Radio Dating

RADIOMETRIC DATING METHODS AND THE BIBLE
www.MaranathaMedia.com.au
Creationism Online
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
1. What about carbon dating?

By Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten
First published in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book
Chapter 4
How does the carbon ‘clock’ work? Is it reliable? What does carbon dating really show? What about other
radiometric dating methods? Is there evidence that the earth is young?
People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric1 dating methods that are
claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how
millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.
Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the
goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world.
Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said, ‘But from the beginning of the
creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6). This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the
creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
How the carbon clock works

Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred
wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has
atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced
neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common
carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability
makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are
eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C
has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also
gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio.
Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a
tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their
surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal
dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as
time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment
something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40
years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount
of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of
11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why
radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not
millions of years old.
1 www.MaranathaMedia.com.au
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is,
they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of
plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the
industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This
would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2
with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from
that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the
level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible.
Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such
historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely
more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4
Other factors affecting carbon dating

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore
dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's
passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger
magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has
been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they
really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon,
which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing
after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also
proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually
being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the
14 12
C/ C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of
fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date
of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very
discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of
accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7
Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils
formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to
be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the
biblical flood.
Other radiometric dating methods

There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks.
These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in
radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other
elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques
are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages
from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or
that we know how much was there).
2. Decay rates have always been constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
There are patterns in the isotope data
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that
they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper
rocks often tend to give older ‘ages.’ Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions
of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,8 points out that there are
other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
‘Bad’ dates
When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common
application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites
hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain ‘bad’ dates.9
For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most
samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the
argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils
in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and
selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much
older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating
works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.
A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212
to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans ‘weren’t around then’).
Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled
upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection
of ‘good’ from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).
However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A
study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After
this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again
several studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game.
Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It
is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-
man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every observation
must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the
public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable
experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not
measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately.
However, the ‘age’ is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.
We should remember God’s admonition to Job, ‘Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?’ (Job
38:4).
Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The
level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as
physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.
Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating
reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion
years.12 John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.13 He exposes hundreds of
myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few ‘good’ dates left after the ‘bad’ dates are
filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
What date would you like?

The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the
sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not
be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on
whether they have obtained a ‘good’ date.
Testing radiometric dating methods
If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in
situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.
Methods should work reliably on things of known age

There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One
example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although
one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.14
Again, using hindsight, it is argued that ‘excess’ argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when
it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years
in rocks of known historical age.15 This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust.
This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.16 If excess argon can cause
exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons,17 make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a
growing recognition that such ‘foolproof’ techniques can also give ‘bad’ dates. So data are again selected according
to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock.
Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled
over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt
from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested
that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.
Different dating techniques should consistently agree

If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were
measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within
the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite
different results.
In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.18 Again, all sorts of
reasons can be suggested for the ‘bad’ dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that
can be dismissed just because they don’t agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.
In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be
seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt
was ‘dated’ by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!19
Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave
lead-lead isochron ages of 841 Ma, plus or minus 140 Ma.20 This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on
other isotope ratios,21 and ages of 275, 61, 0,0, and 0 Ma for thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains.
The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less
mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system.22 The ‘zero’ ages in
this case are consistent with the Bible.
More evidence something is wrong—
14
C in fossils supposedly millions of years old
Carbon dating in many cases seriously embarrasses evolutionists by giving ages that are much younger than those
expected from their model of early history. A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to
measure.
Laboratories that measure 14C would like a source of organic material with zero 14C to use as a blank to check that
their lab procedures do not add 14C. Coal is an obvious candidate because the youngest coal is supposed to be
millions of years old, and most of it is supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. Such old coal should
be devoid of 14C. It isn't. No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.
Fossil wood found in ‘Upper Permian’ rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained 14C.23 Recently, a sample
of wood found in rock classified as ‘middle Triassic,’ supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a 14C date of
33,720 years, plus or minus 430 years.24 The accompanying checks showed that the 14C date was not due to
contamination and that the ‘date’ was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system.
It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in it,25 or wood supposedly millions of years old
still has 14C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist world view.
Many physical evidences contradict the ‘billions of years’
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the
billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
• Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidences are: lack
of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance
of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which
traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they
slowly got buried); thick layers of ‘rock’ bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when
bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris26 and Austin.27
• Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could
not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according
to evolutionists.28
• The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid
reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop
even faster.29
• Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the
atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally
escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had
time to escape—certainly not billions of years.30
• A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of
the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years,
according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few
moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic
Clouds. This is just what we would expect for ‘young’ galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide
expansion.31
• The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would
have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the
earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a
maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is
4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks.32
• Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have
been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could
not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists.
Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.33
Dr Russell Humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the pamphlet Evidence for a
Young World.34
Creationists cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can.
They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past.
This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many
‘proofs’ for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W.B.
Provine admitted: ‘Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either
wrong or significantly changed.’ 35
Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use
processes observed in the present to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods,
including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that
this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God,
and therefore totally reliable and error-free.
Then what do the radiometric ‘dates’ mean?

