|
Radiometric
Dating and the Age of the Earth
Part One of a Five-Part
Series on The Age of the Earth.
The only dating methods
discussed (over and over) by evolution-believing scientists and
the mass media are those that supposedly "prove" that the
earth is billions of years old. One of the most popular of these
is known as radiometric dating. However, not as well known is
the fact that such methods have serious flaws which are often glossed over, or ignored when writing on, or discussing this
subject in public. Another pertinent thing that's also ignored,
minimized, or scoffed at are the numerous other scientific methods of
dating the earth, solar system, and or universe that yield much younger
ages than 500 million years (max).
With the exception of Carbon-14, radiometric dating is used to date
either igneous or metamorphic rocks that contain radioactive elements
such as uranium. And even though various radioactive elements have
been used to "date" these rocks, for the most part, the
methods are basically the same. They consist of measuring the amount
of radioactive (mother) element and comparing it to the amount of
stable (daughter) element. A discussion of the Uranium/Lead method
follows.
Uranium is radioactive, which means it is in the process of changing
from an unstable element into a stable one. The most common form is
uranium-238. It has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This means
that if you had some pure uranium-238 with no lead in it, 4.5 billion
years later one half of it would have decayed into its stable daughter
product (lead-206). And after 9 billion years there would be 75% lead
and 25% uranium, and so on. Few people realize it but all
radiometric dating methods require making at least three assumptions.
These are:
1) The rate of decay has
remained constant throughout the past.
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.
3) The sample has remained in a closed system.
Constant Decay
Rate:
For years it was
assumed that decay rates from mother to daughter element was constant.
However, this is no longer the case, since there is now:
"...
confirmatory evidence that ... (an) episode of drastically accelerated
decay has ... (taken place with regard to) ... Dr. Robert Gentry...
(and his work) on
helium retention in zircons. The landmark ... paper, ... can be summarized
as follows:
- When
uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is ... helium, a very
light, inert gas, which readily escapes from rock.
- Certain
crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites,
contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.
- By
measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these
crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant,
about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the
geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are
found.)
- However,
there is a significant proportion of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years
of decay’ still inside the zircons. This ... (was) ... surprising for
long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with
its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the
crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any (helium) left,
because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and
not accumulating.
- Drawing
any conclusions from the above (depended) ... on actually measuring the
rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE
papers reports on. The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a
creationist project) to a world-class expert on helium diffusion from
minerals to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does
indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the
results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these
crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication
the whole earth) could not be older than 14,000 years. In other words, in
only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates)
of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since
been refined ... to give a date of 5,680 (± 2,000) years.
2
In other words,
something in the past caused a significant amount of helium to build up inside
these zircons (such as from a rapid decay episode of uranium), yet, in spite
of the fact that helium has been observed to leak out readily from these
zircons, it has not done so: simply because it hasn't had enough time to do so
-- suggesting that the zircons themselves are only a few thousand years old.
An interview with one of
the scientists who discovered this can be found
here.
Another paper on this
subject states that:
"There is evidence
to show ... that (the) half-lives (of uranium-thorium-lead) are not constant
but vary with time. This ... comes from the study of pleochroic haloes
which form in a rock in the following way. When a rock crystallises, the
crystals of the minerals in the rock often enclose minute grains of other
minerals which contain uranium and thorium. Now when the uranium or thorium
disintegrates, the alpha particles which are emitted are slowed down by the
crystals in which the grains of the uranium- or thorium-bearing minerals are
embedded. Where these alpha particles finally stop, crystal deformation
occurs (and) shows up as a discolouration or a darkening of the crystals.
When the crystal is looked at under a microscope, these discolourations
appear as dark rings—hence the name "pleochroic halo". Now the
magnitude of the radius of a pleochroic halo in a particular mineral depends
on the amount of energy that the alpha particle has ... (which) ... depends on the half-life of the particular decay responsible for this
alpha particle emission. In other words, the magnitude of the radius of a
pleochroic halo in a particular crystal depends on the half-life of the
decay responsible for the alpha particle emission. Now if ... the radii of
pleochroic haloes corresponding to a definite decay in a particular mineral
are ... (the same) size, then it can be safely assumed that the half-life of
that decay is a constant. If, on the other hand, it is found that the radii
vary, then this is proof that the half-life of that decay is not constant. 3
"It has been found that the radii of pleochroic
haloes due to the uranium and thorium radioactive decays do in fact vary in
size in the same minerals 2,3,4
This was first shown by Joly and Henderson who conducted most of the early
studies on pleochroic haloes. This proves that the half-lives of the uranium
and thorium radioactive decays vary ... (and thus) ... any age determination using this method of
dating will be inaccurate because it is based on an invalid assumption."
