Taking the necessary measures to maintain employees' safety, we continue to operate and accept samples for analysis. Radiometric dating involves quantifying the amount of carbon present by measuring the emitted beta particles from its radioactive decay. Gas proportional counting involves converting samples to CO 2 gas followed by detection and counting of the beta particles. Liquid scintillation counting involves converting the sample into a carbon-rich liquid, which is then added to a scintillator. When beta particles are emitted, the scintillator will emit a flash of light. When both of the detectors present pick up the flash, it is counted and used to calculate the amount of carbon present.
Samples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are altered, contaminated, or disturbed by later heating or chemical events.
In addition to the ages of Earth, Moon, and meteorites, radiometric dating has been used to determine ages of fossils, including early man, timing of glaciations, ages of mineral deposits, recurrence rates of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the history of reversals of Earth's magnetic field, and the age and duration of a wide variety of other geological events and processes.
The age equation The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is. D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample. D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition. The equation is most conveniently expressed in terms of the measured quantity N t rather than the constant initial value No. The above equation makes use of information on the composition of parent and daughter isotopes at the time the material being tested cooled below its closure temperature.
But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general-and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating. The discovery of fresh blood in a spectacular mosquito fossil strongly contradicts its own "scientific" age assignment of 46 million years.
What dating method did scientists use, and did it really generate reliable results? For about a century, radioactive decay rates have been heralded as steady and stable processes that can be reliably used to help measure how old rocks are.
They helped underpin belief in vast ages and had largely gone unchallenged. Many scientists rely on the assumption that radioactive elements decay at constant, undisturbed rates and therefore can be used as reliable clocks to measure the ages of rocks and artifacts. Most estimates of the age of the earth are founded on this assumption. However, new observations have found that those nuclear decay rates actually fluctuate based on solar activity.
And the evening and the morning were the first day. Polonium radiohalos remain "a very tiny mystery. The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late 's. It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field.
In the following article, some of the most common misunderstandings regarding radiocarbon dating are addressed, and corrective, up-to-date scientific creationist thought is provided where appropriate.
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. For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible's record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques. Aug 11, Beta Analytic - AMS Dating Services. Beta Analytic no longer offers radiometric dating by liquid scintillation counting. All samples submitted for radiocarbon dating are measured by AMS. The ISO accredited lab's standard AMS dating service reports results within 14 business days, with faster services also available.
The presence of measurable radiocarbon in fossil wood supposedly tens and hundreds of millions of years old has been well-documented. Skip to main content. Recent research surprises those who study coral reefs, especially those who assume that they grow slowly. Which is more trustworthy: carbon dating or reliable eyewitnesses? In this episode, Dr. Jim Johnson investigates What About Radioisotope Clocks?
But ICR scientists have carefully examined their claims and found flaws and holes The presence of carbon C in specimens that are supposedly millions of years old is a serious problem for believers in an old earth.
A straightforward reading of the Bible describes a 6,year-old We offered four reasons why radioisotope dating Russell Humphreys reported that helium diffusion from zircons in borehole GT-2 at Fenton This is a reasonable scenario, since N is a non-radiogenic isotope not produced by decay such as lea and it can be assumed to have similar concentrations in many magmas.
Magma from the ocean floor has little U and little U and probably little lead byproducts lead and lead Magma from melted continental material probably has more of both U and U and lead and lead Thus we can get an isochron by mixing, that has the age of the younger-looking continental crust.
The age will not even depend on how much crust is incorporated, as long as it is non-zero. However, if the crust is enriched in lead or impoverished in uranium before the mixing, then the age of the isochron will be increased. If the reverse happens before mixing, the age of the isochron will be decreased.
Any process that enriches or impoverishes part of the magma in lead or uranium before such a mixing will have a similar effect. So all of the scenarios given before can also yield spurious isochrons. I hope that this discussion will dispel the idea that there is something magical about isochrons that prevents spurious dates from being obtained by enrichment or depletion of parent or daughter elements as one would expect by common sense reasoning.
