Impossible Radiometric Dates

By Paul Nethercott

April 2013

 

Introduction

How reliable is radiometric dating? We are repeatedly told that it proves the Earth to be billions of years old. If radiometric dating is reliable than it should not contradict the evolutionary model. According to the Big Bang theory the age of the Universe is 10 to 15 billion years.¹ Standard evolutionist publications give the age of the universe as 13.75 Billion years. ^{2, 3}

 

Standard evolutionist geology views the Earth as being 4.5 billion years old. Here are some quotes from popular text: “The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years.” ⁴ “The Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago.” ¹ “The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth.” ¹ “A valid age for the Earth of 4.55 billion years.” ^{5, 6}

 

Evolutionists give the age of the galaxy as “11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy.” ^{1, 7} Let us remember this as we look at the following dating as given in secular science journals.

 

Evolution Beneath the Kaapvaal Craton

These rocks from South Africa were dated ⁸ in 2004 using the Rhenium/Osmium dating method. The rock samples gave ages ⁹ between -279 and 79 billion years old! There is a 358,000 million year ⁹ spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages. Of the 374 dates, 92 [25%] are negative. The author admits in several places that many ages are impossibly old or young:

 

“In some cases these define plausible ages (Fig. 8a) but in most the ‘ages’ are greater than the age of the Earth (Fig. 8b), and all of these correlations are regarded as mixing lines.” ¹⁰

 

“Both types of high-Fe samples have high proportions of sulfides with young to negative TRD ages.” ¹¹

 

“Negative model ages are meaningless numbers, and are plotted at increments of .0.1 Ga to illustrate the relative abundance of sulfides.” ¹¹

 

 

Table 1

 

Table 2

 

 

Central Asian Orogenic Belt

These rocks from Northern China were dated ¹² in 2010 using the Rhenium/Osmium dating method. The rock samples in table 2 in the article gave ages ¹³ between -9 and 14 billion years old! There is a 14,450 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages. The rock samples in table 3 in the article gave ages ¹⁴ between -3.8 and 10.6 billion years old! There is a 23,920 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages. The author admits in several places that many ages are impossibly old or young:

 

“Whereas two samples give model ages close to, or even greater than, the age of the Earth.” ¹⁵

 

“Other samples give TMA either older than the age of the Earth or a future age, suggesting a disturbance of the Re–Os isotope system in these samples.” ¹³

 

“Thirteen Keluo mantle xenoliths yield impossible TMA model ages, i.e., negative or greater than the Earth's age, reflecting the modification of Re/Os ratios shortly before, during or since basalt entrainment.” ¹⁶

 

Table 3

 

 

Table 4

 

If we use the Rhenium/Osmium dating formula shown in Gunter Faure’s book ¹⁷ and enter a set of isotopic ratios listed in the original online article ¹⁸ we find the rock formation is less than 500 thousand years old.

 

 

 

h = half life, 41.6 billion years

t = the rocks age in years

 

Norwegian Caledonides

These rocks from western Norway were dated ¹⁹ in 2009 using the Samarium/Neodymium dating method. The rock samples in the article gave ages ²⁰ between -64 and 76 billion years old! There is a 141,100 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.  The author admits in several places that many ages are impossibly old or young:

 

“Re–Os model ages determined by LA-ICPMS from Fe–Ni sulfides (primarily pentlandite) scatter across the entire history of the Earth, and a few give meaningless future ages or ages older than the Earth.” ²¹

 

“Table 2 lists model ages based on primitive (CHUR) and depleted (DM) mantle models. The model ages show enormous scatter both within and between bodies and range from meaningless future dates to equally meaningless dates older than the Earth.” ²²

 

“These filters eliminate most of the negative dates and leave only three apparent ages older than the Earth.” ²²

 

 

 

Table 5

 

 

