- Radiometric Dating
- How do we know the age of the seafloor? | Earth Observatory of Singapore
- You are here
To have a radiometric dating method that is unquestionably accurate, we need a radioactive isotope for which we can get absolutely reliable measurements of the original quantity and the current quantity. Is there any such isotope to be found in nature? The answer is yes. Which brings us to the third method of radiometric dating.
The element potassium has three isotopes, K39, K40, and K Only K40 is radioactive; the other two are stable. K40 is unusual among radioactive isotopes in that it can break down two different ways. It can emit a beta particle to become Ca40 calcium , or it can absorb an electron to become Ar40 argon Argon is a very special element.
It's one of the group of elements called "noble gases" or "inert gases". Argon is a gas at Earth-normal temperatures, and in any state it exists only as single atoms. It doesn't form chemical compounds with any other element, not even the most active ones. It's a fairly large atom, so it would have trouble slipping into a dense crystal's molecular structure.
By contrast, potassium and calcium are two of the most active elements in nature. They both form compounds readily and hold onto other atoms tenaciously. What does this mean? It means that potassium can get into minerals quite easily, but argon can't. It means that before a mineral crystallizes, argon can escape from it easily. It also means that when an atom of argon forms from an atom of potassium inside the mineral, the argon is trapped in the mineral. So any Ar40 we find deep inside a rock sample must be there as a result of K40 decay.
We know K40's half-life, and we know the probability of K40 decaying to Ar40 instead of Ca That and some simple calculations produce a figure for how long the K40 has been decaying in our rock sample. However, again it's important to remember that we're dealing with assumptions , and we always have to keep in mind that our assumptions may be wrong.
What happens if our mineral sample has not remained a closed system? What if argon has escaped from the mineral?
What if argon has found its way into the mineral from some other source? If some of the radiogenic argon has escaped, then more K40 must have decayed than we think -- enough to produce what we did find plus what escaped. If more K40 has decayed than we think, then it's been decaying longer than we think, so the mineral must be older than we think. In other words, a mineral that has lost argon will be older than the result we get says it is. In the other direction, if excess argon has gotten into the mineral, it will be younger than the result we get says it is.
An isochron dating method isochron dating is described in the next section can also be applied to potassium-argon dating under certain very specific circumstances. When isochron dating can be used, the result is a much more accurate date. Yet a fourth method, rubidium-strontium dating, is even better than potassium-argon dating for old rocks. The isotope rubidium Rb87 decays to strontium Sr87 with a half-life of 47 billion years. Strontium occurs naturally as a mixture of several isotopes. If three minerals form at the same time in different regions of a magma chamber, they will have identical ratios of the different strontium isotopes.
Remember, chemical processes can't differentiate between isotopes. The total amount of strontium might be different in the different minerals, but the ratios will be the same. Now, suppose that one mineral has a lot of Rb87, another has very little, and the third has an in-between amount. That means that when the minerals crystallize there is a fixed ratio of Rb As time goes on, atoms of Rb87 decay to Sr, resulting in a change in the Rb Sr87 ratio, and also in a change in the ratio of Sr87 to other isotopes of strontium. The decrease in the Rb Sr87 ratio is exactly matched by the gain of Sr87 in the strontium-isotope ratio.
It has to be -- the two sides of the equation must balance. If we plot the change in the two ratios for these three minerals, the resulting graph comes out as a straight line with an ascending slope. This line is called an isochron. The line's slope then translates directly into a figure for the age of the rock that contains the different minerals.
When every one of four or five different minerals from the same igneous formation matches the isochron perfectly, it can safely be said that the isochron is correct beyond a reasonable doubt. Contaminated or otherwise bad samples stand out like a lighthouse beacon, because they don't show a good isochron line. There are numerous other radiometric dating methods: However, I simply haven't time or room to deal with all of them.
A full cite for this book is given in the bibliography. Now, why is all this relevant to the creation-vs. Every method of radiometric dating ever used points to an ancient age for the Earth. For creationists to destroy the old-Earth theory, they must destroy the credibility of radiometric dating.
They have two ways to do this. They can criticize the science that radiometric dating is based on, or they can claim sloppy technique and experimental error in the laboratory analyses of radioactivity levels and isotope ratios. Is there any way to criticize the theory of radiometric dating? Well, look back at the axioms of radiometric dating methods.