3
And yet another article
asks:
"
... can we be sure the U and Th have always decayed at the same rates we
measure today? No! ... In fact ... We have solid evidence that
radioactive decay rates cannot have been constant. For example, discordant
dates have been obtained on the same rocks by ... (various)
different
radioisotope methods. Discordant dates have
been derived from helium
diffusion and U-Pb dates on the same zircon
crystals. Coexistent U(ranium) and Po(lonium) radiohalos
argue against perpetual uniformity of decay rates. So
do grossly discordant
radiocarbon
and radioisotope dates.4
Given ample evidence observable in the present that
decay rates have not been constant throughout the supposed “deep time,”
it is not reasonable to assume they have been uniform through unobservable
eons. 4
Original
Amounts Known:
The second assumption is much more speculative since there is no way to
verify whether or not some (or most) of the daughter element was already
present when the rock solidified. Therefore, a guess must be made. However, in
some cases, a few scientists are telling us that they have solved this
problem.
For example, with the uranium/lead
method scientists have attempted to estimate what the original ratio (of
uranium-238 to lead-206) was when the Earth formed. To do this they have
selected a certain meteorite, which contained various types of lead (including
lead 204, 206, 207 and 208) but no uranium, and they have assumed that this
ratio is equivalent to the earth's original lead ratio. They did this because
it is almost certain that these lead isotopes were all present in large
quantities when the earth was created. This is because "common" lead
contains both radiogenic (lead 206, 207 and 208) and non-radiogenic lead (204)
but it does not contain any uranium. In fact, about 98% of common
lead is "radiogenic" (containing lead 206, 207, 208) and only 2% non-radiogenic.
5,6,7,8,9
A Closed
System:
The third assumption is that the sample has remained in a closed system.
This is necessary due to outside influences such as heat and groundwater that
can seriously alter the original material. And since the earth is not a closed
system, these last two assumptions make radiometric dating highly subjective
and questionable.
For example, if a rock sample was
below the water table at any time, leaching would take place. For
Uranium/Lead dating this means that some of the uranium that was initially
present would be "leached" out of the rock. Leaching can also
cause uranium to be leached into rocks that have little or no uranium in them.
Therefore, in virtually every case, scientists do not know what the original
condition of the rock was; and, even if they did know, they don't any more due
to heat contamination, mixing, and leaching. This is discussed in detail
by Dr. Snelling in an article on this topic.7
Note: As for the few cases where scientists do know what the
"original" condition (or date of eruption) was, they still have not
been able to come up with the correct "date" for the age of the rock
without all sorts of fancy footwork and massaging of data. That's because
radiometric dating (with the exception of Carbon 14) is almost always
performed on igneous rocks (i.e. those that were once in a molten state).
Also because, when different substances are in a liquid state, something
known as mixing almost always takes place: meaning that whenever a liquid (or
molten) rock is erupted out of the earth, both the mother and daughter
elements will be "mixed" together, thus making it virtually
impossible to determine the time that an eruption took place.
Heat Contamination:
Another problem that calls into question the credibility of radiometric dating
is heat contamination. For example, In 1973, in Alberta, Canada (near the town
of Grand Prairie) a high voltage line fell which caused nearby tree roots to
fossilize almost instantly. When scientists at the University of Regina,
Saskatchewan were asked what the results would be if these roots were dated by
Potassium Argon method. Their response was that the results:
"Would
be meaningless; it would indicate an age of millions of years Because Heat was
Involved in the petrification process." Mysteries of Creation by Dennis Petersen, p. 47.
Two well-documented examples of
"heat contamination" are the 1800 and 1801 eruptions from two
Hawaiian volcanoes. Although these eruptions were less than 200 years old, the
radiometric "dates" obtained from them were 140 million to 2.96
billion years for one, and from 0 to 29 million years for the other --
depending upon the (ocean) depth at which the lava sample was obtained. This
is documented in Table 1 below.
This also brings up an
important question:
If radiometric dating
methods are unable to produce the correct date in cases where the actual date
of eruption is known, why should we believe that these same methods can
produce accurate dates when the date of eruption is unknown?
The point is simply this:
radiometric dating is known to produce grossly erroneous dates when heat is
involved in the formation or fossilization process. And since the only rocks
which yield ages in excess of 100,000 years are of volcanic origin, this
method of dating the earth is not based on science, but rather speculation and
subjective reasoning. Unfortunately, the public is rarely informed of
these facts. The bottom line
is that there are only two ways to verify whether or not radiometric dating
methods have any credibility at all. These are:
1. To compare the results with known dates
based on historical and/or archeological data,
2. To cross-check the results with one or more different methods of
radiometric dating.
The following tables illustrate the highly questionable, if not totally
unreliable, nature of the radiometric methods that are currently in use or
have been used in the past to "date" volcanic materials.
