The Uranium 235 Dating Method

By Paul Nethercott

August 2013

 

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.

 

Petrogenesis of the Flood Basalts

According to the article ¹² 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." ¹² Various tables ¹³ 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.

 

Table 1

 

Table 2

 

 

Nature of the Source Regions

According to the article ¹⁴ 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." ¹⁵ Various tables ¹⁶ 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 an 88 billion year range! None of the Uranium/Lead based dating methods even come vaguely close to the so called true age.

 

Table 3

 

Table 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5

 

Table 6

North Tibet Summary. Rb/Sr model age = 13 million years

 

Table 7

South Tibet Summary. Rb/Sr model age = 13 million years

 

Generation of Palaeocene Adakitic Andesites

According to the article ¹⁷ 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." ¹⁷ Numerous table and charts affirm this as the true age. ¹⁸ A table ¹⁹ 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.

 

Table 8

 

 

Ivisaartoq Greenstone Belt

According to the article ²⁰ this rock formation from southern West Greenland was dated in 2007 by scientists from Canada, Denmark, USA and Austria. According to the essay the true age is: “The Mesoarchean (ca. 3075Ma) Ivisaartoq greenstone belt in southern West Greenland." ²⁰ A table ²¹ 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 3 billion years!  

 

Table 9

 

 

Geophysical Systems

According to the article ²² this rock formation was dated in 2003. A table ²³ 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 82 billion years!  

 

Table 10

 

 

 

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. ²⁴ The article states that Rubidium/Strontium dating affirms that this material is 4.5 billion years old. ²⁵ If we run the various isotope ratios ²⁵ from two different tables in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

Table 11

 

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

 

 

 

 

Table 12

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

 

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

 

An Extremely Low U/Pb Source

According to the article ²⁶ 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.” ²⁶

 

Table 13

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

 

Table 14

Uranium Age Dating Summary

 

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 ²⁷ so stupid? Or are they right and the Rb/Sr ²⁸ is wrong?

 

Table 15

208Pb/232Th, Maximum Ages

 

 

 

 

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 16

 

Petrogenesis and Origins of Mid-Cretaceous

According to the article ²⁹ 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.” ³⁰ Various tables ³¹ 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.

 

Table 17

 

 

U–Th–Pb Dating Of Secondary Minerals

According to the article ³² 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: “The U–Pb system in opal and chalcedony allows dating in the age range from 50 ka to millions of years and older (Ludwig et al., 1980; Neymark et al., 2000, 2002). Recently, the reliability of U–Pb dating of opal was questioned.” ³³ Other authors have affirmed the same problem. ³³ Two tables ³⁴ 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 18

 

Another table ³⁵ 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 19

 

 

 

References

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

 

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

Pages 711–748

 

13           Reference 119, Pages 729, 730

 

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

 

15           Reference 121, Pages 556

 

16           Reference 121, Pages 566, 575, 576

 

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

Pages 661

 

18           Reference 124, Pages 676-678

 

19           Reference 124, Pages 684

 

20           Ivisaartoq Greenstone Belt, Gondwana Research, Volume 11 (2007) Page 69

 

21           Reference 20, Pages 86

 

22           Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 2003, Volume 4, Page 1089,

               

23           http://earthref.org/ERDA/download:147/

 

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

 

25           Reference 33, Pages 3, 9

 

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

Pages 4687-4702

 

27           Reference 75, Pages 4690, 4691

 

28           Reference 75, Pages 4696

 

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

Number 10, Pages 2003-2045

 

30           Reference 110, Pages 2038

 

31           Reference 110, Pages 2024-2026

 

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

Pages 2067

 

33           Reference 32, Pages 2068

 

34           Reference 32, Pages 2072-2074, 2080-2081

 

 

 

www.creation.com