Of course, that error estimate is complete nonsense. It refers to one specific source of error — the uncertainty in the measurement of the amounts of various atoms used in the analysis. Most likely, that is the least important source of error. If those rocks really have been sitting around on the moon for billions of years, I suspect that the the wide range of physical and chemical processes which occurred over that time period had a much more profound effect on the uncertainty of the age determination.
This is best illustrated by the radioactive age of a sample of diamonds from Zaire. Their age was measured to be 6. Do you see the problem? Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4. Obviously, then, the minimum error in that measurement is 1. Such uncertainties are usually glossed over, especially when radioactive dates are communicated to the public and, more importantly, to students.
Generally, we are told that scientists have ways to analyze the object they are dating so as to eliminate the uncertainties due to unknown processes that occurred in the past. One way this is done in many radioactive dating techniques is to use an isochron. However, a recent paper by Dr. Hayes has pointed out a problem with isochrons that has, until now, not been considered. The elements rubidium and strontium are found in many rocks. One form of rubidium Rb is radioactive. As illustrated above, a neutron in a Rb atom can eject an electron often called a beta particle , which has a negative charge.
Since a neutron has no charge, it must become positively charged after emitting an electron. In fact, it becomes a proton. This changes the chemical identity of the atom. It is no longer Rb; it is strontium Sr Sr is not radioactive, so the change is permanent. We know how long it takes Rb to turn into Sr, so in principle, if we analyze the amount of Rb and Sr in a rock, we should be able to tell how long the decay has been occurring.
Of course, there are all sorts of uncertainties involved. How much Sr was in the rock when it first formed?
Was Rb or Sr added to the rock by some unknown process? Was one of them removed from the rock by some unknown process? The isochron is supposed to take care of such issues. Essentially, rather than looking at the amounts of Rb and Sr, we look at their ratios compared to Sr The ratio of Sr to Sr is graphed versus the ratio of Rb to Sr for several different parts of the rock. How does that help? Thus, it provides an independent analysis of the rock that does not depend on the radioactive decay that is being studied.
The amount of Sr that was already in the rock when it formed, for example, should be proportional to the amount of Sr that is currently there. Since the data are divided by the amount of Sr, the initial amount of Sr is cancelled out in the analysis. He says that there is one process that has been overlooked in all these isochron analyses: Atoms and molecules naturally move around, and they do so in such as way as to even out their concentrations. A helium balloon, for example, will deflate over time, because the helium atoms diffuse through the balloon and into the surrounding air.
Top Ten Reasons Radiometric Dates are Wrong
Well, diffusion depends on the mass of the thing that is diffusing. Sr diffuses more quickly than Sr, and that has never been taken into account when isochrons are analyzed. Hayes has brought it up, we can take it into account, right?
- binder dating site.
If the effects of diffusion can be taken into account, it will require an elaborate model that will most certainly require elaborate assumptions. Hayes suggests a couple of other approaches that might work, but its not clear how well.
Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating
So what does this mean? If you believe the earth is very old, then most likely, all of the radioactive dates based on isochrons are probably overestimates. How bad are the overestimates? Most likely, the effect will be dependent on the age. I would think that the older the sample, the larger the overestimate.
- Top Ten Reasons Radiometric Dates are Wrong – CTF Articles;
As a young-earth creationist, I look at this issue in a different way. Certainly not enough to justify the incredibly unscientific extrapolation necessary in an old-earth framework. This newly-pointed-out flaw in the isochron method is a stark reminder of that.
A good isochron was supposed to be rock-solid evidence pun intended that the radioactive date is reliable. We now know that it is not. Wile, I was waiting for you to comment on this, because I wanted to ask if you think this problem can be extrapolated to other isotopes such as lead and argon. If so, it seems to be a pretty big deal. As I said, carbon dating is an exception, but most other modern radiometric dates are produced using an isochron.
Are the samples we see in the RATE study, for example, just anomalies, existing on the ends of the bell curve, or are these indicative of an endemic misunderstanding of the process? Are there any theories that could account for the accelerated decay rate or how the daughters could have gotten in to the samples? Thus, any significant amount of daughter product will produce a very old date. In my view, if two different dating schemes give significantly different answers, then either one of them is wrong or both of them are wrong.
Scientists exclude what we think are anomalous data all the time. Unfortunately, that discarded data might be what gives us real insight.
Young-earth creationists have a hard time explaining the general results of long-lived isotopes and their daughter products being present. On the other side, old-earthers have a hard time explaining all the discordance.
If radioactive dating is so reliable, why do different methods yield different results? Why are some of those differences really, really large? As is often the case, there are problems on both sides. The side you end up coming down on often depends on which problems you are most comfortable trying to deal with.
- More Bad News for Radiometric Dating.
- Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating – Proslogion;
- matchmaking weekend ardara?
Physicists already theorize that dark matter would affect nuclear decay rates; what if the leftover energy went to the dark matter? The heat problem occurs everywhere there are radioactive isotopes, so throughout the crust and mantle of the earth, for example. The dark matter would have to be there in order to take the heat. You can think of dark matter here as a lot like the luminiferous ether: Since its interaction with normal matter is incredibly weak, it can very easily pass through the earth.
Not to mention that different models of dark matter would lead to different interactions. Are we able to calculate the mass of the earth from our knowledge of its contents, and not just the gravitational force we detect?
How reliable is geologic dating?
I think if there were much dark matter in the earth, it would be noticeable. We also know the overall composition of the crust and mantle from samples. Thus, the only real unknown is the composition of the core.
Related why radiometric dating is wrong
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved