Radiometric Dating. Photo Gallery of Dating errors. Scientific Essay by David A. Plaisted "Proof of the pudding There are circumstances that provide opportunities for testing. Dinosaurs which are supposed have lived at least 60 million years ago, should not yield dates of thousands of years.
Let us explain. Consider Mount St Helens: This volcano erupted in the s, giving scientists the opportunity to date the rocks that were formed from the eruption. The results? Five different ages, all betweenand 2. It sounds like pretty powerful evidence when you first hear about it, but the obvious question that needs to be asked is: How trustworthy is the science behind these findings?
It turns out that this research is deeply flawed. Kevin R. Henke published a devastating critique of this research on the aptly-named NoAnswersInGenesis. One crucial mistake that these creationists made was using the wrong equipment to date their sample. As Henke writes. With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples.
That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples.
Radioactive Dating, Accurate or Not?
For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Because all but one of the dates [measured by Austin et al]. Henke points out that:.
Austin's descriptions in the following statements clearly indicate that he FAILED to adequately separate the phenocrysts and possible xenocrysts from the volcanic glass. Austin admits:. So as we can see, there's no good reason to believe that this Mount St Helens rock-age data proves anything more than the incompetency of creationist researchers. I think I actually have an idea of what went wrong here: these creationists, at the outset of their study, had a very good plan in place for how to conduct rigorous analysis on this question; in the course of their research, however, they ended up dropping this plan into the volcanoso they just said "Fuck it" and decided to wing it from that point on.
More examples of similar such discrepancies are cited in a lecture given by creationist Andrew Snelling. During his lecture, he shows this slide which features five examples of the known ages of rocks not matching up with the dated ages of rocks. Notice that four of the examples show a radiometric age of less than half a million years with the fifth example showing an age of about 1.
These dates are perfectly in line with the dates we saw in the Mount St Helens study; so perhaps the explanation is, yet again, residual equipment contamination, or foreign rock intrusion? Rather than the dating techniques being flawed, perhaps it's this research that's flawed? Snelling says the following in his lecture :.
The answer is we can't. Or maybe we can if we simply use the correct equipment and remove foreign particles from the sample to minimize contamination? And recall that, as Henke pointed out, this problem of equipment contamination is unique to younger rocks; if we're dealing with rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old, the trace amounts of leftover argon adding a million years or so to the sample is going to have only the tiniest effect on the dated age of the rock.
Let's say the rock is million years old and the trace argon makes it appear million years old; relatively speaking, on a geological timescale, this difference is so minor as to be virtually inconsequential. By the way, I love the potted plants that Snelling has on stage in front of him. I don't know why, but I kinda like it.
It really livens the place up. And why just stop at plants, while we're at it? Why not have a tortoise or a cockatoo just sort of hanging out on stage with you when you give your lecture? This is the future of public speaking, ladies and gentlemen. The model K-Ar ages for each of the samples ranged from Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should all be the same age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model ages ranging from So basically, samples from one section of rock yielded wildly divergent results.
Greg Neyman of Old Earth Ministries-a Christian organization, I might add-points out the very simple problem underlying this study:. So, what do the [creationist researchers do?
Shoulders why is radiometric dating unreliable what
So what the creationist is doing here is misapplying these dating techniques and then saying: "See! I told you we couldn't trust these dating techniques. I told you this stuff doesn't get you high. Try tearing out a page from your Bible and rolling a joint with that shit, and then come and talk to me. Creationists will also point to examples where freshly killed animals are carbon-dated as being thousands of years old-thus, we're told, these dating methods cannot be trusted.
For example, we read on CreationToday. A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1, years ago. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well.
Carbon from these sources is very low in C because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C What about the freshly killed seal?
As Talk Origins writes.
Why is radiometric dating unreliable
The seals feed off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone. The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the [ocean] bottom for a few thousand years before surfacing.
The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank. Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years 'old' from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time. Once again, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this discrepancy, and this doesn't justify a wholesale dismissal of radiometric dating.
Notice a pattern here? Now you might be saying at this point: If we can't use these dating methods on certain types of rock or animal, it seems to me that they're just not trustworthy.
