Radiometric dating false

Radiometric dating false

radiometric dating false

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 years ago. Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts. Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied. Radiometric dating, or radioactive dating as it is sometimes called, is a method used to date rocks and other objects based on the known decay rate of radioactive isotopes.

Radiometric dating false - This false notion is often promoted when radioactive dates are listed with utterly unrealistic error bars. In this report, for example, we are told.

It is no longer Rb; it is strontium Sr Methods are precise insofar as they are properly used. As far as I know, it's anyone's guess, but I'd appreciate more information on this. The above two-source mixing scenario is limited, because it can only produce isochrons having a fixed concentration of N p. Magma from the ocean floor has little U and little U and probably little lead byproducts lead and lead I have many more examples to share, but space does not permit. I would think that the older the sample, the larger the overestimate. I radikmetric afraid the debate over the age of galse Earth has many similarities. The xating has potential applications for detailing the thermal history of a deposit. We now turn our attention to what the dating systems radiometdic us about the age of the Earth. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. The asteroids' rocks have not been remelted ever since, so vegetarian speed dating calgary ages have generally not been disturbed. Radiometric dating false about a freshly killed seal?

Recent Opinions

Radiometric dating false Pro cites talkorigins regarding dating ice cores. How Raeiometric and Thorium are preferentially incorporated in various minerals I now give evidences that uranium and thorium are incorporated into radiometric dating false minerals more than others. This fact has profound implications dahing radiometric dating. As I said, carbon dating is an exception, but most other modern radiometric dates are produced using an isochron.
Dating sites leeds area France popular dating site
FREE REGISTRATION ONLINE DATING 461
PSYCHSIM 5 DATING AND MATING WORKSHEET Radiometrkc a shorter half-life leads to a higher time resolution at the expense of timescale. However, closer radiomeric reveals that where historical dates are well established, back beyond about BC, the radiocarbon radiometrric increasingly diverge, as they also do from tree-rings even though my opponent said they correlate with tree-rings [7]. It is not necessarily true that one will get the same number of negative as positive slopes.
AMPUTEE DATING DEVOTEE Is a 9th grader dating a 7th grader bad
CURWENSVILLE SINGLE WOMEN The temperature at which this happens is known as the closure temperature radiometric dating false blocking temperature and is specific raeiometric a particular material and radiometric dating false system. Using the mass and all those other measurements, we deduce that the core is mostly iron with some nickel. However, there are some problems with it. Anyway, suppose we throw out all fasle for which mixing seems to be raxiometric possibility. Do Not Change This:
Radiometric dating false Algonac dating
HOOK UP MANCHESTER NH Mangualde hindu singles
PAINESVILLE JEWISH DATING SITE Freshman in high school dating freshman in college

The arguments are akin to claiming that a wristwatch cannot be used to measure time, because sometimes the battery fails or the display is misread. Errors do happen, but they are well within the claimed error bounds and they are limited by cross-checking. With a wristwatch you check with a different clock, with radiometric dating the checks are with different dating methods and different isotope pairs. Con claims that we cannot know with certainty what the composition of an original sample was.

Absolute certainty is not required. Assumptions are made based upon observations. The reliability of the assumptions is ultimately tested by crosschecking to independent dating methods. Radiometric dating is known to be accurate not because it is assumed to accurate, but rather by cross-checking and proving it is accurate. Con is correct that rock samples selected for argon dating cannot have been exposed to air.

Radiometric Dating


That is true not only for recent volcanic flows, but with old rocks have fissures allowing air intrusions.

One technique is to rely on feldspars formed only at very high temperatures. The error due to air exposure always makes the sample appear younger than it really is. Different grains of rock from the same location may have different exposures to the air due to the pattern of fissures, so a cross-check is to test several samples to ensure a reliable result. In the opening round, I made the caveat that the methods are only accurate when properly applied. There are also a dozen isotope pairs that cross-check argon dating. The reliability of the dating is further enhanced by cross-checking in the same sample.

Snelling as to the general unreliability of argon dating. The article cited is in a religious journal, not in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Snelling is a legitimate scientist who also publishes in peer-reviewed journals. However, he writes in the scientific literature he accepts the accuracy of the standard scientific dating methods. When he writes for his religious audience he denies them. If he had data that would withstand scientific scrutiny, he would publish it in scientific journals.

Clearly he does not. Con points out the problem with carbon dating of coal and diamonds. The problem is well known. Coal contains radioactive thorium, and the thorium creates C14 in situ. As a known limitation, it is not particularly troublesome. It is comparable to knowing that a wristwatch won't work properly in high magnetic fields; once one is aware of that, it is readily avoided. Con claims that there is some general problem with the accuracy of carbon dating for dates after BC. Con quotes Whitelaw, a creationist published by a religious press, not by a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Whitelaw supposes that there was no C14 in the atmosphere more than years ago, so when he scales all the dates according to his theory they are all within 50, years. Aside from the theory having no scientific foundation, it is contradicted by all the dating methods that cross-reference carbon dating. One must suppose that trees grew exponentially slower in the past, and so forth, to produce exactly the same errors as the error he supposes. Con cites Bowman, a scientist who vigorous supports the accuracy of carbon dating. The British Museum lab doing carbon dating made some errors during the period from Bowman discovered and corrected the errors.