What the do the radiometric dates of millions of years mean, if they are not true ages? To answer this question, it is
necessary to scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made
on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations.
The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about
starting conditions and closed systems.
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling worked on dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of
Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil
samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid ‘isochron’ lines with ‘ages’ of
up to 1,445 Ma.
Such ‘false isochrons’ are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent
isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line
and mixing isochron. Zheng wrote:
Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr [rubidium-strontium] isochron
method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age
information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results
is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in
evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd
[samarium-neodymium] and U-Pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods.37
Clearly, there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios.
Again, the only way to know if an isochron is ‘good’ is by comparing the result with what is already believed.
Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the
two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according
to the two lead series and are called ‘concordant.’ However, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for
example, generally lie off the concordia curve—they are discordant. Numerous models, or stories, have been
developed to explain such data.38 However, such exercises in story-telling can hardly be considered as objective
science that proves an old earth. Again, the stories are evaluated according to their own success in agreeing with the
existing long ages belief system.
Andrew Snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten state in the earth’s mantle could
be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations which are interpreted as ages.
As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed
out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive
decay.39 Cook noted that, in ores from the Katanga mine, for example, there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable
isotope, but no Thorium-232 as a source for lead-208. Thorium has a long half-life (decays very slowly) and is not
easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. The
concentrations of lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 suggest that the lead-208 came about by neutron capture
conversion of lead-206 to lead-207 to lead-208. When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions,
the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence.
Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under
normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen.
Anomalies in deep rock crystals

Physicist Dr Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium and lead in zircons from deep bores is not
consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 Ma for the granite rocks in which they are found.40 The amount of lead
may be consistent with current rates of decay over millions of years, but it would have diffused out of the crystals in
that time.
Furthermore, the amount of helium in zircons from hot rock is also much more consistent with a young earth
(helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements).
The lead and helium results suggest that rates of radioactive decay may have been much higher in the recent past.
Humphreys has suggested that this may have occurred during creation week and the flood. This would make things
look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating. Whatever caused such
elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope conversions claimed by Cook (above).
Orphan radiohalos
Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A
speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of
characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206.41 Viewed in cross-
section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr Gentry has researched radiohalos for
many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.42
Some of the intermediate decay products—such as the polonium isotopes—have very short half-lives (they decay
quickly). For example, 218Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings formed by polonium decay are often
found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the
rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium
halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes
in decay rates in the past.
Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work.43 There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos
speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the
uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was
responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.44
Conclusion
There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old earth that many
claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the answers, but we do have the
sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world.
References and notes

