Part One:
Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth
The only dating methods discussed (over and over again) by evolution-believing scientists and the mass
media are ones 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 a number of
serious flaws -- which are usually glossed over, or ignored when
writing on, or discussing this subject in public.
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
purposes of radiometric dating it must be assumed that the rate of decay from
mother element to daughter element has remained constant throughout the past.
Although there is no way to prove whether or not this has been the case,
scientists have attempted to alter the rate of decay of radioactive materials
and have found that they are almost immune to change. Most creationists have
few qualms in accepting this first assumption.
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. 1,2,3,4,5,6
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 great detail by Dr. Snelling in
his article on this subject. 4
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 Prarie) 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." The
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 subjecting
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: The following is a comparison between rocks of known age Vs radiometric
"age."
|
Rock Sample
Obtained From |
Known Age
from Historical
or Archaeological Data |
Rocks Age
from
Radiometric Dating |
Method
Used |
|
Sunset
Crater, Arizona 7 |
1,900 yrs
|
210,000--230,000
yrs
|
K/Ar |
|
Russian
Volcano 8 |
24,000 yrs
|
50 m.---14.6 b.
yrs
|
K/Ar |
Mt Rangitoto,
New Zealand 9 |
3,300 yrs
|
485,000 yrs
|
K/Ar |
Vulcan's
Throne,
Grand Canyon 10 |
10,000 yrs max.
|
114,000--120,000
yrs
|
K/Ar |
Hualalai
Volcano,
Hawaii 11,12,13 |
200 yrs
|
140 m.---670 m.
yrs
|
Helium |
Hualalai
Volcano,
Hawaii 11,12,13 |
200 yrs
|
160 m.---2.96 b.
yrs
|
K/Ar |
|
*Mt.
Kilauea, Hawaii 14 |
200 yrs
|
0 yrs at 1400
meters depth
|
K/Ar |
|
*Mt.
Kilauea, Hawaii 14 |
200 yrs
|
10-14
m.y. at
3420
meters depth
|
K/Ar |
|
*Mt.
Kilauea, Hawaii 14 |
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: The following is a comparison between different methods of dating rocks of
unknown age.
|
Rock Sample
Obtained From
|
Known Age
from Historical or Archaeological Data
|
Rocks Age
from
Radiometric Dating
|
Method
Used
|
|
Salt
Lake Crater,
Hawaii 15,16,17
|
Unknown
|
2.6 m.---140 m.
yrs
|
Helium
|
Salt
Lake Crater,
Hawaii 15,16,17 |
Unknown
|
400,000---3.3 b.
yrs
|
K/Ar
|
Cubic
Diamonds,
Zaire 18,19 |
Unknown
|
6,000,000,000 yrs
|
K/Ar
|
KBS
Tuff,
E. Turkana, Kenya 20,21 |
Unknown
|
290,000---221 m.
yrs
|
K/Ar
|
KBS
Tuff,
E. Turkana, Kenya
22 |
Unknown |
2,420,000 yrs
|
Fission
Track
|
Cardenas
Basalts, Bottom
of Grnd Canyn. 23,24,25,26 |
Unknown |
715,000,000 yrs
|
K/Ar
Isochron
|
Cardenas
Basalts, Bottom
of Grnd Canyon. 23,24,25,26 |
Unknown |
1.17 b. yrs
|
Rb/Sr
Isochron
|
Uinkaret
Plateau, Top of
Grnd Canyon 23,24,25,26 |
Unknown |
0.01--117 million
yrs
|
K/Ar
|
Uinkaret
Plateau, Top of
Grand Canyon 23,24,25,26 |
Unknown |
1,340 million yrs
|
Rb/Sr
Isochron
|
Uinkaret
Plateau, Top of
Grnd Canyon 23,24,25,26 |
Unknown |
2,600
million yrs
|
Pb/Pb
Isochron
|
Morton
gneisses,
Minnesota 27 |
Unknown |
2.5
billion yrs
|
K/Ar
|
Morton
gneisses,
Minnesota 27 |
Unknown |
3.3
billion yrs
|
Ur/Pb
|
| "Allende"
Meteorite 28,29,30 |
Unknown |
3.91
b.--11.7 b. yrs
|
Ur/Th/Pb
Isochron
|
| "Allende"
Meteorite 28,29,30 |
Unknown |
4.49
b.--16.5 b. yrs
|
Ur/Th/Pb
|
| Moon
Rocks 31 |
Unknown |
4.6
b.--8.2 b. yrs
|
Ur/Pb
|
| Moon
Rocks 32 |
Unknown |
2.3
-- 3.76 b. yrs
|
K/Ar
|
| Moon
Rock (breccia) 33 |
Unknown |
123.8
-- 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.
Copyright, 2006 Randy
S. Berg; No part of this paper may be reproduced, used, or sold for
profit without
the express written consent of the author. Copies may be distributed
freely for educational purposes only.
Home
|