Are any of those open to question. Or at least, they seem to be. Do we know, for a fact, that half-lives are constant axiom 1? Do we know for a fact that isotope ratios are constant axiom 2? Regarding the first question: There are sound theoretical reasons for accept-ing the constancy of isotope half-lives, but the reasons are based in the remote and esoteric reaches of quantum mechanics, and I don't intend to get into that in this article. However, if all we had were theoretical reasons for believing axiom 1, we would be right to be suspicious of it.
Do we have observational evidence? On several occasions, astronomers have been able to analyze the radiation produced by supernovas. In a supernova, the vast amount of energy released creates every known isotope via atomic fusion and fission. Some of these isotopes are radioactive. We can detect the presence of the various isotopes by spectrographic analysis of the supernova's radiation. We can also detect the characteristic radiation signatures of radioactive decay in those isotopes.
We can use that information to calculate the half-lives of those isotopes. In every case where this has been done, the measured radiation intensity and the calculated half-life of the isotope from the supernova matches extremely well with measurements of that isotope made here on Earth. Now, because light travels at a fixed rate a bit under , kilometers per second , and because stars are so far away, when we look at a distant star we're seeing it as it was when that light left it and headed this way. When we look at a star in the Andromeda Galaxy, 2,, light-years away, we're seeing that star as it was 2,, years ago.
And when we look at a supernova in the Andromeda Galaxy, 2,, years old, we see isotopes with the exact same half-lives as we see here on Earth. Not just one or two isotopes, but many. For these measurements to all be consistently wrong in exactly the same way, most scientists feel, is beyond the realm of possibility. What about isotope ratios? Are they indeed constant? Well, let's think about it: Minerals form by recognized chemical processes that depend on the chemical activity of the elements involved. The chemical behavior of an element depends on its size and the number of electrons in its outer shell.
This is the foundation of the periodic table of the elements, a basic part of chemistry that has stood without challenge for a hundred and fifty years. The shell structure depends only on the number of electrons the isotope has, which is the same as the number of protons in its nucleus. So the shell structure doesn't change between different isotopes of the same element. K39 is chemically identical to K40; the only way we can distinguish between them is to use a nonchemical technique like mass spectrometry.
It's true that some natural processes favor some isotopes over others. Water molecules containing oxygen are lighter and therefore evaporate faster than water molecules with oxygen However, as far as is known such fractionation occurs only with light isotopes: The atoms used in radiometric dating techniques are mainly heavy atoms, so we can still use the axiom that mineral-forming processes can't distinguish between different isotopes.
- matchmaking on tinder?
- do straight guys hook up with other guys.
- speed dating guildford reviews!
- global online dating.
- largest 100 free dating sites!
So the processes that are involved in mineral formation can't distinguish between isotopes. Sr86 atoms and Sr87 atoms behave identically when they bond with other atoms to form a mineral molecule. If there are ten Sr86 atoms for every Sr87 atom in the original magma melt, there will be ten Sr86 atoms for every Sr87 atom in the minerals that crystallize from that melt.
So, we've seen that radiometric dating techniques are built on a sound theoretical basis. The only other possible source of error is in laboratory technique. To translate theory into useful measurements, the lab procedures must be accurate. A contaminated rock sample is useless for dating. A sample that is taken from the surface, where atoms could get in and out easily, is also useless.
Samples must be taken by coring, from deep within a rock mass. To date a rock, chemists must break it down into its component elements using any of several methods, then analyze isotope ratios using a mass spectrometer. If the lab technique is sloppy, the date produced isn't reliable. There's no way to eliminate the possibility of error. It can't be done. Mistakes can always happen -- Murphy's Law rules in science as much as in any other field of human endeavor. For those who have never encountered it, Murphy's Law is the simple rule that "in any field of human endeavor, anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
But we can try to minimize error. And when we do, the dates produced can be accepted as accurate. When samples taken from different parts of a given igneous rock formation are dated by different people at different labs over many years, the possibility that all those measurements could be wrong is vanishingly small. Some may well be wrong. If nine analyses agree, and a tenth produces radically different results, the odd-man-out is usually considered a result of some kind of error and discarded. If the researcher doing the work can find and document a specific problem in analysis that could produce precisely that observed wrong result, then it's virtually certain the odd-man-out is an error.
And some radiometric techniques have a much better success ratio than that. In any case, while it's true that there are numerous possible sources of error, there is no source of error that could account for the enormous difference between the year age demanded by young-Earth creationists and the 3.
