Radiometric Dating Versus The Bible
By Paul Nethercott
The Bible’s View On The Age of the Earth
One thing that
makes the Bible unique compared to other religious texts is its view on the age
and origin of the Earth. In the fourth commandment [Exodus 20:8-11] God told
the children of Israel that because He created the Earth in six days and rested
on the seventh day they should work six days and rest on the seventh day.
Nobody would ever think that he commanded them to work for millions of years
and rest millions of years. In the creation week [Genesis 1:1-31] each day is
called evening and morning [1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23, 1:31]. In the Bible
evening and morning is always a 24 hour day.
In Exodus 31:13-18 God told the children of Israel to keep the Sabbath
because it is the same one in the creation week. Since human lifespan is only
80 years we could never keep a Sabbath millions of years long. A literal week
[168 hours long] is what the Bible teaches
In the book of Isaiah [41:4, 64:4] the prophet clearly believed that
humans have been on the planet since the beginning. The prophet Zechariah
[12:1] tells us that God made Adam when He made the foundations of the Earth. Hebrews 1:10
tells us that He made the foundations of the Earth in the beginning.
The time interval between the beginning [Genesis 1:1] and God creating Adam and
Eve is five days or 120 hours.
In
Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 Jesus said that God made humans at the beginning
[Genesis 1:1]. According to the Bible the age of the Earth is the age of
mankind. According to the theory of evolution the Earth existed 4.5 billion
years before the arrival of humans. In Luke 1:70 the Bible sates that God’s
holy prophets have been since the world began. If you accept the Earth is 4.5
billion years old that would mean humans have been here that long which is
impossible. The Bible cannot be reconciled with an old Earth. Out of 6,000
years of Earth history man has been here for 99.9996804%.
If we say that humans arrived 100 thousand years ago and you accept the
Earth is 4.5 billion years old then man has been absent
for 99.9999574% of Earth history.
The book of Luke [11:50, 51]
tells us that God’s prophets have been since the foundations of the world. Hebrews 1:10
tells us that this is the beginning. The age of
the Earth is therefore the age of mankind. In Acts 3:26 the Bible sates that God’s
holy prophets have been since the world began.
Jesus
said in John 8:44 that Satan tempted Adam and Eve in the beginning. The Bible
states that there were 21 generations from Adam to Abraham [Luke 3:34-38]. From
the creation week to the building of the pyramids [Genesis 12:15] could only be
a few thousand years. Unless we say the Bible is complete rubbish we have to
accept that the beginning is only a few thousand years ago. The apostle Paul
tells us in Hebrews 4:3, 4 that all of God’s creative work was finished at the
foundations of the world. Hebrews 1:10 tells us that this is the beginning.
This leaves no room for creating anything after the beginning. All of His
creative work was done in the creation week. Nothing before or after.
Hebrews
9:26 tells us that sinners have been in existence since the foundations of the
world. Since the foundations of the world were made at the beginning this means
the age of the Earth is the age of mankind. The Bible tells us that there were
no sinners before Adam and Eve [Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22]. The creation
of the Earth and the arrival of humans overlapped each other. There is no gap
of millions of years. The last book of the Bible tells us that Jesus was the
“Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” Revelation 13:8, 17:8. Since the
foundation of the world were made in the beginning [Hebrews 1:10] this puts the
age of the Earth and the entrance of sin at the same time. If the beginning
were billions of years ago you would have sin before Adam and Eve.
Radiometric
dates cannot contradict the evolutionary time model 1, 2, 3. Earth
rocks, Moon rocks and meteorites cannot be over 4.5 billion years old. Nothing
in the Solar System can be over 4.5 billion years old. Nothing in the Milky Way
Galaxy can be over 12 billion years old. Nothing in the universe can be over 15
billion years old. You cannot have rocks with future ages. Anything that exists
in the present must have formed in the past and not in the future. Since
radiometric dating affirms the Earth and life on Earth to have been in
existence for billions of years it cannot be reconciled with the Bible.
Future Radiometric Dating
Rocks that exist in the present cannot have formed millions or
billions of years in the future! Imagine someone telling you that Captain Cook
had not discovered Australia yet. Rocks from Norway were dated 4 in
2009 using the Rubidium/Strontium and Neodymium/Samarium method. The rock
samples gave ages 4 between minus 31 billion and 76 billion years old! Since the Earth exists in the
present how can the rocks have formed 31 billion years in the future? How can a
rock be 60 billion years older than the Big Bang explosion? The author admits
impossible ages: “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.” 4 He then admits: “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.” 4 Of
all the samples 20 are older than the evolutionist age of the Earth, 8 are older than the evolutionist age of the Galaxy, 7 are older than the evolutionist age of
the Universe and 19 have negative ages. 4
There is a 107.5 billion year spread of dates between the youngest
[Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.
Rock samples from South Africa
were dated 5 in 2011 using the Rubidium/Strontium and
Neodymium/Samarium method. The rock samples gave ages 5 between
minus 22 billion and 20 billion years old! Since the Earth exists in the present
how can rocks have formed 22 billion years in the future? How can a rock be 5
billion years older than the Big Bang explosion? The author admits that the
dates are impossible: “Type I eclogites show wide variations in model ages,
from negative values to values much larger than the age of Earth. Sr model ages
of Type I samples are all negative. Nd TCHUR ranges from -22.4 to 6.6 Ga, and
Nd TDM from -2.3 to 8.1 Ga. Most of the Hf data give future ages; RV07-03, -18
and HRV247 give reasonable model ages, but the model ages of RV07-16 are older
than Earth itself.” 5
There is a 42.3 billion year spread of dates between the youngest
[Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.
Rocks from
eastern China were dated 6 in 2006 using the Rhenium/Osmium
method. The rock samples give ages 6 between minus 87 billion
to 40 billion years! Since the Earth exists in the present how can rocks have formed
87 billion years in the future? How can a rock be 25 billion years older than
the Big Bang explosion? The author admits this major problem in four different
places. 6 There is 127 billion year difference between the
oldest [39 billion years] and the youngest [-87 billion years]. If the universe
is only 13 billion years old how can there be such a wide range of ages?
There
are mineral samples from central eastern China, 7 that have been dated in 2006 using the
Rhenium/Osmium isotope systems. The author admits that the dates give several
negative ages: “Ages (-6,900 to 7,330 Ma) of the Raobozhai peridotites vary
widely from geologically meaningless to future ages.” 7 The
dating gave four impossible future ages. 7 According to Rhenium/Osmium
isochron diagrams 39 for Xugou peridotites, the formation is 2 billion years
old. There is a 14.2 billion year spread of dates between the youngest
[Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages. Evolutionists claim that the Earth
is only 4.5 billion years old so how can you have such a huge date range?
There
are mineral samples from the Siberian and Slave Cratons, and the Massif
Central, France, 8 that
have been dated in 2010 using the Rhenium/Osmium isotope systems.