Table
1: A
comparison between rocks of known age Vs radiometric "age."
|
Rock Sample
Place of Origin
|
Known
Age
from
Historical or
Archaeological Data
|
Rock "Age" by
Radiometric
Dating
|
Method
Used
|
|
Sunset Crater, Arizona 10
|
1,900 yrs
|
210K
- 230K
yrs
|
K/Ar
|
|
Russian Volcano
11
|
24,000 yrs
|
50
m.-14.6 b.
yrs
|
K/Ar
|
|
Mt Rangitoto,
New Zealand 12
|
3,300 yrs
|
485,000 yrs
|
K/Ar
|
|
Vulcan's Throne,
Grand Canyon 13
|
10,000 yrs max.
|
114K
- 120K
yrs
|
K/Ar
|
|
Hualalai Volcano,
Hawaii 14,15,16
|
200 yrs
|
140
m.- 670 m.
yrs
|
Helium
|
|
Hualalai Volcano,
Hawaii 14,15,16
|
200 yrs
|
160
m.- 2.96
b. yrs
|
K/Ar
|
|
*Mt. Kilauea, Hawaii
17
|
200 yrs
|
0 yrs at 1400
meters depth
|
K/Ar
|
|
*Mt. Kilauea, Hawaii
17
|
200 yrs
|
10-14
m.y. at
3420
meters depth
|
K/Ar
|
|
*Mt. Kilauea, Hawaii
17
|
200 yrs
|
13-29
m.y. at
4680
meters depth
|
K/Ar
|
Note: Where abbreviations are used:
b. = billion; and m. = million.
* The depth here refers to the depth below the surface of the water, since
this volcano produced a lava
flow that flowed down the mountain and
into the ocean.
Table 2: A comparison between different methods of dating rocks of
unknown age.
|
Rock
Sample
Place of Origin
|
Known Age
from Historical or Archeological Data
|
Rocks
"Age" by
Radiometric Dating
|
Method
Used
|
|
Salt
Lake Crater,
Hawaii 18,19,20
|
Unknown
|
2.6
m.-140 m.
yrs
|
Helium
|
|
Salt
Lake Crater,
Hawaii 18,19,20
|
Unknown
|
400K-3.3
b. yrs
|
K/Ar
|
|
Cubic
Diamonds,
Zaire 21,22
|
Unknown
|
6
Billion
yrs
|
K/Ar
|
|
KBS
Tuff,
E. Turkana, Kenya 23,24
|
Unknown
|
290K-221
m.. yrs
|
K/Ar
|
|
KBS
Tuff,
E. Turkana, Kenya
25
|
Unknown
|
2.42
million yrs
|
Fission
Track
|
|
Cardenas
Basalts, Bottom
of Grand Canyon 26,27,28,29
|
Unknown
|
715
million yrs
|
K/Ar
Isochron
|
|
Cardenas
Basalts, Bottom
of Grand Canyon 26,27,28,29
|
Unknown
|
1.17
billion yrs
|
Rb/Sr
Isochron
|
|
Uinkaret
Plateau, Top of
Grand Canyon 26,27,28,29
|
Unknown
|
0.01-117
m.. yrs
|
K/Ar
|
|
Uinkaret
Plateau, Top of
Grand Canyon 26,27,28,29
|
Unknown
|
1.30
billion
yrs
|
Rb/Sr
Isochron
|
|
Uinkaret
Plateau, Top of
Grand Canyon 26,27,28,29
|
Unknown
|
2.60
billion
yrs
|
Pb/Pb
Isochron
|
|
Morton
gneisses,
Minnesota 30
|
Unknown
|
2.5 billion yrs
|
K/Ar
|
|
Morton
gneisses,
Minnesota 30
|
Unknown
|
3.3 billion yrs
|
Ur/Pb
|
|
"Allende"
Meteorite 31,32,33
|
Unknown
|
3.9
b.-11.7
b. yrs
|
Ur/Th/Pb
Isochron
|
|
"Allende"
Meteorite 31,32,33
|
Unknown
|
4.5
b.-16.5
b. yrs
|
Ur/Th/Pb
|
|
Moon
Rocks 34
|
Unknown
|
4.6
b.- 8.2 b.
yrs
|
Ur/Pb
|
|
Moon
Rocks 35
|
Unknown |
2.3
b.- 3.76 b.
yrs
|
K/Ar
|
|
Moon
Rock (breccia) 36
|
Unknown
|
124
b.- 125.5
b. yrs
|
K/Ar
|
* Notes: Where abbreviations are used: b. = billion; and m. =
million.
* "Allende" is the name given to the meteorite that was used to
"date" the age of the earth.
* KBS stands for Kay Behrensmeyer Site. It is the site where the famous 1470
skull was found.
* Cubic Diamonds from Zaire were included because the "age" derived
from them is greater
than the purported (4.5 b.y.) age of the earth.
