The Rubidium-Strontium Dating Method

 

By Paul Nethercott

October 2012

 

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 Rubidium/Strontium 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 ^8-11 given in standard geology text we can arrive at ages from the Rb/Sr and Nd/Sm ratios. The formula for Rb/Sr age is given as:

 

                  [1]

 

Where t equals the age in years. l equals the decay constant. (87Sr/86Sr) = the current isotopic ratio. (87Sr/86Sr)₀ = the initial isotopic ratio. (87Rb/86Sr) = the current isotopic ratio. The same is true for the formula below.

 

 

       [2]

 

Here are examples of isotopic ratios taken from several articles in major geology magazines which give absolutely absurd dates.

 

Early Archaean Rocks At Fyfe Hills

These early Archaean rocks from Fyfe Hills in Antarctica were dated in 1982 by scientists form the Australian Bureau of Mineral Resources, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, and the University of Tasmania, Hobart. ¹² Several isotopic samples ¹³ gave negative ages [-24 billion, -14 billion, -108 billion, -43 billion]. How can a rock that exists in the present and formed in the past have formed 108 billion years in the future?

 

87Rb/86Sr, Ages Dating Summary

Table 1

 

The Uranium/Lead ratios ¹⁴ give uniform values of 2,500 million years old. The thirty 87Rb/86Sr ratios have nineteen that give ages much older [3,039 to 4,925 Million years] and seven [1,835 to -108,362 Million years] much younger. The author’s choice of age is purely arbitrary.

 

Shock-Melted Antarctic LL-Chondrites

These meteorite samples were dated in 1990 by scientists from the Department of Earth Sciences, Kohe University, Japan. ¹⁵ According to the article ¹⁶ the meteorite is 4.55 billion years old. The article claims that the maximum range of model ages is 3.11 to 7.33 billion years. ¹⁷ If we run the isotopic ratios through Microsoft Excel we get ages from 4 to 21 billion years old.  Thirty six dates are over 5 billion years. Nine are over 10 billion years. If the Solar System is less than 5 billion years old how can the meteorite be older than the assumed age of the galaxy [10 billion years]?

 

87Rb/86Sr, Maximum Ages

Table 2

 

87Rb/86Sr, Ages Dating Summary

Table 3

 

Diamonds And Mantle-Derived Xenoliths

These samples from South African diamond mines were dated in 1979 by scientist from the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. According to the isochron diagrams ¹⁷ the age of the sample is 2.4 billion years. If we run the Lead isotope ratios ¹⁸ through Isoplot we get the following values:

 

Lead Isotope Ages

Table 4

 

If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ¹⁸ through Microsoft Excel we get the following values:

 

 

87Rb/86Sr, Ages Dating Summary

Table 5

 

There is almost a 90 billion years difference between the oldest and youngest dates. Below we can see some of the maximum ages and how stupid they are.

 

87Rb/86Sr, Maximum Ages

Table 6

 

87Rb/87Sr Isochron Of The Norton County Achondrite

This meteorite dating was done in 1967 by scientist ²⁰ from the California Institute of Technology. In this article we will find that dating done 45 years later [2008] is giving just as absurd results. According to the Argon dating results ²¹ the meteorite is between 2.3 and 5.1 billion years old. If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ²² through Microsoft Excel we get the following values:

 

87Rb/86Sr, Ages Dating Summary

Table 7

 

Base and Precious Metal Veins

According to the article the dating [Coeur D’Alene Mining District, Idaho] was done in 2002 by scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey, California, the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California and the Sunshine Precious Metals Company, Idaho. ²² If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ²³ from Table 1 in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values:

 

87Rb/86Sr, Ages Dating Summary

Table 8

 

There is a 500 billion year difference between the youngest and oldest dates. The average age is over 120 billion years. Below we can see some of the maximum ages and how stupid they are.

87Rb/86Sr, Maximum Ages

Table 9

 

If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ²⁴ from Table 2 in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values:

 

87Rb/86Sr, Ages Dating Summary

Table 10

 

There is a 520 billion year difference between the youngest and oldest dates. The average age is almost 140 billion years. Below we can see some of the maximum ages and how stupid they are. The oldest dates is over half a trillion years old.

 

87Rb/86Sr, Maximum Ages

Table 11

 

 

If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ²⁵ from Table 4 in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values:

 

 

87Rb/86Sr, Ages Dating Summary

Table 12

 

There is a 560 billion year difference between the youngest and oldest dates. The average age is almost 90 billion years. Below we can see some of the maximum ages and how stupid they are. The oldest date is almost 300 billion years old. The youngest is negative 170 billion years old.

 

87Rb/86Sr, Maximum Ages

Table 13

 

The Munchberg Massif, Southern Germany

According the article, this dating was done in 1990 by scientists from the Koln University, Germany and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California. ²⁶ There is an 8 billion year difference between the youngest and oldest dates.

 

 

 

 

87Rb/86Sr, Ages Dating Summary

Table 14

 

Rocks of the Central Wyoming Province

These rock samples were dated in 2005 by scientists from the University of Wyoming. ²⁷ If we run the Rubidium/Strontium and Neodymium/Samarium isotope ratios ²⁸ from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values:

Ages Dating Summary

Table 15

 

The Uranium/Lead dates ²⁹ are up to sixteen billion years older than the Rubidium/Strontium and Neodymium/Samarium dates. The Thorium/Lead dates are up to thirty six billion years older. The so called true age is just a guess.