1. Also known as isotope or radioisotope dating.
2. Today, a stable carbon isotope, 13C , is measured as an indication of the level of discrimination against 14C.
3. Radiation from atomic testing, like cosmic rays, causes the conversion of 14N to 14C.
4. Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14
dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood
(from long dead trees) using carbon-14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards. Then cross-
matching of ring patterns is used to calibrate the carbon ‘clock’—a somewhat circular process which does
not give an independent calibration of the carbon dating system.
5. K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, ‘An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA
Technical Report IER 46-IES, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., p. 14, 1965.
6. B.J. Taylor, ‘Carbon Dioxide in the Antediluvian Atmosphere,’ Creation Research Society Quarterly,
30(4):193-197, 1994.
7. R.H. Brown, ‘Correlation of C-14 Age with Real Time,’ Creation Research Society Quarterly, 29:45-47,
1992. Musk ox muscle was dated at 24,000 years, but hair was dated at 17,000 years. Corrected dates bring
the difference in age approximately within the life span of an ox. With sloth cave dung, standard carbon
dates of the lower layers suggested less than 2 pellets per year were produced by the sloths. Correcting the
dates increased the number to a more realistic 1.4 per day.
8. J. Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego,
CA, 1999.
9. Ibid.
10. G. WoldeGabriel et al., ‘Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis,
Ethiopia,’ Nature, 371:330-333, 1994.
11. M. Lubenow, The Pigs Took It All, Creation 17(3):36-38, 1995.
M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 247-266, 1993.
12. A.R. Williams, Long-age Isotope Dating Short on Credibility, CEN Technical Journal, 6(1):2-5, 1992.
13. Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods.
14. A.A. Snelling, The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt.
Nguaruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-argon ‘Dating,’ Proc. 4th ICC, pp.503-525,
1998.
15. Note 14 lists many instances. For example, six cases were reported by D. Krummenacher, Isotopic
Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47-55, 1969. A
large excess was reported in D.E. Fisher, Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt in Nigeria, Nature,
232:60-61, 1970.
16. See note 14, p. 520.
17. The isochron technique involves collecting a number of rock samples from different parts of the rock unit
being dated. The concentration of a parent radioactive isotope, such as rubidium-87, is graphed against the
concentration of a daughter isotope, such as strontium-87, for all the samples. A straight line is drawn
through these points, representing the ratio of the parent:daughter, from which a date is calculated. If the
line is of good fit and the ‘age’ is acceptable, it is a ‘good’ date. The method involves dividing both the
parent and daughter concentrations by the concentration of a similar stable isotope—in this case, strontium-
86.
18. S.A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA,
pp. 120-131, 1994.
19. A.A. Snelling, Radiometric Dating in Conflict, Creation, 20(1):24-27, 1998.
20. A.A. Snelling, The Failure of U-Th-Pb ‘Dating’ at Koongarra, Australia, CEN Technical Journal, 9(1):71-
92, 1995.
21. R. Maas, Nd-Sr Isotope Constraints on the Age and Origin of Unconformity-type Uranium Deposits in the
Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, Northern Territory, Australia, Economic Geology, 84:64-90, 1989.
22. See note 20.
23. A.A. Snelling, Stumping Old-age Dogma. Creation, 20(4):48-50, 1998.
24. A.A. Snelling, Dating Dilemma, Creation, 21(3):39-41, 1999.
25. D.C. Lowe, Problems Associated with the Use of Coal as a Source of 14C Free Background Material,
Radiocarbon, 31:117-120, 1989.
26. J. Morris, The Young Earth, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1994.
27. Austin, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe.
28. C. Wieland, Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report, Creation, 19(4):42-43, 1997, based on M. Schweitzer and
T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp. 55-57, June 1997.
29. D.R. Humphreys, Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood, Proc. First ICC,
Pittsburgh, PA, 2:113-126, 1986.
J.D. Sarfati, The Earth's Magnetic Field: Evidence That the Earth Is Young, Creation, 20(2):15-19, 1998.
30. L. Vardiman, The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere,
Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA, 1990.
J.D. Sarfati, Blowing Old-earth Belief Away: Helium Gives Evidence That the Earth is Young, Creation,
20(3):19-21, 1998.
31. K. Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proc. Third ICC, R.E. Walsh, editor, pp.
175-184, 1994.
32. D. DeYoung, The Earth-Moon System, Proc. Second ICC, R.E. Walsh and C.L. Brooks, editors, 2:79-84,
1990. J.D. Sarfati, The Moon: The Light That Rules the Night, Creation, 20(4):36-39, 1998.
33. S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys, The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists, Proc. Second
ICC, 2:17-33, 1990.
J.D. Sarfati, Salty Seas: Evidence for a Young Earth, Creation, 21(1):16-17, 1999.
34. Russell Humphreys, Evidence for a Young World, Answers in Genesis, 1999.
35. A review of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Science USA,
1998, by Dr Will B. Provine, online at http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/NAS_guidebook/provine_1.html,
February 18, 1999.
36. See Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, for one such thorough evaluation.
37. Y.F. Zheng, Influence of the Nature of Initial Rb-Sr System on Isochron Validity, Chemical Geology, 80:1-
16, p. 14, 1989.
38. E. Jager and J.C. Hunziker, editors, Lectures in Isotope Geology, U-Th-Pb Dating of Minerals, by D.
Gebauer and M. Grunenfelder, Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 105-131, 1979.
39. M.A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, Max Parrish, London, 1966.
40. R.V. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, TN, 1986.
41. Only those that undergo alpha decay (releasing a helium nucleus).
42. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery.
43. K.P. Wise, letter to the editor and replies by M. Armitage and R.V. Gentry, CEN Technical Journal,
12(3):285-90, 1998.
44. An international team of creationist scientists is actively pursuing a creationist understanding of
radioisotope dating. Known as the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) group, it combines the
skills of various physicists and geologists to enable a multi-disciplinary approach to the subject. Interesting
insights are likely to come from such a group.
2. Dating in conflict
Which ‘age’ will you trust?
by Hansruedi Stutz
First published in:
Creation 19(2):42–43
March–May 1997
In 1984, I was on a geological excursion in Mägenwil (Switzerland). I collected some sandstone samples with
fossilized mussels in it. This rock is classified as belonging to the Upper Tertiary geological system. Evolutionary
belief therefore maintains that this rock is around 20 million years old.
In the same rock, right alongside the fossil mussels, are fragments of coalified wood.
Some time after I took my samples, I discovered the same sandstone, appropriately described as coming from
Mägenwil, exhibited in the ‘Geologisch-Mineralogische Austellung der ETH’ in Zürich—naturally, also labelled ‘20
million years old’.
That means the wood must also be at least that old. Mainstream geologists would never think of trying to get a
radiocarbon (14C) date for the coalified wood in this Mägenwil sandstone, because anything that old should not be
datable by this method.
This is because radiocarbon decays very rapidly compared to other radioactive elements such as uranium. So after,
say, a theoretical 100,000 years at the most the amount of radiocarbon left in the wood would not be detectable
anymore.
So anything which really was millions of years old would have no detectable radiocarbon left, and would register as
giving an ‘infinite radiocarbon age’. Carbon dating, as it is often called, is thus never used to date ‘old’ fossils
(which usually have no organic carbon left anyway).
However, I felt this wood probably would give a radiocarbon ‘date’, because I was convinced that this sandstone
was the result of residual post-Flood catastrophism, just a few thousand years ago.
Such dating wouldn’t show the wood’s true age, since creationists have long shown that the huge imbalance of
carbon in the world due to the global Flood catastrophe would give artificially old radiocarbon dates, especially
those from the early post-Flood era.1
However, if it registered any age at all on the radiocarbon test (and all sources of potential contamination had been
eliminated), it would mean that it could not possibly be millions of years old.
So I arranged for this coalified wood to be radiocarbon ‘dated’ by the Physikalisches Institute of the University of
Bern, Switzerland.2 I assumed that such a prestigious laboratory would take all necessary precautions to eliminate
contamination, and allow for all other sources of error.3
The result: 36,440 years BP ± 330 years. This discovery, that the 14C in the wood has not yet had time to disintegrate
totally, is in line with what one would expect, based on the true history of the world given in the Bible by the One
who made all, and Who alone is infinite in knowledge, wisdom and power. The real age is probably less than four
thousand years.
It seems that long-age believers are left with only three options:
4. Accept the radiocarbon date. This would mean that the age of the Upper Tertiary shrinks from 20 million to
36,000 years, a factor of around 500 times. The whole geologic dating system would be thrown into
disrepute.
5. Arbitrarily reject the radiocarbon date. To be consistent, therefore, they would have to conclude that
radiometric dates are not the absolute age indicators we are persistently told, which destroys the main plank
in the old-age dogma to begin with.
6. Ignore the result, and hope not too many get to know about it.
There are many today, even within evangelical churches, who deny the Bible’s record of a recent creation. Because
of this belief, they therefore insist that the fossils are not related to a global Flood (which they also deny), but are
millions of years old. Since fossils show death, suffering, bloodshed and disease, that means that in their view, all
these ‘bad things’ must have been there long before Adam’s bringing sin into the world (Romans 5:12), with the
resultant Curse on creation (Romans 8:20–22). Sadly, such deadly compromise is often the result of a completely
misplaced faith in the ‘absolute’ ages given by radiometric methods.
References
45. See video by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., Radiocarbon, Creation, and the Genesis Flood. An ‘infinite’
radiocarbon age, though consistent with an age of millions of years, would not be proof of it, of course; it
could merely indicate that there was a very low initial ratio of 14C to 12C (radiocarbon to ‘normal’ carbon)
in the pre-Flood atmosphere, for which there are several readily postulated mechanisms.
46. Copy of official report on file with Creation magazine.
47. Note from the editor: Although it is never possible to be absolutely certain that contamination and sources
of error have been eliminated, a laboratory’s reputation depends on delivering ‘good’ results. At the time
this test was done (1985), the head of this laboratory was on the Board of Editors of the international
journal Radiocarbon. Also, the author of the article rang the laboratory in October 1996. The laboratory
confirmed that the determination (done in the traditional way, not by the newer AMS method) had included
everything possible to eliminate contamination, which included doing what is known as a d13CPDB
correction. This is a critical test in regard to the possibility that the wood may have been contaminated by
more recent microbes while in the ground or later.
HANSRUEDI STUTZ,
is a retired Electronics Engineer. During his professional career he developed industrial electronics for textile
machinery. He now works as a freelance creationist writer and speaker. Return to text.
3. Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone

by Andrew Snelling
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 21(3):39–41
June–August 1999
Every major, world-recognized city has its unique landmarks and features. Sydney, Australia’s oldest city (settled in
1788) and largest (more than 3.5 million people), and soon to host the 2000 Summer Olympics, is no exception. It
has its beautiful harbour and famous bridge, its Opera House and golden beaches, but it also has some unique and
characteristic rock formations.
The Hawkesbury Sandstone