So all the mechanisms mentioned earlier are capable of producing isochrons with ages that are too old, or that decrease rapidly with time. The conclusion is the same, radiometric dating is in trouble. I now describe this mixing in more detail. Suppose P p is the concentration of parent at a point p in a rock.
The point p specifies x,y, and z co-ordinates. Let D p be the concentration of daughter at the point p. Let N p be the concentration of some non-radiogenic not generated by radioactive decay isotope of D at point p. Suppose this rock is obtained by mixing of two other rocks, A and B. Suppose that A has a for the sake of argument, uniform concentration of P1 of parent, D1 of daughter, and N1 of non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter.
Thus P1, D1, and N1 are numbers between 0 and 1 whose sum adds to less than 1. Suppose B has concentrations P2, D2, and N2.
Think, radiometric dating doesnt work helpful information
Let r p be the fraction of A at any given point p in the mixture. So the usual methods for augmenting and depleting parent and daughter substances still work to influence the age of this isochron. More daughter product means an older age, and less daughter product relative to parent means a younger age.
In fact, more is true. Any isochron whatever with a positive age and a constant concentration of N can be constructed by such a mixing. It is only necessary to choose r p and P1, N1, and N2 so as to make P p and D p agree with the observed values, and there is enough freedom to do this. Anyway, to sum up, there are many processes that can produce a rock or magma A having a spurious parent-to-daughter ratio.
Then from mixing, one can produce an isochron having a spurious age. This shows that computed radiometric ages, even isochrons, do not have any necessary relation to true geologic ages.
Mixing can produce isochrons giving false ages. But anyway, let's suppose we only consider isochrons for which mixing cannot be detected. How do their ages agree with the assumed ages of their geologic periods? As far as I know, it's anyone's guess, but I'd appreciate more information on this.
I believe that the same considerations apply to concordia and discordia, but am not as familiar with them. It's interesting that isochrons depend on chemical fractionation for their validity. They assume that initially the magma was well mixed to assure an even concentration of lead isotopes, but that uranium or thorium were unevenly distributed initially. So this assumes at the start that chemical fractionation is operating. But these same chemical fractionation processes call radiometric dating into question.
The relative concentrations of lead isotopes are measured in the vicinity of a rock. The amount of radiogenic lead is measured by seeing how the lead in the rock differs in isotope composition from the lead around the rock.
This is actually a good argument. But, is this test always done?
How often is it done? And what does one mean by the vicinity of the rock? How big is a vicinity?
One could say that some of the radiogenic lead has diffused into neighboring rocks, too. Some of the neighboring rocks may have uranium and thorium as well although this can be factored in in an isochron-type manner. Furthermore, I believe that mixing can also invalidate this test, since it is essentially an isochron.
Finally, if one only considers U-Pb and Th-Pb dates for which this test is done, and for which mixing cannot be detected. The above two-source mixing scenario is limited, because it can only produce isochrons having a fixed concentration of N p. To produce isochrons having a variable N pa mixing of three sources would suffice. This could produce an arbitrary isochron, so this mixing could not be detected. Also, it seems unrealistic to say that a geologist would discard any isochron with a constant value of N pas it seems to be a very natural condition at least for whole rock isochronsand not necessarily to indicate mixing.
I now show that the mixing of three sources can produce an isochron that could not be detected by the mixing test. First let me note that there is a lot more going on than just mixing. There can also be fractionation that might treat the parent and daughter products identically, and thus preserve the isochron, while changing the concentrations so as to cause the mixing test to fail.
It is not even necessary for the fractionation to treat parent and daughter equally, as long as it has the same preference for one over the other in all minerals examined; this will also preserve the isochron.
Radiometric dating doesnt work
Now, suppose we have an arbitrary isochron with concentrations of parent, daughter, and non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter as P pD pand N p at point p. Suppose that the rock is then diluted with another source which does not contain any of D, P, or N. Then these concentrations would be reduced by a factor of say r' p at point p, and so the new concentrations would be P p r' pD p r' pand N p r' p at point p. Now, earlier I stated that an arbitrary isochron with a fixed concentration of N p could be obtained by mixing of two sources, both having a fixed concentration of N p.
