Bad Dating?

Posted by Chris Parker
Sep 12 2006

テつ

This page has actually been on the site for some time, but if you haven’t read it, we recommend it as either new info or a refresher on how the supposedly vast ages of the earth and its geology have been obtained. This article points out that the only we to make these dating systems palatable, is to take them with a grain of salt….. s8int.com

“Scientists have proposed numerous age estimation methods. Most systems promoted by Evolutionists involve radioactivity. Various radioactive elements are involved, including Carbon-14, Uranium-238, Thorium-232, and Potassium-40.

By the way, it is important to understand that most rock strata “dates” were actually assigned long before the first use of radioactive age estimating methods.

The Carbon-14 age estimating method is, at best, only useful for estimating the age of things that are thousands of years old, not millions or billions. And it does not work on rocks or thoroughly mineralized fossils; it is only useful for relatively well-preserved organic materials such as cloth, wood, and other non-fossilized materials.

Other methods must be used to estimate the age of rocks and minerals. Two of the most widely-known systems are the potassium-argon method and the uranium-lead method.

A radioactive form of potassium is found in minute quantities in some rocks. It disintegrates at a measured rate into calcium and argon. Similarly, the radioactive element uranium decomposes into lead and some other elements.

How are these processes used to estimate the age of rocks? The principle is similar to that used with Carbon-14. The speed of the disintegration process is measured. A portion of the material is ground up and a measurement is made of the ratio of radioactive “parent” atoms to the decomposition products.

Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced. For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old.テつ

A popular and supposedly foolproof method was used on two lava flows in the Grand Canyon that should be ideal for radioactive age estimation. The results were similarly bad.

Young basalt rock at the Canyon’s top produced an age estimate 270 million years older than ancient basalt rock at the Canyon’s bottom. The problem seems to arise from basic wrong assumptions in the method (rubidium-strontium isochron).

If such a sophisticated method is so flawed, geologist Dr. Steven Austin rightly wonders, “Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?”"

Click Here to Read Article

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback URL for this entry