According to Rhenium/Osmium isochron dates 8 the formation’s
true age is 2.3 to 3.6 billion years old. Many of the dates were impossible
future ages: “Therefore, both TRD and TMA yield unrealistic ages (future or
unreasonably old, respectively).” 8 There is a 14.8 billion
year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.
There
are rocks from North China were dated 9
in 2007 using the Rubidium/Strontium and Uranium/Lead dating methods. The rock
samples gave ages 9
between -3 billion and 9 billion years old! Since the Earth exists in the
present how can rocks have formed 3 billion years in the future? How can a rock
be 4.5 billion years older than the Earth? The author admits some of the dates
are negative: “The Nd model ages for the individual data points are variable,
from ~2.8 Ga to negative ages (Table 3), consistent with our earlier observation that REE patterns
for all the samples display some degree of secondary metasomatic overprinting
by LREE-enriched silicate melts.” 9
There is a 12.7 billion
year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive]
ages.
There are rocks from Wyoming that were dated 10 in 2003 using the Rubidium/Strontium and Neodymium/Samarium method. The rock samples gave ages 10 between -2 billion and 50 billion years old! Since the Earth exists in the present how can rocks have formed 2 billion years in the future? How can a rock be 35 billion years older than the Big Bang explosion? The author admits some of the dates are negative. There is a 52 billion year spread of dates between the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages.
Rocks Older Than The Galaxy
Rock
samples 11 from the Gas Hills in Wyoming were dated
in 1979 using the Uranium-Lead method. The rock sample GH-B1 was dated giving
ages 11 between -1.24 billion and 12 billion
years old! The author admits: “These systematics are similar to those observed
by Ludwig for the Shirley Basin uranium ores, for which preferential loss of
radioactive daughters in the U decay chain was shown to be the dominant cause
of apparent age discordance.” 11 “The trends of
apparent age and discordance of the total ore, uraninite-coffinite, and pyrite
analyses for the Gas Hills and Crooks Gap ores are very similar to those
reported for the Shirley Basin uranium ores.” 11 Another group of
rock samples were dated 11 giving absurd
values. Many had negative ages! Some were older than the evolutionist age of
the Solar System. How can Earth rocks be older than the evolutionist age of
Solar System? The Earth and Solar System are supposed to be 4.5 billion years
old and the Galaxy 12 billion years old.
Kimberlites of southern Africa
were dated in 1989 using Rhenium-Osmium dating method. 12 Some of the ages
12
are
between 5.6 billion and 12.6 billion years old. This is older than the
evolutionist age of the Solar System and galaxy.
Xenoliths from
kimberlites intruding 13 the Siberian craton were dated in
1995 using the Rhenium/Osmium, Samarium/Neodymium, and Rubidium/Strontium
dating methods. The results acquired using Rubidium-Strontium 13 isotope
dating as being between 258 million and 12.7 billion years old. The dates
obtained using Rhenium-Osmium dating method go from seventeen negative dates up
to 11 billion years old. 13 The author admits: “If Re/Os
model ages are calculated using the conventional model age approach, i.e.,
using the measured Re/OS and osmium isotope composition in comparison to some
model for bulk-Earth osmium isotope evolution, several peridotites yield
negative ages, or ages that are considerably older than the Earth” 13
The Weekeroo
Station iron meteorite was dated 14
in 1967 using the Potassium-Argon dating method. The author of the article
begins with the following remarks: “The formation or solidification ages of
iron meteorites have never been well determined. The most direct method seems
to be that of Stoenner and Zahringer, who measured the potassium and argon
contents by neutron-activation analysis. Their data, however, indicated ages of
from about 7 billion to 10 billion years, whereas the age of the solar system is
generally well accepted at about 4.7 billion years. Fisher later confirmed
these data, but concluded that they were evidence of an unexplained potassium:
argon anomaly rather than that they indicated true ages. From Muller and
Zahringer's more recent data they conclude that a Potassium/Argon age of about
6.3 billion years can be assigned to many iron meteorites.” 14 The author of the article
then concludes with the following remarks: “The ages found by us are typical of
the great ages found for most iron meteorites. From these, in conjunction with
the Strontium/Rubidium data of Wasserburg on silicate inclusions in this
meteorite, we conclude that the Potassium: Argon dating technique as applied to
iron meteorites gives unreliable results. One may derive ad hoc possible
explanations of the discord between the silicate and iron-phase ages, such as
shock emplacement of these inclusions within the metal matrix without
disturbing the potassium: argon ratios in the metal, but we feel that such
mechanisms are unlikely.” 14
Donald Bogard
from the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas performed this dating 15 in 1990 using
the Argon dating method. Three dates are as old, or older than the evolutionist
age of the Galaxy. Eleven are older than the evolutionist age of Solar System.
This dating was
done in 1976 by scientists 16 from the United
States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. The Uranium/Lead and Thorium/Lead
dating 16 summary in the
original essay gave impossible ages. Thirty one of the dates are older than the
evolutionist age of the Solar System. Four are over ten billion years. One date
is older than the Big Bang explosion date.
These rocks from Japan were
dated in 2005 using 17 the Argon 40
isotope method. The opening paragraph of this article states: “A laser fusion
Ar-Ar technique applied on single crystals of kyanite from river sands of the
Kitakami Mountain region of northeast Japan yielded ages of up to 16 Ga, more
than three times the age of the earth. Although the age values are geologically
meaningless, the ultra-high excess argon in kyanites is unique and hitherto
unreported. We interpret this to be an artifact of ultra-high argon pressure
derived from radiogenic argon in potassium-rich phases such as phengites during
the Barrovian type retrogression of the ultra-high pressure rocks in this
region.” 17 The author
concludes:
“In
this study, we report the results from fusion Ar-Ar technique on single
crystals of kyanite recovered from river sands in the Kitakami region. However,
the kyanites yielded ages that are two to three times older than the age of the
earth.” 17
Impossible Radiometric Dates
These
rocks from South Africa were dated in 2004 using the Rhenium/Osmium dating
method. The rock samples gave ages 18 between -279 billion
and 79 billion years old! There is a 358 billion year 18 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.” 18 Again: “Both types of high-Fe
samples have high proportions of sulfides with young to negative TRD ages.” 18
“Negative model ages are meaningless numbers, and are plotted at
increments of 0.1 Ga to illustrate the relative abundance of sulfides.” 18
These rocks from Northern China
were dated 19 in 2010 using the Rhenium/Osmium dating method.
