in these assumptions are factors that assure that the ages so derived, whether accurate or not, will always range in the millions to billions of years excluding the carbon method, which is useful for dating samples only a few thousand years old.
The Fossils Say No! Master Books,p. Master Books,pp. Physicist Donald DeYoungPh. If the results are misinterpreted as to age, as proposed here, then a common unknown factor a measurement or an assumption which is defective may be perturbing all the age values to a longer apparent age than actual. Researchers are often reluctant to report findings too far different from previous results in their published findings.
This clustering effect shows up in reports of nuclear half-life determinations, and it may also rule the 4. Whitcomb and Donald B. DeYoungThe Moon: BMH Books,p. Wyant, Notes on the Geology of Uranium, U. Geological Survey Bulletin No. Morris, The Genesis Flood Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company,pp.
If you have a rock that contains radioactive isotopes, these will decay over time. As time goes on, the ratio of the parent to daughter nuclei will change and decrease as more parent nuclei decay into daughter nuclei, the former decreases and the latter increases. Measuring this ratio gives us an idea of how long ago the rock formed.
But wait a second! Surely, if some daughter nuclei left the rock or parent nuclei entered the rock, the dates would come out all wrong! While this is technically true, there are several mini-industries dedicated developing methods and techniques to make sure that there is no contamination and check to see if the rocks where disturbed between forming and being tested by scientists.
How is this done? Follow Debunking Denialism on Facebook or Twitter for new updates. Radiometric dating and testing for contamination and disturbances On of the great things about many forms of radiometric dating is that they are self-checking. That is, you can see if the sample comes from rocks that have been disturbed or contaminated or not just by looking at the results.
Now, creationists will claim that scientists are just somehow assuming that if samples show an age that does not fit their preconceptions, the sample must be contaminated or leaky.
To see why, we need to look deeper into radiometric dating methods. A very important tool in radiometric dating is the so called isochron diagram and it holds the key to refuting the central creationist claims about radiometric dating.
One of the most beneficial things about it is that it can check itself for accuracy; the method tells you how well the rocks have been closed systems. An isochron diagram is obtained by looking at many minerals from the same rock or from rocks forming from the same parent mineral. Data is plotted on a simple two dimensional graph; the parent isotope on the x-axis and the daughter isotope on the y-axis.
Both of these are divided or normalized by a stable isotope of the same elements as the daughter element.
Refuting “Radiometric Dating Methods Makes Untenable Assumptions!”
If the samples have been undisturbed closed systems since formation, the data will fall on the same line the isochron from which the diagram is named. The slope of this line is a function of the age of the rock. If the rock is older, the slope is higher. The reason scientists normalize with another stable isotope of the same element as the daughter is because most chemical or physical processes that occurs normally in nature does not differentiate between different isotopes of the same element when the difference in mass is as small as it is between isotopes of the same element that is used in radiometric dating.
Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4. Obviously, then, the minimum error in that measurement is 1. Such uncertainties are usually glossed over, especially when radioactive dates are communicated to the public and, more importantly, to students.
Generally, we are told that scientists have ways to analyze the object they are dating so as to eliminate the uncertainties due to unknown processes that occurred in the past. One way this is done in many radioactive dating techniques is to use an isochron. However, a recent paper by Dr.
Hayes has pointed out a problem with isochrons that has, until now, not been considered.
The elements rubidium and strontium are found in many rocks. One form of rubidium Rb is radioactive. As illustrated above, a neutron in a Rb atom can eject an electron often called a beta particlewhich has a negative charge. Since a neutron has no charge, it must become positively charged after emitting an electron. In fact, it becomes a proton.
This changes the chemical identity of the atom. It is no longer Rb; it is strontium Sr Sr is not radioactive, so the change is permanent.
Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating – Proslogion
We know how long it takes Rb to turn into Sr, so in principle, if we analyze the amount of Rb and Sr in a rock, we should be able to tell how long the decay has been occurring.
Of course, there are all sorts of uncertainties involved. How much Sr was in the rock when it first formed?