 

Basalts From Apollo 15

According the article, this Moon rock dating was done in 1972 by scientists from the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California. ³⁰ According to the essay the rock is 3.4 billion years old. 31 If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ³² from Table 4 in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values:

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 16

 

Of the 21 isotopic ratios, seven were below 500 million years old. Two were over six billion years old.

 

 

History Of The Pasamonte Achondrite

According to the article this meteorite specimen was dated in 1977 by scientists from the United States Geological Survey, Colorado and the Department of Chemistry and Geochemistry, Colorado School of Mines. ³³ The article states that Rubidium/Strontium dating affirms that this material is 4.5 billion years old. ³⁴ If we run the various isotope ratios ³⁴ from two different tables in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

 

 

U/Th/Pb Age Dating Summary

Table 17

 

If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ³⁴ from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values:

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 18

 

The Thorium/Lead dates are up to twelve billion years older. The so called true age is just a guess.

 

Sr Isotopic Composition Of Afar Volcanics

According to the article ³⁵ this specimen [basalts from the Afar depression in Ethiopia] was dated in 1977 by scientists from Italy and France. The article states that the formation is of the late Quaternary period and thus very young. If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ³⁶ from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values:

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 19

 

As far as the rocks being of a Quaternary age, the dates just don’t line up.

 

Orogenic Lherzolite Complexes

According to the article ³⁷ this specimen from Gibraltar was dated in 1979 by scientists from France. According to the article ³⁸ the maximum age of the samples is 103 million years. If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ³⁹ from the two different tables in the article [Tables 2 and 3] through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 20

 

 

 

 

 

 

The dates are light years different from what the essay claims. They are just absurd.

 

Isotopic Geochemistry (Os, Sr, Pb)

According to the article ⁴⁰ this specimen [the Golda Zuelva and Mboutou anorogenic complexes, North Cameroun] was dated in 1982 by scientists from France. According to the article ⁴⁰ the maximum age of the sample is 66 million years. If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ⁴¹ from the two different tables in the article [Tables 1and 2] through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 21

 

 

If we run the 207Pb/206Pb isotope ratios ⁴² from the article [Table 3] through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Lead Isotope Ages

Table 22

 

The so called true age is just a guess.

 

Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary Sediments

According to the article ⁴³ this specimen [from the Barranco del Gredero, Caravaca, Spain] was dated in 1983 by scientists from University of California, Los Angeles, the United States Geological Survey, and the Geological Institute, University of Amsterdam. According to the article ⁴⁴ the maximum age of the sample is 65 million years. If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ⁴⁴ from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 23

 

Out of the 16 dates derived from isotopic ratios, ten were over 100 million years old. Two were over 4 billion years old. One was negative 266 million years old. How can a rock that formed in the past have a negative age! The choice of 65 million years is just a guess.

 

Correlated N D, Sr And Pb Isotope Variation

According to the article ⁴⁵ this specimen [Walvis Ridge, Walvis Bay] was dated in 1982 by scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Department of Geochemistry, University of Cape Town, South Africa. According to the article ⁴⁵ the age of the sample is 70 million years. If we run the various isotope ratios ⁴⁶ from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 24

 

 

A Depleted Mantle Source For Kimberlites

According to the article ⁴⁷ this specimen [kimberlites from Zaire] was dated in 1984 by scientists from Belgium. According to the article ⁴⁸ the age of the samples is 70 million years. If we run the various isotope ratios ⁴⁹ from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 25

 

 

The 207Pb/206Pb maximum age is 34 times older than the 87Rb/86Sr maximum age. The 206Pb/238U maximum age is 74 times older than the 147Sm/144Nd maximum age. There is a 10.8 billion year difference between the oldest and youngest age attained.

 

 

Sm-Nd Isotopic Systematics

According to the article ⁵⁰ this specimen [Enderby Land, East Antarctic] was dated in 1984 by scientists from the Australian National University, Canberra, and the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Canberra. According to the article ⁵⁰ the age of the sample is 3,000 million years. If we run the Rb/Sr isotope ratios ⁵¹ from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 26

 

There is almost a 30 billion year difference between the oldest and youngest dates.

 

 

Strontium, Neodymium And Lead Compositions

According to the article ⁵² this specimen [Snake River Plain, Idaho] was dated in 1985 by scientists from the Geology Department, Rice University, Houston, Texas, the Earth Sciences Department, Open University, England and the Geology Department, Ricks College, Idaho. According to the article ⁵² the age of the sample is 3.4 billion years. If we run the various isotope ratios ⁵³ from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 27

 

The Lead isotope ratios from two different tables give dates 200 billion years younger than the Rb/Sr isotope ratios. The Average age of the Rb/Sr isotope ratios is 40 billion years. Below we can see some of the maximum ages and how stupid they are.

 

87Rb/86Sr, Maximum Ages

Table 28

 

 

Trace Element And Sr And Nd Isotope

According to the article ⁵⁴ this specimen [West Germany] was dated in 1986 by scientists from Germany and California. According to the article ⁵⁴ the age of the samples is 2 billion years. If we run the various isotope ratios ⁵⁵ from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 29

 

Many of the Rb/Sr isotopic ratios would not produce proper ages. Those that did gave absurd values. Below are some dates taken from another table ⁵⁶ in the original article.