The rock samples in the article gave ages 19 between -9 billion
and 14 billion years old! There is a 23 billion year spread of dates between
the youngest [Negative] and the oldest [Positive] ages. The rock samples in
table 3 in the article gave ages between -3.8 and 10.6 billion years old! There
is a 23 billion 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.” 19 “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.” 19 He also says: “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.” 19
These
rocks from western Norway were dated 20 in 2009 using the
Samarium/Neodymium dating method. The rock samples in the article gave ages 20
between -64 billion and 76 billion years old! There is a 141 billion 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.” 20 He also says: “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.” 20
These rocks from
eastern China were dated 21 in 2007 using the Rhenium/Osmium
dating method. The rock samples in the article gave ages 21 between
-47 billion and 39 billion years old! There is an 87 billion 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.” 21 He also
says: “Many of the peridotites studied here contain several
generations of sulfides, spanning from Archean to ‘future’ model ages.” 21
“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.” 21
These
rocks from Sierra Leone were dated 22
in 2001 using the Rhenium/Osmium and Uranium/Lead dating method. The
Uranium/Lead dating system gave an average age of 2.5 billion years. The Rhenium/Osmium
dating system gave an average age of 8 billion years. The rock samples in the
article gave ages 22 between 1.2 billion and 77 billion years old! There is a 76 billion 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.” 22 He also says: “Five out of 13 of the low MgO samples also have Re/Os
model ages older than the Earth.” 22
These rocks from
north Queensland were dated 23 in
2010 using the Rhenium/Osmium dating method. The rock samples in the article
gave ages 23 between -24 billion and 8.6
billion years old! There is a 33 billion 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.
Rocks Older Than The Solar System
Rock
samples from the Marble Bar area of the Pilbara Craton, Western Australia, were
dated 24 in 2011 using the Uranium/Lead and Thorium/Lead
dating methods. The article claims that the true age is 3.4 billion years old. 24
If we put the ratios from a table 24 in the article into
Microsoft Excel and run the values through Isoplot 25 we get ages
between 5 billion and 100 billion years old! How can a rock be 85 billion years
older than the Big Bang explosion? Of all the samples, 45 are older than the
evolutionist age of the Earth, 23 are older than the evolutionist age of the
Galaxy and 17 are older than the evolutionist age of the Universe. There is a
75 billion year spread of dates between the youngest and the oldest ages.
Rock
samples from the Morocco and France were dated 26 in 2007 using the Uranium/Lead and Thorium/Lead dating
methods. If we put the ratios from a table 26
in the article into Microsoft Excel and run the values through Isoplot we get
ages between 2 and 92 billion years old! How can a rock be 75 billion years
older than the Big Bang explosion? Of all the samples, 53 are older than the
evolutionist age of the Earth, 13 are older than the evolutionist age of the
Galaxy and 6 are older than the evolutionist age of the Universe. There is a 90
billion year spread of dates between the youngest and the oldest ages.
Rock
samples from the Kola Peninsula in Russia were dated 27 in 2011 using the Uranium/Lead and Thorium/Lead
dating methods. The article claims that the true age is 2075–2100 million years
old. 27 If we put the
ratios from a table 27 in
the article into Microsoft Excel and run the values through Isoplot we get ages
between 2 and 10 billion years old! Of all the samples, 24 are older than the
evolutionist age of the Earth, 2 are older than the evolutionist age of the
Galaxy. There is an 8 billion year spread of dates between the youngest and the
oldest ages.
Rock
samples from the Democratic
Republic of Congo were dated 28
in 2009 using the Uranium/Lead and Thorium/Lead dating methods. The article
claims that the true age is 520 million years old. 28 If we put the ratios from a
table 28 in the article into Microsoft Excel and run the values
through Isoplot we get ages between 0.1 and 200 billion years old! How can a
rock be 185 billion years older than the Big Bang explosion? Of all the samples,
96 are older than the evolutionist age of the
Earth, 42 are older than the evolutionist age of the Galaxy and 35 are older than the evolutionist age
of the Universe. There is a 198 billion year spread
of dates between the youngest and the oldest ages.
This Martian meteorite was dated 29 in 2011 using the
Uranium/Lead and Thorium/Lead dating methods. The article claims that the true
age is 4.1 billion years old. 29
If we put the ratios from a table 29
in the article into Microsoft Excel and run the values through Isoplot we get
ages between 161 million and 165 billion years old! There is 103 thousand
percent difference between the youngest and oldest dates. How can a rock be 150
billion years older than the Big Bang explosion? Of all the samples 11 are
older than the evolutionist age of the Universe. There is a 165 billion year
spread of dates between the youngest and the oldest ages.
Rock samples from the North
China Craton were dated 30
in 2001 using the Rubidium/Strontium and Neodymium/Samarium dating methods. The
article claims 30 that
the true age was determined to be 125 million years old. If we put the Uranium/Lead
and Thorium/Lead ratios from a table 30
in the article into Microsoft Excel and run the values through Isoplot we get
ages between 5 and 44 billion years old! How can a rock be 30 billion years
older than the Big Bang explosion? Of all the samples, 40 are older than the
evolutionist age of the Earth, 15 are older than the evolutionist age of the
Galaxy and 12 are older than the evolutionist age of the Universe. There is a
40 billion year spread of dates between the youngest and the oldest ages.
Rock
samples from Western Australia were dated 31
in 2001 using the Uranium/Lead and Thorium/Lead dating methods. The article
claims that the true age is 3 billion years old. 31 If we put the ratios from a table 31 in the article into
Microsoft Excel and run the values through Isoplot we get ages between 2
million and 24 billion years old! How can a rock be 10 billion years older than
the Big Bang explosion? There is a 1,199,949% difference between the youngest
and oldest dates. Of all the samples, 18 are older than the evolutionist age of
the Earth, 3 are older than the evolutionist age of the Galaxy and 2 are older than
the evolutionist age of the Universe. There is a 24 billion year spread of
dates between the youngest and the oldest ages.
Rock samples from the North
Flinders Ranges, South Australia, were dated 32 in 2010 using the Uranium/Lead and Thorium/Lead
dating methods. The article claims that the true age is 400 million years old. 32 If we put the ratios from
a table 32 in the article
into Microsoft Excel and run the values through Isoplot we get ages between 190
thousand and 20 billion years old! There is a 10,643,286% difference between
the youngest and oldest dates. How can a rock be 5 billion years older than the
Big Bang explosion? Of all the samples, 6 are older than the evolutionist age
of the Earth, 3 are older than the evolutionist age of the Galaxy and 2 are
older than the evolutionist age of the Universe. There is a 20 billion year
spread of dates between the youngest and the oldest ages.
Rocks Older Than The Earth
These rock samples from Broken Hill were dated 33 in
1981 using the 40Argon/39Argon dating method. According to the dates obtained, many of the
rocks are older than the Earth and Solar System. Some of the rocks are as old
as the evolutionist
age of galaxy. The author of the article comments: “Excess 40Ar was incorporated into minerals during the
520-Ma event at a temperature of about 350°C.” 33 There is no way of proving this assumption. It is just an
excuse for such ridiculous ages of geological system that supposedly formed
between 1,600 and 500 million years ago. 33 The data in the original article shows ten have ages greater
than the evolutionist age Earth and forty five
33 have ages greater than the
evolutionist age Solar System. They range from 413
million up to ten billion years old.