Re–Os Isotopes of Sulfides

These rocks from eastern China were dated ²³ in 2007 using the Rhenium/Osmium dating method. The rock samples in the article gave ages ²⁴ between -47 and 39 billion years old! There is an 86,900 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.  Out of the 348 dates, 72 (21%) were negative and 19 (5%) were older than the evolutionist age of the Earth. The author admits in several places that many ages are impossibly old or young:

 

“Re/Os versus TMA and TRD model ages, showing how samples with higher Re/Os may give ‘future’ ages, or ages older than Earth.” ²⁵

 

“Many of the peridotites studied here contain several generations of sulfides, spanning from Archean to ‘future’ model ages.” ²⁵

 

“However, TMA calculations may yield both future ages and ages older than the Earth, because Re may be added to, or removed from, a xenolith by processes in the mantle and in the host basalt.” ²⁶

 

“A plot of TRD model ages that includes the “future” ages required by sulfides with super chondritic 187Os/188Os shows a marked peak at -180 Ma for the samples from the Cathaysia block.” ²⁷

 

Table 6

 

 

Archean Man Shield, West Africa

These rocks from Sierra Leone were dated ²⁸ in 2001 using the Rhenium/Osmium and Uranium/Lead dating method. The Uranium/Lead dating system gave an average age ²⁹ of 2.5 billion years. The Rhenium/Osmium dating system gave an average age ³⁰ of 8 billion years. The rock samples in the article gave ages ³⁰ between 1.2 and 77 billion years old! There is a 76,000 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages. The author admits in several places that many ages are impossibly old or young:

 

“For the high MgO samples, more than half of the Re//Os model ages are older than the age of the Earth, indicating they either experienced recent Re loss or gain of radiogenic Os.” ³¹

 

“Five out of 13 of the low MgO samples also have Re/Os model ages older than the Earth.” ³¹

 

 

Table 7

 

 

 

 

Lithospheric Mantle Evolution

These rocks from north Queensland were dated ³² in 2010 using the Rhenium/Osmium dating method. The rock samples in the article gave ages ³³ between -24 and 8.6 billion years old! There is a 33,330 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.  Out of the 54 dates, 13 (24%) were negative and two were older than the evolutionist age of the Earth. The author admits that many ages are impossibly old or young:

 

“Sulfides deposited from fluids with variable Re/Os have Os-isotope compositions that either plot in the field with γOs>0 and Re/Os> CHUR, and with negative TRD and TMA ages or they plot in the field with γOs>0 and Re/Os> CHUR, and with negative TMA and positive TRD ages.” ³⁴

 

Table 8

 

 

Upper Crust in North-East Australia

These rocks from north Queensland were dated ³⁵ in 2010 using the Rhenium/Osmium dating method. The rock samples in the article gave ages ³⁶ between -3.2 and 9.7 billion years old! There is a 12,950 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.  Out of the 31 dates, 6 (20%) were negative and one was older than the evolutionist age of the Earth. The author admits that many ages are impossibly old or young:

 

“Some garnet-rich granulites from the McBride Province yielded negative Hf and Nd model ages, whereas the Mt Quincan granulite yields model ages both older than the Earth and negative; these are not useful and are rejected.” ³⁷

Table 9

 

 

 

The Kaapvaal Cratonic Lithospheric Mantle

These rocks from South Africa were dated ³⁸ in 2006 using the Samarium/Neodymium and Lutetium/Hafnium dating methods. The rock samples in the first table [Table 10] in the article gave ages ³⁹ between -67 and 30 billion years old! There is a 97,790 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.  Out of the 57 dates, 17 (30%) were negative and four were older than the evolutionist age of the Earth. The author admits that many ages are impossibly old or young:

 

“The large difference in Sm/Nd, but the relatively similar Nd isotope compositions of the garnet and cpx from the same sample result in generally young two-point cpx garnet Sm/Nd ‘ages’ for the Kimberley samples ranging from negative to 202 Ma.” ⁴⁰

 

“Evidence that complete equilibration was not achieved in many of the samples comes from the observation that tie-lines connecting the garnet and Sm/Nd data for seven samples provide ages younger than the time of kimberlite eruption, including a number of samples that give negative ages.” ⁴¹

 

“Negative Sm/Nd garnet ages are not uncommon for peridotite xenoliths and were first described in samples from Kimberley.” ⁴¹

 

 

 

 

Table 10

 

If we put the Samarium/Neodymium and Lutetium/Hafnium ratios in first table ³⁹ in the article into Microsoft Excel and use the dating formulas ^{42, 43} listed in Gunter Faure’s book we find that the average age is just 100 million years! The spread of dates is not 100 billion years but just 100 million years!

