The
Rhenium-Osmium Dating Method
Versus The Osmium 188/187
Method
By Paul
Nethercott
May
2014
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
If we run the
isotopic ratios give in standard geology magazines through the computer program
Isoplot 7 we find that
the Uranium/Thorium/Lead isotopic ratios in the rocks disagree radically with
the Rhenium-Osmium ages. The U/Th/Pb ratios give ages older than the
evolutionist age of the Earth, Solar System, Galaxy and Universe. How can Earth
rocks be dated as being older than the Big Bang?
If we use isotopic formulas given in standard geology text we can arrive
at ages from the Osmium 188/187 and 187/186 ratios. Here are examples of isotopic ratios
taken from several articles in major geology magazines which give absolutely
absurd dates. The article contains tables with Osmium 187/186 ratios that have
no dates beside them. If we put the tables into Microsoft Excel and use the
formula below used in standard geology text books 8-11 we can
calculate dates from the undated isotopic ratios.
(1)
In the above
formula, t = billions of years. The same date can be calculated from the Osmium
187/188 ratios. If we use another formula 12 we can convert the
Osmium 187/188 ratio to the Osmium 187/186 ratio.
(2)
(3)
(4)
Isotopic
Compositions Of Mantle Xenoliths
These rocks from
North and Central
America, Europe, southern Africa, Asia, and the Pacific region were dated in
1999 by scientist from the Department of Geology, University of Maryland using
the Rhenium/Osmium dating methods. 13 According to the article the
true age is based on Rhenium depletion model is between 1,550
and 1,750 million years old. 14 The article contains a table with
Osmium 187/188 ratios that have no dates beside them. 15 If we put
the tables into Microsoft Excel and use the formula below used in standard
geology text books we can calculate dates from the undated isotopic
ratios.
Table
1 |
SW
USA |
Mexico |
Europe |
Asia |
Average |
-90 |
-105 |
41 |
24 |
Maximum |
1,336 |
431 |
1,168 |
1,130 |
Minimum |
-754 |
-1,127 |
-1,386 |
-513 |
Difference |
2,090 |
1,558 |
2,553 |
1,643 |
Model
Age |
1,550 |
1,750 |
1,620 |
1,580 |
The Origin Of
Gold And Sulfides
These rocks from
the Witwatersrand basin in South Africa were dated in 2000 by scientist from the
University of Arizona and the CSIRO using the Rhenium/Osmium dating methods.
16 According to the article the true age is based on Rhenium
depletion model is 3,300 million
years old. “Rhenium depletion ages (TRD) range from 3.5 Ga to 2.9 Ga, with a
median age of 3.3 Ga.” 17 The article contains a table with Osmium
187/188 ratios that have no dates beside them. 18 If we put the
tables into Microsoft Excel and use the formula below used in standard geology
text books we can calculate dates from the undated isotopic ratios. There is a
12,766 million year discrepancy between the supposed true age [3,300 million
years ago] and the Osmium isotope ratio age [9,466 million years future]. Column
one has the Osmium isotope ratio age. Column two gives the percentage
discordance between the model age [3,300] and column one. Column three gives the
difference [million years] between the model age [3,300] and column
one.
