Radiometric Dating
Based on assumptions
Absolute dating methods determine how much time has passed since rocks formed by measuring the radioactive decay of isotopes or the effects of radiation on the crystal structure of minerals.
source screenshot
Mainstream science organizations usually present radiometric dating methods as infallible. But are the so-called absolute dating methods free of assumptions? Are they absolute or are they relative?
A detailed survey of the following dating methods in actual use: K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Fission track, Rb-Sr, U-Pb, Pb-Pb, Sm-Nd, Re-Os, Lu-Hf, La-Ce, etc. Addresses and refutes the common defensive statements used by proponents of the dating methods. Special emphasis is on demonstrating that discrepant results are not the exception, but the rule, and that arguments used to justify so-called good dates are, when closely examined, arbitrary and without foundation.
This book is logically not liked by evolutionists. But the reality of the day is that any method based on assumptions can never offer absolute results. All radiometric dating methods rely upon important assumptions usually not mentioned by evolutionists...
Almost all of the different methods ... rely on these few basic assumptions:
- Beginning Conditions Known
- Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem)
- Constant Decay Rate
- No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
- All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
- There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes
Assumptions exclude certainty.
Absolute dates do not necessarily tell us precisely when a particular cultural event happened, but when taken as part of the overall archaeological record they are invaluable in constructing a more specific sequence of events.
Despite very impressive and powerful measurement and characterization tools, physical and chemical analysis methods, the dating of rocks by using radioactive elements depends on very basic assumptions. The significance and relevance of these assumptions have not been demonstrated. In fact, the first radiochronology assumptions were adapted to fit the stratigraphic scale used by geochronologists of the end of the 19th century.
source screenshot
Radiometric dating methods are calibrated against the geologic column which is a relative timescale. Naturalists based this timescale on Darwin's very slow and gradual evolution theory and on the unprovable philosophy naturalism. The so-called absolute radiometric dating methods are not absolute. It is a misleading term.
K-Ar dating
Potassium-Argon dating is the only viable technique for dating very old archaeological materials. * Pro-evolution website Talk Origins says it is probably the most widely used radiometric dating technique available to geologists. The K-Ar method is used to date strata containing ash from volcanic eruptions. It is regarded as the most reliable dating method available after radiocarbon dating.
What most people don't realize, or at least don't discuss, is that Ar/Ar method is not an absolute dating method. Let me emphasize again that this dating method is a relative dating method. In other words, it must be calibrated relative to a different dating method before it can be used to date materials relative to that other dating method.
In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be known. For the J to be determined, a standard of known age must be irradiated with the samples of unknown age. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. ... while it is often easy to determine the age of the primary standard by the K/Ar method, it is difficult for different dating laboratories to agree on the final age.
source screenshot
Fission track dating is calibrated (the "zeta calibration") using rocks of "known" ages. However, if these "known" ages are incorrect, then fission track dating that is based on these ages is also incorrect. Thus fission track dating is not an independent test that helps to verify the accuracy of other tests. The result is that radiometric dating in general is in danger of being based on circular reasoning.
It seems like rocks dating within one or two million years cannot be accurately dated by K-Ar techniques just because of the relatively wide ranges of error. However, can rocks that are tens or hundreds of millions of years be more accurately dated? Perhaps, if these rocks were in fact closed systems and were not subject to contamination by external argon. ... Investigators also have found that excess 40Ar is trapped in the minerals within lava flows. ... Many recent studies confirm the mantle source of excess 40Ar.
Also the Potassium-Argon dating method has to be calibrated against another dating method. If it has to be calibrated, it can not be absolute. This goes for all dating methods. Excess daughter isotope 40Ar leads to higher ages than is really the case.
Dating methods agree?
It is often said that a great many dating methods, used on a single specimen, will agree with each other, thus establishing the accuracy of the date given. In reality, the overwhelming majority of measurements on the fossil bearing geologic column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method. Thus the agreement found between many dates does not necessarily reflect an agreement between different methods, but rather the agreement of the K-Ar method with itself (Especially noting that Dalrymple suggested that only K-Ar dating methods were at all trustworthy). I have seen no good double-blinded research studies that say otherwise. One would think that if this were a good science, then such studies would be done and published, but they are strangely lacking.
Apparently there are not many scientific researches into the reliability of different radiometric dating methods used for checking each other.
Paradigm paralysis
If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale... However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again.
source screenshot
The geologic column is a relative time scale and the current explanation of the geological time scale within mainstream science is the result of 2 centuries of evolutionary paradigm paralysis, circular reasoning and the unprovable philosophies uniformitarianism and naturalism within the world of mainstream science run by naturalists. It is one big circular theory. Pro-evolution website Talk Origins confirms it nicely for us.