 

 

h = half life, 106 billion years

 

 

 

h = half life, 37.3 billion years

 

Table 11

 

If we look at the dates in table eleven ⁴⁴ there is a 34,000 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages. If we look at the dates in table twelve ⁴¹ there is a 99,908 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.

 

Table 12

 

 

In Situ Analysis of Sulphides

These rocks from South Australia and France were dated ⁴⁵ in 2001 using the Rhenium/Osmium dating methods. The rock samples in the second table in the article gave ages ⁴⁶ between -17 and 34 billion years old! With the South Australian rocks, there is a 51,000 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.  The author admits that many ages are impossibly old or young:

 

“It is obviously not the case here, given that TMA model ages for some sulphides or samples are unrealistic, giving future ages or ages older than 4.5 Ga.” ⁴⁶

 

“Interstitial sulphides in GRM-2 yield future TRD ages and unrealistic TMA ages, again indicating that the Os isotopic composition is not related to time-integrated in situ Re decay.” ⁴⁷

 

 

Table 12

South Australian rocks

 

Table 13

French rocks

 

With the French rocks, ⁴⁸ there is a 48,000 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.  

 

Southern African Peridotite Xenoliths

These rocks from South Africa were dated ⁴⁹ in 1988 using several dating methods. If we insert the isotopic ratios listed one table ⁵⁰ we find that the Rubidium/Strontium ratios give ages between 83 and between 1,100 million years old. If we insert the Lead/Lead ratios listed in the same table we find the rock is between 4,700 and 5,000 million years old.  If we insert the Osmium ratios listed in another table ⁵¹ and use the dating formula shown in Gunter Faure’s book ⁵² we find the rock is between -3,300 and 13,500 million years old. There is a 16,000 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.

 

 

In the above formula, t = billions of years.

 

Table 14

 

 

Xenoliths from Kimberley, South Africa

These rocks from South Africa were dated ⁵³ in 2007 using the Rhenium/Osmium dating method. The rock samples in the article gave ages ⁵⁴ between -117,980 and 143,830 million years old! With the rocks, there is a 261,810 million year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.  The author admits that many ages are impossibly old or young:

 

“The very old Re–Os model age of websterite DJ0217 of 7 Ga testifies to a more complex history for this sample.” ⁵⁵

 

“The olivines from these samples also provide negative Re–Os model ages suggesting recent modification of their Re–Os systematics.” ⁵⁶

 

“On a Re–Os isochron diagram, the whole-rock—olivine tie-line for DJ0259 corresponds to an age of 5.2 Ga. This unrealistic age coupled with the radiogenic Os, but near chondritic Re/Os ratio of the olivine suggests that the olivine in this dunite was either added recently, or interacted extensively with modern mantle melts, for example the host kimberlite.” ⁵⁶

 

Table 15

 

 

Conclusion

 

Yuri Amelin states in the journal Elements that radiometric dating is extremely accurate:

 

“However, four 238U/235U-corrected CAI dates reported recently (Amelin et al. 2010; Connelly et al. 2012) show excellent agreement, with a total range for the ages of only 0.2 million years – from 4567.18 ± 0.50 Ma to 4567.38 ± 0.31 Ma.” ^57-59

 

To come within 0.2 million years out of 4567.18 million years means an accuracy of 99.99562%. Looking at some of the dating it is obvious that precision is much lacking. The Bible believer who accepts the creation account literally has no problem with such unreliable dating methods. Much of the data in radiometric dating is selectively taken to suit and ignores data to the contrary.