The Hawkesbury Sandstone, named after the Hawkesbury River just north of Sydney, dominates the landscape
within a 100 km (60 mile) radius of downtown Sydney. It is a flat-lying layer of sandstone, some 20,000 sq. km
(7,700 sq. miles) in area and up to 250 metres (820 feet) thick.1 Dominated by grains of the mineral quartz2 (which is
chemically very similar to window glass, and harder than a steel file), the sandstone is a hard, durable rock which
forms prominent cliffs, such as at the entrance to Sydney Harbour and along the nearby coastline.
Despite the widespread, spectacular exposures of the Hawkesbury Sandstone, there is a long history of speculation
about its origins, going back to Charles Darwin.3 Rather than consisting of just one sandstone bed encompassing its
total thickness, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is made up of three principal rock types—sheet sandstone, massive
sandstone and relatively thin mudstone.1 Each has internal features that indicate deposition in fast-flowing currents,
such as in a violent flood.4 For example, thin repetitive bands sloping at around 20° within the flat-lying sandstone
beds (technically known as cross-beds), sometimes up to 6 metres (20 feet) high, would have been produced by huge
sandwaves (like sand dunes) swept along by raging water.
Fossils in the sandstone itself are rare. However, spectacular fossil graveyards have been found in several lenses
(lenticular bodies of only limited extent) of mudstone.5 Many varieties of fish and even sharks have been discovered
in patterns consistent with sudden burial in a catastrophe. Some such graveyards contain many plant fossils.
The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a Middle Triassic ‘age’ of around 225–230 million years by most
geologists.1,6,7 This is based on its fossil content, and on its relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the
region (the Sydney Basin). All of these are placed in the context of the long ages timescale commonly assumed by
geologists.
Fossil wood sample
Because of its hardness and durability, the Hawkesbury Sandstone not only provides a solid foundation for
downtown Sydney’s skyscrapers, but is an excellent building material. A number of Sydney’s old buildings have
walls of sandstone blocks. Today, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is mainly used for ornamental purposes.
To obtain fresh sandstone, slabs and blocks have to be carefully quarried. Several quarries still operate in the
Gosford area just north of Sydney, and one near Bundanoon to the south-west.
In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from
the quarry face at Bundanoon (see photo, right).8 Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original
character of the wood was still evident. Identification of the genus is not certain, but more than likely it was the
forked-frond seed-fern Dicroidium, well known from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.2,7 The fossil was probably the
wood from the stem of a frond.
Radiocarbon (14C) analysis

Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original
organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225–230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of
the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a
reputable internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator
mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute
quantities of carbon in samples.
The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to
ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX–23644) was
treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to
remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any
carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.
The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood,
yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘13C corrected’ by the
lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0 ‰.9 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in
the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if
this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite
radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens
of thousands of years.
Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to
contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was
buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that
there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic
material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same ‘age’ as their host. Furthermore,
the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from
either fungi or bacteria.
Conclusions
This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon ‘age.’ However, a 33,720 ± 430 years BP radiocarbon ‘age’ emphatically
conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary ‘age’ of 225–230 million years for this fossil wood
from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.
Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not
provided its true age. However, a finite radiocarbon ‘age’ for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected
within a Creation/Flood framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging Flood waters only
about 4,500 years ago, this fossil wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger
magnetic field back then shielding the Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The Flood also buried a lot of carbon, so
that the laboratory’s calculated 14C ‘age’ (based on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly
the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true age.10
Correctly understood, this radiocarbon analysis is totally consistent with the biblical account of a young Earth and a
recent global Flood, as recorded in Genesis by the Creator Himself.
7. P.J. Conaghan, ‘The Hawkesbury Sandstone: gross characteristics and depositional environment,’ NSW
Geological Survey Bulletin 26:188–253, 1980. Return to text.
8. J.C. Standard, ‘Hawkesbury Sandstone,’ The Geology of New South Wales, G.H. Packham (ed.), Journal of
the Geological Society of Australia 16(1):407–417, 1969. Return to text.
9. C. Darwin, Geological Observations on Volcanic Islands, 1844. Reprinted in: On the Structure and
Distribution of Coral Reefs …, G.T. Bettany (ed.), Ward and Lock, London, pp. 155–265, 1890. Return to
text.
10. J. Woodford, ‘Rock doctor catches up with our prehistoric surf,’ The Sydney Morning Herald, April 30,
1994, p. 2. Return to text.
11. A.A. Snelling, ‘An exciting Australian fossil fish discovery,’ Creation 10(3):32–36, 1988. Return to text.
12. F.M. Gradstein and J. Ogg, ‘A Phanerozoic time scale,’ Episodes 19(1&2):3–5 and chart, 1996. Return to
text.
13. M.E. White, The Greening of Gondwana, Reed Books, Sydney, pp. 135–155, 1986. Return to text.
14. Answers in Genesis is indebted to Mr Stephen Vinicombe, then living in nearby Moss Vale, for this
discovery, for sending the sample, and for information supplied in letters. Return to text.
15. d13CPDB denotes the measured difference of the ratio 13C/12C (both stable isotopes) in the sample compared
to the PDB (Pee Dee Belemnite) standard—a fossil belemnite (a shellfish classified with octopuses and
cuttlefish) in the Pee Dee Formation in the USA. The units used are parts per thousand, written as ‰ or per
mil (compared with parts per hundred, written as % or per cent). Organic carbon from the different varieties
of life gives different characteristic d13C values. Return to text.
16. Stable 12C would not have been totally replaced in the biosphere after the Flood, whereas 14C would have
been regenerated in the atmosphere (from cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen). So comparing today’s
14 12
C/ C with the 14C/12C in pre-Flood material would yield too high a calibration, resulting in ‘ages’ far too
long. Return to text.
4. Geological conflict:
Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating
by Andrew Snelling
First published in:
March–May 2000
[SUBSCRIBE to the full-color CREATION family magazine TODAY! ]
For most people, the discovery of fossilised wood in a quarry would not be newsworthy. However, some pieces
recently found embedded in limestone alongside some well-known ‘index’ fossils (see boxbox) for the ‘Jurassic
period’ (supposedly 142–205.7 million years ago) have proved highly significant.
It is not generally realised that index fossils are still crucial to the millions-of-years geological dating, in spite of the
advent of radioactive ‘dating’ techniques. Not all locations have rocks suitable for radioactive ‘dating’, but in any
case, if a radioactive ‘date’ disagrees with a fossil ‘date’ then it is the latter which usually has precedence.
Finding this fossil wood in Jurassic limestone suggested the possibility of testing for the presence of radiocarbon
(14C). Most geologists, however, would not bother with such tests because they wouldn’t expect any 14C to still exist.
With a half-life of only 5,570 years, no 14C should be detectable after about 50,000 years, let alone millions of years,
even with the most sensitive equipment. So this fossilised wood from the Marlstone Rock Bed of Jurassic ‘age’ had
potential for testing the validity of the fossil dating technique underpinning modern geology.
The Marlstone Rock Bed
The Marlstone Rock Bed is a distinctive limestone unit that outcrops from Lyme Regis on the Dorset coast of
southern England, north-eastwards to just west of Hull near the North Sea coast (Figure 1).1 In many places, the top
5–30 cm (2–12 inches) or more of this bed has been weathered and altered, the original green iron minerals2 being
oxidized to limonite (hydrous iron oxides), and also in a few areas the sand content is higher. In the past, the outcrop
has been quarried frequently for iron ore or building stone.
Figure 1: Locality map showing the outcrop pattern of the Marlstone Rock Bed across southern England
(reference 1, main article). Return to text.
Evolutionary geologists consider that the top three metres (10 feet) of the Marlstone Rock Bed represent the whole
of the Tenuicostatum Zone, the basal zone of the Toarcian Stage,1 the last stage of the Early Jurassic. This ‘dating’ is
based on the presence of the ammonite index fossil Dactylioceras tenuicostatum.1
Thus the bed is said to be about 189 million years old according to the geological time-scale.3
Amongst the remaining quarries still ‘working’ the top of the Marlstone Rock Bed are the Hornton Quarries at Edge
Hill near the village of Ratley, on the north-western edge of the Edge Hill plateau, some 10½ km (6½ miles) north-
west of the town of Banbury (Figure 2). Building stone, known as ‘Hornton Stone’, has been quarried there since
medieval times.4,5
Figure 2: Locality map showing the distribution of the Marlstone Rock Bed west of Banbury, and the Horton
Quarries at Edge Hill near the village of Ratley.
Return to text.
A ‘dating’ test at Hornton Quarries