There was no general problem with radiocarbon dating. In the book by Bowman cited by Con, Bowman writes of errors less than 50 years as relatively easy to achieve, and less than 20 years possible with great care. That was written in Throughout, Con has refused to confront the central proof that radiometric dating is accurate. That proof is that the dates arrived by radiometry are verified by dendrochronology tree rings , varve chronology sediment layers , ice cores, coral banding, speleotherms cave formations , fission track dating, and electron spin resonance dating.

The dates are also verified by independent measurements from other isotope pairs. In R1 I presented the challenge to him, "Anyone questioning the accuracy of radiometric methods is obliged to explain why the cross-checks to sediments, coral growth, tree rings, and other isotope pairs all have the same errors. Suppose we suspect that Cousin Lenny's watch is in error. How do we verify it? We check it against other clocks. If the other clocks say it is 3 o'clock and Lenny says it is 3: It is theoretically possible that all the other clocks are wrong and have exactly the same error, but it would take a whole lot of explaining as to how that could be the case.

Con's problem is that all the reasonable scientific comparisons verify that radiometric dating has the accuracy claimed. All Con has done is cite a few limitations on some of the specific methods. It's true that argon dating cannot be used on samples exposed to air. It's true that carbon dating doesn't work on coal that is loaded with radioactive thorium. Scientists are trained to discover such problems and to avoid them. There are analogous problems with applying virtually any measurement technique. We can list pitfalls with using clocks or micrometers or scales or anything else that measures.

That is not at issue. The question is what accuracy is achieved despite all the potential problems. Report this Argument Con Again, I would like to think Pro for the opportunity to debate this and for his alacritous response. First, I would like to point out some errors my opponent made in his last response. He stated, "Con is correct that rock samples selected for argon dating cannot have been exposed to air. I said there was "excess argon. However, the samples still came back with unacceptable ages. Therefore, the excess argon must have come from some other source.

The mantle has been suggested. So there is risk of contamination not just from air, but from some other source. Pro also posited that "The error due to air exposure always makes the sample appear younger than it really is. A less than 10 year old sample should have no measurable Ar. Pro also resorted to special pleading when he said I sourced a "religious" journal. In fact, it was a scientific journal, but because it supports creationism he immediately rejects it as "religious" instead of trying to actually refute it based on scientific data. I can as easily say talkorigins.

Pro also questions A. All Snelling is doing is using language in which that particular audience would understand. The conventional geological community has named the different rock units in the rock record. So if Snelling is going to discuss the chalk beds in the cretaceous rock unit he will say "cretaceous" so his peers know what he is talking about. It doesn't mean he accepts the ages that geologists have imposed on it.

If I am going to go on a business trip to Japan I might do well to speak Japanese. Furthermore, Pro cites my sources incorrectly. Whitelaw was not the one who said the samples dated within 50, years. Whitelaw was quoting the journal "Radiocarbon. There are no reliable sources that back up that claim. Even the article he sourced, which was merely a email sent to talkorigins, says "it looks like in-situ production of new 14C is the best-supported hypothesis; but research is ongoing However, the answer to the detection of C in diamonds fits a young earth hypothesis just as good, if not better, than Th creating C which is lacking in evidence.

Furthermore, U and Th decay does create Helium. He is the second lightest element and diffuses out of minerals and rocks quickly. They have measured He diffusion rates from Zircons that are supposedly 1. It seems not all dating methods cross-check each other as my opponent asserts. So why do some independent dating methods appear to match? The simple answer is they don't. The conventional geological community has the presupposition that the earth is billions of years old. So when they date a rock layer with any radiometric dating method that doesn't match the "expected" age they already had for the rock layer they throw it out and keep dating until they get the results they wanted.

It has been admitted as such: If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote, and if it is completely out of date we just drop it" T. True, this quote is from , but why should we believe scientists are any different today? The only way scientists know radiometric dating results are incorrect is because they already had preconceived ideas of the what the age of a rock was. It is the relentless application of uniformitarianism that creates these perceived matches with independent dating methods. It is assumed that tree rings form one a year, but it is actually well known that tree rings can form several in one year depending on the climate the tree is growing in http: If we eliminate the uniformitarian philosophy we can see that it makes the assumption of tree rings difficult to prove.

Furthermore, the oldest tree, appropriately nicknamed Methuselah, is only years old according to conventional dating http: If the earth is billions of years old why are there not any older trees than a few thousand years old? Varves are conventionally believed to be laid down one a year. However, a Florida Hurricane deposited a six-inch-thick mud layer with numerous thin laminae Journal of Geology, What would a yearlong global flood do?

Coral reef growth is claimed to take long ages to have grown. The Enewetok Atoll in the Pacific Ocean is usually pointed to as an example. An Annual Review, Based on these measurements the Enewetok Atoll would have only taken years to grow. Instead, we impose long ages on coral reefs. Most Speleotherms in modern caves are not growing. However, observations of those still growing have reported growth of stalactites at 7. If these measurements are applied to the Great Dome stalagmite in Carlsbad Cavern, it would have grown in less than years.

