The Complete Inaccuracy of Radioisotope Dating and the Discarding of Data

Let’s take a look at some awesome research done by Dr. Andrew Snelling. He has recently done some research about the all too commonly misunderstood radioisotope dating process. Many evolutionists think this method is infallible and is the key blow to a young earth model. Let’s see what he found. It is a bit “science jargony” so I will add layman’s comments here and there.

“The assumption of constant radioisotope decay rates has undergirded the interpretation of all radioisotope data and the establishment of the absolute dates in the uniformitarian geologic timescale. Anomalous radioisotope dates that do not fit the chosen timescale are usually explained by open-system behavior and/or inheritance, and then discarded.”

Alright first what is uniformitarian geologic timescale? It is the process of observing present geologic conditions (i.e. the rate of erosion) and applying it to past geological layers. So for instance, we observe that a river in our present erodes a river bed and banks very slowly, so then assume that past erosion happened the same way. When we see massive amounts of erosion, it MUST have taken a massive amount of time. Logical on the surface, but a massive assumption and not much science.

Also, note that there are recorded, acknowledged, verified anomalous radioisotope dates. That will be important later.

“Because most anomalous radioisotope dates are not published, it is difficult to know just what proportion of dating analyses in geochronology laboratories are discarded. Furthermore, rock samples are often only dated using the one radioisotope method. Thus, it is difficult to quantify just how significant are the few multiple radioisotope concordances published in the literature, and how reliable and consistent is the apparent overall trend of progressively decreasing dates from lower strata in the geologic record through to upper strata.”

In other words, since anomalous dates are discarded it is hard to know how often these anomalies happen. Also, there are many different isotopes that can be used to get a date, but they are often ignored due to the wildly different dates each may produce.

“However, the impression gained from a detailed examination of the primary radioisotope dating systems is that, if the absolute dates of the uniformitarian timescale were ignored,”

In other words, if scientists drop there PRESUPPOSITIONS about how old the earth is SUPPOSED to be…

“and both accepted (those that conform to the already established age of the earth) and anomalous radioisotope dates were considered, where more than one radioisotope system has been utilized to date specific rock strata, radioisotope discordances would be in the MAJORITY. That such discordances are often the case has already been discussed, and has been thoroughly tested and documented on some specific strata.”

Source for discordances
(Austin, S. A., 2000. Mineral isochron method applied as a test of the assumptions of radioisotope dating. In, Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the age of the earth: A young-earth creationist initiative, pp. 95–121. El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research and St. Joseph, Missouri: Creation Research Society)

In other words the majority of dates would NOT point to a standard older dating of rocks if ALL data was accepted and ALL types of isotopes were used in the dating process. The dating would be scattered widely and not statistically acceptable.

Eample

“A very relevant example is the stark contrast between the U-Pb radioisotope age of 1500 Ma (Ma means millions of years ago) for the zircon grains in the Jemez granodiorite of New Mexico AND the He (derived from U decay) diffusion age of the SAME zircon grains of only about 6,000 years. This huge discrepancy can be explained if the rate of 238U decay was grossly accelerated at some time(s) in the past. A proposed test of this explanation is to document whether there is a systematic pattern in the discordances between the different radioisotope systems.

If there is a systematic pattern, it may reflect differing amounts of such accelerated nuclear decay in the different radioisotope systems over the same real time interval, due to their different modes of decay and parent half-lives. The amphibolites in the Precambrian basement of the Grand Canyon were chosen for this study for three reasons. First, the Grand Canyon is a well known and well studied area that contains a good, clear strata cross-section representative of much of earth history.

Second, as metamorphosed basalts, amphibolites consist of a very simple two-component system, essentially just the minerals plagioclase and hornblende, which simplifies the geochemistry of radioisotope systematics. And third, being Precambrian, these rocks should have accumulated large enough amounts of the radioisotope decay products to produce isochrons with good statistics.”