During two visits to the Hornton Quarries, it was established that fossil wood occurs alongside ammonite and
belemnite index fossils (see box) in the ‘Hornton Stone’, the oxidized silty top of the Marlstone Rock Bed. The
ammonite recovered in the quarries is Dactylioceras semicelatum (Figure 4), abundant in a subzone of the
Tenuicostatum Zone.1 Fossil wood was actually found sitting on top of a fossilised belemnite (Figure 5), probably
belonging to the genus Acrocoelites, a Toarcian Stage index fossil in northwest Europe.6 Many such belemnite
fossils had been found during quarrying operations (Figure 6). Together these index fossils have, in evolutionary
reckoning, established the rock containing them as being Early Jurassic and about 189 million years old.1,3
Logically, the fossil wood must be the same ‘age’.
Three samples of fossil wood were collected from the south wall of Hornton Quarries, one from immediately
adjacent to the belemnite fossil (Figure 5 below) during the first visit, and two from locations nearby during the
second visit. All the fossil wood samples were from short broken lengths of what were probably branches of trees
fossilised in situ. The woody internal structure was clearly evident, thus the samples were not the remains of roots
that had grown into this weathered rock from trees on the present land surface. When sampled, the fossil wood
readily splintered, diagnostic of it still being ‘woody’ in spite of its impregnation with iron minerals during
fossilisation.
Figure 5: Fossil wood in the top section of the Marlstone Rock Bed exposed in the south wall of the Hornton
Quarries at Edge Hill. The pen is not only for scale, but points to an end-on circular profile of a belemnite fossil
sitting directly underneath the fossil wood (sampled as UK-HB-1). Return to text.
Pieces of all three samples were sent for radiocarbon (14C) analyses to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston
(USA), while as a cross-check, a piece of the first sample was also sent to the Antares Mass Spectrometry
Laboratory at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Lucas Heights near Sydney
(Australia). Both laboratories are reputable and internationally recognised, the former a commercial laboratory and
the latter a major research laboratory.
The staff at these laboratories were not told exactly where the samples came from, or their supposed evolutionary
age, to ensure that there would be no resultant bias.
Both laboratories used the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique for radiocarbon analyses,
recognised as producing reliable results even on samples with minute quantities of carbon.
The results
The radiocarbon (14C) results are listed in Table 1. Obviously, there was detectable radiocarbon in all the fossil
wood samples, the calculated 14C ‘ages’ ranging from 20,700 ± 1,200 to 28,820 ± 350 years BP (Before Present).
For sample UK-HB-1, collected from on top of the belemnite index fossil (Figure 5), the results from the two
laboratories are reasonably close to one another within the error margins, and when averaged yield a 14C ‘age’
almost identical (within the error margins) to the 22,730 ± 170 years BP of sample UK-HB-2.
Alternatively, if all four results on the three samples are averaged, the 14C ‘age’ is almost identical (within the error
margins) to the Geochron result for UK-HB-1 of 24,005 ± 600 years BP. This suggests that a reasonable estimate for
the 14C ‘age’ of this fossil wood would be 23,000–23,500 years BP.
Quite obviously this radiocarbon ‘age’ is drastically short of the ‘age’ of 189 million years for the index fossils
found with the fossil wood, and thus for the host rock.
Of course, uniformitarian geologists would not even test this fossil wood for radiocarbon. They don’t expect any to
be in it, since they would regard it as about 189 million years old due to the ‘age’ of the index fossils. No
detectable 14C would remain in wood older than about 50,000 years. Undoubtedly, they would thus suggest that the
radiocarbon, which has been unequivocally demonstrated to be in this fossil wood, is due somehow to
contamination. Such a criticism is totally unjustified (see box).
Table 1: Radiocarbon (14C) analytical results for fossil wood samples, Marlstone Rock Bed, Hornton Quarries,
England. Return to section ‘results’.
14
SAMPLE LAB LAB CODE C ‘AGE’ δ13CPDB (‰)
(YEARS BP)
UK-HB-1 Geochron GX-21666- 24,005 ± 600 -22.9
AMS
ANSTO OZC201 20,700 ± 1,200 -16.6
UK-HB-2 Geochron GX-22611- 22,730 ± 170 -24.0
AMS
UK-HB-3 Geochron GS-22612-AMS 28,820 ± 350 -25.3
Conclusions
The fossil wood in the top three metres of the Marlstone Rock Bed near Banbury, England, has been 14C ‘dated’ at
23,000–23,500 years BP. However, based on evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions, the ammonite and
belemnite index fossils in this rock ‘date’ it at about 189 million years. Obviously, both ‘dates’ can’t be right!
Furthermore, it is somewhat enigmatic that broken pieces of wood from land plants were buried and fossilised in a
limestone alongside marine ammonite and belemnite fossils. Uniformitarians consider limestone to have been
slowly deposited over countless thousands of years on a shallow ocean floor where wood from trees is not usually
found.
However, the radiocarbon ‘dating’ of the fossil wood has emphatically demonstrated the complete failure of the
evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions underpinning geological ‘dating’.
A far superior explanation for this limestone and the mixture of terrestrial wood and marine shellfish fossils it
contains is extremely rapid burial in a turbulent watery catastrophe that affected both the land and ocean floor, such
as the recent global biblical Flood.
The 23,000–23,500 year BP 14C ‘date’ for this fossil wood is not inconsistent with it being buried about 4,500 years
ago during the Flood, the original plants having grown before the Flood.
A stronger magnetic field before, and during, the Flood would have shielded the earth more effectively from
incoming cosmic rays,7 so there would have been much less radiocarbon in the atmosphere then, and thus much less
in the vegetation. Since the laboratories calculated the 14C ‘ages’ assuming that the level of atmospheric radiocarbon
in the past has been roughly the same as the level in 1950, the resultant radiocarbon ‘ages’ are much greater than the
true age.8,9
Thus, correctly understood, this fossil wood and its 14C analyses cast grave doubts upon the index fossil ‘dating’
method and its uniformitarian and evolutionary presuppositions.
On the other hand, these results are totally consistent with the details of the recent global Genesis Flood, as recorded
in the Creator’s Word — the Bible.
17. Howarth, M.K., The Toarcian age of the upper part of the Marlstone Rock Bed of England, Palaeontology
23(3):637–656, 1980. Return to text.
18. Some iron minerals are green, such as glauconite, chamosite and vermiculite (a clay mineral) which can
sometimes be found in limestones. Siderite (iron carbonate) can sometimes be green also. Return to text.
19. Gradstein, F. and Ogg, J., A Phanerozoic time scale, Episodes 19(1&2):3–5 and chart, 1996. Return to text.
20. Whitehead, T.H., Anderson, W., Wilson, V. and Wray, D.A., The Mesozoic ironstones of England: the
Liassic ironstones, Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, London, 1952. Return to text.
21. Edmonds, E.A., Poole, E.G. and Wilson, V., Geology of the country around Banbury and Edge Hill,
Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, London, 1965. Return to text.
22. Doyle, P. and Bennett, M.R., Belemnites in biostratigraphy, Palaeontology 38(4):815–829, 1995. Return to
text.
23. Humphreys, D.R., Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field, in: Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Creationism, Walsh R.E., Brooks, C.L. and Crowell, R.S., (editors), Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Vol. II, pp. 113–126, 1986. Return to text.
24. Also, the Flood buried much carbon. The stable 12C would thus have not been totally replaced in the
biosphere after the Flood, whereas 14C would have been regenerated in the atmosphere (from nitrogen). So
comparing today’s 14C /12C ratio with the 14C /12C ratio in the pre-Flood material would yield too high a
calibration, resulting in ‘ages’ far too large. Return to text.
25. The radiocarbon (14C) dating method, although demonstrating that the fossil wood samples cannot be
millions of years old, has not provided their true age. Nevertheless, the results confirm that radiocarbon is
found in fossil wood deep in the geological record, as expected, based on the premise that the wood was
buried and fossilised during the global Genesis Flood. See also:
• Snelling, A., Stumping old-age dogma: radiocarbon in an ‘ancient’ fossil tree stump casts doubt on
traditional rock/fossil dating, Creation 20(4):48–51, 1998.
• Snelling, A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone, Creation 21(3):39–41, 1999. Return to
text.
Index fossils and geologic dating