 

 

Rb/Sr and Sm/Nd Age Dating Summary

Table 30

 

The Southeast Australian Lithosphere Mantle

According to the article ⁵⁷ this specimen was dated in 1987 by scientists from The Australian National University.  According to the article ⁵⁸ the age of the samples is 1.5 billion years. If we run the various isotope ratios ⁵⁹ from two different tables in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 31

 

Below we can see the maximum ages obtained from the second table.  The oldest age is 18 times older than the Big Bang explosion. It is sixty two times older than the so called age of the Earth.

 

87Rb/86Sr, Maximum Ages

Table 32

 

Strontium, Neodymium and Lead Isotopic

According to the article ⁶⁰ this specimen was dated in 1988 by scientists from the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism. Carnegie Institution of Washington. Throughout the article the author admits that the dates are contradicting and unreliable: “For sample 7541. the apatite eclogite, the range observed in both Rh/Sr and Sm/Nd for the whole-rock and mineral separates is quite small resulting in very imprecise "ages" of 400 Ma for Rb-Sr and 1110 Ma for Sm-Nd.” ⁶¹ If we run the Lead isotope ratios ⁶² from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

 

Pb 207/206 Age Dating Summary

Table 33

 

 

Sr, Nd, and Os Isotope Geochemistry

According to the article ⁶³ this specimen [Camp Creek area, Arizona] was dated in 1987 by scientists from The University of Tennessee, the University of Michigan, the University of California, Leeds University, and the University of Chicago. According to the article ⁶⁴ the age of the samples is 120 million years. If we run the various isotope ratios ⁶⁵ from two different tables in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Rb/Sr and Sm/Nd Age Dating Summary

Table 34

 

The author’s choice of 120 million years is just a guess.

 

Pb, Nd and Sr Isotopic Geochemistry

According to the article ⁶⁶ this specimen [Bellsbank kimberlite, South Africa] was dated in 1991 by scientists from the University Of Rochester, New York, Guiyang University in China, and the United States Geological Survey, Colorado. According to the article ⁶⁷ the age of the samples is just 1 million years. If we run the various isotope ratios ⁶⁸ from two different tables in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 35

 

In tables 36 to 39 we can see some of the astounding spread of dates [million of years]. The oldest date is over 17 billion years old. The youngest is less than negative 3.5 billion years. The difference between the two is over 20 billion years. According to the article the true age of the rock is just one million years old!

 

 

208Pb/232Th, Maximum Ages

Table 36

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 37

 

Pb 207/206, Maximum Ages

Table 38

 

87Rb/86Sr, Minimum Ages

Table 39

 

Sr, Nd, and Pb isotopes

According to the article ⁶⁸ this specimen [eastern China] was dated in 1992 by scientists from the University Of Rochester, New York, Guiyang University in China, and the United States Geological Survey, Colorado. According to the article: “Observed high Th/U, Rb/Sr, 87Sr/86 Sr and Delta 208, low Sm/Nd ratios, and a large negative Nd in phlogopite pyroxenite with a depleted mantle model age of 2.9 Ga, support our contention that metasomatized continental lower mantle lithosphere is the source for the EMI component.” ⁶⁸ If we run the various isotope ratios ⁶⁹ from two different tables in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 40

 

If the true age is 2.9 billion years why so much discordance? In tables 41 to 43 we can see some of the astounding spread of dates [million of years]. The oldest date is over 94 billion years old. The youngest is 79 million years. The difference between the two is over 94 billion years. The oldest date is 1,194 times older than the youngest. According to the article the true age of the rock is 2.9 billion years old!

 

 

208Pb/232Th, Maximum Ages

Table 41

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 42

 

Production of Jurassic Rhyolite

According to the article ⁷⁰ this specimen [Patagonia, South America] was dated in 1994 by scientists from the British Antarctic Survey, National University, Argentina. According to the article: “Primary magmas of andesitic composition were generated by partial melting of mafic" Grenvillian" lower crust, indentified by depleted-mantle model ages of 1150-1600 Ma.” ⁷⁰ If we run the various isotope ratios ⁷¹ from two different tables in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 43

Evolution of Reunion Hotspot Mantle

According to the article ⁷² this specimen [Reunion and Mauritius Islands] was dated in 1995 by scientists from the University of Hawaii. According to the article: “Whole-rock powder obtained from P. Krishnamurthy. (87Sr/86 Sr), and em(T) are age-corrected values; T = 66 Ma for the drill hole lavas.” ⁷³ If we run the various isotope ratios ⁷⁴ from two different tables in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 44

 

208Pb/232Th, Maximum Ages

Table 45

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 46

 

According to dating charts in the article, the true age is just 66 million years old! ⁷⁴

 

An Extremely Low U/Pb Source

According to the article ⁷⁵ this specimen [lunar meteorite] was dated in 1993 by scientists from the United States Geological Survey, Colorado, the United States Geological Survey, California and The National Institute of Polar Research, Tokyo. According to the article: “The Pb-Pb internal isochron obtained for acid leached residues of separated mineral fractions yields an age of 3940 ± 28 Ma, which is similar to the U-Pb (3850 ± 150 Ma) and Th-Pb (3820 ± 290 Ma) internal isochron ages. The Sm-Nd data for the mineral separates yield an internal isochron age of 3871 ± 57 Ma and an initial 143Nd/I44Nd value of 0.50797 ± 10. The Rb-Sr data yield an internal isochron age of 3840 ± 32 Ma.” ⁷⁵

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 47

 

Uranium Age Dating Summary

Table 48

 

The article claims that the Rb/Sr age is 3.8 billion years for this meteorite. If that is the true age why are all the Uranium/Thorium/Lead dates ⁷⁶ so stupid? Or are they right and the Rb/Sr is wrong?