Table
2 |
Age
(Ma) |
%
Discordance |
Difference
(Ma) |
Average |
-8,450 |
356 |
11,750 |
Maximum |
-7,600 |
387 |
12,766 |
Minimum |
-9,466 |
330 |
10,900 |
Difference
|
1,866 |
57 |
1,866 |
Diagram
1
These meteorites
were dated in 2000 by scientist from the Department of Geology, University of
Maryland using the Rhenium/Osmium dating methods. 19 According to the
article the true age is based on Rhenium depletion model and 206Pb-207Pb method
is 4,558 million years old. “An age of 4,558 Ma is assumed for the IIIA iron
meteorites based on 53Mn-53Cr similarities between angrite meteorites and IIIA
irons.” 20 “The inferred
IIIA age is only slightly younger than the oldest solar system objects known,
Ca-Al-rich inclusions (CAIs) from the Allende meteorite, dated at 4,566 Ma,
using the 206Pb-207Pb method.” 20
The article contains a table with Osmium 187/188 ratios that have no
dates beside them. 21 If we put the tables into Microsoft Excel and
use the formula below used in standard geology text books we can calculate dates
from the undated isotopic ratios. There is a 6,610 million year discrepancy
between the supposed true age [4,558 million years ago] and the Osmium isotope
ratio age [2,052 million years future]. The article claims that the
Rhenium/Osmium dating method is 99.8% accurate: “The 187Re-187Os decay system
potentially provides a unique chronometer to obtain absolute age constraints on
processes that affected highly siderophile elements (HSE) during early solar
system processing. Precise Re-Os ages (0.2– 0.6%, error) obtained on various
groups of iron meteorites likely reflect system closure subsequent to metal
crystallization in asteroidal cores.” 20
Table
3 |
Age
(Ma) |
%
Discordance |
Difference
(Ma) |
Average |
-393 |
21,186 |
4,951 |
Maximum |
624 |
696,126 |
6,610 |
Minimum |
-2,052 |
322 |
3,934 |
Difference |
2,676 |
695,804 |
2,676 |
Diagram
2
These sulphide
ores from the Sudbury Igneous Complex, Ontario were dated in 2000 by scientist
from the Colorado State University using the Rhenium/Osmium dating methods.
22 According to the article the true age is 1,850 million years old.
“At McCreedy West and Falconbridge, the isochron Re–Os ages are 1835 Ma and 1827
Ma, and the initial 187Os/188Os ratios 0.514 and 0.550, respectively. The ages
agree with the canonical value of 1850 Ma for the Sudbury Igneous Complex (SIC).
For Hangingwall and Deep Zone ores at Strathcona, the age of 1780 Ma may reflect
resetting by dyke activity.” 22
The article contains a table with Osmium 188/187 ratios that have no
dates beside them. 23 If we put the tables into Microsoft Excel and
use the formula in standard geology text books we can calculate dates from the
undated isotopic ratios. There is a 2.2 trillion year discrepancy between the
supposed true age [1,850 million years ago] and the Osmium isotope ratio age
[2,257 million years future]. The article claims that the 1850 Ma date method is
at most one million years in error 21 [99.95% accurate] but the
error level obtained from the undated ratios gives an error level of
122,007,880% ! This means that their calculation of the maximum error level is
1,220,689 times too small.
Table
4 |
Age
(Ma) |
%
Discordance |
Difference
(Ma) |
Average |
-632,140 |
34,270 |
633,990 |
Maximum |
-128,289 |
129,042 |
2,387,285 |
Minimum |
-2,385,435 |
7,035 |
130,139 |
Difference |
-2,257,146 |
122,008 |
2,257,146 |
Behaviour of Re
and Os
These soil
samples from the Himalayas
were dated in 2001 by scientist from the Centre for Geochemical
Research in Notre-Dame, France using the Rhenium/Osmium dating methods.
24 According to the article the true age is based on the
Rhenium/Osmium method is 840 million years old. 25 The author admits that
many dates are impossible and the true age is just a guess:
“This apparent
Re loss is confirmed by the impossibly high Re/Os model ages of nearly all of
the soils, most of which exceed the age of the earth.” 25
“The median
model age of the soils (10 Ga) is much higher than those of typical HHC and LH
rocks, indicating that the soils have in general suffered much more extensive
recent Re loss.” 25
“These soils
display very radiogenic Os isotopic ratios that cannot be explained by their
187Re/188Os ratios, which imply impossible model ages (11–13.5 Ga for MO 601;
16–23 Ga for MO 602, and 6.1 Ga for saprolite MO 600). 25
The article
contains a table with Osmium 188/187 ratios that have no dates beside them.
26 If we put the tables into Microsoft Excel and use the formula
below used in standard geology text books we can calculate dates from the
undated isotopic ratios. There is a 1.86 trillion year discrepancy between the
oldest model age [331,800 million years ago] and the Osmium isotope ratio age
[1,528,332 million years
future].
