U235 earth dating armenian dating network

We need to explore just how accurate these determinations are, whether there really is consensus on standard values for the half-lives and decay constants, and just how independent and objective the standard values are from one another between the different methods. “Absolute Ages Aren’t Exactly.” Science 282 (5395): 1840–1841.

This is consistent with the several lines of impeccable evidence that radioisotope decay rates were grossly accelerated during the year-long biblical global Flood cataclysm, and then the decay rates decelerated.

That we may still be detecting the radioisotope decay rates decelerating is likewise consistent with the Flood occurring only about 4300 years ago.

He showed that there is still some uncertainty in what the values for these measures of the Rb decay rate differ when Rb-Sr ages are calibrated against the U-Pb ages of either the same terrestrial minerals and rocks or the same meteorites and lunar rocks.

Ironically it is the slow decay rates of isotopes such as Sm used for deep time dating that makes precise measurements of their decay rates so difficult.

Thus, all these radioisotope dating methods cannot be used to reject the young-earth creationist timescale, especially as current radioisotope dating methodologies are at best hypotheses based on extrapolating current measurements and observations back into an assumed deep time history for the cosmos.

Instead, the actual observable experimentally-determined radioisotope decay data suggest that radioisotope decay rates have been decreasing in recent decades.

The recognition of an urgent need to improve the situation is not new (for example, Min et al. It continues to be mentioned, at one time or another, by every group active in geo- or cosmochronology (Schmitz 2012).

From a creationist perspective, the 1997–2005 RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project successfully made progress in documenting some of the pitfalls in the radioisotope dating methods, and especially in demonstrating that radioisotope decay rates may not have always been constant at today’s measured rates (Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin 2000, 2005).

But there have still been repeated calls for more modern, more accurate direct counting experiments to more precisely determine the U half-life by forced agreement of Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Re-Os, Sm-Nd, K-Ar, and Ar-Ar ages respectively with U-Pb ages obtained for the same rocks, minerals and meteorites, none of these decay half-lives are really known accurately. “New Average Values for n(U) Isotope Ratios of Natural Uranium Standards.” International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 295 (1–2): 94–97.

Therefore, without accurately known decay half-lives, all radioisotope ages cannot be accurately determined or be considered absolute ages.

Ideally, the uncertainty of the decay constants should be negligible compared to, or at least be commensurate with, the analytical uncertainties of the mass spectrometer measurements entering the radioisotope age calculations (Begemann et al. Clearly, based on the ongoing discussion in the conventional literature this is still not the case at present.

Tags: , ,