 

208Pb/232Th, Maximum Ages

Table 49

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 50

 

The 72 Ma Geochemical Evolution

According to the article ⁷⁷ this specimen [Madeira Archipelago] was dated in 2000 by scientists from Germany. The average Lead date is 705 times older than the average Rubidium date. The true age is claimed to be 430 million years old. ⁷⁷ If we run the various isotope ratios ⁷⁸ from two different tables in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 51

 

If the true age is 430 million years than none of the dating methods are even vaguely close. The oldest date is 731 times older than the youngest.

 

 

The Himalayan Collision Zone

According to the article ⁷⁹ this specimen [East Tibet] was dated in 2000 by scientists from Germany. As far as the age goes the author states: “Partial melting of the mantle source was most likely triggered by a Cenozoic asthenospheric mantle diapir related to Indian–Asian continent collision at 65–45Ma. Rising and emplacement of carbonatitic magmas with coeval potassium-rich magmas took place in the tectonic regime of the transition from transpression to transtension at Eocene/Oligocene boundary in the EIACZ.” ⁸⁰ He also states: “The initial "Nd values and 87Sr / 86Sr ratios were calculated at t=35Ma.” ⁸¹ If we run the various isotope ratios ⁸² from two different tables in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

Pb 207/206, Dating Summary

Table 52

 

If the specimen is of the Eocene era [Less than 100 million years old] how can the Lead/Lead dating produce such rubbish? If we run the Rb/Sr ratios through Microsoft Excel we get zero ages!

 

 

Evidence for a Non Magmatic component

According to the article ⁸³ this specimen [Yukon, Canada] was dated in 2001 by Canadian scientists from the University of Alberta, and Dalhousie University, Halifax. According to Argon dating the age of the material is 70 million years. ⁸⁴ If we run the various isotope ratios ⁸⁵ from two different tables in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 53

 

If we look at the average ages we see that there is a 7 thousand percent difference between them! If we compare the youngest and oldest dates we see that there is an 8,540 percent difference between them.

 

The Origin Of Geochemical Diversity

According to the article ⁸⁶ this specimen [lunar basalt] was dated in 2007 by scientists from New Mexico University. According to Rb/Sr isochron diagram the age of the material is 3.678 billion years. ⁸⁷ If we run the various isotope ratios ⁸⁸ from two different tables in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 54

 

The dating methods all disagree with each other. There is a wide spread of dates which are just random.

 

Mechanisms For Incompatible-Element Enrichment

According to the article ⁸⁹ this specimen [meteorite Northwest Africa] was dated in 2009 by scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of New Mexico, the University of California, Berkeley, and Arizona State University. The author states: “Rubidium–Strontium isotopic analyses yield an age of 2,947 ± 16 Ma” If we run the various isotope ratios ⁹⁰ from a table in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 55

 

Out of the eleven isotope ratios, two returned dates over ten billion years old.

 

 

Constraints On Martian Differentiation Processes

According to the article ⁹¹ this specimen [Martian meteorite] was dated in 1997 by scientists from the NASA Johnson Space Centre, Houston, Texas, the University of Tennessee, and Lockheed Martin, Houston, Texas. According to the article ⁹¹ the age range is: “The neodymium isotopic systematics of QUE 94201 are not consistent with significant melting between 4.525 Ga and 327 Ma.” If we run the various isotope ratios ⁹² from two different tables [1 and 4] in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 56

 

Instead of having a 4.2 billion year spread we have a 123 billion year spread of dates. Both tables in the article give dates way off the so called true age.

 

Geochemistry of the Volcan de l’Androy

According to the article ⁹³ this specimen from the Androy massif in south eastern Madagascar was dated in 2008 by scientists from the University Of Hawaii. According to the article Argon and Rubidium dating defined the so called true ages as: “The R2 rhyolites define a whole-rock Rb/Sr isochron of 84 Ma, the same, within error, as an 40Ar/39Ar sanidine age reported by earlier workers.” ⁹³ If we run the various isotope ratios ⁹⁴ from a table in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Pb 207/206, Dating Summary

Table 57

 

The Lead dating give ages that are sixty times older than the Rb/Sr dates.

 

Continental Lithospheric Contribution

According to the article ⁹⁵ this specimen from southern Portugal was dated in 1997 by scientists from France. According to the article Argon and Rubidium dating defined the so called true ages as: "The age of the intrusion and crystallization of the alkaline rocks of the Serra de Monchique is 72 Ma, based on Rb/Sr and K/Ar dating." ⁹⁶ If we run the various isotope ratios ⁹⁷ from a table in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 58

 

The date of 72 million years is just a guess. The Thorium/Lead method gives dates 140 times older. The Uranium/Lead methods give dates 107 times older. Below we can see the maximum ages [million years] calculated form isotope ratios. Compare these with the so called true age!

