Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Palaentology » Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods

Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin
Many limiting factor methods demonstrate the earth is quite young. By themselves, the geologic strata and deformed strata of mountains do it. They prove not only the flood, but that the entire planet is YOUNG. So much for your dating method assumoptions.
 
Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:
 
1.  The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2.  The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3.  The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.
 
 
There are three possible explanations for discordant isotope dates.
 
1. There may be a mixing of isotopes between the volcanic flow and the rock body into which the lava intrudes.
    There are ways to determine if this has occurred and can be eliminated as a possible explanation.
2. Some of the minerals may have solidified at different times. However, there is no evidence that lava cools and
    solidifies in the same place at such an incredibly slow pace. Therefore this explanation can be eliminated.
3. The decay rates have been different in the past than they are today. The following section will show that this
     provides the best explanation for the discordant ages.
 
“oversight in a radioisotope dating technique used to date everything from meteorites to geologic samples,” which means that “scientists have likely overestimated the ages of many samples.” Robert B. Hayes, “Some Mathematical and Geophysical Considerations in Radioisotope Dating Applications,” Nuclear Technology 197 (2017): 209-218,
 
"Whatever the figures arrived at by the dating tests, they are weeded out before publication in scientific journals, if they do not accord with the preconceived dates assigned to the evolutionary geological column." - E.H. Andrews, Professor of Materials, University of London, and Head of the Department of Materials at Queen Mary College, in book, God, Science and Evolution
 
"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." - Richard L. Mauger, Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, K-Ar Ages of Biotites From Tuffs in Eocene Rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol.15-1, 1977, p.37
 
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." - J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48
 
Wrong dates are usually caused by assuming a wrong initial 14C/12C ratio, contamination or leaching. Samples from before the Flood, or from the early post-Flood period, give ages that are too old by tens of thousands of years. This is because the Flood buried lots of 12C-rich plants and animals. This would result in a lower 14C/12C ratio, which is wrongly interpreted as great age.
 
In one specific case, samples were taken from the Cardenas Basalt, which is among the oldest strata in the eastern Grand Canyon. Next, samples from the western Canyon basalt lava flows, which are among the youngest formations in the canyon, were analyzed. Using the rubidium-strontium isochron dating method, an age of 1.11 billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a date of 1.14 billion years to the youngest lava flows. The youngest rocks gave a billion year age the same as the oldest rocks!
 
Lead Isotope Paradox - well-known problem of volcanic material from eruptions known to have occured in history which give long ages
 
"In our three article series on radiometric dating, we discuss in depth the assumptions that scientists must make. For example, it has to be assumed that all the daughter isotopes found in rocks today have been derived by radioactive decay of the parent isotopes. It also has to be assumed that the rate of decay of the parent isotopes in the past has occurred constantly at the same rates measured today. There is absolutely no way any scientist can know whether these two assumptions are correct, because the evidence only exists today in the present, and we can’t go back to test the past millions of years and check that the rates of radioactive decay were the same then as they are now." - Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, geologist, on December 30, 2011   https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-and-proof/
 
According to Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling, the Cardenas Basalt Lavas have been dated with different methods and vastly different ages were produced:  Potassium-Argon: 516 MY, Rubidium-Strontium: 1,111 MY, Samarium-Neodynium: 1,588 MY
 
The 1986 dacite flow on Mount St Helens has been Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dated as 350K YA. Mt Ngauruhoe has erupted several times in the past 50 years. Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old, which is a 1,000,000% error.
 
The Unikaret lava flows at the bottom of the Grand Canyon has been radiometrically dated as 10,000 YA, 117 MYA, 715 MYA, 853 MYA, 1.1 BYA, 1.39 BYA, 2.6 BYA.
 
"Although some scientists using carbon-14 will propose dates extending back 50,000 years, Dr George Howe acknowledges that "the men who know the limits of the method, the men who run the tests, would report that they cannot date with accuracy beyond 3,000 years." - George Howe, Carbon 14 and Other Radio-Active Dating Methods, p.11
 
the Cardenas Basalt under the Grand Canoyon gives similar dates as the Unikaret Lava Flow which flowed from above the canyon to it's bottom and once blocked the flow of the Colorado River in the canyon.
 
Australia’s “Burning Mountain” speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system. According to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible.
 
"Geochron Laboratories will return samples to clients if they give a date above 3,000 years, with comments that they are above the age that can be accurately dated."  - George Howe, University of California Santa Barbara, Carbon 14 and Other Radio-Active Dating Methods, p.11
 
The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005
 
Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).
 
Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes, Creation28(2):46–50, 2006.
 
Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical “young” earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.
 
Contamination is likely:
 
Uranium in Well Water "Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive metal that occurs in low concentrations in nature. It is present in certain types of soils and rocks, especially granites."

"Naturally occurring uranium in groundwater is a result of the dissolution of uranium bearing minerals that have been in contact with groundwater for long periods of time. Elevated concentrations of natural uranium in well water are more likely to be found in drilled wells that obtain their water from the cracks and fractures of bedrock, rather than dug wells or surface water supplies."
 
"Naturally occurring uranium has very low levels of radioactivity. The chemical properties of uranium in drinking water are of greater health concern than its radioactivity. Most ingested uranium is due to food intake with lesser amounts accumulated from water or from the air. Uranium mostly is rapidly eliminated from the body, however a small amount is absorbed and carried through the blood stream. Studies show that elevated levels of uranium in drinking water can affect the kidneys. Bathing and showering with water that contains uranium is not considered a health concern. There is inadequate data available to evaluate the carcinogenicity of ingested uranium."
http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/waterres/cycle/groundwater/well/uranium.html
 
Lead dissolves in organic acids (in the presence of oxygen) and concentrated (=80%) sulfuric acid thanks to complexation; however, it is only weakly affected by hydrochloric acid and is stable against hydrofluoric acid, as the corresponding halides are weakly soluble. Lead also dissolves in quite concentrated alkalis (=10%) because of the amphoteric character and solubility of plumbites. 11  Polyanskiy 1986, p. 20

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044



Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) Radioisotope Dating Method Problems

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/u-pb-radioisotope-dating-method-problems/

What is so interesting about those zircon crystals is that the same exact crystals which show large amounts of uranium decay also have far too much helium to be millions of years old. Helium diffuses out of zircon crystals faster than it can be produced at normal rates of uranium decay. It should never be able to build up. Yet helium is found at significant concentration in zircons even though we know the rate of diffusion is higher than the rate of production. The most reasonable explanation is that there was a period of rapid radiometric decay that produced so much helium in a short time, that it has not been able to diffuse out of the crystals yet.

Here is more information in an article I wrote, with further sources listed.

https://thecreationclub.com/crystals-and-clocks-evidence.../

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum