|
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 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
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: 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.
Dr. Plaisted, and many other
scientists like him have also come to a similar conclusion. For example,
in his paper on this subject
he stated that:
"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 this article available
in the hopes that it will enlighten others who are considering these
questions...." 34
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.
Copyright, 2006, 2013,
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.
References
Home
|