The experiment

‘Twenty-seven Brahma Schist amphibolite samples were collected in the Upper and Middle Granite Gorges (with a Scientific Research and Collecting Permit issued by the Grand Canyon National Park): (1) three samples from the Cottonwood Canyon area, (2) nine samples from the Clear Creek area, including seven samples from a single 50 m long and 2 m wide amphibolite body just upstream from the mouth of Clear Creek, (3) one sample from the Cremation Creek area, (4) one sample from near the mouth of Pipe Creek, (5) seven samples from outcrops just upstream of Blacktail Canyon (fig. 2), and (6) six samples from outcrops along the Colorado River between miles 126.5 and 129.”

The method of dating

Approximately 100 gram splits of each sample were then dispatched to the Amdel laboratory in Adelaide, South Australia, where each sample was crushed and pulverized. Whole-rock analyses were undertaken by total fusion and digestion of each powdered sample followed by ICPOES (inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry) for major and minor elements, and ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry) for trace and rare earth elements.

A second representative set of 100 gram pieces of each sample was sent to the K-Ar dating laboratory at Activation Laboratories in Ancaster, Ontario, Canada, for whole-rock K-Ar dating under the direction of the laboratory manager, Dr. Yakov Kapusta.

Finally, a third representative set of 100 gram pieces of each sample was sent to the PRISE laboratory in the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia, where under the direction of Dr. Richard Armstrong, whole-rock Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb isotopic analyses were undertaken.

So three separate batches of the same rock sample were sent to three different sites to be dated uses three different radioisotope dating methods. So that deflates any notion that somehow the guys that took the samples fudged the numbers, because they had three separate third parties perform all of the dating. Ok, so what should happen here? Each sample should produce the same dates, since they came from the same rock sample of the same strata, in the same locations.
Results

These 27 samples of the Brahma amphibolites in Grand Canyon yielded an enormously wide range of K-Ar model “ages,” from 405.1 ± 10 Ma to 2574.2 ± 73 Ma, for a rock unit that is supposed to be 1740–1750 Ma. Even samples only 0.84 meters apart in the same outcrop of the small amphibolite body near Clear Creek yielded K-Ar model “ages” of 1205.3 ± 31 Ma and 2574.2 ± 73 Ma.

So according to the accepted unquestioned model of an old earth these rock samples are SUPPOSED to be 1740-1750 million years old, according to there location in the strata. That’s NOT the date that came back from this test

By contrast, the Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb radioisotope systems yielded good, statistically consistent, isochron ages of 1240 ± 84 Ma, 1655 ± 40 Ma, and 1883 ± 53 Ma, respectively.

That means everytime they dated using the Rb-Sr isotope they came to the date of 1240 Ma and so forth for each of these three isotopes.
Alright, so based on ALL of the isotopes this rock sample could be anywhere from 405 Ma to 2574 Ma.

Explanations for these discordances have been attempted. For example, different isotope pairs have different closure temperatures that can therefore result in different ages. There may also have been an open-system, magma mixing, inheritance, and/or paleoweathering.
However, in this study all four radioisotope methods were used on the same whole-rock samples. This rules out the possibility of any of these postulated processes having any significant effect on the resultant radioisotope ages. The high-grade metamorphism would have affected all four radioisotope systems similarly. Using whole-rocks for the analyses homogenizes any different chemical or system behaviors in the different minerals. In any case, these amphibolites are essentially just simple, two-mineral systems. Thus, this somewhat uniform approach makes it more likely that the discordances are due to the radioisotope decay rates having not always been constant.

These examples, together with the large number of other examples recorded by Snelling strongly suggest that, where two or more of the commonly-used radioisotope pairs are applied to date rock units, discordances are the norm and not the exception.

Based on the dates the gap between possible dates is a MASSIVE gap of 2 thousand 1 hundred 69 MILLION years. So since we are honest scientists and we don’t discard evidence that doesn’t match are little pet theories, what are we to do with all of the data??? Well, it must be concluded that decay rates are not uniform and can be vastly effected enough to make radioisotope dating Statistically Invalid. When one has to discard data to form conclusions, that is junk science in the highest degree.