In a paper on this subject
Dr. Plaisted said the following:
"After study and discussion of this question,
I now believe
that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is a result of a
great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever
agree with each other, and often do not agree with the assumed ages of the
rocks in which they are found. I believe... there is a great need
for this information to be made known, so I am making (it) available ... " 37
Emphasis Added
For the reasons discussed above, radiometric dating is not the absolute
Time Clock that it has been portrayed to be by faithful evolutionists.
See the links below for more detailed information on this topic.
References:
- Hodge, Bodie, How Old is the Earth, at
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth
- Wieland, Carl, Radiometric dating breakthroughs, at
http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-breakthroughs
- Uranium-Thorium-Lead Dating Method,
at http://bishoprobert.org/Origin5d.htm.
- Snelling, Andrew and Mitchell,
Elizabeth, Rocks Around the Clock: Do Zircons Contain Reliable Time
Stamps,
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/
rocks-around-the-clock-do-zircons-contain-reliable-time-stamps-and-early-earths-secrets/
- Cooper, Miller and
Patterson, A Trip Through Time,
1986, pp. 78-79.
- Williams, A.
R., "Long Age Isotope Dating Short on Credibility," Creation Ex Nihilo
(CEN) Tech.
Journal, vol. 6(#1), 1992, pp.
2-5.
- Snelling, Dr. Andrew A. "The Failure of
U-Th-Pb 'Dating' at Koongara,
Australia," CEN Tech. J. vol.
9, no. 1, 1995, pp. 84-85, 90-91.
- Faure, G. Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd edition, 1986,
pp. 309-340.
- Dalrymple, G., The Age of the Earth, 1991, pp.
305-356.
- Morris, John D., Ph.D., The Young
Earth, p.54; Additional reference provided in book.
- Petersen, Dennis,
Mysteries of
Creation, p.46.
- Morris, John
D., The Young
Earth, p.54; Additional reference provided in book.
- ibid. ref. 9.
- ibid. ref. 9, pp. 55-56.
- Taylor, Paul S., Illustrated Origins Answer
Book, pp. 12-13, 61-62.
- Funkhouser, John G., and Naughton, John J., Journal of Geophysical
Research, vol. 73, No. 14, July
1968, pp.4601-4607.
- ibid. ref. 9, pp. 55-56. Additional reference provided in book.
- ibid. ref. 9.
- ibid. ref. 12.
- Funkhouser, John G., and Naughton, John J., Journal of
Geophysical Research, vol. 73, No. 14, July
1968, pp.4601-4607.
- Williams,
A.R., Creation ex nihilo Technical Journal,
vol. 6, Part 1, 1992, p.4.
- Podosek, F.A., et al, Nature, vol. 334, 1988, pp.607-609.
- Lubenow, Marvin, "The Dating Game" Chapter in
"Bones of Contention" pp. 247-266.
- Reader, John,
"Missing
Links," pp.205-209.
- Nature, vol. 284, 3/20/80, pp. 225-234.
- ibid. ref. 9, pp. 57-60.
- Austin, Steve A.,
"Grand Canyon--Monument To
Catastrophe," ICR, pp.120-131.
- Ford, T.D., et al., Geological Society of America Bulletin 83,
Jan. 1972, pp. 223-226.
- McKee, E.H., and Noble, D.C., Geological Society of America Bulletin
87, Aug. 1976, pp.1188-1190.
- Simak, C.D., "Trilobite, Dinosaur and Man," pp. 50-51.
- ibid. ref. 9, pp. 60-61.
- Patterson, C.C., Geochemica et Cosmochemica
Acta, vol. 10, 1956,
pp.230-237.
- Williams, A.R., Creation Ex Nihilo Tech. Journal, vol. 6, Part 1,
1992, pp.2-5.
- ibid. ref. 8, p. 46.
- Science, vol. 167, 1/30/70, pp. 466-468, 479-480.
- ibid. ref. 32, pp. 479-480; Note: Though the age calculation (for
sample No. 65,35) was not given, the
ratios of Potassium -40 (K)/ Argon-40 (Ar) were listed in Table 1 on p. 480, thus
allowing the age to
be calculated. And though I agree with the writers of this
article that this sample has an excess
amount of Argon-40, I also
think it is highly probable that the argon which contaminated this sample
also
contaminated all of the other samples, and that this breccia was
simply "contaminated" with
more Argon.
- The Radiometric Dating Game, at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp
Copyright, 2006,
2013, 2015, Randy S. Berg;
Copies may be printed or copied and distributed
freely for educational purposes.
See also:
The
Age of the Earth Debate
And
Evidence that's Not supposed to
Exist
Radiometric
Dating Continental
Drift
The
Big Bang
Worldwide
Flood Young
Earth Evidence
Home
|