You've got two decay products, lead and helium, and they're giving two different ages for the zircon. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques. 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. Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old.
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 For more than three decades potassium-argon K-Ar and argon-argon Ar-Ar dating of rocks has been crucial in underpinning the billions of years for Earth history claimed by evolutionists.
Perhaps no concept in science is as misunderstood as "carbon dating. But, carbon dating can't be used to Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? For decades creation scientists have shown that the answer to this question is a clear NO!
Its results have been shown to be inconsistent, discordant, unreliable, and frequently bizarre in any model. The Dating Gap. Evolution places severe demands upon fossils used to support it. A fossil in an evolutionary sequence must have both the proper morphology shape to fit that sequence and an appropriate date to justify Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating.
It is, therefore, not Do analyses of the radioactive isotopes of rocks give reliable estimates of their ages?
Feedback archive > Feedback Wrong radiometric dates, and why they matter Published: 16 July (GMT+10) iStockphoto. Creationists have long pointed out a major problem with trusting radiometric dating methods: that they are often wrong on dates of known age, so why should we trust them on rocks of unknown age? When biblioskeptics are confronted with this severe evidence, . Oct 27, Radiometric dating has been demonstrated to give wrong age estimates on rocks whose age is known. Yet, secularists continue to assume that it gives correct age estimates on rocks of unknown age. We now have a good idea why most radiometric dating methods give inflated ages: there was at least one episode of accelerated radioactive decay in. Apr 01, Radiometric dating measures the decay of radioactive atoms to determine the age of a rock sample. It is founded on umulticoingames.comovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant.
That is a good question, which ordinarily requires a lengthy and technical answer. In order to give an initial Radiometric Dating Using Isochrons.
Radiometric dating fascinates nearly everyone. The results stated that the seal had died between and years ago. Antarctic Journal, Washington. Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27, years ago. But these lava flows happened only about years ago in and Gary Parker. This reaction will continue until the last mineral in the series, biotite mica, is formed.
This left branch is called a discontinuous reaction series because each mineral has a different crystalline structure. Recall that olivine is composed of a single tetrahedra and that the other minerals in this sequence are composed of single chains, double chains, and sheet structures, respectively.
Ordinarily, these reactions are not complete so that various amounts of each of these minerals may exist at any given time. The right branch of the reaction series is a continuum in which the earliest formed calcium-rich feldspar crystals react with the sodium ions contained in the melt to become progressively more sodium rich. Oftentimes the rate of cooling occurs rapidly enough to prohibit the complete transformation of calcium-rich feldspar into sodium-rich feldspar.
In these instances, the feldspar crystals will have calcium-rich interiors surrounded by zones that are progressively richer in sodium.
During the last stage of crystallization, after most of the magma has solidified, the remaining melt will form the minerals quartz, muscovite mica, and potassium feldspar. Although these minerals crystallize in the order shown, this sequence is not a true reaction series.
Bowen demonstrated that minerals crystallize from magma in a systematic fashion.
But how does Bowen's reaction series account for the great diversity of igneous rocks? It appears that at one or more stages in the crystallization process, a separation of the solid and liquid components of a magma frequently occurs.
This can happen, for example, if the earlier formed minerals are heavier than the liquid portion and settle to the bottom of the magma chamber as shown in Figure 3. This settling is thought to occur frequently with the dark silicates, such as olivine.
When the remaining melt crystallizes, either in place or in a new location if it migrates out of the chamber, it will form a rock with a chemical composition much different from the original magma Figure 3. In many instances the melt which has migrated from the initial magma chamber will undergo further segregation. As crystallization progresses in the " new" magma, the solid particles may accumulate into rocklike masses surrounded by pockets of the still molten material.
It is very likely that some of this melt will be squeezed from the mixture into the cracks which develop in the surrounding rock. This process will generate an igneous rock of yet another composition. The process involving the segregation of minerals by differential crystallization an separation is called fractional crystallization. At any stage in the crystallization process the melt might be separated from the solid portion of the magma.
Consequently, fractional crystallization can produce igneous rocks having a wide range of compositions.