To evolutionary geologists, fossils are still crucial for dating strata, but not all fossils are equally useful. Those
fossils that seem to work well for identifying and ‘dating’ rock strata are called ‘index’ fossils.
To qualify as an index fossil, a particular fossil species must be found buried in rock layers over a very wide
geographical area, preferably on several continents. On the other hand, the same fossil species must have a narrow
vertical distribution, that is, only be buried in a few rock layers. The evolutionist interprets this as meaning that the
species lived and died over a relatively short time (perhaps a few million years). Therefore, the rock layers
containing these fossils supposedly only represent that relatively short period of time, and thus a ‘date’ can be
assigned accordingly on every continent to the rock layers where these fossils are found. The ‘date’ relative to other
index fossils and rock layers is, of course, determined by the species’ position in the evolutionary ‘tree of life’.1
Among well-known index fossils are ammonites (extinct, coiled-shell cephalopods, marine molluscs similar to
today’s Nautilus), and the belemnites (extinct, straight-shell cephalopods).2 Both are fossils of squid-like creatures,
common to abundant in so-called Mesozoic rocks. They are very important index fossils for ‘dating’ and correlation
of rock layers, for example, across Europe, particularly for the so-called Cretaceous and Jurassic periods of the
geological time-scale,2,3 which are claimed to span 65–142 and 142–205.7 million years ago respectively.4
However, these index fossils have not been ‘dated’ directly by radioactive techniques. Return to top of article.
48. The millions of years interpretation needs to be separated from the reality of the sequence of rock layers
(containing the fossils) which are stacked on top of one another. Creationist geologists do not deny that
there is a genuine geological record. They recognise that the rocks and fossils are usually found in a
particular order but reject the millions of years imposed on that order. Instead, catastrophic geological
processes during the global Genesis Flood can adequately account for this geological record. Return to
text.
49.
• Moore, R.C., Lalicker, C.G. and Fischer, A.G., Invertebrate Fossils, McGraw-Hill, New York,
ch. 9, pp. 335–397, 1952.
• Clarkson, E.N.K., Invertebrate Palaeontology and Evolution, George Allen & Unwin, London,
pp. 165–186, 1979.
Return to text.
50. Doyle, P. and Bennett, M.R., Belemnites in biostratigraphy, Palaeontology 38(4):815–829, 1995. Return to
text.
51. Gradstein, F. and Ogg, J., A Phanerozoic time scale, Episodes 19(1&2):3–5 and chart, 1996. Return to text.
Could the radiocarbon be due to contamination?

Four reasons why not
1. Pieces of the same sample were sent to the two laboratories and they both independently obtained similar
results. Furthermore, three separate samples were sent to the same laboratory in two batches and again
similar results were obtained. This rules out contamination.
2. The radiocarbon ‘dates’ depend on the amounts of radiocarbon, originally in the living plants, now left in
the fossil wood samples. In these samples, the 14C left was between about 2.5% and 7.5% of the amount in
living plants today. Any unavoidable contamination (e.g., dust, fungal spores) would be minuscule and
would amount to at most 0.2%, which would have a negligible effect on these radiocarbon ‘dates’.1
3. The last column in Table 1 lists the δ13CPDB results,2 which are consistent with the analysed carbon in the
fossil wood representing organic carbon from the wood of land plants.3
4. Such a claim would, by implication, cast a slur on the Ph.D. scientific staff of two radiocarbon
laboratories, who, as qualified routine practitioners, understand the potential for contamination and how to
avoid it in sample processing. Return to section ‘results’.
1. According to Professor R. Hedges, Director of the Radiocarbon Unit, Oxford University, England, in a
letter to Mr Jack Lewis of Isleham, Ely, England, dated January 22, 1998, for ‘dates’ more recent than
37,000 years BP, which corresponds to only 1% radiocarbon left in the sample, the effect of 0.2%
contamination from modern dust or algal spores is negligible.
2. δ13CPDB denotes the measured difference of the ratio of 13C/12C (both stable isotopes) in the sample
compared to the PDB (Pee Dee Belemnite) standard — a fossil belemnite from the Cretaceous Pee Dee
Formation in South Carolina, USA. The units used are parts per thousand, written as ‰ or per mil
(compared with parts per hundred, written as % or per cent). Organic carbon from the different varieties of
life gives different characteristic δ13CPDB values. Return to text.
3. Hoefs, J., Stable Isotope Geochemistry, 4th edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 133–134, 1997. Return to
text.
5. Much-inflated carbon-14 dates
From subfossil trees: a new mechanism.

by John Woodmorappe
First published in:
TJ 15(3):43–44
2001
Artificially-inflated 14C dates have been found to occur when trees absorb ‘infinitely old’ carbon dioxide released
into the atmosphere from local, volcanogenic, subterranean sources. This is not to be confused with wood
contamination because the carbon is firmly locked within the wood fibres. A similar effect has long been recognised
with the fictitious ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates that occur in molluscs when they absorb ‘infinitely old’ carbon from
carbonate rocks. In addition, creationists recognise that the global atmospheric buildup of 14C after the Creation and
Flood would have produced artificially-old carbon-14 dates. However, the widespread emanation of 14C-free
volcanogenic carbon dioxide after the Flood would have further inflated the carbon-14 dates of tree rings in a
systematic manner in many parts of the world.
The carbon-14 dating method is based on the assumption that tiny amounts of radioactive 14C, produced as cosmic
rays hit nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, become incorporated within the bodies of living things. After death,
generally no new 14C can enter the body, nor can any 14C leave. Instead, the 14C gradually disappears from the body
by undergoing radioactive decay. This occurs at a half-life of approximately 5,700 years. By assuming that 14C in
the present atmosphere, and hence in the organism at the time of death, was essentially the same in the past, and that
a closed system has existed since the death of the organism, we can compute how many half-lives of 14C have
passed, and hence how many years have elapsed, since the organism died.
Based on these uniformitarian assumptions, dates up to about 40,000 years are believed to be attainable. But even
under these assumptions, there is ample evidence that carbon-14 dating has serious problems. According to
conventional geology, the 14C in once-living objects older than about 100,000 years should have all gone, yet we
frequently find objects supposedly millions of years old that contain measurable quantities of carbon-14.1 And even
conventionally-believable dating results are often discarded if they conflict with some preferred hypothesis.2
Alternative global-biospheric conditions

