The Uranium 238 Dating Method

By Paul Nethercott

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

 

 

Rocks Of The Central Wyoming Province

These rock samples were dated in 2005 by scientists from the University of Wyoming. ⁸ If we run the Rubidium/Strontium and Neodymium/Samarium isotope ratios ⁹ from the article through Microsoft Excel and use the formulas listed in Gunter Faure’s book ¹⁰ we get the following values:

 

 

h = Half life, 106 billion years

 

 

h = Half life, 48.8 billion years

 

Where t equals the age in years. (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

 

Ages Dating Summary

Table 1

 

The Uranium/Lead dates ¹¹ 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.

 

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. ¹² 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 ¹³ from two different tables in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

U/Th/Pb Age Dating Summary

Table 2

 

If we run the 87Rb/86Sr isotope ratios ¹³ from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values:

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 3

 

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

 

A Depleted Mantle Source For Kimberlites

According to the article ¹⁴ this specimen [kimberlites from Zaire] was dated in 1984 by scientists from Belgium. According to the article ¹⁵ the age of the samples is 70 million years. If we run the various isotope ratios ¹⁶ from the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 4

 

 

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.

 

Pb, Nd And Sr Isotopic Geochemistry

According to the article ¹⁷ 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 ¹⁸ the age of the samples is just 1 million years. If we run the various isotope ratios ¹⁹ from two different tables in the article through Microsoft Excel we get the following values respectively:

 

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 5

 

In tables 6 to 9 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 6

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 7

 

Pb 207/206, Maximum Ages

Table 8

 

 

87Rb/86Sr, Minimum Ages

Table 9

 

Sr, Nd, And Pb Isotopes

According to the article ²⁰ 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.” ²⁰ If we run the various isotope ratios ²¹ from two different tables in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 10

 

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 11

 

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 12

 

Evolution Of Reunion Hotspot Mantle

According to the article ²² 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.” ²³ If we run the various isotope ratios ²⁴ from two different tables in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 13

 

208Pb/232Th, Maximum Ages

Table 14

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 15

 

According to dating charts in the article, the true age is just 66 million years old! ²⁵

 

 

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

 

Rb/Sr Age Dating Summary

Table 16

 

Uranium Age Dating Summary

Table 17

 

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 is wrong?

 

208Pb/232Th, Maximum Ages

Table 18

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 19

 

The Origin Of Geochemical Diversity

According to the article ²⁸ 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. ²⁹ If we run the various isotope ratios ³⁰ from two different tables in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 20

 

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

 

Continental Lithospheric Contribution

According to the article ³¹ 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." ³² If we run the various isotope ratios ³³ from a table in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 21

 

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 22

 

Garnet Granulite Xenoliths

According to the article ³⁴ 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. ³⁵ If we run the various isotope ratios ³⁶ from table 4 in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 23

 

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

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 24

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 25

 

If we run more ratios form and online supplement ³⁷ 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 ³⁸ 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 ³⁹ from table 4 in the article through Isoplot we get the following values respectively:

 

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 26

 

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

 

 

Petrogenesis And Origins Of Mid-Cretaceous

According to the article ⁴⁰ 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.” ⁴¹ Various tables ⁴² 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 27

 

 

Petrogenesis Of The Flood Basalts

According to the article ⁴³ 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." ⁴³ Various tables ⁴⁴ 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 28

 

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 29

 

Nature Of The Source Regions

According to the article ⁴⁵ 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." ⁴⁶ Various tables ⁴⁷ 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.

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 30

 

Age Dating Summary

Table 31

 

Generation Of Palaeocene Adakitic Andesites

According to the article ⁴⁸ 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." ⁴⁸ Numerous table and charts affirm this as the true age. ⁴⁹ A table ⁵⁰ 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 32

 

 

Evidence For A Widespread Tethyan

According to the article ⁵¹ 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).” ⁵² 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." ⁵³ Several tables ⁵⁴ 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 33

 

208Pb/232Th, Maximum Ages

Table 34

 

206Pb/238U, Maximum Ages

Table 35

 

Origin Of The Indian Ocean-Type Isotopic Signature

According to the article ⁵⁵ 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)." ⁵⁵Numerous table and charts affirm this as the true age. ⁵⁶ Two tables ⁵⁷ 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 36

 

 

U–Th–Pb Dating Of Secondary Minerals

According to the article ⁵⁸ 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. ⁵⁹ Other authors have affirmed the same problem. ⁶⁰ Two tables ⁶¹ 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 37

 

 

Another table ⁶¹ 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 38

 

 

Conclusion

Evolutionists Schmitz and Bowring claim that Uranium/Lead dating is 99% accurate. ⁶² 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.

 

 

 

 

 

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

                Pages 1419

 

9              Reference 27, Page 1436-1437

 

10           Principles of Isotopic Geology, Gunter Faure, John Wiley Publishers. New York, 1986,

Pages 120, 205

 

11           Reference 27, Page 1439

 

12           History Of The Pasamonte Achondrite, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 37, 1977,

Pages 1

 

13           Reference 33, Pages 3, 9

 

14           A Depleted Mantle Source For Kimberlites, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 73, 1985, Pages 269

 

15           Reference 47, Pages 270

 

16           Reference 47, Pages 271, 273

 

17           Pb, Nd and Sr isotopic geochemistry, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 105, 1991,

Pages 149

 

18           Reference 66, Pages 154, 160

 

19           Reference 66, Pages 156, 157

 

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

 

21           Reference 68, Pages 110

 

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

Pages 169-185

 

23           Reference 72, Pages 173

 

24           Reference 72, Pages 174

 

25           Reference 72, Pages 180

 

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

Pages 4687-4702

 

27           Reference 75, Pages 4690, 4691

 

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

Pages 3656

 

29           Reference 86, Pages 3661

 

30           Reference 86, Pages 3660

 

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

Pages 115

 

32           Reference 95, Pages 119

 

33           Reference 95, Pages 124

 

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

 

35           Reference 98, Pages 742, 743

 

36           Reference 98, Pages 737-740

 

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

 

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

 

39           Reference 102, Pages 772-774

 

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

Number 10, Pages 2003-2045

 

41           Reference 110, Pages 2038

 

42           Reference 110, Pages 2024-2026

 

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

Pages 711–748

 

44           Reference 119, Pages 729, 730

 

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

 

46           Reference 121, Pages 556

 

47           Reference 121, Pages 566, 575, 576

 

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

Pages 661

 

49           Reference 124, Pages 676-678

 

50           Reference 124, Pages 684

 

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

Pages 829-858

 

52           Reference 127, Pages 831

 

53           Reference 127, Pages 840

 

54           Reference 127, Pages 832-837

 

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

 

56           Reference 134, Pages 20965, 20969

 

57           Reference 134, Pages 20968, 20969

 

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

Pages 2067

 

59           Reference 137, Pages 2067, 2068

 

60           Reference 137, Pages 2072-2073, 2074

 

61           Reference 137, Pages 2080, 2081

 

62           Schmitz MD, Bowring SA. An assessment of high-precision U-Pb geochronology. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2001, Volume 65, Pages 2571-2587

 

 

www.creation.com