User:Jacaf/Dating Methods
QMS: Questioning Mainstream Science
← to QMS index
Evolution – Fact or fantasy? Submission No 3 - Dating Methods
The question to be addressed is regarding Science and the bible. True science will not contradict the bible, but the question which needs to be addressed is whether Evolution is actually true science?
Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates. The use of radiometric dating was first published in 1907 by Bertram Boltwood and is now the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and is used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials.
• The basic idea behind Radiometric dating is that atoms of an unstable isotope, such as Uranium, shed atoms, (subatomic particles) which changes (transmutes) the original isotope in to a different isotope such as Lead. The rate of time for the uranium atoms to change to lead atoms is called the Decay rate. So the uranium atoms reduce as they change to lead and the lead therefore increases. The conclusion is that once the Decay rate is known, then by mathematical formulas which take into account the amount of lead and uranium atoms remaining in the rock, we can calculate the age of the rock. Half life calculations rely on probability, averages, and statistics. Mathematics is a pure science, but it changes to become subjective when probabilities and statistics are introduced to the maths.
Subjective means it is a guess at best or a figure predetermined. This throws the half-life calculations into the realm of subjectivity i.e. they are not necessarily real, when trying to date rocks millions, and sometimes billions of years old.
Below are some of the assumptions connected with Radiometric Dating;
1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there, which we don’t).
2. Decay rates have always been constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
Vernon R. Cupps, PhD, out of his paper titled, “Clocks in Rocks. Radiometric Dating; ”Unfortunately for the secularist, there are serious problems with the uniformitarian view as it is applied to radioactive dating. Recent experimental evidences verify that the decay rates of radioisotopes can vary significantly from the currently accepted values by as much as 109 times faster (that’s 1 billion times faster) when exposed to certain environmental factors. 9, 10, 11 It is particularly interesting that the alpha-decay rates of 228Th are increased by as much as 104 (10,000 times) under conditions which give rise to high pressure waves.” In dealing with the assumption number two above, the conclusion is that it can be out by as much as 1 billion times the amount given – it is totally invalid.
This is without dealing with the first assumption which is impossible to prove and has been proved to be wrong.
Adding to Dr Cupp’s comments is another interesting disproof of radioactive dating. Particle radiation penetrates the earth every now and then (e.g. solar radiation clipped Canada and Ottawa, Canada coronal mass ejection on March 9, 1989 resulting in power voltages jumping from 120 v to 120,000 volts in micro seconds). This would result in very rapid radioactive decay just like living outside the earth's magnetic field. So much particle radiation exists in outer space that fast radioactive decay rapidly occurs there. A man travelling to Mars needs a at least a meter thickness of steel around him to survive the 180 day journey to Mars and back. The trip to the moon only lasted 2 days so they survived. Without a magnetic field around the earth for only a few days would result in all radioactive rocks appearing very old. This has happened many times before there were powerlines etc. It is more than possible that this has happened in the past as well. It is just another nail in the coffin of Radiometric Dating and being able to tell how old rocks, the earth, and artefacts really are by using radiometric dating methods.
While there are a number of dating methods used by scientists, Radiometric Dating IS THE ONLY REAL METHOD SCIENTISTS HAVE OF DATING ROCKS - IF IT IS FOUND TO BE FAULTY, THEN THE WHOLE IDEA FALLS APART. Since the basis of Radio-metric dating has fallen apart, there is no basis for claiming that rocks and objects found in the sediment are millions of years old.
We are slowly showing that evolution is not a science, but an idea based on the imagination of men.
Evolution – Fact or fantasy? Submission No 4 - Radiometric dating (continued) – Bad Dates
The question to be addressed is regarding Science and the bible. True science will not contradict the bible, but the question which needs to be addressed is whether Evolution is actually true science?
Radiometric dating (continued) – Bad Dates. Below is a table which notes when rocks were formed compared to the date set by Radiometric dating. Examples like those listed prove that it is impossible to go backwards in time to date the formation of the rocks;
Radiometric dating – Bad Dates Volcanic eruption When the rock formed Date by (K-Ar) radiometric dating Mt. Etna basalt Sicily 122 B.C. 170,000–330,000 years old Mt. Etna basalt Sicily A.D. 1972 210,000–490,000 years old Mount St. Helens, Washington A.D. 1986 Up to 2.8 million years old Hualalai basalt, Hawaii A.D. 1801 1.32–1.76 million years old Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand A.D. 1954 Up to 3.5 million years old Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii A.D. 1959 1.7–15.3 million years old
Note the last one, in particular. The date given by radiometric dating has a variation of 13.6 million years, out of 15.3 million years. This is about 90% variation. The figures above show the dating method to be totally invalid.
The first assumption is that the starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there, which we don’t).
Going forward using the data from observation is no problem, and can be used quite effectively, but going backwards is a major problem. Let’s look at an example; a businessman takes the current operating figures of his business into his accountant to prepare a Profit and Loss Statement. The Profit and Loss Statement reflects the current operations of the business. That client then asks for the accountant to prepare a Business Plan with Budget projections, for the next three years. The projections are based on current operating information, and an assumption has to be made as to whether the business is assumed to perform at the same level or, in many cases, at an expected higher rate of return. The budget is then able to be measured against real life as each period unfolds. The budget will then be easily able to be seen as correct or not correct as time unfolds. This is all well and good, but now let us try to ascertain what the business was like 50 years ago. We can include the economic climate at the time of 50 years ago, and we can also factor in how similar businesses were performing 50 years ago, but can we then reliably determine how that business was performing 50 years ago, and the answer is NO, as the business may not have even been operating 50 years ago. Going forward is no problem, but going backward renders the method totally invalid.