With mixing from a third source as indicated above, we obtain an isochron with a variable concentration of N pand in fact an arbitrary isochron can be obtained in this manner. So we see that it is actually not much harder to get an isochron yielding a given age than it is to get a single rock yielding a given age.
This can happen by mixing scenarios as indicated above. Thus all of our scenarios for producing spurious parent-to-daughter ratios can be extended to yield spurious isochrons. The condition that one of the sources have no P, D, or N is fairly natural, I think, because of the various fractionations that can produce very different kinds of magma, and because of crustal materials of various kinds melting and entering the magma.
In fact, considering all of the processes going on in magma, it would seem that such mixing processes and pseudo-isochrons would be guaranteed to occur. Even if one of the sources has only tiny amounts of P, D, and N, it would still produce a reasonably good isochron as indicated above, and this isochron could not be detected by the mixing test.
I now give a more natural three-source mixing scenario that can produce an arbitrary isochron, which could not be detected by a mixing test. P2 and P3 are small, since some rocks will have little parent substance.
Suppose also that N2 and N3 differ significantly. Such mixings can produce arbitrary isochrons, so these cannot be detected by any mixing test.
Also, if P1 is reduced by fractionation prior to mixing, this will make the age larger. If P1 is increased, it will make the age smaller. If P1 is not changed, the age will at least have geological significance.
But it could be measuring the apparent age of the ocean floor or crustal material rather than the time of the lava flow. I believe that the above shows the 3 source mixing to be natural and likely. We now show in more detail that we can get an arbitrary isochron by a mixing of three sources. Thus such mixings cannot be detected by a mixing test.
Can not radiometric dating doesnt work apologise, but, opinion
Assume D3, P3, and N3 in source 3, all zero. One can get this mixing to work with smaller concentrations, too. All the rest of the mixing comes from source 3.
Why radiometric dating doesn't work
Thus we produce the desired isochron. So this is a valid mixing, and we are done. We can get more realistic mixings of three sources with the same result by choosing the sources to be linear combinations of sources 1, 2, and 3 above, with more natural concentrations of D, P, and N.
The rest of the mixing comes from source 3.
Can help radiometric dating doesnt work are
This mixing is more realistic because P1, N1, D2, and N2 are not so large. I did see in one reference the statement that some parent-to-daughter ratio yielded more accurate dates than isochrons. To me, this suggests the possibility that geologists themselves recognize the problems with isochrons, and are looking for a better method. The impression I have is that geologists are continually looking for new methods, hoping to find something that will avoid problems with existing methods.
But then problems also arise with the new methods, and so the search goes on. Furthermore, here is a brief excerpt from a recent article which also indicates that isochrons often have severe problems.
If all of these isochrons indicated mixing, one would think that this would have been mentioned: The geological literature is filled with references to Rb-Sr isochron ages that are questionable, and even impossible.
Were radiometric dating doesnt work apologise, can
Zhengpp. Zheng pp. He comes closest to recognizing the fact that the Sr concentration is a third or confounding variable in the isochron simple linear regression. Snelling discusses numerous false ages in the U-Pb system where isochrons are also used. However, the U-Th-Pb method uses a different procedure that I have not examined and for which I have no data. Many of the above authors attempt to explain these "fictitious" ages by resorting to the mixing of several sources of magma containing different amounts of Rb, Sr, and Sr immediately before the formation hardens.
AkridgeArmstrongArndtsBrown, Helmick and Baumann all discuss this factor in detail. Anyway, if isochrons producing meaningless ages can be produced by mixing, and this mixing cannot be detected if three or maybe even two, with fractionation sources are involved, and if mixing frequently occurs, and if simple parent-to-daughter dating also has severe problems, as mentioned earlier, then I would conclude that the reliability of radiometric dating is open to serious question.
The many acknowledged anomalies in radiometric dating only add weight to this argument.
I would also mention that there are some parent-to-daughter ratios and some isochrons that yield ages in the thousands of years for the geologic column, as one would expect if it is in fact very young. One might question why we do not have more isochrons with negative slopes if so many isochrons were caused by mixing. This depends on the nature of the samples that mix.