 

 

References

 

1              http://web.archive.org/web/20051223072700/http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

The age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe.

 

2              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

 

3              http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.4744v1.pdf

Microwave Anisotropy Probe Observations, Page 39, By N. Jarosik

 

4              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

 

5              http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/190/1/205

The age of the Earth, G. Brent Dalrymple

Geological Society, London, Special Publications, January 1, 2001, Volume 190, Pages 205-221

 

6              The age of the earth, Gérard Manhes

Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 47, Issue 3, May 1980, Pages 370–382

 

7              http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506458v1.pdf

The age of the Galactic disk, By E. F. del Peloso and L. da Silva

Astronomy & Astrophysics, Manuscript no. 3307, February 2, 2008

 

 

C:\Essays\Geo_Dating\Dating\Impossible\Impossible.xlsm

 

8              Evolution Beneath the Kaapvaal Craton, Chemical Geology, Volume 208, 2004, Pages 89-118

 

9              Reference 8, pages 101-105

 

10           Reference 8, pages 107

 

11           Reference 8, pages 110

 

12           Central Asian Orogenic Belt, Lithos, Volume 126, 2011, Pages 233-247

 

13           Reference 12, page 241

 

14           Reference 12, page 242

 

15           Reference 12, page 239

 

16           Reference 12, page 244

 

17           Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition, By Gunter Faure, Published By John Wiley And Sons, New York, 1986, Page 266.

 

18           http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024493711002179

 

19           Norwegian Caledonides: An isotopic investigation, Lithos, Volume 117, 2010, Pages 1-19

 

20           Reference 19, pages 6, 7

 

21           Reference 19, page 7

 

22           Reference 19, page 11

 

23           Re/Os Isotopes of Sulfides, Lithos, Volume 102, 2008, Pages 43-64

 

24           Reference 23, pages 46-50

 

25           Reference 23, page 52

 

26           Reference 23, page 53

 

27           Reference 23, page 61

 

28           Archean Man Shield, West Africa, Precambrian Research, Volume 118, 2002, Pages 267-283

 

29           Reference 28, pages 273, 274

 

30           Reference 28, page 277

 

31           Reference 28, page 276

 

32           Lithospheric Mantle Evolution, Lithos, Volume 125, 2011, Pages 405-422

 

33           Reference 32, page 417

 

34           Reference 32, page 415

 

35           Upper Crust in North-East Australia, International Journal Earth Science, 2012, Volume 101,

Pages 1091-1109

 

36           Reference 35, Pages 1099, 1101

 

37           Reference 35, Pages 1098

 

38           The Kaapvaal Cratonic Lithospheric Mantle, Journal Of Petrology, 2007, Volume 48, Number 3,

Pages 589-625

 

39           Reference 38, pages 600-601

 

40           Reference 38, pages 609

 

41           Reference 38, pages 612

 

42           Reference 17, pages 205

 

43           Reference 17, pages 252

 

44           Reference 38, pages 610

 

45           In Situ Analysis of Sulphides, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2002, Volume 203,

Pages 651-663

 

46           Reference 45, page 654

 

47           Reference 45, page 659

 

48           Reference 45, page 655

 

49           Southern African Peridotite Xenoliths, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1989, Volume 53,

Pages 1583-1595

 

50           Reference 49, page 1587

 

51           Reference 49, page 1588

 

52           Reference 17, page 269

 

53           Xenoliths from Kimberley, South Africa, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2008, Volume 72,

Pages 5722-5756

 

54           Reference 53, page 5737

 

55           Reference 53, page 5743

 

56           Reference 53, page 5744

 

57           Dating the Oldest Rocks in the Solar System, Elements, 2013, Volume 9, Pages 39-44

 

58           Amelin, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2010, Volume 300, Pages 343-350

 

59           Connelly, Science, 2012, Volume 338, Pages 651-655

 

www.creation.com