A swimming race illustrates the simple principles involved in measuring time. This swimmer is competing in a 1, metre race and we have an accurate, calibrated wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the edge of the pool our wristwatch reads and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the 1, metre race? Without the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible.
Its results have been shown to be inconsistent, discordant, unreliable, and frequently bizarre in any model. The Dating Gap. Evolution places severe demands upon fossils used to support it. A fossil in an evolutionary sequence must have both the proper morphology shape to fit that sequence and an appropriate date to justify Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating. It is, therefore, not Do analyses of the radioactive isotopes of rocks give reliable estimates of their ages? That is a good question, which ordinarily requires a lengthy and technical answer.
In order to give an initial Radiometric Dating Using Isochrons. Radiometric dating fascinates nearly everyone. Uranium-lead, potassium-argon, and rubidium-strontium are names associated with radiometric dating.
Some Recent Developments Having to do with Time. This paper discusses some recent data, observations, and developments that have significance regarding the age of things. If Earth and the Universe are quite young, the implications are tremendous, Lunar Recession in the News.
The recent discovery of thirty new exoplanets in other solar systems presents another challenge to the most popular secular theory of planet formation. Exocomets: Evidence of Recent Creation. Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time The naming of newly-discovered fossils sometimes involves significant people or prominent associations.
Darwinius masillae was named for British naturalist Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project 1 indicate that "1. Zircon: Earth's Oldest Crystal? Cupps, Ph. You return a short while later to find the Evidence for a Young Earth from the Ocean and Atmosphere.
Because God is a god of beauty According to standard evolutionary models, the earth is supposed to be 4. Geology students memorize the rock system names found on geologic column diagrams, learn age assignments, typical fossils, and the five worldwide animal Best of Sixth Extinction. Chinese Dinosaurs Were Fossilized by Flood. There are actually several isotopes of lead that are produced by different parent substances uraniumuraniumand thorium. One would not expect there to be much difference in the concentration of lead isotopes due to fractionation, since isotopes have properties that are very similar.
So one could argue that any variations in Pb ratios would have to result from radioactive decay. However, the composition of lead isotopes between magma chambers could still differ, and lead could be incorporated into lava as it traveled to the surface from surrounding materials. I also recall reading that geologists assume the initial Pb isotope ratios vary from place to place anyway. Later we will see that mixing of two kinds of magma, with different proportions of lead isotopes, could also lead to differences in concentrations.
Mechanism of uranium crystallization and falling through the magma We now consider in more detail the process of fractionation that can cause uranium to be depleted at the top of magma chambers.
Uranium and thorium have high melting points and as magma cools, these elements crystallize out of solution and fall to the magma chamber's depths and remelt. This process is known as fractional crystallization. What this does is deplete the upper parts of the chamber of uranium and thorium, leaving the radiogenic lead. As this material leaves, that which is first out will be high in lead and low in parent isotopes.
This will date oldest. Magma escaping later will date younger because it is enriched in U and Th.
Congratulate, radioactive dating flaws hope, you
There will be a concordance or agreement in dates obtained by these seemingly very different dating methods.
This mechanism was suggested by Jon Covey. They show clear drawings of crystallized minerals falling through the magma and explain that the crystallized minerals do indeed fall through the magma chamber.
Further, most minerals of uranium and thorium are denser than other minerals, especially when those minerals are in the liquid phase. Crystalline solids tend to be denser than liquids from which they came. But the degree to which they are incorporated in other minerals with high melting points might have a greater influence, since the concentrations of uranium and thorium are so low.
Now another issue is simply the atomic weight of uranium and thorium, which is high. Any compound containing them is also likely to be heavy and sink to the bottom relative to others, even in a liquid form.
If there is significant convection in the magma, this would be minimized, however. At any rate, there will be some effects of this nature that will produce some kinds of changes in concentration of uranium and thorium relative to lead from the top to the bottom of a magma chamber. Some of the patterns that are produced may appear to give valid radiometric dates. Others may not. The latter may be explained away due to various mechanisms. Let us consider processes that could cause uranium and thorium to be incorporated into minerals with a high melting point.