 

Maximum Ages

Table 59

 

Garnet Granulite Xenoliths

According to the article ⁹⁸ this specimen from the northern Baltic shield was dated in 2001 by scientists from England, USA and Russia. According to the article Argon dating defined the so called true ages as 400 to 2200 million years. ⁹⁹ If we run the various isotope ratios ¹⁰⁰ from table 4 in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 60

 

Below are the maximum ages calculated from isotope ratios in tables 4 and 5 in the article:

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 61

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 62

 

If we run more ratios form and online supplement we get ages uniformly 5 billion years old. Compare these with the so called true age!

 

The Isotope and Trace Element Budget

According to the article ¹⁰² this specimen from the Devil River Arc System, New Zealand was dated in 2000 by scientists from Germany. According to the article, the so called true ages is Cambrian. ¹⁰² If we run the various isotope ratios ¹⁰³ from table 4 in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 63

 

The Lead/Lead dates are ten times too old and the Uranium/Lead dates are 40 times too old!

 

Fluid Flow and Diffusion

According to the article ¹⁰⁴ this specimen from the Waterville Formation in south–central Maine, USA, was dated in 1997 by scientists from England and USA. According to the article, the so called true age is: “the 376±6 Ma Rb–Sr whole-rock age of the syn-metamorphic Hallowell pluton.” ¹⁰⁴ According to isochron diagrams in the article ¹⁰⁵ the model age is between 342 to 391 million years. The article has an age range diagram ¹⁰⁶ which claims that the maximum age is 425 million years. If we run the various isotope ratios ¹⁰⁷ from table 4 in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 64

 

Out of the 150 isotopic ratios in the essay, 134 gave ages greater than the so called maximum age limit. Twenty six gave ages that were more than twice the maximum limit.

 

 

Temporal Evolution of the Lithospheric Mantle

According to the article ¹⁰⁸ this specimen from the Eastern North China Craton was dated in 2009 by scientists from China, USA and Australia. Various tables ¹⁰⁹ in the essay have either calculated dates or ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at strong disagreement with each other. There is a spread of dates over a 32 billion year range.

Age Dating Summary

Table 65

 

Petrogenesis and Origins of Mid-Cretaceous

According to the article ¹¹⁰ this specimen from the Intraplate Volcanism in Marlborough, New Zealand was dated in 2010 by scientists from New Zealand. According to the essay: “the intraplate basalts in New Zealand that have been erupted intermittently over the last c. 100 Myr” ¹¹¹ Various tables ¹¹² in the essay have isotopic ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at strong disagreement with each other. There is a spread of dates over a 10 billion year range. None of the Lead based dating methods even come vaguely close to a Cretaceous age.

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 66

 

 

The Petrogenetic Association of Carbonatite

According to the article ¹¹³ this specimen from the Spitskop Complex, South Africa was dated in 1999 by scientists from South Africa. According to the essay: "The 1,341 Ma old Spitskop Complex in South Africa is one of a series of intrusions of alkaline affinity." ¹¹³ Various tables ¹¹⁴ in the essay have isotopic ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at strong disagreement with each other.

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 67

 

Nine of the twenty six Rb/Sr dates are over three billion years in error. Seven are over eleven billion years in error. The thirteen Lead 206/207 dates are all totally way off.

 

 

Geochemistry Of The Jurassic Oceanic Crust

According to the article ¹¹⁵ this specimen from the Canary Islands was dated in 1998 by scientists from Germany. According to the essay: "An Sm–Nd isochron gives an age of 178 ± 17 Ma, which agrees with the age predicted from paleomagnetic data."¹¹⁵ The article places the age in the late Cretaceous period. Various tables ¹¹⁶ in the essay have isotopic ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at strong disagreement with each other. There is a spread of dates over a 350 billion year range! None of the Lead or Rubidium based dating methods even come vaguely close to a Jurassic age.

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 68

 

The Age Of Dar Al Gani 476

According to the article ¹¹⁷ this Martian meteorite was dated in 2003 by scientists from the University of New Mexico, NASA Johnson Space Centre, Lockheed Engineering and Science Company. According to the essay: “In either case, the fact that the Martian meteorites define a whole rock Rb-Sr isochron with an age of 4.5 Ga require these reservoirs to have formed near the time of planet formation." ¹¹⁷ A table ¹¹⁸ in the essay has isotopic ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at strong disagreement with the assumed age. There is a spread of dates of almost 18 billion year range! None of the Rubidium based dating methods even come vaguely close to the so called true age.

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 69

 

Petrogenesis Of The Flood Basalts

 According to the article ¹¹⁹ this basalt form the Northern Kerguelen Archipelago was dated in 1998 by scientists from the Massachusetts Institute Of Technology, University of Brussels, Belgium and the San Diego State University. According to the essay: “The dominance of this isotopic signature in archipelago lavas for 30 my and its presence in ~40 Ma gabbros is consistent with the previous interpretation that these are isotopic characteristics of the Kerguelen Plume." ¹¹⁹ Various tables ¹²⁰ in the essay have isotopic ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at strong disagreement with each other. There is a spread of dates of over a 44 billion year range! None of the Uranium/Lead based dating methods even come vaguely close to the so called true age.