It's completely illogical to think that these techniques could be wrong by that much. Creationist objections to radiometric dating techniques basically fall into three categories:. What are the different types of rocks? What is a fossil and what are they used for? What are hydrothermal vents, and why do we find them along mid-ocean ridges? Seismology What is a seismic wave?
What is the difference between body waves and surface waves? And between P-waves and S-waves? Why can't S-waves travel through liquids? How far can seismic waves reach? Why do P-waves travel faster than S-waves? Why is the interior of the Earth hot? What is the magnetic field of the Earth? Earthquakes and Faults Why do tectonic plates move? Brief history of the plate tectonics theory Before colliding with Asia, where was India?
What is an earthquake? What is the highest magnitude an earthquake can reach? What are the biggest historical earthquakes? Why do earthquakes happen in clusters? Where are earthquakes expected in the world, especially in Asia? What is a supercontinent? Are all the faults on Earth active?
How can human activities cause climate change? Anomalies of radiometric dating If a date does not agree with the expected age of its geologic period, and no plausible explanation can be found, then the date is called anomalous. But if we really understand what is going on, then we should be able to detect discrepant dates as they are being measured, and not just due to their divergence from other dates. Geologists often say that the percentage of anomalies is low. But there are quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies in radiometric dating that creationists have collected.
These anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded a date of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have been recorded. It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and for the date to be discarded anyway. Samples with flat plateaus which should mean no added argon can give wrong dates. Samples giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples that give evidence of being disturbed can give correct dates.
The number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not insignificant. I don't know what the exact percentage is. Many dates give values near the accepted ones. But even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent. And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of them inaccurate. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different sometimes by hundreds of millions of years. There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock".
The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was million years and the oldest was 2.
The dates average 1. Another source said that about 5 or 6 of the historic lava flows give ages in the hundreds of thousands of years. Geologists explain the Kaupelehu date by the lava being cooled rapidly in deep ocean water and not being able to get rid of its enclosed argon. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated Woodmorappe also mentions that very self-contradictory age spreads in the Precambrian era are common. In addition, Woodmorappe gives over sets of dates "that are in gross conflict with one another and with expected values for their indicated paleontological positions.
This does not include dates from minerals that are thought to yield bad dates, or from igneous bodies with wide biostrategraphic ranges, where many dates are acceptable. He states that the number of dates within range are less than the number of anomalies, except for the Cenozoic and Cretaceous. When one adds in the fact that many anomalies are unreported, which he gives evidence for, the true distribution is anyone's guess. There have been criticisms of John Woodmorappe's study, but no one has given any figures from the literature for the true percentage of anomalies, with a definition of an anomaly, or the degree of correlation between methods.
Steven Schimmrich's review of this study often concerns itself with John W's presentation of geologists explanation for anomalies, and not with the percentage of anomalies; the later is my main concern. The carbon age of the buried trees is only years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a ,year potassium-argon age.
A similar situation is reported in the December issue of Creation ex nihilo in which lava with a K-Ar age of about 45 million years overlays wood that was carbon dated by 3 laboratories using AMS dating to about 35, years. Still another evidence for problems with radiometric dating was given in a recent talk I attended by a man who had been an evolutionist and taken a course in radiometric dating.
- best cougar dating sites 2014?
- How do we determine the age of a rock?!
- download online dating part 2.
The teacher gave 14 assumptions of radiometric dating and said something like "If creationists got a hold of these, they could cut radiometric dating to pieces. Another evidence that all is not well with radiometric dating is given in the following quote from Coffin p. Many sedimentary uranium ores are not.
Since equilibrium should be reached in 1 million years, this is a problem for sediments that are assumed to be older than 1 million years. On another point, if we can detect minerals that were not molten with the lava, as has been claimed, then this is one more reason why there should be no anomalies, and radiometric dating should be a completely solved problem. But that does not appear to be the case, at least especially on the geologic column. I'm not claiming that anomalous results are being hidden, just that the agreement of a mass of results, none of which has much claim to reliability, does not necessarily mean much.
Picking out a few cases where radiometric dates appear to be well-behaved reminds me of evolutionary biologists focusing on a few cases where there may be transitional sequences. It does not answer the overall question. And as I said above, I'm also interested to know how much of the fossil-bearing geologic column can be dated by isochrons, and how the dates so obtained compare to others. Gerling et al called attention to some chlorites yielding K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 b.
It had been noted that some minerals which yield such dates as beryl, cordierite, etc. They also pointed out that for the anomalies to be accounted for by excess argon, unreasonably high partial pressures of Ar during crystallization would have to be required. They concluded by suggesting some unknown nuclear process which no longer operates to have generated the Ar.