I read that zircons absorb uranium, but not much lead. Thus they are used for U-Pb dating. But many minerals take in a lot of uranium. It is also known that uranium is highly reactive.
To me this suggests that it is eager to give up its 2 outer electrons. This would tend to produce compounds with a high dipole moment, with a positive charge on uranium and a negative charge on the other elements.
This would in turn tend to produce a high melting point, since the atoms would attract one another electrostatically. I'm guessing a little bit here. There are a number of uranium compounds with different melting points, and in general it seems that the ones with the highest melting points are more stable.
I would suppose that in magma, due to reactions, most of the uranium would end up in the most stable compounds with the highest melting points. These would also tend to have high dipole moments. Now, this would also help the uranium to be incorporated into other minerals. The electric charge distribution would create an attraction between the uranium compound and a crystallizing mineral, enabling uranium to be incorporated. But this would be less so for lead, which reacts less strongly, and probably is not incorporated so easily into minerals.
So in the minerals crystallizing at the top of the magma, uranium would be taken in more than lead. These minerals would then fall to the bottom of the magma chamber and thus uranium at the top would be depleted. It doesn't matter if these minerals are relatively lighter than others.
The point is that they are heavier than the magma. Two kinds of magma and implications for radiometric dating It turns out that magma has two sources, ocean plates and material from the continents crustal rock.
This fact has profound implications for radiometric dating. Mantle material is very low in uranium and thorium, having only 0.
The source of magma for volcanic activity is subducted oceanic plates. Subduction means that these plates are pushed under the continents by motions of the earth's crust. While oceanic plates are basaltic mafic originating from the mid-oceanic ridges due to partial melting of mantle rock, the material that is magma is a combination of oceanic plate material and continental sediments.
Subducted oceanic plates begin to melt when they reach depths of about kilometers See Tarbuck, The Earth, p. In other words, mantle is not the direct source of magma.
But they don't discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history. Oct 01, The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks.7 Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive "clock" in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. RADIOMETRIC DATING: FLAWS OF PRESUMPTION Radiometric dating techniques are touted as the final answer to the earth being ancient. However, a closer look reveals that each method is driven by the assumptions of the researcher and can often times equate any date whatsoever. THE ASSUMPTIONS OF A RAPIDLY AGING EARTH.
Further, Faure explains that uraninite UO sub2 is a component of igneous rocks Faure, p. Uraninite is also known as pitchblende.
According to plate tectonic theory, continental crust overrides oceanic crust when these plates collide because the continental crust is less dense than the ocean floor. As the ocean floor sinks, it encounters increasing pressures and temperatures within the crust. Ultimately, the pressures and temperatures are so high that the rocks in the subducted oceanic crust melt. Once the rocks melt, a plume of molten material begins to rise in the crust. As the plume rises it melts and incorporates other crustal rocks.
This rising body of magma is an open system with respect to the surrounding crustal rocks. Volatiles e.
Science Confirms a Young Earth—The Radioactive Dating Methods are Flawed
It is possible that these physical processes have an impact on the determined radiometric age of the rock as it cools and crystallizes. Time is not a direct measurement.
The actual data are the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes present in the sample. Time is one of the values that can be determined from the slope of the line representing the distribution of the isotopes.
Isotope distributions are determined by the chemical and physical factors governing a given magma chamber. Rhyolites in Yellowstone N. Most genetic models for uranium deposits in sandstones in the U.
Most of the uranium deposits in Wyoming are formed from uraniferous groundwaters derived from Precambrian granitic terranes. Uranium in the major uranium deposits in the San Juan basin of New Mexico is believed to have been derived from silicic volcanic ash from Jurassic island arcs at the edge of the continent.
Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating. In beta decay, a neutron turns into a proton by emitting a beta particle, which is an electron (click for credit) As someone who has studied radioactivity in detail, I have always been a bit amused by the assertion that radioactive dating is a precise way to determine the age of an object. Mindspawn March 1, , pm #1. I agree on an old universe, but radiometric dating has some flaws. If the Cambrian Explosion represented creation around years ago, and observed speciation in fossils (within clades) was merely rapid speciation, this would actually fit the fossil record satisfactorily. Rapid speciation being an observed phenomenon occurring primarily via changes to allele frequencies with an occasional beneficial mutation. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods. Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable. Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old.
From the above sources, we see that another factor influencing radiometric dates is the proportion of the magma that comes from subducted oceanic plates and the proportion that comes from crustal rock.
Initially, we would expect most of it to come from subducted oceanic plates, which are uranium and thorium poor and maybe lead rich. Later, more of the crustal rock would be incorporated by melting into the magma, and thus the magma would be richer in uranium and thorium and poorer in lead. So this factor would also make the age appear to become younger with time. There are two kinds of magma, and the crustal material which is enriched in uranium also tends to be lighter.
For our topic on radiometric dating and fractional crystallization, there is nothing that would prevent uranium and thorium ores from crystallizing within the upper, lighter portion of the magma chamber and descending to the lower boundaries of the sialic portion.
The same kind of fractional crystallization would be true of non-granitic melts. I think we can build a strong case for fictitious ages in magmatic rocks as a result of fractional cystallization and geochemical processes.
As we have seen, we cannot ignore geochemical effects while we consider geophysical effects. Sialic granitic and mafic basaltic magma are separated from each other, with uranium and thorium chemically predestined to reside mainly in sialic magma and less in mafic rock. Here is yet another mechanism that can cause trouble for radiometric dating: As lava rises through the crust, it will heat up surrounding rock. Lead has a low melting point, so it will melt early and enter the magma.
This will cause an apparent large age. Uranium has a much higher melting point. It will enter later, probably due to melting of materials in which it is embedded.
Radioactive dating flaws
This will tend to lower the ages. Mechanisms that can create isochrons giving meaningless ages: Geologists attempt to estimate the initial concentration of daughter product by a clever device called an isochron.
Let me make some general comments about isochrons. The idea of isochrons is that one has a parent element, P, a daughter element, D, and another isotope, N, of the daughter that is not generated by decay. One would assume that initially, the concentration of N and D in different locations are proportional, since their chemical properties are very similar.
Note that this assumption implies a thorough mixing and melting of the magma, which would also mix in the parent substances as well. Then we require some process to preferentially concentrate the parent substances in certain places. Radioactive decay would generate a concentration of D proportional to P. By taking enough measurements of the concentrations of P, D, and N, we can solve for c1 and c2, and from c1 we can determine the radiometric age of the sample. Otherwise, the system is degenerate.
Thus we need to have an uneven distribution of D relative to N at the start. If these ratios are observed to obey such a linear relationship in a series of rocks, then an age can be computed from them. The bigger c1 is, the older the rock is. That is, the more daughter product relative to parent product, the greater the age. Thus we have the same general situation as with simiple parent-to-daughter computations, more daughter product implies an older age.
This is a very clever idea. However, there are some problems with it. First, in order to have a meaningful isochron, it is necessary to have an unusual chain of events. Initially, one has to have a uniform ratio of lead isotopes in the magma. Usually the concentration of uranium and thorium varies in different places in rock.
This will, over the assumed millions of years, produce uneven concentrations of lead isotopes. To even this out, one has to have a thorough mixing of the magma.
Even this is problematical, unless the magma is very hot, and no external material enters. Now, after the magma is thoroughly mixed, the uranium and thorium will also be thoroughly mixed. What has to happen next to get an isochron is that the uranium or thorium has to concentrate relative to the lead isotopes, more in some places than others.
So this implies some kind of chemical fractionation. Then the system has to remain closed for a long time. This chemical fractionation will most likely arise by some minerals incorporating more or less uranium or thorium relative to lead.
Anyway, to me it seems unlikely that this chain of events would occur. Another problem with isochrons is that they can occur by mixing and other processes that result in isochrons yielding meaningless ages.