Would you why is radiometric dating unreliable apologise, but, opinion
Understand that nobody is saying radiometric dating works perfectly in every conceivable set of circumstances; as with almost every tool in science, there are certain limitations to radiometric dating-and nobody understands these limitations better than the scientists who use these dating techniques.
As they write on Talk Origins. By analogy, diagnostic tools in medicine will sometimes generate false positives, where the test results inaccurately indicate that a person has a disease that they don't actually have.
This doesn't therefore make these tools completely worthless; it just means that sometimes, they get it wrong-but when properly applied, the techniques will give us the correct answer the vast majority of the time.
The next example is much more tantalizing because it purportedly shows two wildly divergent dates taken from the exact same animal. What could possibly explain this? Eric Hovind, writing for CreationToday. One problem with this quote: It doesn't appear to actually exist-much like God, I might add!
These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. 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. Someone may ask, 'Why do geologists still use radiometric dating? Wouldn't they have abandoned the method long ago if it was so unreliable?' Just because the calculated results are not the true ages does not mean that the method is completely useless. The dates calculated are based on the isotopic composition of the rock. The Unreliability of Radiometric Dating. The thesis of this article is that radiometric dating is entirely unreliable. This dating process requires at least five uteknoderas.comovable assumptions: 1. We know the starting and ending numbers. 2. The rate has remained the same. 3. The system has remained closed. 4.
Nowhere does the cited study appear to contain this particular sentence. This means that the direct quote given. Secondly, none of the radiocarbon dates for mammoths given in that table are 44, or 29, So not only is the quote a fabrication but the information contained in it is too.
Clearly, it is important to have a good understanding of these processes in order to evaluate the reliability of radiometric dating. Another quotation about fractionation follows: Faure discusses fractional crystallization relating to U and Th in his book (p. ) He says, "The abundances of U and Th in chondritic meteorites are 1 x 10^-2 and 4. Indeed, there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we have the following requirements: For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled: 1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately. 2. There must have been no incorporation of. Young-earth creationists believe, on the basis of what they read in the Bible, that the Earth is 6, years old; this is the core reason that they try to undermine the validity of radiometric dating and this is why they go to the absurd length of positing accelerated rates of radiometric decay.
How wrong can a single sentence be? As we can see here in the table from the studythe two references to mammoths provide one date of 32, years for the first one, and 21, years for the other.
There is no indication whatsoever that these two dates are referring to the same mammoth; in fact, quite the opposite is the case. One is referred to as a baby mammoth, while the other is simply referred to as a mammoth; one is described as being potentially contaminated by glycerine, while the other is not.
On top of that, the two samples were collected years apart! And note that these dates are presented in this table on page 30 of the study-the specific page referenced by Eric Hovind as the source of this quote-so what is going on here? Did somebody along the line misread this study, misrepresent its findings, and has this inaccuracy just been passed along from creationist to creationist like a game of telephone?
Why is a person as prominent as Eric Hovind not making sure that his references actually support what he claims they do? Perhaps he's just too busy polluting the internet with his mental diarrhea to do a bit of research and reading?
Arguably the magnum opus of creationist efforts to refute radiometric dating is what's known as the RATE project, short for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. Among their many vaunted "findings" are the following, described on AnswersInGenesis. Creation scientists suggest that there are two possible times that God supernaturally intervened on a global scale-during Creation Week and the Flood. It is not unreasonable to assume that God used the energy of accelerated radioactive decay to initiate and drive the major geologic changes in the earth that accompanied the Flood.
This is some of the most unreasonable shit I've ever heard!
Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. Creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate. Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate Perhaps a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is. Oct 01, The reliability of radiometric dating is subject to three uteknoderas.comovable assumptions that every geologist must make when using the radioactive "clock". Radioactive rocks offer a similar "clock." Radioactive atoms, such as uranium (the parent isotopes), decay into stable atoms, such as lead (the daughter isotopes), at a measurable rate.
Even from a religious standpoint this makes no sense: What does this say about the idea of a perfect God with a perfect creation plan? What was wrong with his original decay rate? Why did he not create it right the first time around?