Table
5 |
Age
(Ma) |
%
Discordance |
Difference
(Ma) |
Average |
-760,654 |
11,810 |
768,700 |
Maximum |
-154,967 |
35,287 |
1,696,333 |
Minimum |
-1,683,299 |
1,664 |
156,367 |
Difference |
-1,528,332 |
33,623 |
1,539,967 |
Table
6
Model
Age |
Model
Age |
Model
Age |
Model
Age |
(Ma) |
(Ma) |
(Ma) |
(Ma) |
331,800 |
19,800 |
17,600 |
12,900 |
68,200 |
19,500 |
15,600 |
11,500 |
22,200 |
19,100 |
13,400 |
10,600 |
187Os Isotopic
Constraints
These Lava flows
from Belingwe, Zimbabwe were dated in 2001 by scientist from the University of
Maryland and the University of London using the Rhenium/Osmium dating methods.
28 According to the article the true age is based on the Lead 207/206
and Neodymium/Samarium dating methods is 2,720 million years old. “Regression of
the data for the mineral concentrates yields an age of 2.721 +- 21 Ga, which is
consistent with Pb-Pb and Sm-Nd ages that have been previously reported for the
komatiites, and an initial 187Os/188Os ratio of 0.11140” 28 The article contains a
table with Osmium 188/187 ratios that have no dates beside them. 29
If we put the tables into Microsoft Excel and use the formula in standard
geology text books we can calculate dates from the undated isotopic ratios.
There is a 456,586 million year discrepancy between the supposed true age [2,720
million years ago] and the Osmium isotope ratio age [-456,934 million years
future]. The article claims that the 2,721 Ma date is only has an error margin
of 21 million years [99.559% accurate]. 28 Since there is a 456,586
million year discrepancy
between dates the error margin is 21,742 times too small.
Table
7 |
Age
(Ma) |
%
Discordance |
Difference
(Ma) |
Average |
-62,776 |
2,425 |
65,476 |
Maximum |
2,372 |
17,023 |
459,634 |
Minimum |
-456,934 |
12 |
328 |
Difference |
459,306 |
17,011 |
459,306 |
Comparative
187Re-187Os Systematics Of Chondrites
These meteorites
were dated in 2002 by scientist from the University of California using the
187Re/187Os dating methods. 30 According to the article the true age
is based on 187Re/187Os method is 4,500 million years old. “Chondrites are among
the most primitive of solar system materials. Assuming derivation from a
reservoir with a uniform initial 187Os/188Os ratio, it would be expected that
bulk chondrites should plot very close to the Re-Os isochron defined by the
IIIAB irons, which are assumed to have crystallized within 10 to 20 Ma of the
inception of the solar system.” 31
The article contains a table 32 with Osmium 188/187 ratios
that have no dates beside them. If we put the tables into Microsoft Excel and
use the formula in standard geology text books we can calculate dates from the
undated isotopic ratios. There is a 46,318 million year discrepancy between the
supposed true age [4,500 million years ago] and the Osmium isotope ratio age
[50,818 million years
future].
Table
8 |
Age
(Ma) |
%
Discordance |
Difference
(Ma) |
Average |
-1,422 |
3,207 |
5,980 |
Maximum |
878 |
81,909 |
55,376 |
Minimum |
-50,818 |
109 |
3,680 |
Difference |
51,696 |
81,800 |
51,696 |
Pt-Re-Os
Systematics
These Iron meteorites were dated in 2003 by
scientist from the University of California using the Rhenium/Osmium dating
methods. 33 According to the article the true age is based on Re/Os
method is 0000 million years old. “The Re-Os isochron ages for the complete
suites of IIAB and IIIAB irons are 4,530 +/- 50 Ma and 4,517 +/- 32 Ma,
respectively, and are similar to previously reported Re-Os ages for the lower-Ni
end members of these two groups. Both isochrons are consistent with, but do not
require crystallization of the entire groups within 10-30 Ma of the initiation
of crystallization.” 33
The article contains a table with Osmium 188/187 ratios that have no
dates beside them. 34 If we put the tables into Microsoft Excel and
use the formula in standard geology text books we can calculate dates from the
undated isotopic ratios. There is a 14,763 million year discrepancy between the
supposed true age [4,530 million years ago] and the Osmium isotope ratio age
[-10,233 million years
future]. The article claims that the Rhenium/Osmium dating method is accurate
within 50 million years [98.9
%].