Furthermore, radiocarbon ages of speleothems are deceptive, because the carbon incorporated in the speleothem minerals is out of equilibrium with the atmospheric carbon. Absolute dating has proved disappointing http: Antarctic ice cores are dated by this method, since the accumulation on this ice sheet is so low that annual layer dating cannot be applied, except in shallow coastal cores with higher snowfall. So, the , years obtained near the bottom of the Vostok ice core is based on preconceived ideas on the ages of ocean sediment, which is based on the astronomical theory of the Ice Age.

In other words, the uniformitarian scientists date the ice sheets to hundreds of thousands of years because they believe the ice sheets are old to begin with. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. Here I want to concentrate on another source of error, namely, processes that take place within magma chambers.

To me it has been a real eye opener to see all the processes that are taking place and their potential influence on radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is largely done on rock that has formed from solidified lava. Lava properly called magma before it erupts fills large underground chambers called magma chambers. Most people are not aware of the many processes that take place in lava before it erupts and as it solidifies, processes that can have a tremendous influence on daughter to parent ratios. Such processes can cause the daughter product to be enriched relative to the parent, which would make the rock look older, or cause the parent to be enriched relative to the daughter, which would make the rock look younger.

This calls the whole radiometric dating scheme into serious question. Geologists assert that older dates are found deeper down in the geologic column, which they take as evidence that radiometric dating is giving true ages, since it is apparent that rocks that are deeper must be older. But even if it is true that older radiometric dates are found lower down in the geologic column, which is open to question, this can potentially be explained by processes occurring in magma chambers which cause the lava erupting earlier to appear older than the lava erupting later.

Lava erupting earlier would come from the top of the magma chamber, and lava erupting later would come from lower down. A number of processes could cause the parent substance to be depleted at the top of the magma chamber, or the daughter product to be enriched, both of which would cause the lava erupting earlier to appear very old according to radiometric dating, and lava erupting later to appear younger. Mechanisms that can alter daughter-to-parent ratios What happens when magma solidifies and melts and its implications for radiometric dating The following quote from The Earth: The general idea is that many different minerals are formed, which differ from one another in composition, even though they come from the same magma.

The mineral makeup of an igneous rock is ultimately determined by the chemical composition of the magma from which it crystallized. Such a large variety of igneous rocks exists that it is logical to assume an equally large variety of magmas must also exist. However, geologists have found that various eruptive stages of the same volcano often extrude lavas exhibiting somewhat different mineral compositions, particularly if an extensive period of time separated the eruptions. Evidence of this type led them to look into the possibility that a single magma might produce rocks of varying mineral content.

A pioneering investigation into the crystallization of magma was carried out by N. Bowen in the first quarter of this century. Bowen discovered that as magma cools in the laboratory, certain minerals crystallize first. At successively lower temperature, other minerals begin to crystallize as shown in Figure 3. As the crystallization process continues, the composition of the melt liquid portion of a magma, excluding any solid material continually changes. For example, at the stage when about 50 percent of the magma has solidified, the melt will be greatly depleted in iron, magnesium, and calcium, because these elements are found in the earliest formed minerals.

But at the same time, it will be enriched in the elements contained in the later forming minerals, namely sodium and potassium. Further, the silicon content of the melt becomes enriched toward the latter stages of crystallization. Bowen also demonstrated that if a mineral remained in the melt after it had crystallized, it would react with the remaining melt and produce the next mineral in the sequence shown in Figure 3. For this reason, this arrangement of minerals became known as Bowen's reaction series. On the upper left branch of this reaction series, olivine, the first mineral to form, Ml] react with the remaining melt to become pyroxene.

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. 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. 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, Spring , No. Contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community. 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 aspect of the problem that could be researched more thoroughly. So we have two kinds of processes taking place. 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. Let me suggest how these processes could influence uranium-lead and thorium-lead dates: The following is a quote from The Earth: The magnesium and iron rich minerals come from the mantle subducted oceanic plates , while 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?

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 in , years 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

The electric charge distribution would create an attraction between the uranium compound and a crystallizing mineral, enabling uranium to be incorporated. This normally involves isotope-ratio mass spectrometry. After one half-life has elapsed, one half of the atoms of the nuclide in question will have decayed into a "daughter" nuclide or decay product. Often one does not get a straight line for the values. First, in order to have a meaningful isochron, it is necessary to have an unusual chain of events. This can result in dates being inherited from magma into minerals. This will, over the assumed millions of years, produce uneven concentrations of lead isotopes.

This false notion is often promoted when radioactive dates are listed with utterly unrealistic error bars. In this report, for example, we are told. Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium , thorium/lead, Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes. The basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product. Is radiometric dating a reliable method for estimating the age of Instead, it would be far more accurate to say that scientists attempt to estimate.


Radiometric Dating VIDEO

Debunking Creationism: "Radiometric Dating Is Unreliable!"


radiometric dating false