This implies that excess argon is coming from somewhere. Here is another quote from Woodmorappe about isochrons, since some people think that mixing scenarios or other age-altering scenarios are unlikely:. If this condition does not hold, invalid ages and intercepts are obtained.
Models yield isochron ages that are too high, too low, or in the future, sometimes by orders of magnitude. The fact that the only "valid" K-Ar isochrons are those for which the concentration of non-radiogenic argon Ar36 is constant, seems very unusual. This suggests that what is occuring is some kind of a mixing phenomenon, and not an isochron reflecting a true age. We have analyzed several devitrified glasses of known age, and all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave virtually zero ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that devitrification took place shortly after the formation of a deposit.
Why a low anomaly percentage is meaningless One of the main arguments in favor of radiometric dating is that so many dates agree with each other, that is, with the date expected for their geologic period. But it's not evident how much support this gives to radiometric dating. If a rock dates too old, one can say that the clock did not get reset. If it dates too young, one can invoke a later heating event. Neither date would necessarily be seen as anomalous.
If lava intrudes upon geologic period X, then any date for the lava of X or later will not be seen as anomalous. And even if the date is one or two geologic periods earlier, it may well be close enough to be accepted as non-spurious. If one does not know the geologic period of a rock by other means, then of course one is likely to date it to find out, and then of course the date agrees with the geologic period and this will not be seen as anomalous.
So it is difficult to know what would be a reasonable test for whether radiometric dating is reliable or not. The percentage of published dates that are considered as anomalous has little bearing on the question. The biostrategraphic limits issue The issue about igneous bodies may need additional clarification. If a lava flow lies above geologic period A and below B, then allowable ages are anything at least as large as A and no larger than B. This is called the biostratigraphic limit of the flow. Now, according to Woodmorappe's citations, many lava flows have no such limits at all, and most of them have large limits.
For example, a flow lying on precambrian rock with nothing on top would have no limits on its dates. And such flows often have a large internal scatter of dates, but these dates are not considered as anomalies because of the unrestricted biostratigraphic limit. Other flows with wide biostratigraphic limits have weak restrictions on allowable dates. This is one reason why just reporting the percentage of anomalies has little meaning. Thus these ages, though they generally have a considerable scatter, are not considered as anomalies.
He cites another reference that most igneous bodies have wide biostrategraphic limits. Thus just by chance, many dates will be considered within the acceptable ranges. Again, the percentage of anomalies means nothing for the reliability of radiometric dating. Now, igneous bodies can be of two types, extrusive and intrusive. Extrusive bodies are lava that is deposited on the surface.
These cool quickly and have small crystals and form basalt. Intrusive bodies are deposited in the spaces between other rocks. These cool more slowly and have larger crystals, often forming granite. Both of these tend on the average to have wide biostrategraphic limits, meaning that a large spread of ages will be regarded as non-anomalous. And if we recall that most radiometric dating is done of igneous bodies, one sees that the percentage of anomalies is meaningless. Thus we really need some evidence that the different methods agree with each other. To make the case even stronger, "Many discrepant results from intrusives are rationalized away immediately by accepting the dates but reinterpreting the biostrategraphic bracket," according to John Woodmorappe.
This of course means that the result is no longer anomalous, because the geologic period has been modified to fit the date. Finally, the fact that the great majority of dates are from one method means that the general but not universal agreement of K-Ar dating with itself is sufficient to explain the small percentange of anomalies if it is small. Preponderance of K-Ar dating Now, the point about agreement is that whatever figure is given about how often ages agree with the expected age, is consistent with the fact that there is no agreement at all between K-Ar and other methods, since so many measurements are done using K-Ar dating.
And one of the strongest arguments for the validity of radiometric dating is that the methods agree. So when one combines all of the above figures, the statement that there are only 10 percent anomalies or 5 percent or whatever, does not have any meaning any more. This statement is made so often as evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating, that the simple evidence that it has no meaning, is astounding to me. I don't object to having some hard evidence that there are real agreements between different methods on the geologic column, if someone can provide it.
The precambrian rock is less interesting because it could have a radiometric age older than life, but this is less likely for the rest of the geologic column. It's not surprising that K-Ar dates often agree with the assumed dates of their geological periods, since the dates of the geological periods were largely inferred from K-Ar dating. By the way, Ar-Ar dating and K-Ar dating are essentially the same method, so between the two of them we obtain a large fraction of the dates being used.