This
dating on the Allende meteorite was done in 1983 34 and gave ages
between 3 and 8.8 billion years old. 34 The author
discusses the problem and proposed solutions: “The existence in the Allende meteorite
of coarse-grained Ca-Al-rich inclusions (CAI) with 40Ar/39Ar apparent ages
exceeding the age of the solar system was reported by Jessberger and Dominik
and Jessberger et al. and confirmed by Herzog et al.” In 1980 Herzog in did
more dating and gave three possible reasons 35 why the dates
are in such conflict with the standard evolutionary model.
Some radiometric
dating 36 that was done on some Moon rocks by
Oberli in 1978 gave absurd ages. Oberli states 36 that the Uranium/Thorium/Lead
data is concordant but the Neodymium dates are uncertain. Again it is just an
arbitrary choice he makes as to which date is certain and which date is not.
The dates range from 4.2 to 8.3 billion years. According to the evolutionist
view the Moon is only 4.5 billion years old.
This
article about the Allende meteorite appeared 37 in
Nature magazine in 1979. Jessberger admits that the wildly discordant ages cannot be due
to normal processes: “In the Allende meteorite several elements are found to have an
isotopic composition that cannot be due to radioactive or spallation or
fractionation processes.” 37 Some
of his explanations are totally unprovable: “In the most widely
accepted theory a supernova triggered the collapse of the solar nebula, and the
anomalously high ages would be due to an enhanced 40K/39K
isotopic ratio produced in the explosive carbon burning shell of the supernova?
In another, controversial interpretation these ages could have chronological
significance, as here the presolar grains are relicts from various old stellar
nucleosynthetic and condensation processes unrelated to the formation of the
Solar System.” 37 He then quotes several 37 science
journals for an explanation. He thinks the ages could be residue from an
ancient supernova or contamination for pre galactic dust not related to the
formation of the Solar System. Again, like Oberli his solution is totally
unprovable. How would you test such a hypothesis? Some of the dates are older
than the evolutionist
age of the galaxy. How do we know that Earth rocks
have not been contaminated in such a way? During the formation of the Solar
System, the Earth might have absorbed such materials. His choice of “true” ages
is just guess and not provable science. The two tables in his article have fifty
two dates ranging from 1.46 to 11 billion years old. Forty seven are greater
than the evolutionist age Solar System. Twenty
seven dates are over five billion years old.
These rock samples
from Mount Isa, Queensland were
dated in 2006 by Mark Kendrick 38 from the University of Melbourne. The
data in his article 38 shows ages of Earth rocks from 4.7 to 10 billion
years old. One is as old as the evolutionist age of the Milky Way Galaxy. Eight
are older than the evolutionist age of the Earth and eighteen are older than
the evolutionist age of the Solar System.
Rocks Older Than The Universe
These
rock samples from Black Hills, South Dakota were dated in 1970 giving
ridiculous dates. The oldest is one trillion years old! That is sixty times
older than the Big Bang explosion. The article simply says: “Anomalous age data for pegmatite minerals.”
39
This rock was
from the Great Northern Peninsula, Newfoundland. It was dated in 1974 as being 18 billion years old. As the article
says: “The most striking of these is the consistent pattern of anomalously high
apparent ages obtained for high temperature fractions (i.e. fraction s
corresponding to temperatures > 925-950°C). These anomalously high apparent
ages almost certainly reflect the presence of excess radiogenic argon.” The
table in the article 40 lists eleven rock samples with radical
discordant dates. The first two rocks have internal ages varying between the
“youngest” and “oldest” by a factor of 2,000% and 1,000% respectively.
Some of these rocks have been
dated to be between eight million and eighty billion years old. 41 That
is five times older than the Big Bang explosion! These rocks from Yucca Mountain,
Nevada were dated in 2008 by Uranium–Thorium–Lead dating method. Some of the
dates are almost two million percent discordant. That means that the dating
methods can give ages for the same rock that vary by a factor of 20,000. One
part of the rock is dated as being 20,000 times older than another. The error
range of 180 billion years allows the rocks to have a maximum age of 260
billion years.
This dating was done in 1990 on
rocks from the Ouzzal granite unit in Algeria. Maluski used Argon dating and it
gave dates over 22 billion years old.42 Maluski comments:
"Apparent ages as old as l0-11 Ga are obtained between 450 and 1,100 C,
which implies that the excess component is widely distributed over all the
sites without a preferential location. The internal age discordance is mainly
due to the low amount and ariability of 39Ar released at each temperature
increment. This is probably because K occurs as microscopic impurities within
pyroxene, the degassing of which is very irregular." 42 Seventy six dates were older than the evolutionist
age of the Earth/Solar System. Forty dates were over ten billion years old.
Seven dates were older that the Big Bang explosion.
The article
describes Rubidium-Strontium dating of volcanic rocks in the Highwood Mountains
and Eagle Buttes, Montana, U.S.A. This was performed in 1994. Ages 43 greater than the
Big Bang date [15.5 billion years old] were obtained. The author comments:
“These extreme isotopic characteristics are accompanied by parent daughter
ratios that give all the Highwood peridotites old model ages (Rb-Sr, 2.14-15.5
Ga; Sm-Nd, 2.78-6.83 Ga; Table 1) compared to the other ultramafic samples.” 43
Meteorite Dating
The Acapulco Meteorite was dated in
1997 by scientists from France and Germany. Four of the dates 44 are
older than the evolutionist age of the Solar System and two are as old as the evolutionist
age of galaxy. We shall soon see that this is quite common for dating these
rocks.
This
article summarised meteorite dating in 1967 by scientist from New York and
Florida. 45 Even 30 years later things are no better. In the opening
paragraph he states that the iron meteorite from Weekeroo Station is dated at
ten billion years old. The article gives eight dates ranging from 4.7 to 10
billion years old. He then continues: “The formation or solidification ages of
iron meteorites have never been well determined.” 45 He then cites
earlier dating which produced an age of seven billion years. 45 The
author concludes with the following remark: “The ages found by us are typical
of the great ages found for most iron meteorites. From these, in conjunction
with the Strontium: Rubidium data of Wasserburg et al. on silicate inclusions
in this meteorite, we conclude that the potassium: argon dating technique as
applied to iron meteorites gives unreliable results.” 45
The
Allende meteorite was dated in 2007 by scientists from Australia and America using
the 206Pb/238U dating method. 46 Over ten dates
older than the age of the evolutionist age of the Solar System were produced
and one was as old as the evolutionist age of the galaxy. 46
Scientists
from France used both 87Sr/86Sr and Rhenium-Osmium method
were used to date the
iron meteorite Kodaikanal
in 1998. 47 Dates in the
essay 47 of the Canyon
Diablo meteorite vary from one to fourteen billion years old. There is a 1,200%
difference between the youngest and oldest date obtained for the one rock.
