The Faith of Radiometric Dating

Radioactive dating

Certainly the majority of scientists accept radiometric dating. And using radioactive dating and samples of earth android, there is really no scientific reason proving that radiometric dating is correct, and a number of evidences showing that it doesn't work. We'll discuss several of these. We'll find that faith in materialism, and rejection of any supernatural activity, is the foundation stone of radiometric analysis, even before any measurements are made.

Most people, even the experts in the field, forget the assumptions on which radiometric dating is based. Radioactive Dating There are basically two different kinds of radioactive dating methods. One is the Carbon system used for dating fragments of once-living organisms. It's never used for non-organic samples, and almost never even attempted if the sample is thought to be much older than about 50, years.

It furnishes some good using radioactive dating and samples of earth android that creationists often use. But using radioactive dating and samples of earth android won't discuss the C method in this article. The second broad category is sometimes called "heavy-metal dating," and includes Uranium-Thorium-Lead, Rubidium-Strontium, and Potassium- Argon systems. These are the methods that are commonly used on inorganic samples such as rocks, and that often give extremely long ages-millions or billions of years.

Evolutionists often describe these methods as proving the ancient age of the earth and its strata. Creationists often criticize the methods as giving totally false results. All of these dating methods begin with some radioactive isotope such as U, U, Th, K, or Rb These are called the "mother" isotopes. These elements are naturally radioactive, that is, they spontaneously emit an alpha or a beta particle and, as a result, are transformed into some different element, called the "daughter" isotopes.

For those who would like more details, these systems are briefly described in the boxes on app dating tinder following pages. Nontechnical readers can skip the box-figures, however, best swiss dating websites losing much. Experimental Errors The methods that give ancient ages produce almost as many "wrong" answers as "right" ones.

The "correct" answer is chosen on the basis of stratigraphic sequences, that is, what kinds of fossils are buried nearby. Of course, the fossil dates depend on the assumption of evolution. And, of course, the public doesn't usually hear of these wrong answers. This statement - that radiometric dates are "corrected" by reference to evolution-based index fossils - is hotly contested, but examination of the technical literature shows that it is true, in spite of what elementary textbooks say.

Let's look at a number of examples. Documented Discrepancies The general public believes that radiometric results are consistent and thus demonstrably reliable. But the technical literature shows otherwise. John Woodmorappe did an extensive literature search, looking at technical articles from 54 reputable geochronology and geology journals. In almost every case of a discrepancy, the fossil dates were accepted as correct. The radiometric dates were discarded.

Woodmorappe quoted one researcher as saying: In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained. Reasons given usually involved detrital intrusion, leakage or leaching of some of the isotopes in the sample, and sometimes the initial isotopic content of the sample. For K-Ar dates, it's easy to blame argon loss if the reported age is too short, or argon absorption if it's too long.

It is well known that argon, which is a gas, diffuses easily through rock, and there is no way of knowing whether that may have happened in any given case. Errors are particularly bad with the K-Ar potassium-argon method. Studies have been made of submarine basalt rocks of known recent age near Hawaii. These came from the Kilauea volcano. The results ranged up to 22, years. It is now well known that K-Ar ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant.

Yet it was found beneath a layer of the volcanic KBS Tuff that had an accepted radiometric date of 2. Leakey declared that the skull was 2. Marvin Lubenow gives a good description of the ten years of controversy surrounding the dating of this skull. Because mammal bones had been found below this stratum, they said these dates were obviously in error because of "the possible presence of extraneous argon derived from inclusions of pre-existing rocks.

Curtis, analyzed several KBS pumice rocks and found some that were around 1. Other measurements, some as low as 0. These were explained as possible overprinting by an alkaline-rich hot water infusion. Between and several teams made a number of radiometric measurements, and the results clustered around three ages Each team criticized the others' techniques of rock sample selection. Most radiometric using radioactive dating and samples of earth android were said to favor the 2. And final agreement came only after paleontologists had agreed on fossil correlations involving two species of extinct pigs.

The final accepted date for the skull was 1. Commenting on this method of selecting rock samples for radiometric dating, Lubenow asks: The question arises, "How does one know when one has good samples for dating? However, the Institute for Creation Research is now in the early phases of getting such proof for igneous rock. The Grand Canyon has many different rock strata and types. Everyone agrees that the Precambrian metamorphic rocks buried deep below the Canyon floor must be the oldest.

These include the Trinity Gneiss, Elves Chasm Gneiss, and the Zoroaster Granite. Everyone also agrees that the Quaternary lava flow on the Uinkaret Plateau is probably the youngest igneous deposit there. This came from a volcano, after all of the beds of sedimentary strata were laid down, and after the canyon was eroded. The lava flowed over the rim, and down the sides of the already eroded canyon.

Most conventional geologists believe that the deep gneisses and granites are more than million years old, probably closer to 2, million years, and that the age of the Uinkaret Plateau basaltic lava flow should be measured in just thousands of years, because it's obviously younger than the sedimentary strata of the upper canyon walls.

Carbon-14 Radioactive Dating Worked Example