Before the discovery of radioactivity in the late nineteenth century, a geological time scale had been developed on the basis of estimates for the rates of geological processes such as erosion and sedimentation, with the assumption that these rates had always been essentially uniform. On the basis of being unacceptably old, many geologists of the time rejected these early twentieth century determinations of rock age from the ratio of daughter to radioactive parent large. By , increased confidence in radioisotope dating techniques and the demands of evolution theory for vast amounts of time led to the establishment of an expanded geological time scale.
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. Igneous rocks are particularly suited to K-Ar dating. The crucial determiners are therefore volcanic extrusive igneous rocks that are interbedded with sediments, and intrusive igneous rocks that penetrate sediments.
This verifies what I said about almost all of the dates used to define correct ages for geologic periods being K-Ar dates. Also, the uncertainty in the branching ratio of potassium decay might mean that there is a fudge factor in K-Ar ages of up to a third, and that the occasional agreements between K-Ar ages and other ages are open to question. So the point is that there is now no reason to believe that radiometric dating is valid on the geologic column. I mentioned the presence of excess argon 40 in a sample as a problem leading to artificially old K-Ar dates.
Henke states in a reply to me, concerning the problem of detecting excess argon,. It is possible that such isochrons are not often done. One cannot always use an isochron, since many minerals may have about the same K and Ar40 concentrations, and there may be some fractionation of argon among the minerals. It's not clear to me if this three dimensional plot always works, and how often it is used. I was not able to find any mention of it in Faure or Dickin It is true that by using additional isotopes if they are sufficiently abundant and do not fractionate , one can often detect mixings of multiple sources.
My point was that the usual mixing test can only detect two sources.
But since these multiple mixing tests are more difficult and expensive, they may not be done very often. One also has to know which isotopes to examine. I was suprised that Dalrymple said nothing about mixings invalidating isochrons. Dalrymple goes to great lengths to explain this away, but I think this figure is very telling, and find his explanations unconvincing.
It is also remarkable that we have a test for mixing, which is commonly cited in support of the accuracy of radiometric dating, but when it gives contrary results, it is simply ignored. It is a fundamental assumption of the mantle isochron model that neither isotope nor elemental ratios are perturbed during magma ascent through the crust.
However, it is now generally accepted that this assumption is not upheld with sufficient reliability to attribute age significance to erupted isochrons. Dickin suggests that mixings may contribute to such isochrons. It seems reasonable, then, that mixings may be affecting all Rb-Sr isochrons in igneous rock. Your hypothetical example in "More Bad News for Radiometric Dating" is often hard to follow, but it is clearly invalid.
This example is given to show that a mixing of three sources cannot be detected by the usual two sources test. It is not intended to be natural, but to demonstrate a mathematical fact. There is a lot of flexibility in the design of such examples, as I indicate, and it is reasonable to assume that some of these examples would be natural. It's the responsibility of the geologist to show that such mixings have not occurred.
To really understand what's going on you have to sample the recent works of many different authors.
How do we know the age of the seafloor? | Earth Observatory of Singapore
You have to follow arguments between experts on different issues and see where they go. Overall, the geologic time scale is in great shape. Yes, scientists are still making minor adjustments. However, it's clear from Strahler , Dalrymple , etc. The problem with this approach is that it leaves ample room for the exercise of subjective judgment and evolutionary assumptions. Also, Dalrymple says essentially nothing about the phanerozoic, and thus gives little evidence of the accuracy of the conventional dating scheme on fossil-bearing rocks.
I treated this issue of percentage of anomalies in considerable detail in my original "Radiometric Dating Game" article. It is interesting that Woodmorappe gives a number of cases in which standard geological tests are ignored. For example, dates may be accepted even when there is evidence of weathering, and rejected when there is not.
There may be evidence of heating, but the date may be accepted, and there may be no such evidence, but a hypothetical heating event is assumed anyway. If geological tests are not being applied consistently, one wonders what value they have. Let me clarify the problem with excess argon. It gives the diffusion equation for argon escaping from a rock as it cools.
The rate of diffusion is proportional to the gradient of argon concentration, and increases rapidly with temperature. Suppose the partial pressure of argon 40 in the environment is p. Suppose the partial pressure of argon 40 in lava or magma is initially at least p, as it cools.