Science Confirms a Young Earth—The Radioactive Dating Methods are Flawed
Bowen successfully demonstrated that through fractional crystallization one magma can generate several different igneous rocks. However, more recent work has indicated that this process cannot account for the relative quantities of the various rock types known to exist.
Why radiometric dating is wrong
Although more than one rock type can be generated from a single magma, apparently other mechanisms also exist to generate magmas of quite varied chemical compositions. We will examine some of these mechanisms at the end of the next chapter.
Separation of minerals by fractional crystallization. Illustration of how the earliest formed minerals can be separated from a magma by settling. The remaining melt could migrate to a number of different locations and, upon further crystallization, generate rocks having a composition much different from the parent magma. Faure discusses fractional crystallization relating to U and Th in his book p. These values may be taken as an indication of the very low abundance of these elements in the mantle and crust of the Earth.
In the course of partial melting and fractional crystallization of magma, U and Th are concentrated in the liquid phase and become incorporated into the more silica-rich products. For that reason, igneous rocks of granitic composition are strongly enriched in U and Th compared to rocks of basaltic or ultramafic composition.
Progressive geochemical differentiation of the upper mantle of the Earth has resulted in the concentration of U and Th into the rocks of the continental crust compared to those of the upper mantle.
The concentration of Pb is usually so much higher than U, that a 2- to 3-fold increase of U doesn't change the percent composition much e. Finally, we have a third quotation from Elaine G. Kennedy in Geoscience Reports, SpringNo. If this occurs, initial volcanic eruptions would have a preponderance of daughter products relative to the parent isotopes. Such a distribution would give the appearance of age.
As the magma chamber is depleted in daughter products, subsequent lava flows and ash beds would have younger dates. Such a scenario does not answer all of the questions or solve all of the problems that radiometric dating poses for those who believe the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood.
It does suggest at least one ct of the problem that could be researched more thoroughly. So we have two kinds of processes taking place.
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. The guide describes a number of radiometric methods and states that for 'suitable specimens the errors involved in radiometric dating usually amount to several percent of the age result. Thus a result of two hundred million years is expected to be quite close (within, say, 4 million) to the true age.'. Why radiometric dating doesn't work. Genesis Apologetics decided that they can debunk all of radiometric dating in 3 minutes except they only touch on one of the more than 40 methods, and they get almost everything about it wrong Today we are here with an animated video explaining why radiometric dating is not reliable.
There are those processes taking place when lava solidifies and various minerals crystallize out at different times. There are also processes taking place within a magma chamber that can cause differences in the composition of the magma from the top to the bottom of the chamber, since one might expect the temperature at the top to be cooler. Both kinds of processes can influence radiometric dates. In addition, the magma chamber would be expected to be cooler all around its borders, both at the top and the bottom as well as in the horizontal extremities, and these effects must also be taken into account.
For example, heavier substances will tend to sink to the bottom of a magma chamber. Also, substances with a higher melting point will tend to crystallize out at the top of a magma chamber and fall, since it will be cooler at the top.
These substances will then fall to the lower portion of the magma chamber, where it is hotter, and remelt. This will make the composition of the magma different at the top and bottom of the chamber. This could influence radiometric dates. This mechanism was suggested by Jon Covey and others. The solubility of various substances in the magma also could be a function of temperature, and have an influence on the composition of the magma at the top and bottom of the magma chamber.
Finally, minerals that crystallize at the top of the chamber and fall may tend to incorporate other substances, and so these other substances will also tend to have a change in concentration from the top to the bottom of the magma chamber.
There are quite a number of mechanisms in operation in a magma chamber. I count at least three so far - sorting by density, sorting by melting point, and sorting by how easily something is incorporated into minerals that form at the top of a magma chamber. Then you have to remember that sometimes one has repeated melting and solidification, introducing more complications. There is also a fourth mechanism - differences in solubilities.
How anyone can keep track of this all is a mystery to me, especially with the difficulties encountered in exploring magma chambers. These will be definite factors that will change relative concentrations of parent and daughter isotopes in some way, and call into question the reliability of radiometric dating. In fact, I think this is a very telling argument against radiometric dating.
Another possibility to keep in mind is that lead becomes gaseous at low temperatures, and would be gaseous in magma if it were not for the extreme pressures deep in the earth. It also becomes very mobile when hot. These processes could influence the distribution of lead in magma chambers.