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 70

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 71

 

 

Nature Of The Source Regions

According to the article ¹²¹ this lava from southern Tibet was dated in 2004 by scientists from the Open University in Milton Keynes, the University of Bristol and Cardiff University. According to the essay: “Most samples are Miocene in age, ranging from 10 to 25Ma in the south and 19Ma to the present day in northern Tibet" ¹²² Various tables ¹²³ in the essay have isotopic ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at strong disagreement with each other. There is a spread of dates of over a 88 billion year range! None of the Uranium/Lead based dating methods even come vaguely close to the so called true age.

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 72

 

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 73

 

 

Generation Of Palaeocene Adakitic Andesites

According to the article ¹²⁴ this rock formation from North Eastern China was dated in 2007 by scientists from China and Japan. According to the essay the true age is: “Palaeocene (c. 55-58Ma) adakitic andesites from the Yanji area." ¹²⁴ Numerous table and charts affirm this as the true age. ¹²⁵ A table ¹²⁶ in the essay have isotopic ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at radical disagreement with each other. There is a spread of dates of over 10 billion years! None of the Uranium/Lead based dating methods even come vaguely close to the so called true age.

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 74

 

 

Evidence For A Widespread Tethyan

According to the article ¹²⁷ this rock formation from North Eastern China was dated in 2007 by scientists from China and Japan. According to the essay the true age is: “Here, we report age-corrected Nd–Pb–Sr isotope data for 100–350 Ma basalt, diabase, and gabbro from widely separated Tethyan locations in Tibet, Iran, Albania, the eastern Himalayan syntaxis, and the seafloor off NW Australia (Fig. 1).” ¹²⁸ The author concludes that the rocks are from the Cretaceous and Jurassic time periods: “We collected Early Jurassic to Early Cretaceous Neotethyan magmatic rocks in 1998 from outcrops along  1300 km of the Indus–Yarlung suture zone." ¹²⁹ Several tables ¹³⁰ in the essay have isotopic ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at radical disagreement with each other. There is a spread of dates of almost 60 billion years! None of the Uranium/Lead based dating methods even come vaguely close to the so called true age.

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 75

 

 

208Pb/232Th, Maximum Ages

Table 76

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 77

 

Post-Collisional Potassic And Ultrapotassic

According to the article ¹³¹ this rock formation from south west Tibet was dated in 1999 by scientists from Austria. According to the essay the true age is: “Volcanic rocks from SW Tibet, with 40Ar/39Ar ages in the range 17–25 Ma." ¹³¹ Numerous table and charts affirm this as the true age. ¹³² Two tables ¹³³ in the essay have isotopic ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at radical disagreement with each other. There is a spread of dates of almost 100 billion years! None of the Uranium/Lead based dating methods even come vaguely close to the so called true age. The oldest date is 3,971 times older than the youngest date.

 

 

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 78

 

Origin Of The Indian Ocean-Type Isotopic Signature

According to the article ¹³⁴ this rock formation the Philippine Sea plate was dated in 1998 by scientists from Department of Geology, Florida International University, Miami. According to the essay the true age is: “Spreading centers in three basins, the West Philippine Basin (37-60 Ma), the Parece Vela Basin (18-31 Ma), and the Shikoku Basin (17-25 Ma) are extinct, and one, the Mariana Trough (0-6 Ma), is active (Figure 1)." ¹³⁴ Numerous table and charts affirm this as the true age. ¹³⁵ Two tables ¹³⁶ in the essay have isotopic ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at radical disagreement with each other. There is a spread of dates of almost 100 billion years! None of the Uranium/Lead based dating methods even come vaguely close to the so called true age. The oldest date is 3,971 times older than the youngest date.

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 79

 

 

U–Th–Pb Dating Of Secondary Minerals

According to the article ¹³⁷ this rock formation Yucca Mountain, Nevada was dated in 2008 by scientists from United States Geological Survey, Geological Survey of Canada, and the Australian National University. According to the essay the true age is unknown. ¹³⁸ Other authors have affirmed the same problem. ¹³⁹ Two tables ¹⁴⁰ in the essay have isotopic ratios which can be calculated. As we can see below they are all at radical disagreement with each other. There is a spread of dates of almost 353 billion years! None of the Uranium/Lead based dating methods even come vaguely close to the so called true age. The oldest date is 350,000 times older than the youngest date.

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 80

 

 

 

 

Another table ¹⁴¹ in the essay has a list of calculated dates As we can see below they are all at radical disagreement with each other. There is a spread of dates of 82 billion years! None of the Uranium/Lead based dating methods even come vaguely close to the so called true age. The oldest date is 82,000 times older than the youngest date.

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 81

 

Conclusion

Brent Dalrymple states in his anti creationist book The Age of the Earth:

 

“Several events in the formation of the Solar System can be dated with considerable precision.” ¹⁴²

 

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.” ¹⁴³

 

I his book he gives a table ¹⁴⁴ with radiometric dates of twenty meteorites. If you run the figures through Microsoft Excel, you will find that they are 98.7% in agreement. There is only a seven percent difference between the ratio of the smallest and oldest dates. As we have seen in this essay, such a perfect fit is attained by selecting data and ignoring other data. A careful study of the latest research shows that such perfection is illusionary at best. 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              Radioactive and Stable Isotope Geology, By H.G. Attendon, Chapman And Hall Publishers, 1997. Page 73 [Rb/Sr], 195 [K/Ar], 295 [Re/OS], 305 [Nd/Nd].