It is anticipated that some might argue, “well all of the dates point to millions of years.” However, this statement shows a lack of scientific knowledge. First, until one knows to what degree decay is effected, there is NO way to know for certain how old these rocks are. Second, if all of the data taken together is statistically invalid for dating it really doesn’t matter what dates are produced because the wide variation alone disregards the whole system.

EDIT for link to the original article: www.answersingenesis.org...



[edit on 16-4-2010 by trueperspective]

Thank you! This is something I debate with friends about all the time. Science uses this as a cornerstone of proof all the time. It's ridiculous to say the least. I've often wondered if it is possible that they misinterprit data due to viewing results straightforward, instead of taking into account exponential growth. For example, instead of the dating process being 2 +2 +2 and so on, its more of a snowball effect, multiplying exponentially as you go back. So in theory what they view as being a million years old, may actually only be a few hundred or thousand? I'm intrested in this and I hope this thread really takes off.

s & f

reply to post by lambs to lions


It really is amazing how much faith people put into scientist without knowing about the processes they use and what data they accept and reject. Like I said everything should be considered and explained. If a scientist can't do that, then maybe they are wrong in their assumptions.

reply to post by trueperspective


Firstly, your title is misleading. ("Complete Inaccuracy").

But, you likely got that directly from the source, so be it. However, seems, upon reviewing your source ("answersingenesis") that this subject has been raised, before, here at ATS, and soundly refuted.

(Any 'source' with a reference to "answers" in "genesis" is immediately suspect, it would seem, of a certain bias, wouldn't you agree?)


Secondly, looks like you've posted this in the wrong Forum.


In any event, radiometric isotope dating is NOT the only method used to determine ages of geologic, and other, materials. The authors, so desperate in their attempts to spin their tales, conveniently gloss over that fact.

One of the 'religious' forums would be more appropriate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah...found one example thread (ironically, also from this forum. Still, I think it's misplaced), and this is an oldie, from 2005:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 16 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


First, you failed to read my thread as it clearly shows that radioisotope dating is STATISTICALLY INVALID. I.E. Completely Inaccurate.

Second, this is a new study that has just been published. so how is this "old"

Third, this is the exact thread that about 5 moderators told me to post this info in when I suggested that there should be a Board about "Conspiracies in Science"

Finally, Since you have nothing of scientific vaule to add I am assuming you agree with the results. Thank You

Good post.

I know they cant date correctly, and I know they are hidding it, it has to fitt the other lies..

Never mind the above..

Scientists who try to speak out about this 'discarding' of dates that do not suit the official story, they get austraized(?) and will be out of work.

I saw some where, I cant remember who made the Vid, but they called in a team to Carbon date a pig karkass, and it turned out to be several thousand years old, although it was nothing but an rescently slaughtered pig. Fun times working in that field...

But, more serious question : Could gamma rays and/or x-rays from the sun combined with decreasing magneticfield have any impact on the rocks and bones etc. that they are testing ??

reply to post by trueperspective


Yeah, heard it all before.

"creationists" like to jump on ANY perceived 'flaw', as soon as it is announced.

But, you see, science is, by its very definition, about searching and studying and yes, even accepting those flaws when discovered. The REAL research then continues, in order to minimize errors, alter original ideas (in light of new information) and refine the models of the hypothesis, or theory, as the case may be.

Vastly different than what the 'creationists' (or 'young earthers') do...THEY start from a premise, i.e., a certainty of the 'Young Earth', then attempt to shoe-horn everything and anything they can, even to nitpick at the edges of science, in effort to make it "fit" their preconceived notions.

Still, as to the proper Forum? I defer to those at a higher pay grade. Just I might have selected differently, had it been me, that's all.