33
Table
9 |
Age
(Ma) |
%
Discordance |
Difference
(Ma) |
Average |
-3,219 |
3,485 |
7,777 |
Maximum |
296 |
132,615 |
14,791 |
Minimum |
-10,233 |
145 |
4,262 |
Difference |
10,529 |
132,470 |
10,529 |
Re-Os, and Mo
Isotope Systematics
These black
shales from the Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa were dated in 2004 by
scientist from the University Of Berne, Switzerland using the Rhenium/Osmium
dating methods. 35 According to the article the true age is based on
Rhenium/Osmium method is 3,250 million years old. “Re-Os data and PGE
concentrations as well as Mo concentrations and isotope data are reported for
suites of fine clastic sediments and black shales from the Barberton Greenstone
Belt, South Africa (Fig Tree and Moodies Groups, 3.25–3.15 Ga), the Belingwe
Greenstone Belt, Zimbabwe (Manjeri Formation, ca. 2.7 Ga) and shales from the
Witwatersrand, Ventersdorp and Transvaal Supergroups, South Africa ranging from
2.95 to 2.2 Ga.” 35 The
article contains a table with Osmium 188/187 ratios that have no dates beside
them. 36 If we put the tables into Microsoft Excel and use the
formula in standard geology text books we can calculate dates from the undated
isotopic ratios. There is a 2,413,235 million year [2.4 trillion year]
discrepancy between the supposed true age [3,250 million years ago] and the
Osmium isotope ratio age [2,409,985 million years
future].
Table
10 |
Age
(Ma) |
%
Discordance |
Difference
(Ma) |
Average |
-236,564 |
8,674 |
239,572 |
Maximum |
-23,132 |
89,359 |
2,412,685 |
Minimum |
-2,409,985 |
812 |
26,382 |
Difference |
2,386,853 |
88,547 |
2,386,303 |
Evolution
of the South China block
These mineral
samples from Taiwan were dated in 2008 by scientist from the Macquarie University, Sydney using
the Rhenium/Osmium dating methods. 37 According to the article the
true age is based on several dating methods is 1,000 million years old. “Such
sulphides yield TRD age peaks of 1.9, 1.7–1.6, 1.4–1.3 and 0.9–0.8 Ga,
which may record the timing of melt extraction and/or metasomatic events in the
mantle. These periods are contemporaneous with the major crustal events recorded
by U–Pb dates and Nd and Hf model ages in the overlying crust.” 37 The article contains two
tables with Osmium 188/187 ratios that have no 188/187 dates beside them.
38 If we put the tables into Microsoft Excel and use the formula in
standard geology text books we can calculate dates [Table 11] from the undated
isotopic ratios. There is a 54,000 million year discrepancy between the supposed
true age [1,000 million years ago] and the Osmium isotope ratio age [53,129
million years future]. The second table contains Rhenium depletion ages. These
dates are summarized in table 12. There is a 116 billion year difference between
the youngest [-90 billion] and the oldest [25.9 billion] dates. The author’s
choice of true age is just a random guess.
Table
11 |
Series
A |
Series
B |
Average |
5,317 |
731 |
Maximum |
20,476 |
3,120 |
Minimum |
-53,129 |
-3,754 |
Difference |
73,605 |
6,874 |
Table
12 |
Million
Years |
Million
Years |
Million
Years |
Million
Years |
Average |
1,023 |
395 |
957 |
-249 |
Maximum |
3,100 |
25,900 |
3,100 |
10,700 |
Minimum |
-2,900 |
-59,500 |
-3,200 |
-90,000 |
Difference |
6,000 |
85,400 |
6,300 |
100,700 |
Conclusion
Evolutionists
Schmitz and Bowring claim that Uranium/Lead dating is 99% accurate.