This
meteorite consisting of approximately equal mixtures of metal and silicate was
dated in 1990 by Scientists from the NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas. 48 Eleven of the
sixteen meteorites dated gave ages older than the Solar System and three dated
as being as being as old as the evolutionist age of the galaxy. 48 According to one
table the supposed true age is just 3.5 billion years old. 48
Dated
in 2009 by scientists 49 from Germany and
Russia, these meteorite samples gave astounding results. Forty four dates were
older than the evolutionist age of the Solar System. Nine were as old as the evolutionist
age of galaxy and one older than the Big Bang. 49
Most
age results were hundreds or thousands of percent discordant.
Dated
in 1997 by scientists 50 from Germany and
France, these meteorite samples gave astounding results also. Fourteen dates
were older than the evolutionist age of the Solar System. Three were as old as
the evolutionist age of the galaxy and one was as old as the Big Bang. 50 Most age results
that were hundreds or thousands of percent discordant with each other.
If
we compare the dates above with the dating done in 1958 we see that meteorite
dating has not improved in fifty years! Six meteorites were dated in 1958 by
scientists from Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York. 51 Seventeen dates
were older than the evolutionist age of the Solar System. Five dates were as old
as the evolutionist age of the galaxy. These dates 51
are
just as stupid as the previous examples. The choice of 4.5 billion years as an
“absolute” value is purely and arbitrary choice.
The
Allende and Orgueil meteorites
were dated in 1976 by scientists from the United States Geological Survey,
Denver, Colorado. 52 Six dates were
over ten billion years old. 52 Two dates were
as old as the Big Bang explosion. 52 Fifty two dates
were over five billion years. 52 The
Allende gave a maximum age of 4.84 billion years and a minimum of seventy million
years old.
This
dating was done in 2005 by scientists from USA and Canada. The material dated
is an asteroid fragment from the meteorite Richardton. 53
Five
dates listed in the article were over five billion years old. 53 The true ages is
supposed to be 4.5 billion years old. If we run the atomic ratios in table one
through Isoplot we find the Uranium 238 dating gives an average age of 5.2
billion years and the maximum age as ten billion years old.
This dating of
three different meteorites was done in 2008 by scientists from Australia and
Canada. The Lead/Lead dates
were very uniform but the 206Lead/238Uranium dates gave eight
dates were over five billion years old. 54 Thirteen were
dated as being older than the evolutionist age of Solar System.
Dating done in
1980 of eight different meteorites gave many discordant values. 55 The discordance
between different dates for the same meteorite varied from 120 percent to 8,000
percent! Six of the eight rocks gave ages over five billion years old. Meteorites
Lubbock and Arapahoe both have maximum and minimum ages between 100 million and
ten billion years old. How can the dating method be accurate and give such a
range for one rock?
This
dating was done in 1983 by scientists from the NASA, Johnson Space Center,
Houston Texas and the U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. 56 A
summary of Argon dating done on different meteorite samples shows two are over
five billion years old.
The original article has undated 207Pb/206Pb ratios. If we
run the through Isoplot we find the ratios give the uniform age of 5.3 billion
years. All are much older than the evolutionist age of the solar system.
These
asteroid samples were dated in 2003 by scientists from the NASA Johnson Space
Center, Houston, Texas, and the Lockheed-Martin Corporation, Houston, Texas. 57 Ten of the twenty
six meteorites were dated as being over five billion years old. When scientists
date a rock they get numerous dates for the one meteorite. If we look at the
maximum and minimum age obtained for each meteorite we find that there is
between 500 million and six billion years difference between the oldest and
youngest dates. That means there can be between 20 and 2500 percent discordance
dating the one rock.
These
samples from Texas were dated in 2001 by scientists from the NASA Johnson Space
Center, Houston, Texas, and the Lockheed-Martin Corporation, Houston, Texas. 58 The author comments:
“Although the Monahans light and dark silicate samples show complex age
spectra, we believe that their interpretation is straightforward.” The Monahans
chondrite and halite was dated in 2001 as being over eight billion years old. The
mineral samples gave three different date ranges 2.5 to 4.6 billion years, 3.9 to
8 billion years and 1.1 to 5.7 billion years.
These
samples were dated in 1967 by the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
California. 59 Even after
40 years of research and the massive improvement in laboratory equipment and
computer technology, things today are just as bad as back then! Thirteen of the
dates are five billion years or more. Twenty one were older than the
evolutionist age of the Solar System. 59
Scientist
from the Max-Planck-Institute, Heidelberg, Germany, dated these Allende meteorites samples in 1980. 60 Seven samples were dated
as being over five billion years old. Thirteen dates were older than the
evolutionist age of the Solar System. 60
Twenty dates were over five billion years old.
These
meteorite fragments from the Morokweng crater, South Africa were dated in 2010
by scientists from Australia, South Africa, England and Finland. 61 The
dates for the one meteorite varied from 174 million to 11.25 billion years old.
The oldest date is sixty four times older than the youngest date. Some dates
are over 4,000 percent discordant. The oldest date is as old as the
evolutionist age of the galaxy. 61
Concordia Isochron Dating
Theses rock samples from the Bohemian Massif, South East Germany
62 were
dated in 2010 using the Uranium-Lead dating method. The table in the essay has
three columns of isotopic ratios, 206Pb/238U, 207Pb/235U
and 207Pb/206Pb. You will notice in Table 4 the original
article 62 that
there are dates besides the 206Pb/238U and 207Pb/235U
ratios but no dates beside the 207Pb/206Pb ratios. The
true age is supposed to be about four million years old. The first two sets of
ratios and dates agree with each other between 94 and 101 percent accuracy. If
we use the computer program Isoplot and calculate the ages of the 207Pb/206Pb
ratios we see why not dates have been put beside them. Twenty two of the fifty
seven dates are negative. They range from -133 to 281 million years old. That
is logically impossible. How can the rock have formed millions of years in the
future? We can see that the 207Pb/206Pb
dates are between 1,000 to 21,000 percent discordant when compared to the two
Uranium-Lead dating methods. Here is just one of many times where geology
journals use selective evidence to try and prove evolution. If the third column
or ratios were dated and added to the essay you can see how silly it would
look.
These rock samples
from North America were dated in 2002 using both 63 Potassium-Argon
and Lead-Lead dating methods. Again the no dates beside the 207Pb/206Pb
ratios. According to the Potassium-Argon dating method the rocks are 1,740
million years old. The first table in his article has dates 63 using
the 40Ar/39Ar dating method. The third table 63 has the
207Pb/206Pb ratios. If we use the computer program
Isoplot and calculate the ages of the 207Pb/206Pb ratios
we see why not dates have been put beside them. The Potassium-Argon
and Lead-Lead dating methods are extremely discordant. The 207Pb/206Pb
ratios give dates between 1.8 and 5 billion years old. The author’s
use of data is very selective. Dates that agree are added and those that do not
are omitted. This happens over and over in geology magazines. We can see that
many dates are older than the evolutionist view of the age of Earth. How can
such an absurdity be possible? How can the Earth be older than itself?
This dating 64 was
done in 1999 on meteorite samples by the Department of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, Hiroshima University in Japan. The isotopic ratios take from Table 2
in the original article have no dates beside them. 64 Using
the computer program Isoplot we calculate the ages of the 207Pb/206Pb
ratios we see why not dates have been put beside them. The 206Pb/238U ratios
give ages between 1.2 and 3.5 billion years old. According to the first three Iscohron
[1, 2 and 3] diagrams in the article 64 the
meteorites are only supposed to be 200 million years old! The
207Pb/206Pb ratios give thirteen dates of 4.9
to 5 billion years old. This means that the dates are 4.8 billion years in
error. The ratio of the so called “true” age versus the
207Pb/206Pb age is 25 to 1. The author deliberately chose
not to put the dates beside the isotopic ratios because they would show how
utterly ridiculous the whole system is. According to the Iscohron
diagram in the article, the maximum error level is only 83 million years. The
error level is 4,934 years if we compare it to the 207Pb/206Pb
age. This means the error level is 59 times in error.
The meteorite samples 65 were
dates in 2009 by scientists form the Geological Museum, the University
of Copenhagen and the University of Texas at Austin. If we use Isoplot and run
some of the 207Pb/206Pb ratios given in the article 65 through
Microsoft Excel we see that many of the ratios produce ages over 5 billion
years old. A Concordia diagram taken from the article 65
that shows the age of the rock is supposed to be 4.56 billion years old. The
diagram claims that the error margins is only 810 thousand years! If we add the
207Pb/206Pb ratios dates we can see that the diagram is
out by 550 million years. That means the error margin given in the diagram is
677 times to short!
Very Old Rocks
These
samples were dated in the year 2000 66 by scientists
from the University of Manchester, University College London and the University
of Glasgow in Scotland. Samples were taken from different diamond mines in Canada
(Fox, Grizzly, Leslie and Koala), the Democratic Republic of Congo and from
Botswana (Jwaneng). The article states that “apparent ages for most diamonds
are greater than the age of the Earth.” 66 Twenty one dates
in this table 66 are indeed older
than the theory of evolution would allow. Fourteen are over six billion years
old. The article admits that many dates are meaningless: “all apparent ages are
higher than the host kimberlite eruption ages and most are higher than the 4.5
Ga geochron.” 66
This dating on
Moon rocks was done in 1998 by scientists from the University of Manchester in
England. “The Luna 24 mission returned 160 cm of core (0.17 kg) from the south
eastern rim of Mare Crisium in August 1976.” 67 Nineteen samples from this Russian space
probe were dates by Argon dating as being older than the evolutionist age of
the Moon. 67 “The presence of
trapped Ar components is evident from the anomalously high apparent ages
determined from the measured 40Ar/39Ar values for the initial 30-40% of K
release.” 67 “Interpretation
of the apparent ages is problematic because neither the clast composition nor
the proportions of clast and matrix in the analysed splits could be determined.”
The
current consensus among evolutionists is that the true age of the Moon is 4.5
billion years old. 67
“Northwest
Africa 482 (NWA 482) is the second largest lunar meteorite and the fifth found
in the Sahara. The complete stone had a mass of 1.015 kg before cutting.” 68 In 2002 it was
dated by scientists from the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of
Arizona. The results of the dating 68 are seven dates
between 5.7 and 9.9 billion years old. The author of the article explains why
he thinks that the ages are so absurd: “We believe that this 40Ar is
probably dominated by terrestrial contamination.” 68
These rock
samples from the King Leopold ranges in Western Australia were dated in 2010 by
scientists from the Department of Geological Sciences, University of Cape Town,
South Africa and the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution
of Washington. 69 The difference
between the oldest and youngest dates 69 is 16.2 billion
years. They range from -8.3 billion to 7.4 billion years old. The author of the
article explains why he thinks that the ages are so absurd: “The chalcopyrite
inclusion from EL57 gives a model age older than the age of the Earth, evidence,
perhaps, that this sulphide has suffered Re loss.” 69
This
dating was done in 1983 by scientists from the Geophysical Institute,
University of Tokyo. 70 Twenty
seven dates are older than the evolutionist age of the Earth and nineteen are
over 5 billion years old. 70
The author blames Argon contamination for the bizarre dates that were obtained:
“Because of the extremely small amount of argon, the hot blank corrections were
similar to or even larger than the argon in the diamonds, resulting in a large
uncertainty in the experimental results.” 70
The author admits that the dates are absolutely meaningless: “The apparent K-Ar
ages range from 150 million to nine billion years, indicating that the non
radiogenic 40Ar is significant. Since we have no way to make a correction for
the non-radiogenic 40Ar, the apparent K-Ar age does not offer useful
information on the age of the diamonds.” 70
Whichever date the author accepts is simply an arbitrary choice. Any date is
just as good as any other date.
This
dating was done in 2008 by scientists from the Department of Earth &
Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Canada and from the Department of
Earth Sciences and The Open University in England. 71 Two meteorites (Allan Hills and Northwest Africa) were
dated and fourteen dates are over five billion years old. This is older than
the evolutionist age of the Earth. 71 The article admits that the dates are meaningless: “The
most striking observation is that all of NWA 1950 shock melt data, and more
than half of the ages derived from ALH 77005 shock melts, are impossibly ancient,
older than the Solar System itself (4.567 Ga; Fig.
6). Moreover, ancient ages (>4.567 Ga) from
shock melts are known in meteorites, in particular the Peace River L6
chondrite, studied by Ar–Ar stepped heating and localized outgassing by a laser
probe (McConville et al., 1988).” 71 The article concludes with the following remarks: “Our
Ar–Ar results for shock melts—ages in >4.567 Ga and 40Ar/36Ar ratios that
overlap with previous measurements of the Martian atmosphere—indicate that
shock melt ‘ages’ are meaningless in terms of any real event.” 71
Scientists
from the University of Cape Town, South Africa and the Carnegie Institution of
Washington preformed this dating in 2003 using the Rhenium/Osmium dating method.
