Are there problems with radiometric dating

Are there problems with radiometric dating

It is an accurate way to date specific geologic events. This is an enormous branch of geochemistry called Geochronology. There are many radiometric clocks and when applied to appropriate materials, the dating can be very accurate. As one example, the first minerals to crystallize condense from the hot cloud of gasses that surrounded the Sun as it first became a star have been dated to plus or minus 2 million years!! That is pretty accurate!!!

Problems with radioactive dating

Understanding the Uncertainties, a presentation by Dr Justin Payne. Kevin Rogers submitted a comment to that article reproduced below, edited to focus on substantive issues , to which Dr Jim Mason replies. Andrew Kulikovsky spoke on one occasion and John Hartnett spoke on 2 occasions. However, we are a house divided. It can be experimentally confirmed that molten Zircon rejects lead.

This is highly significant, as it means that the initial conditions are known to a high level of confidence. U decay, U decay and the lead isotope ratio. Jim Mason made no reference to the Concordia line and I could not find any reference to the Concordia line on any articles on the CMI website, even though it is well known e. Jim raised the issue of Helium concentrations in Zircon.

This is interesting, but it was not discussed at the meeting and I do not know how Justin would respond. Justin is not a Christian but does not particularly seem anti-Christian either. He was invited to our meeting as a guest speaker solely for his expertise on radioactive dating. Justin has practical experience in U-Pb dating. He often goes on field trials dating rocks in various regions of the Australian outback.

He has equipment at the University of Adelaide and does the dating analysis himself. Thus he has the knowledge of an experienced practitioner and is not just an armchair theoretician. My comment about the inclusion of uranium and exclusion of lead during the formation of zircon crystals was just a repeat of an assertion made by Dr Payne.

Not being a chemist, a mineralogist or a metallurgist, I have no reason to dispute this claim and, hence, did not include any further discussion. I would note, however, that the efficiency of the exclusion was not mentioned i. Nor was there discussion about how well the experimental conditions that have been mentioned would have represented the situation within crystallizing magmas. Uniformitarians assume magmas crystallized slowly over millions of years under conditions of thermodynamic equilibrium.

However, the biblical scenario suggests magmas crystallized quickly, and anticipates non-equilibrium conditions, and this would affect the way lead would have been incorporated in the zircon crystals. Geologists now recognize that granites formed very rapidly , which is consistent with the biblical scenario. I did not discuss this technique because it seems a pretty straightforward combination of various parent-daughter relationships.

The Wikipedia article that you reference would seem to confirm this. However, this only works if there is one metamorphic event. If there is more than one metamorphic event, and for almost every situation there would be many, the intersection of the line with the Concordia is meaningless. To make such a claim, one would need to know independently and unarguably just what the age of the Earth actually is.

I submit that there is no such independently and unarguably known age—unless one is prepared to accept the age that is derived from the Bible, that was provided to us by God, an eyewitness, and some reliable scribes. In any event, a discussion of the Concordia technique would have been peripheral to the point that I was trying to make. So at least one of them—and perhaps both—is incorrect. It is not possible to choose between them based on the measurements themselves.

Consequently, it seems reasonable to conclude that the 6, year determination is correct—or, at least, closer to the truth than the 1. That, of course, leads to the conclusion that at some point in the past there was a period of accelerated nuclear decay. Of course, I said all this in the article, so I apologize for repeating myself. I have done this in order to relate back to the Concordia technique. The graphs of U abundance that I presented in the article for these two situations illustrate that the isotopic abundances in the present indeed at any point after the accelerated decay period would be identical.

Of course, the isotopic abundances of decay products, especially lead, would follow a 1 — U curve. As with the U, the abundance of lead in the present for the two situations would be identical. Each point on the uniformitarian curve has an identical point on the accelerated decay curve. At this point, the Pb-U ratio is identical to that for the uniformitarian curve.

However, the translation of this into an elapsed time from time zero is different because of the different assumptions used to effect the translation. In the case of the Concordia technique, which uses two U-Pb decay chains, since the two decay chains start and end with the same elements and both are dominated by alpha decays, it is reasonable to assume that both would be affected in the same relative manner by any mechanism that accelerated the decay rate.

Consequently, for any particular crystal, we would see the same result on the diagram. Just as I would assume that he would not question the credentials or competence of Dr Snelling, whose work he criticized in the presentation, nor any of the other scientists who did the RATE research. Dr Payne did make that one factual error about fission tracks that I felt should be corrected to avoid possibly confusing others. Nor did I assume that he had a particular axe to grind. However, he undoubtedly has a set of presuppositions and assumptions that he brings to his analysis of data in his U-Pb dating.

While three of these assumptions were explicitly dealt with in his talk and my response, there are others of which he may not even be consciously aware and that have, perhaps, a more profound impact on his analysis of data and his conclusions. One of these is the philosophy of naturalism, the impact of which I discussed in my article. Another is the assumption of uniformitarianism—in particular the assumption of uniformity of rate across time and space.