Sometimes, according to Faure, what seems to be an isochron is actually a mixing line, a leftover from differentiation in the magma. Fractionation followed by mixing can create isochrons giving too old ages, without any fractionation of daughter isotopes taking place. To get an isochron with a false age, all you need is 1 too much daughter element, due to some kind of fractionation and 2 mixing of this with something else that fractionated differently. Since fractionation and mixing are so common, we should expect to find isochrons often.
How they correlate with the expected ages of their geologic period is an interesting question. There are at least some outstanding anomalies. Faure states that chemical fractionation produces "fictitious isochrons whose slopes have no time significance.
As an example, he uses Pliocene to Recent lava flows and from lava flows in historical times to illustrate the problem. He says, these flows should have slopes approaching zero less than 1 million yearsbut they instead appear to be much older million years. Steve Austin has found lava rocks on the Uinkeret Plateau at Grand Canyon with fictitious isochrons dating at 1. Then a mixing of A and B will have the same fixed concentration of N everywhere, but the amount of D will be proportional to the amount of P.
This produces an isochron yielding the same age as sample A. This is a reasonable scenario, since N is a non-radiogenic isotope not produced by decay such as lea and it can be assumed to have similar concentrations in many magmas. Magma from the ocean floor has little U and little U and probably little lead byproducts lead and lead Magma from melted continental material probably has more of both U and U and lead and lead Thus we can get an isochron by mixing, that has the age of the younger-looking continental crust.
The age will not even depend on how much crust is incorporated, as long as it is non-zero. However, if the crust is enriched in lead or impoverished in uranium before the mixing, then the age of the isochron will be increased. If the reverse happens before mixing, the age of the isochron will be decreased. Any process that enriches or impoverishes part of the magma in lead or uranium before such a mixing will have a similar effect.
So all of the scenarios given before can also yield spurious isochrons. I hope that this discussion will dispel the idea that there is something magical about isochrons that prevents spurious dates from being obtained by enrichment or depletion of parent or daughter elements as one would expect by common sense reasoning. So all the mechanisms mentioned earlier are capable of producing isochrons with ages that are too old, or that decrease rapidly with time. The conclusion is the same, radiometric dating is in trouble.
I now describe this mixing in more detail.
Clearly radioactive dating flaws consider, that
Suppose P p is the concentration of parent at a point p in a rock. The point p specifies x,y, and z co-ordinates.
Let D p be the concentration of daughter at the point p. Let N p be the concentration of some non-radiogenic not generated by radioactive decay isotope of D at point p. Suppose this rock is obtained by mixing of two other rocks, A and B.
Suppose that A has a for the sake of argument, uniform concentration of P1 of parent, D1 of daughter, and N1 of non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter. Thus P1, D1, and N1 are numbers between 0 and 1 whose sum adds to less than 1.
Though radiocarbon dating is startlingly accurate for the most part, it has a few sizable flaws. The technology uses a series of mathematical calculations-the most recognizable of which is known as half-life-to estimate the age the organism stopped ingesting the isotope. More Bad News for Radiometric Dating. Most scientists today believe that life has existed on the earth forbillions of years. This belief in long ages for the earth and theexistence of life is derived largely from radiometric dating. Theselong time periods are computed by measuring the ratio of daughter toparent substance in a rock and inferring an age based on this ratio. But they omit discussion of the basic flaw in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
Suppose B has concentrations P2, D2, and N2. Let r p be the fraction of A at any given point p in the mixture. So the usual methods for augmenting and depleting parent and daughter substances still work to influence the age of this isochron.
More daughter product means an older age, and less daughter product relative to parent means a younger age. In fact, more is true. Any isochron whatever with a positive age and a constant concentration of N can be constructed by such a mixing. It is only necessary to choose r p and P1, N1, and N2 so as to make P p and D p agree with the observed values, and there is enough freedom to do this. Carbon dating methods rely on many additional assumptions beyond those discussed earlier.
This atmospheric consistency would then result in an equal amount of Carbon in the atmosphere today as when generated in the more distant past. However, this is known not to be the case. The changing atmosphere grossly distorts Carbon productions in the present by greatly increasing production.