The magnesium and iron rich minerals come from the mantle subducted oceanic plateswhile granite comes from continental sediments crustal rock. The mantle part solidifies first, and is rich in magnesium, iron, and calcium. So it is reasonable to expect that initially, the magma is rich in iron, magnesium, and calcium and poor in uranium, thorium, sodium, and potassium. Later on the magma is poor in iron, magnesium, and calcium and rich in uranium, thorium, sodium, and potassium.
It doesn't say which class lead is in. But lead is a metal, and to me it looks more likely that lead would concentrate along with the iron. If this is so, the magma would initially be poor in thorium and uranium and rich in lead, and as it cooled it would become rich in thorium and uranium and poor in lead. Thus its radiometric age would tend to decrease rapidly with time, and lava emitted later would tend to look younger.
Another point is that of time. Suppose that the uranium does come to the top by whatever reason. Perhaps magma that is uranium rich tends to be lighter than other magma. Or maybe the uranium poor rocks crystallize out first and the remaining magma is enriched in uranium.
Would this cause trouble for our explanation? Not necessarily. It depends how fast it happened. Some information from the book Uranium Geochemistry, Mineralogy, Geology provided by Jon Covey gives us evidence that fractionation processes are making radiometric dates much, much too old. The half life of U is 4. Thus radium is decaying 3 million times as fast as U At equilibrium, which should be attained inyears for this decay series, we should expect to have 3 million times as much U as radium to equalize the amount of daughter produced.
Cortini says geologists discovered that ten times more Ra than the equilibrium value was present in rocks from Vesuvius.
Have faced why radiometric dating is wrong final
They found similar excess radium at Mount St. Helens, Vulcanello, and Lipari and other volcanic sites. The only place where radioactive equilibrium of the U series exists in zero age lavas is in Hawiian rocks. We need to consider the implications of this for radiometric dating. How is this excess of radium being produced? This radium cannot be the result of decay of uranium, since there is far too much of it. Either it is the result of an unknown decay process, or it is the result of fractionation which is greatly increasing the concentration of radium or greatly decreasing the concentration of uranium.
Thus only a small fraction of the radium present in the lava at most 10 percent is the result of decay of the uranium in the lava. This is interesting because both radium and lead are daughter products of uranium.
If similar fractionation processes are operating for lead, this would mean that only a small fraction of the lead is the result of decay from the parent uranium, implying that the U-Pb radiometric dates are much, much too old. Cortini, in an article appearing in the Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research also suggests this possibility. He says: "The invalidity of the Th dating method is a consequence of the open-system behaviour of U and Th.
By analogy with the behaviour of Ra, Th and U it can be suggested that Pb, owing to its large mobility, was also fed to the magma by fluids. This can and must be tested.
Join. why radiometric dating is wrong simply matchless
The open-system behaviour of Pb, if true, would have dramatic consequences In fact, U and Th both have isotopes of radium in their decay chains with half lives of a week or two, and 6. Any process that is concentrating one isotope of radium will probably concentrate the others as well and invalidate these dating methods, too. Radium has a low melting point degrees K which may account for its concentration at the top of magma chambers. What radiometric dating needs to do to show its reliability is to demonstrate that no such fractionation could take place.
Can this be done? With so many unknowns I don't think so. How Uranium and Thorium are preferentially incorporated in various minerals I now give evidences that uranium and thorium are incorporated into some minerals more than others.
This is not necessarily a problem for radiometric dating, because it can be taken into account. But as we saw above, processes that take place within magma chambers involving crystallization could result in a different concentration of uranium and thorium at the top of a magma chamber than at the bottom. This can happen because different minerals incorporate different amounts of uranium and thorium, and these different minerals also have different melting points and different densities.
If minerals that crystallize at the top of a magma chamber and fall, tend to incorporate a lot of uranium, this will tend to deplete uranium at the top of the magma chamber, and make the magma there look older. Concerning the distribution of parent and daughter isotopes in various substances, there are appreciable differences.
Faure shows that in granite U is 4. Some process is causing the differences in the ratios of these magmatic rocks.