Now, here is a very recent, as well, video based on the very information that prompted this latest debacle to come fromthe "young earth" proponents:



No, it's not a scientifically written paper, but it is succinct, and a bit more entertaining as foil to your OP. And, this particular YT poster has a lot of other good stuff, as well.

Enjoy!

[edit on 16 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to post by lambs to lions

 

It really is amazing how much faith people put into scientist without knowing about the processes they use and what data they accept and reject. Like I said everything should be considered and explained. If a scientist can't do that, then maybe they are wrong in their assumptions.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the faith part of your post. With faith in science or religion its the same thing its stops you from questioning because if you do you don't have faith.

I have posted before about my beef with faith in religion and I think it fits in the same with faith in science.

Having faith means you are willing to accept anything as fact.

reply to post by trueperspective

Second, this is a new study that has just been published

Nope.

This paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, pp. 407–424 (2008)

www.answersingenesis.org...\

I guess you didn't read it.

[edit on 4/16/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by trueperspective


Independent of the ridiculous claims made in this article and your bold stance on supporting it, relative dating proves the earth is not young.

The end.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Yeah, heard it all before.

"creationists" like to jump on ANY perceived 'flaw', as soon as it is announced.

But, you see, science is, by its very definition, about searching and studying and yes, even accepting those flaws when discovered. The REAL research then continues, in order to minimize errors, alter original ideas (in light of new information) and refine the models of the hypothesis, or theory, as the case may be.

Yeah, in other words they refine something that doesn't fit and MAKE IT fit. And by minimize errors you mean throw the data in the recycling bin.

I think if you were honest, you would have to agree that this experiment took ALL of the data and came to a invalid conclusion. They didn't just pick and choose the isotope dating that gave them the answer they were looking for.

EDIT: for spelling

[edit on 16-4-2010 by trueperspective]

reply to post by Phage


No, I know when it was published. I would consider a 2 year old study as reletively new. It certainly isn't considered dated in the field of scientific research.

Originally posted by Protostellar
reply to post by trueperspective

 

Independent of the ridiculous claims made in this article and your bold stance on supporting it, relative dating proves the earth is not young.

The end.

You sound just like a "fundie creationist" Not much substance, a whole lotta deflection.

Simple - test lots of items that you know the age of. Then compare results. Testing bones that nobody can refute the date of doesn't prove anything.

The word "RETARDED" pops into my mind regularly.

Not sure what the cause is every time it does, but it just happened again.

Maybe I need an esteemed creationist "scientist" to do some research on that point for me.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

No, it's not a scientifically written paper, but it is succinct, and a bit more entertaining as foil to your OP. And, this particular YT poster has a lot of other good stuff, as well.

Enjoy!

[edit on 16 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Nice one. Unfortunately, most people haven't a clue how science works , so I suspect even this very clear video will be way way over their heads.....up there with God!........sorry couldn't resist

OK so, so far no one has yet to comment on the actual content of the data. All it seems anyone wants to do is argue about the source. Well, I would consider that an accomplishment. It seems pretty rock solid to me. How is it ever credible to throw out the MAJORITY of your data when you are trying to date rock.

The scientific establishment is such a shameful joke. It's like a secret society and no one can question them.

reply to post by trueperspective


Why would we waste our time?

Your mind is obviously made up.

All of science is a joke.

We get it.

We are all to hail an ancient single work of fiction as the absolute correct answer to all questions and throw our critical thinking and reasoning skills into the trashheap.



Mission accomplished on your part.

We're all converted now.

The world is at peace and we have skies filled with gum drops and rainbows!

Yay!

:shk:

reply to post by Sarkazmon


This thread isn't about religion, it's about how the scientific community is innundated with people with an agenda (consciencely or unconsciencely) and that there is a SYSTEMATIC discard of anything that contridicts the POPULAR model.

And so far no one wants to debate that. I think that it is very funny when real science is actually done and presents the flaws in the current system everyone wants to clam up. There are massive holes in the scientific establishment and the way they do "science"


[edit on 16-4-2010 by trueperspective]