 

9              Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition, By Gunter Faure, Published By John Wiley And Sons, New York, 1986. Pages 120 [Rb/Sr], 205 [Nd/Sm], 252 [Lu/Hf], 266 [Re/OS], 269 [Os/OS].

 

10           Absolute Age Determination, Mebus A. Geyh, Springer-Verlag Publishers, Berlin, 1990.

Pages 80 [Rb/Sr], 98 [Nd/Sm], 108 [Lu/Hf], 112 [Re/OS].

 

11           Radiogenic Isotope Geology, Second Edition, By Alan P. Dickin, Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pages 43 [Rb/Sr], 70 [Nd/Sm], 205 [Re/OS], 208 [Pt/OS], 232 [Lu/Hf].

 

12           Early Archaean Rocks At Fyfe Hills, Precambrian Research, Volume 21, 1983, Pages 197

 

13           Reference 12, Page 211

 

14           Reference 12, Page 215

 

15           Shock-Melted Antarctic LL-Chondrites, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1990, Voume 54, Pages 3509

 

16           Reference 15, Page 3517

 

17           Diamonds And Mantle-Derived Xenoliths, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 42, 1979,

Pages 58

 

18           Reference 17, Page 66

 

19           Reference 17, Page 64

 

20           87Rb-87Sr Isochron Of The Norton County Achondrite, Earth And Planetary Science Letters, Volume 3, 1967, Pages 179

 

21           Reference 20, Page 182

 

22           Base and Precious Metal Veins, Economic Geology, Volume 97, 2002, Pages 23

 

23           Reference 22, Page 27, 28

 

24           Reference 22, Page 29

 

25           Reference 22, Page 34-37

 

26           The Munchberg Massif, Southern Germany, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 99, 1990, Pages 230

 

27           Rocks of the Central Wyoming Province, Canadian Journal Of Earth Science, 2006, Volume 43,

Pages 1419

 

28           Reference 27, Page 1436-1437

 

29           Reference 27, Page 1439

 

30           Basalts From Apollo 15, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 17, 1973, Pages 324

 

31           Reference 30, Page 334

 

32           Reference 30, Page 332

 

33           History Of The Pasamonte Achondrite, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 37, 1977, Pages 1

 

34           Reference 33, Pages 3, 9

 

35           Sr Isotopic Composition Of Afar Volcanics, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 50, 1980,

Pages 247

 

36           Reference 35, Page 249

 

37           Reference 35, Page 250, 251

 

38           Orogenic Lherzolite Complexes, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 51, 1980, Pages 71

 

39           Reference 37, Page 72

 

40           Reference 37, Pages 78-80

 

40           Isotopic Geochemistry (O, Sr, Pb), Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 61, 1982,

Pages 97

 

41           Reference 40, Pages 101, 102

 

42           Reference 40, Pages 104

 

43           Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary Sediments, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 64, 1983,

Pages 356

 

44           Reference 43, Pages 361

 

45           Correlated N D, Sr And Pb Isotope Variation, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 59, 1982, Pages 327

 

46           Reference 45, Pages 330, 331

 

47           A Depleted Mantle Source For Kimberlites, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 73, 1985,

Pages 269

 

48           Reference 47, Pages 270

 

49           Reference 47, Pages 271, 273

 

50           Sm-Nd Isotopic Systematics, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 71, 1984, Pages 46

 

51           Reference 50, Pages 49

 

52           Strontium, Neodymium And Lead Compositions, Earth and Planetary Science Letters,

Volume 75, 1985, Pages 354-368

 

53           Reference 52, Pages 356, 363

 

54           Trace Element And Sr And Nd Isotope, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 80, 1986,

Pages 281-298

 

55           Reference 54, Pages 287

 

56           Reference 54, Pages 289

 

57           The southeast Australian Lithosphere Mantle, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 86, 1987, Pages 327

 

58           Reference 57, Pages 332

 

59           Reference 57, Pages 330, 332

 

60           Strontium, neodymium and lead isotopic, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 90, 1988,

Pages 26-40

 

61           Reference 60, Pages 35

 

62           Reference 60, Pages 31

 

63           Sr, Nd, and Os isotope geochemistry, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 99, 1990, Pages 362

 

64           Reference 63, Pages 364

 

65           Reference 63, Pages 365, 368

 

66           Pb, Nd and Sr isotopic geochemistry, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 105, 1991, Pages 149

 

67           Reference 66, Pages 154, 160

 

67           Reference 66, Pages 156, 157

 

68           Sr, Nd, and Pb isotopes, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 113, 1992, Pages 107

 

69           Reference 68, Pages 110

 

70           Production of Jurassic Rhyolite, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 134, 1995,

Pages 23-36

 

71           Reference 70, Pages 25

 

72           Evolution of Reunion Hotspot Mantle, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 134, 1995,

Pages 169-185

 

73           Reference 72, Pages 173

 

73           Reference 72, Pages 174

 