Depending on their oxidation state, according to Faure, uranium minerals can be very soluble in water while thorium compounds are, generally, very insoluble.
Opinion why radiometric dating is wrong opinion
These elements also show preferences for the minerals in which they are incorporated, so that they will tend to be "dissolved" in certain mineral "solutions" preferentially to one another.
More U is found in carbonate rocks, while Th has a very strong preference for granites in comparison. I saw a reference that uranium reacts strongly, and is never found pure in nature. So the question is what the melting points of its oxides or salts would be, I suppose. I also saw a statement that uranium is abundant in the crust, but never found in high concentrations.
To me this indicates a high melting point for its minerals, as those with a low melting point might be expected to concentrate in the magma remaining after others crystallized out. Such a high melting point would imply fractionation in the magma. Thorium is close to uranium in the periodic table, so it may have similar properties, and similar remarks may apply to it.
It turns out that uranium in magma is typically found in the form of uranium dioxide, with a melting point of degrees centrigrade. This high melting point suggests that uranium would crystallize and fall to the bottom of magma chambers. Geologists are aware of the problem of initial concentration of daughter elements, and attempt to take it into account. U-Pb dating attempts to get around the lack of information about initial daughter concentrations by the choice of minerals that are dated. For example, zircons are thought to accept little lead but much uranium.
Thus geologists assume that the lead in zircons resulted from radioactive decay. But I don't know how they can be sure how much lead zircons accept, and even they admit that zircons accept some lead. Lead could easily reside in impurities and imperfections in the crystal structure.
Also, John Woodmorappe's paper has some examples of anomalies involving zircons.
Oct 01, Radiometric Dating PART 1: Back to Basics. PART 2: Problems with the Assumptions. PART 3: Making Sense of the Patterns. This three-part series will help you properly understand radiometric dating, the assumptions that lead to inaccurate dates, and the clues about what really happened in the past. reasons why you cant trust carbon dating creationist creationism evolution dinosaurs. The Bible and Radiometric dating (The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods). Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of . More Bad News for Radiometric Dating We now have so many things that can make radiometric dating go wrong, and isochrons don't remedy the situation at all, that I think the weight of evidence of radiometric dating is nullified. I really feel ''bullish'' about the creationist model now. Evolution has always been in trouble.
It is known that the crystal structure of zircons does not accept much lead. However, it is unrealistic to expect a pure crystal to form in nature.
With why radiometric dating is wrong really. join told
Perfect crystals are very rare. In reality, I would expect that crystal growth would be blocked locally by various things, possibly particles in the way. Then the surrounding crystal surface would continue to grow and close up the gap, incorporating a tiny amount of magma. I even read something about geologists trying to choose crystals without impurities by visual examination when doing radiometric dating.
Thus we can assume that zircons would incorporate some lead in their impurities, potentially invalidating uranium-lead dates obtained from zircons. Chemical fractionation, as we have seen, calls radiometric dates into question. But this cannot explain the distribution of lead isotopes. There are actually several isotopes of lead that are produced by different parent substances uraniumuraniumand thorium. One would not expect there to be much difference in the concentration of lead isotopes due to fractionation, since isotopes have properties that are very similar.
So one could argue that any variations in Pb ratios would have to result from radioactive decay.
However, the composition of lead isotopes between magma chambers could still differ, and lead could be incorporated into lava as it traveled to the surface from surrounding materials. I also recall reading that geologists assume the initial Pb isotope ratios vary from place to place anyway. Later we will see that mixing of two kinds of magma, with different proportions of lead isotopes, could also lead to differences in concentrations. Mechanism of uranium crystallization and falling through the magma We now consider in more detail the process of fractionation that can cause uranium to be depleted at the top of magma chambers.
Uranium and thorium have high melting points and as magma cools, these elements crystallize out of solution and fall to the magma chamber's depths and remelt.
This process is known as fractional crystallization. What this does is deplete the upper parts of the chamber of uranium and thorium, leaving the radiogenic lead. As this material leaves, that which is first out will be high in lead and low in parent isotopes. This will date oldest.
Magma escaping later will date younger because it is enriched in U and Th. There will be a concordance or agreement in dates obtained by these seemingly very different dating methods.