The earths magnetic field provides a protective atmosphere which protects the earths surface from harmful solar radiation. Clearly, a weakened magnetic field increases solar penetration which increases Carbon production more in the present then in the past.
Yet calculations for Carbon-Nitrogen radiometric dating rely upon a Carbon constant in the formula. This error causes calculations to erroneously illuminate much older dates for items from the ice age which started with less Carbon from the start causing a seeming result of antiquity. There are many other factors that impact the atmosphere and solar radiation levels including the ozone layer 8the strengthening sun over millions of years 9the assumption that plants has not even evolved until million years ago 10and dry land to oceanic water ratios impact global absorption rates because water absorbs Carbon and dry land does not.
Shockinglythe last two decades has revealed unimaginable materials yet present in in dinosaur fossils thought to be many millions of years old. Discoveries of dinosaur fossils revealed under the microscope soft tissues including red blood cells, skin cells, and Carbon These finding shocked paleontology and raised major questions about the presumed time lines of dinosaurs. As we discussed, Carbon dating has an expected maximum range of about 60, years.
This means after about 60, years the dinosaur fossil would have no Carbon at all because it would have decayed long ago. Therefore, dinosaurs are assumed to have gone extinct more than 65 million years ago, but their fossils contain Carbon which can be no more than 60, years old.
Obviously, both assumptions cannot be correct: at least 65 million years old and less than 60, years old. Of course, as we discussed earlier, scientists discard any data conclusion that does not meet their presumed dates-this is what they do with dinosaur Carbon-they discard it as contamination. Counterintuitively, despite the presence of soft tissues in dinosaur fossils paleontologists continue to refuse to Carbon date samples because they are assumed as being much too old.
A study tested seven dinosaur bones, including a Triceratops from Montana, hadrosaurids, a cartilaginous paddle fish, a bony fish, and fresh-looking wood and lizard bones from Permian layers in Canada and Oklahoma. Five different commercial and academic laboratories detected Carbon in all the samples. The team also compared the results to several dozen published Carbon results for fossils, wood, and coal from all over the world and throughout the geologic column and comparable amounts of radiocarbon showed up in almost 50 total samples.
Fossil wood from a quarry near the town of Banbury, England, was dated using the carbon method. The limestone in which the wood was found was determined to be million years old from the Jurassic period. Such results clarify that it is the dating methods that are in conflict and are erroneous and not the presence of Carbon Rubidium-strontium dating is a method used to estimate the age of rocks, minerals, and meteorites. The Parent unstable isotope Rubidium is presumed to have been present in the rock at the time of its formation.
This Parent decays into the stable isotope Strontium The method is thought to be best used to date rocks including meteorites which are assumed to be incredibly old because the decay rate is extremely slow with a remarkable 48 million-year half-life. The largest unique problem with this dating method outside all the assumptions applied to all radiometric dating methods is the reality that most minerals that contain Rubidium also have preexisting Strontium incorporated into their structure prior to any decay.
This frustrates starting conditions and requires additional assumptions from the researcher. The researchers are left to determine when the mineral was formed and thereby make an arbitrary mathematical correction thought to account for this assumed initial level of strontium in the sample.
Of course, this adjustment, like the presumed formation date, and all the other assumptions, are subjective. Compound these subjective adjustments under the light of an almost unimaginable half-life of 48 billion years and things get messy fast.
Also called an educated guess, speculation, notion, guess, or belief. Clearly, seeing some Daughter element was there from the beginning destroys the accuracy and precision because it is left reliant upon the starting condition assumptions of the researcher.
So the researcher measuring the age of the sample effectively inputs the very age the method was thought to determine. Therefore, the largest weakness for the Rubidium-strontium is this required adjustments of the Daughter element Strontium. The reason is quite technical, but it is based on the idea that the presumed initial portion of the Parent element was assumed to always decays into the stable Daughter element.
Turns out this is not always the case.
The study found that the diffusion rate rate of decay was not constant because it depended on where the sample was found. Samples tested from cracks decayed at measurably different rates than those found in surface areas.