72 The dates range from -13 billion to 18 billion years
old. There is a 31.6 billion year range between the oldest and youngest
dates. 72 “Thus,
the Re–Os model ages, when calculated relative to a mantle undergoing
chondritic Os isotopic evolution, are considerably older, varying from 3.1 to
18.5Ga (see Table 3 for calculation parameters). Model ages older than the age of the
Earth are a clear indication that at least some of the samples have not
experienced the simple single-stage Re–Os evolution required by the model age
calculation. The unrealistically old Re–Os model ages reflect Re/Os ratios too
low to account for the high measured 187Os/188Os.” 72 The
author concluded the article with the following remarks: “The scatter in Re–Os
systematics reflects a complex history for these eclogites that makes it
impossible to define a precise age.” 72
These
samples were dated in the year 2000 by Geologists from the University Of
Montreal, Canada and from the Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, McGill
University, Canada. 73 The samples were taken from mountain
ranges near the Canadian/Alaskan border. 73 Fifteen of the dates are negative or future ages. The author admits: “The
decoupling of 187Re/188Os and 187Os/188Os
observed in the Canadian Cordillera xenolith data also affects the calculation
of Os model ages, and leads to “future” ages or ages older than the Earth
(Table 1).” 73 Because the data is so bad the
author admits: “Because of the apparent perturbation of the Re/Os ratios, age information
cannot be obtained from an isochron diagram.” 73 How
can a rock that exists in the present have formed millions of years in the
future? Such a proposition is illogical.
These samples from Canada were dated in 2010 by scientists from
the Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 74 Some
of the specimens were dated to be over 5.5 billion years old. 74 The
author tells how the isochron gave absurd ages: “In contrast, the most
radiogenic sulphides in sample 1636 plot about an impossible 5 Ga model
isochron.” 74 The
admission is that the dates are impossible and meaningless: “The Re–Os isotope
systematics of sulphides in sample 1636 are disturbed (Fig.
6e), with three of four samples falling on an impossible 5 Ga model
isochron.” 74
The
California Institute of Technology, (Pasadena, California) dated these Lunar
rocks in 1972. 75 Eighty one dates are older than
the evolutionist age of the Solar System. Sixty three are over five billion
years old. Seven are over six billion years old. 75 The author comments on the major problems with dating
these samples: “The data for all highland soils analyzed here are shown in fig.
4. All five data points lie far above the concordia curve and give ages for a
single stage model which are in excess of 4.6 AE (see table 5). The 206Pb-238U
ages range up to 5.83 AE. The 207Pb-206Pb ages are also
very high.” 75 His calculations confirm the
wrong ages radiometric dating gives: “Inspection of rows D and E in table 5
shows the extreme limits of the 207Pb-206Pb ages. All
highland soils analyzed have 207Pb-206Pb model ages in
excess of 4.90 AE. These are the highest values observed so far for samples of
'total lunar soil'.” 75
Rock samples
from the Lower Onverwacht Volcanics in Barberton Mountain Land, South Africa
were dated in 1992 by geologists from the Department of Physics, University of
Toronto, and the Department of Geological Sciences, Queen's University,
Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 76
Twenty dates were over five billion years old. The youngest date was -4.5 x 1016
years. 76 How can a rock that exists in the
present have formed 4,500 trillion years in the future? Such a proposition is
illogical. Two other samples gave future ages of -310 billion and -56 billion
years old.
In 1998 diamond samples were
dated by scientist from the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany, the
Max-Planck Institute Chemistry, and the Centre Geochemistry, Strasbourg,
France. 77 According to the author the true
ages is 2.7 billion years: “All three isotopic systems of whole rocks indicate
ages of ~2.7 Ga, much younger than the depositional age of the successions.” 77 “By treating the primary isochron slope of the Pb-isotopic
data of sample OG 1 as a secondary isochron, an additional recalculation of the
208Pb/204Pb isotopic values indicates that the 232Th/238U
(k) isotopic ratio of sample OG 1 has had a value of 4.78 from~2.7 Ga, which is
slightly higher than the typical k value of ~4 (Taylor and McLennan, 1985).” 77 When we run the 207Pb/206Pb ratios
listed 77 in the essay through Isoplot we
get uniform dates of 4.5 billion years old, almost 2 billion years older. A radically
different answer! Again the author’s choice of true age is just random.
The Thorium Lead Dating Method
These
samples were dated in 1998 by scientists from the School Of Ocean And Earth
Science And Technology, University Of Hawaii, Honolulu. According to this
article the samples were taken from volcanic material that is only 100 million
years old. 78 If we put
isotopic ratios 78 into
Microsoft Excel and run the through Isoplot we find the average age is almost
17 billion years old. The Lead/Lead dating gives fifty nine dates that are
between 4.9 and 5 billion years old. The Uranium-238 method gives twenty six
dates over five billion years old and four over ten billion years old. The
Thorium-232 method gives forty five dates over five billion years old, thirty
six over ten billion years old and twenty over twenty billion years old. 78
These samples were dated in 1998
by scientists from the Department Of Earth, Atmospheric And Planetary Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute Of Technology. According to this article the samples
were taken from the volcanic crust of the Kerguelen Archipelago that is only 30
million years old. 79 If
we put isotopic ratios 79
into Microsoft Excel and run the through Isoplot we find the average age of
Mount Bureau is over 5 billion years old. There are seventy eight dates for
Mount Bureau between two and forty four billion years old. Fifty six are over 5
billion years old. There are forty dates for Mount Rabouillere between 2.8 and
7.8 billion years old. Twenty eight are over 5 billion years old.
These
samples were dated in 2004 by scientists from the Department Of Earth Sciences,
The Open University, England. According to this article the samples were are
only 25 million years old: “Most samples are Miocene in age, ranging from 10 to
25Ma in the south and 19Ma to the present day in northern Tibet.” 80 If we run the 87Rb/86Sr
ratios 14 in the essay through Isoplot we get dates between 1 and 24 million
years. If we run the Uranium/Lead ratios 80
in the essay through Isoplot we get unbelievable dates. The North Tibet dates
vary between 5 and 88 billion years old. Eighteen are over 5 billion years old.
The South Tibet dates vary between 230 million and 33 billion years old. Twelve
are over 5 billion years old.
These samples were dated in 2007
by scientists from the Chinese Academy Of Sciences, Wushan, Guangzhou. According
to this article the samples were are only 55 million years old: “The initial
Sr, Nd and Pb isotopic ratios were corrected using the Ar/Ar age of 55Ma.” 81 If we run the
Uranium/Lead ratios 81 in
the essay through Isoplot we get twenty four unbelievable dates between 5 and
10 billion years old.
In 2005 scientists from the
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii,
Honolulu dated these rocks. According to this article the samples were are only
140 million years old: “Isotopic data for such sites show that mantle similar
to that beneath the modern Indian Ocean was present, at least in places, as
long ago as 140 Ma, the age of the oldest true Indian Ocean crust yet sampled.”
82 If we run the Rubidium/Strontium ratios 82 through Isoplot we see that the average age is 168 million
years. [Table 6] If we run the Uranium/Lead ratios 82 through Isoplot we get 210 dates between 1 billion
and 58 billion years old. One hundred and sixty four dates are over five
billion years old. Seventy five dates are over ten billion years old. Thirty
two dates are over twenty billion years old.