Did he just screw up and suddenly realize, 2, years in: "Ahh, fuck! I knew I was forgetting something! Why the second-guessing of himself? Why even bother with changing the decay rate-and why change it in such a way that creates the perfect misimpression that the earth and universe is much older than it actually is?
What could this be if not a massive campaign of deliberate, divine misinformation? And let's be clear about something: The only reason they're positing accelerated rates of decay is to try to square their holy book with the world around them. Young-earth creationists believe, on the basis of what they read in the Bible, that the Earth is 6, years old; this is the core reason that they try to undermine the validity of radiometric dating and this is why they go to the absurd length of positing accelerated rates of radiometric decay.
They see the contradiction and conclude that the radiometric dating methods must be the problem-not their holy book-and they have this completely backwards.
Opinion why is radiometric dating unreliable above understanding!
Answers In Genesis writes that:. This is a pretty obvious case of trying to torture and contort the data into agreeing with your preconceived conclusions-as opposed to simply basing your conclusions off of whatever it is that the evidence shows.
The special pleading in such claims is glaring. Why on Earth should the laws of physics change, just like that, so massively and so conveniently? And it glares even more when you have to make mutually adjusted special pleading claims for each one of the clocks separately.
Source: p. Even if we humor the creationist and imagine that something like this happened, more problems immediately dogpile onto the heap of stupidity before us. Jeff Zweerink outlines one of these problems on Reasons. How did Noah and his passengers survive a year in which radioactivity was one million times greater than it is today?
No known solution exists, they state. In the absence of the Biblical creation story, no sane scientist would even consider such an idea.
Something why is radiometric dating unreliable are
But let's give the creationists some credit here: it's not all just fanciful speculation they're engaged in. In fact, the RATE group claims to have scientific support for their views on accelerated decay rates, and at the very least, we can say this is a step up for creationists, because their usual research methodology consists of little more than reading the Bible and lamenting about sin.
One piece of evidence cited is the detection of ancient carbon The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late 's.
It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field.
In the following article, some of the most common misunderstandings regarding radiocarbon dating are addressed, and corrective, up-to-date scientific creationist thought is provided where appropriate. The presence of measurable radiocarbon in fossil wood supposedly tens and hundreds of millions of years old has been well-documented. Skip to main content. Recent research surprises those who study coral reefs, especially those who assume that they grow slowly.
Which is more trustworthy: carbon dating or reliable eyewitnesses? In this episode, Dr. Jim Johnson investigates What About Radioisotope Clocks? But ICR scientists have carefully examined their claims and found flaws and holes The presence of carbon C in specimens that are supposedly millions of years old is a serious problem for believers in an old earth.
A straightforward reading of the Bible describes a 6,year-old We offered four reasons why radioisotope dating Russell Humphreys reported that helium diffusion from zircons in borehole GT-2 at Fenton Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption Three geologists have reported what they called the first "successful" direct dating of dinosaur bone. Will this new radioisotope dating or radiodating technique solve the problems that plagued older A trio of geologists has published what they called the first successful direct dating of dinosaur bone.
They used a new laser technique to measure radioisotopes in the bone, yielding an age of millions Most estimates For a Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable. They helped underpin belief in vast ages and Radiocarbon in 'Ancient' Fossil Wood.
A Tale of Two Hourglasses. In your kitchen you start a three-minute egg timer and a minute hourglass simultaneously and then leave. You return a short while later to find the hourglass fully discharged but not the egg timer! Confirmation of Rapid Metamorphism of Rocks. Where thick sequences of sedimentary rock layers have been deposited in large basins, the deepest layers at the bottoms of the sequences may subsequently have become folded by earth movements when subjected Deep inside the Inner Gorge of Grand Canyon, northern Arizona, are the crystalline basement rocks that probably date back even to the Creation Week itself.
Clearly visible in the canyon walls are the Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic Two years ago it was reported that polonium Po radiohalos were still "a very tiny mystery. Investigating Polonium Radiohalo Occurrences. Andrew Snelling has undertaken a complete review of the significance of polonium and other