Truth and Science Ministries

In Search of the Truth


Radioactive Dating

Radioactive Dating

                       

The biggest problem with radioactive dating in any form, is the process.  They start with the assumption that the basic timeline in the geologic column chart is accurate (which it isn’t), then pick out a radioactive dating method that will give them dates in which they consider to be the correct ballpark (those that fit the chart the best).  They will sometimes test something a dozen times until they get a date they are comfortable with, then publish that one.  It really should be called selective dating methods.

 

Sedimentary layers cannot be dated themselves, because the sediments were from other sources, and will not tell you when the layer formed.  Igneous rock poses problems of a different nature, and are very unreliable.  Lava rock formed in Hawaii in 1801 gave dates that were millions of years older than that.

Funkhouser, J. G. & J. J. Naughton. 1968. Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from Hawaii. Geophys. Res. J. 73: 4601-4607.

 

Most fossils are actually hardened mineral deposits that replaced the original organic material.  No help there either.  Much circular reasoning is involved also.  The rock will be dated by the fossil it contains, and then they will date the fossil by where it is found in the rock.

 

I sent some newspaper articles to a professor at a university, who had been involved in over 30 years of field research in the field of geology, which stated that human artifacts had been found in the wrong rock strata (according to the chart).  He responded by saying that he knew for a fact that no human artifacts had ever been found in the wrong layers, in spite of the articles.  So I asked him this question: “When you find a human artifact, how do you determine how old the rock layer is?”  He responded by saying: “We just date the layer by the artifact.”  I then asked the obvious question: “Then how would you ever find a human artifact that you believed was in the wrong layer, if you just date the layer by the artifact itself?”  He got mad at me and said some rather nasty things.

 

Consider these quotes:

“Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”

Ager, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425.

 

“Most fossils and sedimentary rocks cannot be directly radiometrically dated.  Most dates are for volcanic or other igneous rocks, or metamorphic rocks that are closely associated with the sedimentary rocks.”

Glencoe Biology – 2006 – pg. 372

 

“The ‘Blocking Temperature’ is an important concept; it refers to processes that result in a ‘resetting’ of the atomic clocks in a rock.  Essentially, it is possible to heat igneous and metamorphic rocks to high enough temperatures that they no longer behave as ‘closed systems’.  That is some of the daughter products can ‘leak’out of the primary mineral, giving an erroneous parent/daughter ratio and hence a wrong age.”

Evolution of the Earth, Seventh Edition, Prothero • Dott, Chapter 5, McGraw Hill Education

 

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be.  Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different  (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years).”

William D. Stansfield, Ph.D. (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State U) The Science of Evolution, Macmillan 1997

 

“In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained. ”

Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University) ...Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15 (1), 1977 p. 37

 

“If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text.  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. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, Univ. of Uppsala, Sweden), C-14 dating and Egyptian chronology in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology”, Proceedings of the twelfth Nobel Symposium, New York 1970, p. 35

 

“In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.”

Hayatsu, A., “K-Ar Isochron Age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 16 April, 1979, pp. 973-975

 

“Continuing use of the method depends on a “fix-it-as-we-go” approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible.  It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted . . . No matter how “useful” it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results.  There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.”

Robert E. Lee, “Radiocarbon Age in Error,” Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, pgs. 9, 29.

 

Now perhaps the most telling of all:

“Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. ”

O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy.”  American Journal of Science, vol. 276, (January 1976).  P. 54.

 

               

 

If they didn’t have the geologic column chart, they wouldn’t know what dating method to use to get the date they wanted.  The science behind radioactive dating is fine, it’s the selective methods being used in obtaining the results that has tainted the process.