Then the partial pressure of argon 40 in the magma will never decrease below p; excess argon 40 will remain dissolved in the lava or magma as it cools. This argon 40 will then be trapped within the resulting rocks and lead to artificially old K-Ar dates. Now, the problem with this is that this excess argon 40 will probably be deposited as single atoms of argon distributed evenly within the sample. This makes it very difficult or even theoretically impossible to distinguish this excess argon 40 from argon generated by radioactive decay.
This will make the sample appear artificially old right away. Even if crystals exclude argon as they form, argon will rapidly diffuse into them as the lava cools, by the diffusion equation mentioned above. A similar problem can occur if the excess argon 40 dissolved within lava or magma is not able to escape, due to rapid cooling or subsequent deposits of sediment or other lava on top.
It is possible that in some cases an isochron might be able to detect such initial argon 40, but this can only happen if the potassium concentration varies significantly within the sample. It is not clear to me, also, how often such a test for initial argon 40 is performed. And of course, such isochrons can be falsified by mixings or other problems. There are spectrum tests for adsorbed argon involving Ar-Ar dating; basically, one can see whether the argon 40 is concentrated near the surface of the sample or near the interior.
The former would indicated adsorbed argon 40, which would not give a true age. However, this test would not indicate excess argon 40 present during cooling. It seems reasonable to me that this is a uniform problem with K-Ar dating. To me the geological evidence suggests catastrophic conditions and rapid formation of the sedimentary layers in the past.
Thus the lava might have been covered before the excess argon was able to escape. Or the lava might have cooled quickly, due to rainfall. It only needs to cool to about degrees centigrade or less to trap most of the argon, at least for biotite. As I mentioned before, one sometimes finds significant argon 40 in a rock and no potassium at all, as mentioned in Snelling's article. This shows that excess argon is entering these rocks by some means, and calls K-Ar dating into question. Excess argon could even cause different minerals in a given formation to yield similar K-Ar ages, since they all might have similar concentrations of K, approximately equal to its abundance in the earth's crust, and similar concentrations of argon 40, due to the partial pressure of argon 40 being similar during cooling.
Even sedimentary minerals might have a similar K-Ar age for the same reason. Also, lava magma that cooled within the earth is likely to have artificially old K-Ar ages, since the enclosed excess argon 40 might have a more difficult time escaping. One sedimentary mineral of particular importance for K-Ar dating is glaucony. The following message from a talk. For example, Plaisted's "explanation" for the correlation of isotopic age with vertical position in the geologic column is essentially that excess argon would have existed in lavas in greater quantity early in the Flood, and decreased as it was outgassed over time.
Had Plaisted actually bothered to look at the data e. Glaucony did not come from a "magma chamber," so Plaisted's explanation cannot possibly cover the majority of ages on the younger parts of the column. Of the or so "anomalous" dates in Woodmorappe , 94 Woodmorappe is clearly misusing illite and glauconite dates to simply pad his list.
The fact that glauconies are unreliable is significant, since they provide such a large part of the dates for the mesozoic-cenozoic parts of the geological column. Glauconies are formed in seawater from a variety of materials, and incorporate potassium from the seawater Faure, , p. The process of their formation gives a ready mechanism for their K-Ar ages, namely, the incorporation of argon 40 as well as potassium from the seawater.
We can assume that as a result of a global catastrophe, the oceans were highly enriched in argon 40 in the past, and that the concentration of argon 40 gradually decreased over time, due to its diffusion into the atmosphere and due to a smaller amount being released into the seawater. Therefore older glauconies would absorb more argon 40 from the seawater, resulting in old K-Ar dates for lower strata which become progressively younger for higher strata.
Another factor in this direction is that older glauconies have more time to absorb argon Some minerals contain argon 40 but no potassium, so this indicates excess argon 40, which in the presence of potassium leads to artificially old dates. Many historical volcanoes give K-Ar dates that are much too old, even if the reasons for this are understood.
Finally, I want to comment on the circumstances of the interchange with Dr. During most of our interchange, I was not aware that it would be published on talk. Now it has been web-immortalized on a radiometric dating web page. I was not informed that this exchange had been posted there. In addition, the complete exchange was not posted, but only a portion of it. I do thank Tim Thomson for the courteous and professional manner in which he has interacted with me, and that he has included the rest of my exchange with Dr.
Excuses for anomalies Another issue is that sometimes the geologic periods of rocks are revised to agree with the ages computed. This also makes data about percentages of anomalies less meaningful. It sometimes seems that reasons can always be found for bad dates, especially on the geologic column. If a rock gives a too old date, one says there is excess argon. If it gives a too young date, one says that it was heated recently, or cannot hold its argon. How do we know that maybe all the rocks have excess argon?