These
rocks form south west Tibet were dated in 1998 by scientist from Austria. According
to this article the samples were are only 25 million years old: “Major and
trace element, Sr–Nd–Pb–O isotope and mineral chemical data are presented for
post-collisional ultrapotassic, silicic and high-K calc-alkaline volcanic rocks
from SW Tibet, with 40Ar/39Ar ages in the range 17–25 Ma.” 83 If we
run the Rubidium/Strontium ratios 25 through Isoplot we see that the average
age is 43 million years. If we run the Uranium/Lead ratios 26 through Isoplot
we see that thirteen dates are over five billion years old and six are over
fifty billion years old.
References
Introduction
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
3 http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506458v1.pdf
Future Radiometric Dating
4 Lithos, Volume 117, 2010, Pages 6,
7, 11
5 Lithos, Volume 142-143, 2012,
Pages 169
6 Lithos, Volume 102, 2008, Pages
43, 46-50, 52, 53
7 Chemical Geology, Volume 236,
2007, Pages 331, 332, 334
8 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
2002, Volume 66, Number 6, Pages 1045, 1046, 1047
9 Chemical Geology, Volume 248,
2008, Pages 46, 54
10 Lithos, Volume 77, 2004, Pages 458,
460, 466
Rocks Older Than The Galaxy
11 Economic Geology, 1979, Volume 74,
Pages 1658, 1661-1664
12 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
1989, Volume 53, Page 1588, 1591
13 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
1995, Volume 59, Number 5, Page 968, 970, 971
14 Science, 1967, Volume 155, Pages 999
- 1000
15 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
1990, Volume 54, Pages 2563 – 2564
16 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
1976, Volume 40, pages 617 – 634
17 Gondwana Research, 2005, Volume 8,
Number 4, Pages 617-621
Impossible Radiometric Dates
18 Chemical Geology, Volume 208, 2004,
Pages 101-105, 107, 110
19 Lithos, Volume 126, 2011, Pages 241,
242, 239, 244
20 Lithos, Volume 117, 2010, Pages 6, 7,
11
21 Lithos, Volume 102, 2008, Pages
46-50, 52, 53, 61
22 Precambrian Research, Volume 118,
2002, Pages 273, 274, 276, 277
23 Lithos, Volume 125, 2011, Pages 415,
417
Rocks Older Than The Solar
System
24 Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
2012, Volume 319-320, Pages 199
25 http://www.bgc.org/isoplot_etc/isoplot.html
26 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
2009, Volume 73, Pages 475, 476
27 Lithology and Mineral Resources,
2011, Volume 46, Number 2, Pages 156, 158
28 Mineral Deposita, 2010, Volume 45,
Pages 393, 394, 397, 398
29 Journal Of Geophysical Research,
2011, Volume 116, Page 6, 7
30 Contributions Mineral Petrology,
2002, Volume 144, Pages 243, 246
31 International Earth Science, 2002,
Volume 91, Pages 414, 416, 423
32 Economic Geology, 2011, Volume 106,
Pages 846, 866
Rocks Older Than The Earth
33 Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
1981, Volume 55, Pages 124, 128-133, 137, 141, 147
34 Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
1983, Volume 63, Pages 1, 5
35 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc1980/pdf/1155.pdf
36 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc1978/pdf/1289.pdf
37 Nature, 1979, Volume 277, Pages 554 -
556
38 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
2006, Volume 70, Pages 2573-2575
Rocks Older Than The Universe
39 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
1970, Volume 34, pages 721.
40 Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
1974, Volume 22, Pages 260
41 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
2008, Volume 72, Pages 2080, 2081
42 Chemical Geology, 1990, Volume 80,
pages 201 - 204
43 Earth And Planetary Science Letters,
1994, Volume 126, Page 460, 465
44 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
1997, Volume 61, Number 16, Pages 3500
45 Science, 1967, Volume 155, Pages 999
- 1000
46 Meteoritics And Planetary Science,
2007, Volume 42, Numbers 7/8, Pages 1321 – 1335
47 Meteoritics And Planetary Science,
1998, Volume 33, Pages 649
48 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
1990, Volume 54, pages 2563, 2564, 2551
49 Meteoritics And Planetary Science,
2009, Volume 44, Number 2, Pages 316-321
50 Meteoritics And Planetary Science,
1997, Volume 32, Pages 664-670
51 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
1958, Volume 15, Pages 45–46
52 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
1976, Volume 40, Pages 627
53 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
2005, Volume 69, Number 2, pages 509
54 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
2008, Volume 72, Pages 225
55 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
1980, Volume 44, Pages 1670-1671
56 Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
1983, Volume 62, Pages 135, 138–139
57 Meteoritics And Planetary Science,
2003, Volume 38, Number 5, Pages 669–710
58 Meteoritics And Planetary Science,
2001, Volume 36, Pages 107-122
59 Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
1967, Volume 2, Pages 397-408
60 Icarus, 1980, Volume 42, pages 380 -
405
61 Geochemica Et Cosmochemica Acta,
2010, Volume 74, Pages 1738–1739
Concordia Isochron Dating
62 Geomorphology, 2010, Volume 117,
Pages 58
63 Precambrian Research, 2002, Volume
117, Pages 128, 133
64 Mereoritics And PIanetary Science,
2000, Volume 35, Pages 342, 343, 344
65 Chemical Geology, 2009, Volume 259,
Pages 145, 147
Very Old Rocks
66 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
2000, Volume 64, Number 4, Pages 724, 725
67 Meteoritics & Planetary Science,
1998, Volume 33, Pages 925, 929, 932-935
68 Meteoritics & Planetary Science,
2002, Volume 37, Page 1797, 1805, 1806
69 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
2010, Volume 74, Pages 3296, 3297
70 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
1983, Volume 47, Pages 2220, 2221
71 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
2008, Volume 72, Pages 5826-5827, 5832
72 Lithos, 2003, Volume 71, Pages 329,
331, 333
73 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
2000, Volume 64, Number 17, Pages 3063, 3064, 3067
74 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
2010, Volume 74, Pages 5375, 5372, 5377
75 Earth And Planetary Science Letters,
1972, Volume 17, Pages 39-46
76 Precambrian Research, 1992, Volume
57, Pages 109
77 Precambrian Research, 1998, Volume
92, Pages 129, 136, 140
Thorium Lead Dating
78 Journal Of Petrology, 1998, Volume
39, Number 7, Pages 1292-1294
79 Journal Of Petrology, 1998, Volume
39, Number 4, Pages 729, 730
80 Journal Of Petrology, 2004, Volume
45, Number 3, Pages 556, 558, 575-576
81 Journal Of Petrology, 2007, Volume
48, Number 4, Pages 676, 677, 684
82 Journal Of Petrology, 2005, Volume
46, Number 4, Pages 830, 832-837, 843, 844, 845, 849
83 Journal Of Petrology, 1999, Volume
40, Number 9, Pages 1399, 1403, 1414, 1415
207 Peacons Pocket Road
Tuchekoi, 4570, Queensland