Consequently, any explanation of the evidence that uses a global flood is automatically ruled out—no matter how well the explanation actually fits the data. In fact, as a secular geologist, he is not allowed to entertain the possibility of a global flood. It is analogous to allowing only right-hand turns during a trip. Such exclusion is not because left-hand turns do not exist, because they do and, in fact, may provide the shortest—or even the only—route to the destination.

This, it seems to me, is what has happened in the scientific culture. Explanations have been limited to natural processes, even though we know, as I pointed out in the article, natural process cannot provide the correct explanation for the origin of the Boeing Similarly, in geology, explanations have been limited by uniformitarianism, although now with the occasional introduction of a spatially and temporally isolated catastrophe. However, consideration of a global catastrophe is explicitly excluded—notwithstanding the fact that it might provide a comprehensive and coherent explanation of the observed data.

Certainly Nicolas Steno, one of the pioneers of geology, thought so. There are two basic starting points:. Many people think, and this is the important point, that they can prove which worldview is correct simply by looking at the scientific evidence, such as radiometric dating. However, it is not quite that straightforward. They need to be interpreted and this interpretation needs an interpretive framework that, in turn, will depend on presuppositions.

Two of these interpretative frameworks are identified above along with their presuppositions. However, people, in general, have not been taught how to distinguish between scientific evidence i. In the case of radiometric dating, the evidence consists of the relative isotopic abundances in a sample, measured today, using devices such as Accelerator Mass Spectrometers. However, the interpretation of these measurements, i.

In the case of palaeontology, say, the evidence is the fossil and the rock layer in which the fossil was found. The assignment of an age to the fossil is an interpretation based on the rock layer in which it was found, which, in turn, is based on the presuppositions of uniformitarian geology and naturalism. Yet, when people hear the newscast about the latest find of a fossil said, for example, to be some million years old, how many of them understand that the asserted age is not a scientific fact but just speculation?

As I noted in the original article , this is akin to what a jury does in a criminal trial, especially when there was no eyewitness to the crime. The jury looks at the evidence and assesses which of the two interpretations of the evidence the one given by the prosecution or the one given by the defence provides the most comprehensive and coherent explanation of the evidence and, therefore which underlying presupposition is correct, i. On the other hand, the explanation based on a biblical worldview, is comprehensive, coherent and robust.

On the other hand the paleontological evidence is quite consistent with a biblical worldview. But this evidence is consistent with the biblical worldview without the need to resort to such rescue devices. When this assessment of the scientific evidence, which attests to the veracity of the Old Testament, and Genesis 1—11 in particular, as accurate history, is combined with an archeological and historical assessment of the New Testament such as described in The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and Cold Case Christianity by J.

Warner Wallace, all of which attest to the veracity of the Gospel accounts as accurate history, then it seems to me, there is clear and compelling evidence that the biblical worldview is correct. And unlike the decision about which clothes to wear or which car to buy, the decision about which worldview is correct has eternal significance. I appreciate the opportunity to have been able to participate in that. We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith.

But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control. Related Articles Geochronology: Understanding the Uncertainties Granite formation: How long were the days of Genesis 1? References and notes Kusiak, M. Return to text. Uranium-lead dating, en. Dewey, C. Uniformitarianism, en. Helpful Resources. Hubble, Bubble: Big Bang in Trouble.

Video DVD. One Small Speck to Man, 2nd edition. Soft cover. The Creation Answers Book. Evolution's Achilles' Heels.

Once you understand the basic science of radiometric dating, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates. Other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems have developed and used dating techniques to solve scientific problems are.

Understanding the Uncertainties, a presentation by Dr Justin Payne. Kevin Rogers submitted a comment to that article reproduced below, edited to focus on substantive issues , to which Dr Jim Mason replies. Andrew Kulikovsky spoke on one occasion and John Hartnett spoke on 2 occasions. However, we are a house divided.

Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old.

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.

Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating

Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life. Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds for example, Arndts and Overn ; Gill but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws see Dalrymple ; York and Dalrymple Other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems to yield incorrect results. In most instances, these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze for example, Woodmorappe ; Morris HM ; Morris JD Only rarely does a creationist actually find an incorrect radiometric result Austin ; Rugg and Austin that has not already been revealed and discussed in the scientific literature. The creationist approach of focusing on examples where radiometric dating yields incorrect results is a curious one for two reasons.

Radiometric Dating Does Work!

Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers. To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava properly called magma before it erupts fills large underground chambers called magma chambers. Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios. Such processes can cause the daughter product to be enriched relative to the parent, which would make the rock look older, or cause the parent to be enriched relative to the daughter, which would make the rock look younger. This calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into serious question. Geologists assert that older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older. But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column, which is open to question, this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later. Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Re - Radiometric Dating Debunked in 3 Minutes
Related publications