It looks like geologists are taking the "majority view" of K-Ar dating, but there is no necessary reason why the majority of rocks should give the right date. The relationship of a radioisotope age with real-time must be based on an interpretation. A discussion of rubidium-strontium ages in the Isotope Geoscience Section of the journal, Chemical Geology, specifically states that a radioisotope age determination "does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system. Any interpretation will reflect the interpreters presuppositions bias.
Need for a double-blind test Concerning the need for a double blind test, it would seem that there are many places where human judgment could influence the distribution of measured radiometric dates. It could increase the percentage of anomalies, if they were regarded as more interesting.
It could decrease them, if they were regarded as flukes. Human judgment could determine whether points were collinear enough to form an isochron. It could determine whether a point can justifiably be tossed out and the remaining points used as an isochron. It could determine whether one should accept simple parent-to-daughter K-Ar ratios or whether some treatment needs to be applied first to get better ages.
It could influence whether a spectrum is considered as flat, whether a rock is considered to have undergone leaching or heating, whether a rock is porous or not, or whether a sample has been disturbed in some way. Since one of the main reasons for accepting radiometric dates at least I keep hearing it is that they agree with each other, I think that geologists have an obligation to show that they do agree, specifically on the geologic column.
Since we do not know whether or how much human judgment is influencing radiometric dating, a double blind study is most reasonable. And it should not be restricted to just one or two well-behaved places, but should be as comprehensive as possible. Possible changes in the decay rate The following information was sent to me by e-mail:.
Radiometric dating is predicated on the assumption that throughout the earth's history radioactive decay rates of the various elements have remained constant. Is this a warranted assumption? Has every radioactive nuclide proceeded on a rigid course of decay at a constant rate? This has been challenged by studies involving Carbon C At the temperature or pressure, collisions with stray cosmic rays or the emanations of other atoms may cause changes other than those of normal disintegration.
It seems very possible that spontaneous disintegration of radioactive elements are related to the action of cosmic rays and the rate of disintegration varying from century to century according to the intensity of the rays. The evidence for a strongly increasing change in the cosmic ray influx is most favorable especially in light of the decay of the earth's magnetic field. Most geochronologists maintain that pleochroic haloes give evidence that decay constants have not changed. Crystals of biotite, for example, and other minerals in igneous or metamorphic rocks commonly enclose minute specks of minerals containing uranium or thorium.
The a- alpha particles emitted at high velocity by the disintegrating nuclides interact, because of their charge, with electrons of surrounding atoms which slow them down until they finally come to rest in the host material at a distance from their source that depends on their initial kinetic energy and the density and composition of the host. Where they finally stop to produce lattice distortions and defects there generally occurs discoloring or darkening.
Each of the 8 a-particles emitted during the disintegration of U to Pb produces a dark ring in biotite. Each ring has its own characteristic radius in a given mineral in this case biotite. This radius measures the kinetic energy, hence the probability of emission of the corresponding a-particle and also the half-life of the parent nuclide according to the Geiger-Nuttall law.
The Geiger-Nuttall law is an empirical relation between half-life of the a-emitter and the range in air of the emitted a-particles. If the radii of these haloes from the same nuclide vary, this would imply that the decay rates have varied and would invalidate these series as being actual clocks. Are the radii in the rocks constant in size or are there variable sizes? Most of the early studies of pleochroic haloes were made by Joly and Henderson.
Joly concluded that the decay rates have varied on the basis of his finding a variation of the radii for rocks of alleged geological ages. This rather damaging result was explained away saying that enough evidence of correct radii for defferent geologic periods and sufficient variation in the same period have been obtained that one is forced to look for a different explanation of such variations as were observed by Joly. Measurements were later made in an excellent collection of samples with haloes. It was found that the extent of the haloes around the inclusions varies over a wide range, even with the same nuclear material in the same matrix, but all sizes fall into definite groups.
The measurements are, in microns, 5,7,10,17,20,23,27, and More recent studies have been made by Robert V. Gentry also finds a variation in the haloes leading him to conclude that the decay constants have not been constant in time. Gentry points out an argument for an instantaneous creation of the earth.