74           Reference 72, Pages 180

 

75           An extremely low U/Pb source, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1993, Volume 57,

Pages 4687-4702

 

76           Reference 75, Pages 4690, 4691

 

77           The 72 Ma Geochemical Evolution, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 183, 2000, Pages 73

 

78           Reference 77, Pages 76-79

 

79           The Himalayan collision zone, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 244, 2006,

Pages 234

 

80           Reference 79, Pages 234, 235

 

81           Reference 79, Pages 238

 

82           Reference 79, Pages 242

 

83           Evidence for a Non Magmatic Component, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2001, Volume 65,

Number 4, Pages 571

 

84           Reference 83, Pages 581

 

85           Reference 83, Pages 576, 577

 

86           The Origin of Geochemical Diversity, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Volume 71, 2007,

Pages 3656

 

87           Reference 86, Pages 3661

 

88           Reference 86, Pages 3660

 

89           Mechanisms for Incompatible-Element Enrichment, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,

Volume 73, 2009, Pages 3963

 

90           Reference 89, Pages 3967

 

91           Constraints on Martian Differentiation Processes, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 1997, Volume 61, Number 22, Pages 4915

 

92           Reference 91, Pages 4918, 4924

 

93           Geochemistry of the Volcan de l’Androy, Journal Of Petrology, 2008, Volume 49, Number 6, Pages 1069

 

94           Reference 93, Pages 1078

 

95           Continental Lithospheric Contribution, Journal Of Petrology, 1997, Volume 38, Number 1,

Pages 115

 

96           Reference 95, Pages 119

 

97           Reference 95, Pages 124

 

98           Garnet Granulite Xenoliths, Journal Of Petrology, 2001, Volume 42, Number 4, Pages 731

 

99           Reference 98, Pages 742, 743

 

100         Reference 98, Pages 737-740

 

101         http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/suppl/2001/04/27/42.4.731.DC1/ege033SUPPLEM.csv

 

102         The Isotope and Trace Element Budget, Journal Of Petrology, 2000, Volume 41, Number 6, Pages 759

 

103         Reference 102, Pages 772-774

 

104         Fluid Flow and Diffusion, Journal Of Petrology, 1997, Volume 38, Number 11, Pages 1489

 

105         Reference 104, Pages 1497

 

106         Reference 104, Pages 1498

 

107         Reference 104, Pages 1492-1495

 

108         Temporal Evolution of the Lithospheric Mantle, Journal Of Petrology, 2009, Volume 50,

Number 10, Pages 1857

 

109         Reference 108, Pages 1873, 1874, 1877, 1879, 1880

 

110         Petrogenesis and Origins of Mid-Cretaceous, Journal Of Petrology, 2010, Volume 51,

Number 10, Pages 2003-2045

 

111         Reference 110, Pages 2038

 

112         Reference 110, Pages 2024-2026

 

113         The Petrogenetic Association of Carbonatite, Journal Of Petrology, 1999, Volume 40, Number 4,

Pages 525

 

114         Reference 113, Pages 534, 535

 

115         Geochemistry of Jurassic Oceanic Crust, Journal Of Petrology, 1998, Volume 39, Number 5,

Pages 859–880

 

116         Reference 115, Pages 867, 868

 

117         The age of Dar al Gani 476, Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta, 2003, Volume 67, Number 18, Pages 3519–3536

 

118         Reference 117, Pages 3523

 

119         Petrogenesis of the Flood Basalts, Journal Of Petrology, 1998, Volume 39, Number 4,

Pages 711–748

 

120         Reference 119, Pages 729, 730

 

121         Nature of the Source Regions, Journal Of Petrology, 2004, Volume 45, Number 3, Pages 555

 

122         Reference 121, Pages 556

 

123         Reference 121, Pages 566, 575, 576

 

124         Generation of Palaeocene Adakitic Andesites, Journal Of Petrology, 2007, Volume 48, Number 4,

Pages 661

 

125         Reference 124, Pages 676-678

 

126         Reference 124, Pages 684

 

127         Evidence for a Widespread Tethyan, Journal Of Petrology, 2005, Volume 46, Number 4,

Pages 829-858

 

128         Reference 127, Pages 831

 

129         Reference 127, Pages 840

 

130         Reference 127, Pages 832-837

 

131         Post-Collisional Potassic and Ultrapotassic , Journal Of Petrology, 1999, Volume 40, Number 9, Pages 1399-1424

 

132         Reference 131, Pages 1403, 1405, 1406

 

133         Reference 131, Pages 1414, 1415

 

134         Origin of the Indian Ocean-type isotopic signature, Journal Of Geophysical Research, 1998, Volume 103, Number B9, Pages 20,963

 

135         Reference 134, Pages 20965, 20969

 

136         Reference 134, Pages 20968, 20969

 

137         U–Th–Pb Dating Of Secondary Minerals, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2008, Volume 72,

Pages 2067

 

138         Reference 137, Pages 2067, 2068

 

139         Reference 137, Pages 2072-2073, 2074

 

140         Reference 137, Pages 2080, 2081

 

142         The Age Of The Earth, By G. Brent Dalrymple, 1991, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, Page 10.

 

143         Reference 142, Page 23

 

144         Reference 142, Page 287

 

 

www.creation.com