Radiometric dating measures the decay of radioactive atoms to determine the age of a rock sample. It is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant. By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can’t give reliable absolute ages.
Many geologists claim that radiometric “clocks” show rocks to be millions of years old. However, to read any clock accurately we must know where the clock was set at the beginning.
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact. Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions.
Is the earth approximately four billion years old? This figure wasn’t established by radiometric dating of the earth itself. Most people are not aware of this.
Radiohalos shouldn’t exist, according to conventional wisdom! Though they are very tiny, polonium radiohalos have a huge message that cannot be ignored. They point to a catastrophic origin for granites, consistent with the biblical timeframe for earth history and God’s judgment during the Flood.
Uranium-lead radioisotope dating is now the preferred absolute dating method among geochronologists. But there are several problems with this particular method.
How much do we really know about all those human and ape fossils displayed in museums and textbooks? The dating methods aren’t as rock-solid as most people assume.
Selected data and unprovable assumptions are a problem with all methods for determining the age of the earth, as well as for dating its fossils and rocks.
Let’s take a closer look at the radioactive dating method and the radiometric dating methods and see how reliable they really are.
NCSU’s recent research revealed an “oversight in a radioisotope dating technique used to date everything from meteorites to geologic samples.”
New chemical analyses appear to show that some of the early mantle rock may have survived until today in rock formations called flood basalts.
Dr. Snelling documents the methodology and history of determining present decay constants and half-lives of parent radioisotopes used for dating methods.PDF Download
A significant fraction of the earth’s radioactive elements, particularly uranium and thorium, appear to be in the granitic rock of the upper continental crust.PDF Download
Over the last 80 years numerous determinations have been made of the 147Sm half-life.PDF Download
This paper documents radioisotope dating for meteorites, achondrites, angrites, aubrites, mesosiderites, and irons to further discuss significance of the data.PDF Download
Internet posts continue to accuse the RATE team of ignoring clear evidence of contamination. But is this really the case?
The date evolutionists report for Little Foot is old enough to keep it in the running for human ancestor, but there is no reason to consider the dates reliable.
If the Re-Os dating method is calibrated against an uncertain “gold standard,” then it cannot be absolute and cannot be used to reject a young-earth timescale.PDF Download
This third paper documents the radioisotope dating data for more meteorites, so as to continue the discussion of the significance of these data.PDF Download
If the Lu-Hf dating method has been calibrated against the U-Pb “gold standard” with its own uncertainties, then it cannot be absolute.PDF Download
In spite of numerous attempts for over 60 years to determine the 87Rb half-life and decay constant, there is still no consensus.PDF Download
This paper documents the radioisotope dating data for more meteorites, so as to continue the discussion of the significance of these data.PDF Download
There is evidence for rapid granite formation during the Flood.PDF Download
Despite debate about the accuracy of the uranium “clocks” they contain, scientists say they’ve found a zircon with a confirmed age of 4.4 billion years.
Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old.
Geologists have discovered a great mystery—tiny black circles, called radiohalos, formed by polonium decay. Where'd it come from, and where'd it go?
Interpreted in a biblical framework, radiometric dating methods help us better understand the earth's history since creation six thousand years ago.
Last year we mentioned research that showed a relationship between earth’s distance from the sun and the rate at which certain elements undergo radioactive decay—an eyebrow-raising linkage.
Once you understand the basic science of radiometric dating, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.
The Somerset Dam layered mafic intrusion in southeast Queensland, Australia, has been conventionally dated as Late Triassic by the apparently successful application of radioisotopic dating techniques.PDF Download
Mt. Ngauruhoe in the Taupo Volcanic Zone of New Zealand erupted andesite lava flows in 1949 and 1954, and avalanche deposits in 1975.PDF Download
Mt. Ngauruhoe is an andesite stratovolcano, rising above the Tongariro volcanic massif within the Tongariro Volcanic Center of the Taupo Volcanic Zone.PDF Download
The Cooma granodiorite was generated as a consequence of the regional metamorphism that resulted from the catastrophic large-scale emplacement during the catastrophic plate tectonics of the Flood.PDF Download
The Po radiohalos and other evidence associated with this granite thus remove objections to Flood geology and any need to place the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the lower Carboniferous.PDF Download
Polonium radiohalos found in biotite flakes of granites in Yosemite National Park place severe time constraints on the formation and cooling of the granite plutons.PDF Download
The chemical data used in the radiometric dating method requires interpretation, which is sure to be wrong if Biblical data is ignored.
The regional metamorphism, the hydrothermal fluid flows, the cooling of the regional metamorphic complex, and the formation of the Po radiohalos all had to have occurred within a few weeks.PDF Download
A feedback submitter suggests that the RATE team was dishonest because “[t]hey already know the truth [and] the facts that they find will reflect their presuppositions.”