He noted form his studies of haloes: For the Po half-life of 3 minutes only a matter of minutes could elapse between the formation of the Po and subsequent crystallization of the mica; otherwise the Po would have decayed, and no ring would be visible. The occurrence of these halo types is quite widespread, one or more types having been observed in the micas from Canada Pre-Cambrian , Sweden, and Japan. So, then, careful scientists have measured variations in halo radii and their measurements indicate a variation in decay rates.
The radioactive series then would have no value as time clocks. This would knock our C, potassium-argon, and uranium-lead dating measurements into a cocked hat! The age of prehistoric artifacts, the age of the earth, and that of the universe would be thrown into doubt. Flint, "Radiocarbon Dating," in Science, February 8, , p. This is significant because it is known that neutrinos do interact with the nucleii of atoms, and it is also believed that much of the energy of supernovae is carried away by neutrinos.
Isochrons Isochrons are an attempt to avoid the need for an absence of daughter element initially in computing radiometric ages. The idea is that one has a parent element, X, a daughter element, Y, and another isotope, Z, of the daughter that is not generated by decay. One would assume that initially, the concentration of Z and Y are proportional, since their chemical properties are very similar. Radioactive decay would generate a concentration of Y proportional to X. So we would obtain an equation of the form. By taking enough measurements of the concentrations of X, Y, and Z, we can solve for c1 and c2, and from c1 we can determine the radiometric age of the sample.
If the concentration of K varies in a rock, that it is unlikely for the concentration of added argon 40 to vary in a way that will yield an isochron. But if the concentration of K does not vary, then one can still get an isochron if the concentration of the non-radiogenic isotope Ar36 of the daughter product varies. So let's call an isochron a "super-isochron" if the concentration of the parent element varies from one sample to another. Let's call it a "wimpy isochron" otherwise.
The question is, what percentage of isochrons are super-isochrons, and how do their dates agree with the conventional dates for their geologic period? I would think that it may be rare to have a super-isochron. If one is dealing with minerals that exclude parent or daughter, then one cannot get an isochron at all.
If one is dealing with minerals that do not exclude parent and daughter elements, then most likely the parent element will be evenly distributed everywhere, and one will have a wimpy isochron that cannot detect added daughter product, and thus may give unreliable ages. Whole rock isochrons may also tend to be wimpy, for the same reason.
Even super isochrons can yield ages that are too old, due to mixings, however. False K-Ar isochrons can be produced if a lava flow starts out with a lot of excess Ar40 which becomes well mixed, along with potassium. Then while cooling or afterwards, a mixture of Ar36 and Ar40 can enter the rock, more in some places than others.
You are here
Other isotopes of argon would work as well. I believe that this will produce a good K-Ar isochron, but the age calculated will be meaningless. There is another way that false isochrons can be produced. For a wimpy isochron, say a K-Ar isochron, we can assume that initially there is a uniform concentration of K everywhere, and concentrations of Ar40 and Ar36 that form an isochron. Then a lot of Ar40 enters, uniformly, through cracks in the rock or heating. This will retain the isochron property, but will make the isochron look too old.
My reasoning was that if the lava is thoroughly mixed, then the concentration of parent material should be fairly constant. If the concentration of parent substance is not constant, it could indicate that the lava is not thoroughly mixed. Or it could have other explanations. If the lava is not thoroughly mixed, it is possible to obtain an isochron from the mixing of two different sources, in which case the radiometric age is inherited from the sources, and does not necessarily yield the age of the flow.
Someone pointed out to me that many Rb-Sr isochrons are super isochrons. I find this information very interesting, and thank him for it. I'd be curious to know which strata they occur in, as my main interest is the geologic column of Cambrian and above. My impression is that these are not on this part of the geologic column.
And how well do the dates correlate with others for the same formation? There are also mixing scenarios that can produce even super isochrons having invalid ages. And geologists admit in any event that isochrons can sometimes give false ages. Here is a mixing scenario for false isochrons. There are two sources of lava, A and B. Suppose these mix together so that at point 0 we have only A, at point 1 we have only B, and in between we have varying concentrations.
Half way between there is a mixture of half A and half B, for example. Suppose X is a parent substance, Y is its daughter, and Z is a non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter. Suppose A has a little X and lots of Y and not much Z, all uniformly distributed, and B has some mixture of Y and Z, all uniformly distributed. Then this varying mixture of A and B, with all A at 0 and all B at 1, produces a good isochron.
There is no way this mixture can be distinguished from a similar case in which A has lots of X and little Y, and B is the same as before, and a lot of time passes. It is claimed that mixing can often be detected.