It is not necessarily true that one will get the same number of negative as positive slopes. If I have a rock X with lots of uranium and lead daughter isotope, and rock Y with less of both relative to non-radiogenic lea then one will get an isochron with a positive slope.
If rock X has lots of uranium and little daughter product, and rock Y has little uranium and lots of lead daughter product relative to non-radiogenic lea then one will get a negative slope. This last case may be very rare because of the relative concentrations of uranium and lead in crustal material and subducted oceanic plates.
Another interesting fact is that isochrons can be inherited from magma into minerals. Earlier, I indicated how crystals can have defects or imperfections in which small amounts of magma can be trapped. This can result in dates being inherited from magma into minerals. This can also result in isochrons being inherited in the same way.
So the isochron can be measuring an older age than the time at which the magma solidified. This can happen also if the magma is not thoroughly mixed when it erupts. If this happens, the isochron can be measuring an age older than the date of the eruption. This is how geologists explain away the old isochron at the top of the Grand Canyon. From my reading, isochrons are generally not done, as they are expensive. Isochrons require more measurements than single parent-to-daughter ratios, so most dates are based on parent-to-daughter ratios.
So all of the scenarios given apply to this large class of dates. Another thing to keep in mind is that it is not always possible to do an isochron. Often one does not get a straight line for the values. This is taken to imply re-melting after the initial solidification, or some other disturbing event. Anyway, this also reduces the number of data points obtained from isochrons. Anyway, suppose we throw out all isochrons for which mixing seems to be a possibility. Due to some published anomalies, I don't think we know that they have any clear relationship to the assumed dates.
It is also interesting that the points for isochrons are sometimes selected so as to obtain the isochron property, according to John Woodmorappe's paper. Do the various methods correlate with one another? We have been trying to give mechanisms that explain how the different dating methods can give dates that agree with one another, if the geologic column is young.
But if there is a variation, such effects could help to explain it. It's not only a matter of incorporation in minerals either, as one sometimes does whole rock isochrons and I suppose parent-daughter ratios of whole rock, which would reflect the composition of the magma and not the incorporation into minerals. We all seem to have this image in our mind of the various dating methods agreeing with each other and also with the accepted age of their geologic periods. So we are investing a lot of time and energy to explain how this marvelous agreement of the various methods can arise in a creationist framework.
The really funny thing to me is that it is very possible that we are trying to explain a phantom of our imagination. The real radiomatric dating methods are often very badly behaved, and often disagree with one another as well as with the assumed ages of their geological periods. It would really be nice if geologists would just do a double blind study sometime to find out what the distributions of the ages are.
In practice, geologists carefully select what rocks they will date, and have many explanations for discordant dates, so it's not clear how such a study could be done, but it might be a good project for creationists. There is also evidence that many anomalies are never reported. Concerning the geologic time scale, Brown writes: "The construction of this time scale was based on about radioisotope ages that were selected because of their agreement with the presumed fossil and geological sequences found in the rocks.
Maybe only 15 in all. Why is this?
It is possible that the reason is that uranium-lead dates so rarely agree with the correct dates. So there may not be anything to explain.
(Young-earthers) If radiometric dating doesn't work, why is it consistent with other dating methods? Christianity I've seen young-earth creationists make various fairly shoddy arguments that the world is less than years old because radiometric dating does not actually work, and the ages given for fossils and rock layers are far older than. Scientists date igneous rocks to indirectly date nearby sedimentary rocks Why doesn't radiometric dating typically work on sedimentary rocks? Sedimentary rocks contain bits of sediment, each much. It doesn't matter if these minerals are relatively lighter than others. The point is that they are heavier than the magma. Two kinds of magma and implications for radiometric dating It turns out that magma has two sources, ocean plates and material from the continents (crustal rock). This fact has profound implications for radiometric dating.
For example, it's not clear to me that we need to worry about isochrons or whether U and U dates etc. I'd like to know how often this happens, in any case, especially on the geologic column of Cambrian and above. People should read John Woodmorappe's articles on radiometric dating to see some of the anomalies. One might say that if there were problems, then geologists wouldn't use these methods. I think we need something more solid than that. John W. The correlation was not very good.
I assume he would have mentioned if any others had been done. Maybe since then?