39 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 used in this
dating method is selectively taken to suit and ignores data to the
contrary.
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.”
40-42 To come within 0.2 million years out of 4,567.18 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.
Prominent evolutionist Brent Dalrymple states: “Several events in the
formation of the Solar System can be dated with considerable precision.” 43
Looking at some of the dating it is obvious that precision is much
lacking. He then goes on: “Biblical chronologies are historically important, but
their credibility began to erode in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when
it became apparent to some that it would be more profitable to seek a realistic
age for the Earth through observation of nature than through a literal
interpretation of parables.” 44 The Bible believer who accepts the
creation account literally has no problem with such unreliable dating methods.
Much of the data in Dalrymple’s book 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://www.bgc.org/isoplot_etc/isoplot.html
8
Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition, By Gunter Faure,
Published By
John Wiley And Sons, New York, 1986. Pages 269.
9
Isotopes in the Earth Sciences, By H.G. Attendorn, R.
Bowen
Chapman And Hall
Publishers, London, 1994. Page 289
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=k90iAnFereYC&printsec=frontcover
10
Introduction to Geochemistry: Principles and Applications, Page
241
By Kula C.
Misra, Wiley-Blackwell Publishers, 2012
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ukOpssF7zrIC&printsec=frontcover
11
Radioactive and Stable Isotope Geology, Issue 3
By H. G.
Attendorn, Robert Bowen, Page 298
Chapman and Hall
Publishers, London, 1997
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-bzb_XU7OdAC&printsec=frontcover
12
http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes03/656%2003Lecture11.pdf
13
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Volume 65, Number 8, Pages 1311–1323,
2001
Isotopic
compositions of mantle xenoliths
14
Reference 13, page 1318
15
Reference 13, page 1312
16
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Volume 65, Number 13, Pages 2149–2159,
2001
The origin of
gold and sulfides
17
Reference 16, page 2149
18
Reference 16, page 2153
19
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Volume 65, Number 19, Pages 3379–3390,
2001
Rhenium–osmium
systematics
20
Reference 19, page 3379
21
Reference 19, page 3382
22
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Volume 66, Number 2, Pages 273–290,
2002
190Pt–186Os and
187Re–187Os systematics
23
Reference 22, page 278, 279
24
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2002, Volume 66, Number 9, Pages
1539,
Behavior of Re
and Os
25
Reference 24, page 1545
26
Reference 24, page 1542
27
Reference 24, page 1542, 1545
28
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2002, Volume 66, Number 18, Pages
3317,
187Os isotopic
constraints
29
Reference 28, page 3318
30
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2002, Volume 66, Number 23, Pages
4187,
Comparative
187Re-187Os systematics of chondrites
31
Reference 30, page 4192
32
Reference 30, page 4190,
4191
33
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2004, Volume 68, Number 6, Pages
1413,
Pt-Re-Os
systematics
34
Reference 33, page 1416
35
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2005, Volume 69, Number 7, Pages
1787,
Re-Os, and Mo
isotope systematics
36
Reference 35, page 1792
37
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2009, Volume 73, Pages 4531,
Evolution
of the South China block
38
Reference 37, page 4537-4539
39
Schmitz MD, Bowring SA. An assessment of high-precision U-Pb
geochronology.
Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, 2001, Volume 65, Pages 2571-2587
40
Dating the Oldest Rocks in the Solar System, Elements, 2013, Volume 9,
Pages 39-44
41
Amelin, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2010, Volume 300, Pages
343-350
42
Connelly, Science, 2012, Volume 338, Pages
651-655
43
The Age Of The Earth, By G. Brent Dalrymple, 1991, Stanford University
Press,
Stanford,
California, Page 10.
44
Reference 43, Page 23