Radio-isotope Dating; Questions and Answers

  

 Quotes from Scientific Journals

  

(see ;https://notmanynoble.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/researchers-at-asu-demonstrate-the-foundational-assumption-of-radio-metric-dating-is-flaweddecay-rates-are-not-constant/ 

  

 

 

 Are Radio-isotope Rock Dates Real or Hypothetical?

“There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio decay rates are not as constant as thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences…and events that brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather within the age and memory of man.” Jueneman, Industrial Research and Development, ‘82,  p .21

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute daring methods they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable radiological clock.”  Stansfield Phd. The Science of Evolution,  p 84

“No relevant geophysical or paleontological data are free of compromising assumptions and technical difficulties. Agreement among three independent lines of data does not add reliability to the conclusion.” Olsen, et al, American Journal of Science, 282: 1-44 1982

Has over emphasis of radiometric dating become common in school?

“Subjective and, in many instances, incorrect use of radiometric data has become endemic in the earth science literature. Mathematical analysis of imperfect and in many cases, highly subjective data sets leads to dubious conclusions.” Baski, Geology, 15:147-150,1990, p.95

Is it obvious when a rock sample has been contaminated?

“It is self-evident that a contaminated sample will give an erroneous date, but it is frequently impossible to ascertain if a sample has indeed been contaminated.” Bradely, Quaternary Paleoclimatology, 1985, p.54

Surely the uranium to lead method is reliable?

“The U-pb and Rb-Sr systems are known to be highly susceptible to resetting by hydrothermal. digenetic and metamorphic processes. Toulkeridis et al. 1998, p. 138

But we must know the “absolute age” of some rocks?

The accuracy of any age can only be guessed at in that we do not know the true age of any geological sample.” Nature, June 16,1977, 267,649


The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.” Rourke, American Journal of Science, vol. 276, Jan. 1976, p.47

Has the age of the Earth been proven?

“It is widely believed that studies of lead isotopes in terrestrial samples provide a well determined age of the Earth (for an excellent review see Dalrymple, 1991.) We show this to be incorrect, even though a roughly accurate answer is sometimes obtained, but is not necessarily at all related to the formation of the Earth,” Harper and Jacobsen, 1996, pp. 113 l-32,Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, (emphasis added)

What are the chances of a rock system remaining free from environmental influences?

“Thirdly, to obtain the age of formation of a rock or mineral, the material must have remained a closed chemical system since it’s formation…unfortunately, geological environments and materials do not often meet this requirement.” Durrance, 1986, Radio Activity in Geology, p.287

“…the assumption that during the whole life of the rock volume being analyzed, neither the radio-active element nor it’s decay products have moved into or out of this volume is practically unlikely to be realized in nature at all or, if it is, it occurs only in exceptional cases.” Skobelin 1990 p.25, Sharapov, Bugayov, in Bartokyriakidis p. 17-37 “Deliberations of state and ways of perestroika in Geology”.

How has radio-metric dating fared when compared with rocks of known dates?

Mt.Saint Helens gave dates from 50,000 to 2.8 million years. (1980 eruption)

  

Mt. Etna basalt known to be 26 years old gave dates of 350,000 my

 

Kilauea Iki basalt, 110 years old gave an age of 8.5 million.

 

Many more samples could be given.

 

Almost without exception, when recently formed rocks are dated by radioactive techniques, they give “ages” hundreds of times older than the actual age of the rocks. How then can radio-metric dating be trusted to date rocks of unknown ages, particularly when the great ages they usually give are contradicted by such physical evidences of a young Earth as sea floor sediments, erosion rates of the continents, etc.?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s