While the differences were small- the massive half-lives made the results exponentially erroneous. Meaning that, there are no reliable assumptions that the researcher could apply that might help Rubidium-strontium be reliable.
The method is hugely flawed. The Potassium-Argon dating method is perhaps the most widely applied technique of radiometric dating used on rocks because lava flows have occurred all around the globe.
The method is used primarily on rocks formed by volcanic activity such as lava, micas, clay minerals, tephra, and evaporites. The Potassium-Argon dating method is calculated by the measurement of the accumulation of Argon in a mineral.
However, when the minerals begin to solidify recrystallize Argon begins to form by the decay of Potassium. Assumptions required for the accuracy of the Potassium-Argon dating technique require a closed system. No potassium contamination was gained nor was potassium washed out. Finally, the assumed Argon in the atmosphere is deducted did not form by decay which is assumed as an all-time constant. First, the assumptions required for accurate calculations reveal a major weaknesses of this method because closed systems are impossible to occur in nature.
Nowhere on earth can any researcher be confident that their sample remained in a closed system-especially for millions and millions of years. Second, Argon exists in our atmosphere outside any decay processes in the sample.
Therefore, Argon levels present in the atmosphere apart from decay process must be adjusted from the math formulas used by the researcher. These adjustments are again based on assumptions of levels as measured in the present.
Water washing away Potassium effectively artificially increases the ratio of Argon in samples by increasing Argon ratios which result in older date calculations.
Sorry, radioactive dating flaws agree, the amusing
This also means that Potassium can be easily transported into surrounding minerals which might cause contamination of other surrounding samples.
Other known errors came from the observed lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, the flow from February 11, was erroneously dated asto 1 million years old; the June 4, date to 3. As an attempt to combat this evidence and save this important dating method, evolutionary geologists have added the caveat that Potassium-Argon dating is not valid early. That is, it has been adjusted assumptively not to be accurate for the first 50, years. Other sites say not valid for the first six thousand years to cover recorded human history and ironically the approximate age of the earth based on biblical young earth creationists.
These carve outs are very suspect and also revealing. They are not based on measurable perimeters of science or math because the Argon is either in the sample or it is not. This cut out is added to resolve all that nasty data that negates all the important work of evolutionary researchers.
This carve out effectively states that any recent volcanic flows as either observed or recorded within human history are too early to calculate by this method. Such flows contain Argon, and they should not, but calculations are either wrong, contaminated, or unintelligible. However, those ancient lava flows, from the assumed distant past are completely reliable and accurate. To get this straight, those lava flows that are factually known give unintelligible results, but those samples collected from antiquity are accurate.
How can we be asked to trust dating methods proven incorrect in the observable present to be correct for ancient lava formations of the distant past? Like all the radiometric dating methods mentioned earlier, Uranium-Lead share many of the same problems associated with assumptions controlled by the researchers.
Opinion radioactive dating flaws agree What necessary
First, a unique problem to this dating method has been revealed in the discovery that Uranium decay rates are actually not constant at all. Turns out that decay rates vary depending on which radioactive isotope are measured from the sample- different rates can be found within the same sample!
Sample that have minor differences such as where they were extricated from the sample amount to massive dating differences. Despite the revelation that different isotopes have different decay rates within the same sample, the ratios are nonetheless presumed to be constant by conventional geologists.
Second, it is widely known that Uranium, like Potassium, is highly water soluble and can be washed out of the sample by contamination.
Lead certainly is not water soluble so this makes the ratios appear artificially older. Compound this with the reality that Uranium-lead has a 4. Massive half-lives make the measurement extremely sensitive. Each assumption made by the researcher greatly impacts the date calculations, giving the researcher latitude to calculate any age desired. RATE demonstrated that radiometric decay rates have not always been constant as measured at the rates observed in the present.
Evidence indicates that decay rates have varied under extremes throughout time. As an example, the mineral zircon. These samples are assumed to be as old as the earth itself: 4. Rate also discovered that these presumed ancient crystals still contained Helium.