Creationist scientists are willing to leave these uniformitarian mental boxes and thus have studied carbon-14 dating
from a decidedly non-uniformitarian viewpoint. One creationist model3 envisions the earth created some six
thousand years ago, the Flood about 1700 years thereafter and 14C building up either after Creation or after the
Flood. Because most living objects buried during the Flood contained very little 14C when they died, they already
possessed inherited carbon-14 dates (usually at infinity, but sometimes at a few tens of thousands of years, as
discussed earlier1). Post-Flood organisms successively acquired less extreme ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates at the time of
death until they eventually converged upon ‘real-time’ ages a few thousand years ago.4
An additional mechanism for spuriously-high carbon-14 dates

It turns out that there is another mechanism, probably active after the Flood, that creates greatly-exaggerated carbon-
14 dates. Unlike the earlier-discussed global processes, it operates at the local level (relative to each living thing),
and is particularly successful at altering the 14C content of living trees. Let us consider its revolutionary implications.
For the longest time, it had been supposed that, given standard assumptions, carbon-14 dates from properly-
decontaminated wood are virtually foolproof. After all, a tree grows a ring each year, and no new structural material
is subsequently added to the ring. When newer, mobile, material is leached away by chemicals, the remaining
structural wood fiber undoubtedly contains only the carbon (and hence 14C) that it contained during the year that the
ring formed. And, so the reasoning continues, since closed-system conditions are almost guaranteed and since trees
get their carbon from the CO2 in the air, and not from the soil,5 each ring must reflect the 14C concentration in the
atmosphere when it formed.
The key word in the above-described set of assumptions is ‘air’. Trees absorb whatever carbon dioxide gas is within
their vicinity. In the absence of other sources, the only source of CO2 is the atmosphere. But what other source could
there possibly be? One source is volcanogenic gases. And, since deep subterranean carbon usually had no prior
contact with the atmosphere, it has zero 14C and therefore an infinite carbon-14 age. Now, consider a tree that
imbibes half of its CO2 from the air and the remaining half from local volcanogenic gases. Its concentration of 14C at
time of death is only half that of the ambient atmosphere, and hence it dies having a ‘built-in’ carbon-14 age of
5,700 years (one half-life).
Tuscany, Italy, is probably the first place where ‘inherited’ carbon-14 dates on wood were described.6 These dates,
much too old to be attributed to any past civilization in Italy, were determined from timbers located several
kilometers from a volcano. Since that report, other examples of this phenomenon have surfaced from all over the
world.7 A recent, detailed study8 has shed further light on the dynamics of this process. Particularly interesting is the
fact that these ‘bad’ carbon-14 dates do not occur haphazardly, but to the contrary:
‘The pattern of 14C depletion in the annual rings is remarkably consistent between all
three of the trees cored, suggesting that either changes in CO2 flux are occurring
homogeneously across the entire area of the tree kill, or that trees integrate CO2 flux very
well over relatively large areas.’9
Under the right conditions, inherited carbon-14 dates can therefore mimic ‘real’ ones.
14
C depletion after the Flood
All the foregoing examples are infrequent, and localized. But the situation must have been very different for some
time after the Flood. A great deal of ‘infinitely-old’ carbon dioxide must have been percolating from the depths, all
over the world, and over considerable geographic regions, as a result of residual volcanic activity, upper-mantle
activity, etc. As the growing plants and trees absorbed much of this 14C-free CO2 flux, they necessarily acquired
quasi-homogenous ‘built-in’ carbon-14 dates—not as an exception, but as a rule. A large fraction of the ‘very old’
carbon-14 dates we presently obtain by routine use of the carbon-14 dating method may therefore owe to this
mechanism in addition to, or instead of, the earlier-discussed buildup of global atmospheric 14C since the time of
Creation or the end of the Flood.3 Clearly, this volcanogenic CO2 mechanism deserves further study.

26. Giem, P., Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon, Origins 51:6–30, 2001. For a variety of technical reasons
discussed in the paper, these occurrences cannot, at least for the most part, be explained away as
contamination. Return to text.
27. Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, p.
41, 1999. This, of course, is also true of the dating methods used to obtain much older dates than those
presumably obtainable by the carbon-14 method. Return to text.
28. Brown, R.H., Radiometric dating from the perspective of Biblical chronology; in: Walsh, et al. (Eds),
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, pp. 42–57, 1986. For example,
suppose that the Flood was 5,700 years ago, during which time a living thing died containing a 14C content
0.125 times that of living things today. At the moment of its death, it already had a ‘built-in’ carbon-14
‘age’ of 17,100 years (three half-live periods ‘built in’: 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.125). Owing to the fact that
another half-life of time has actually passed since the Flood, that once-living thing now has a 14C that is
0.0625 that of presently-living things, and a total apparent carbon-14 age of 22,800 years. Return to text.
29. I do not discuss the significance of several-thousand-year tree-ring chronologies and their calibration of
carbon-14 dating. This is a separate issue. Return to text.
30. Note that this contrasts with subfossil molluscs, which often have anomalously-high carbon-14 dates, as
reported in earlier creationist literature. The mollusc, unlike the tree, may have additionally absorbed some
carbon from dissolved limestone, which has no 14C. Thus the mollusc, at the time of its death, has a
shortage of 14C relative to the atmosphere, and hence a fictitiously-high age. Return to text.
31. Saupe et al., A possible source of error in 14C dates, Radiocarbon 22(2):525–531, 1980. Return to text.
32. Olsson, I.U., Experiences of 14C dating of samples from volcanic areas, PACT 29:213–223, 1990. Return to
text.
33. Cook et al., Radiocarbon study of plant leaves and tree rings from Mammoth Mountain, CA: a long-term
record of magmatic CO2 release, Chemical Geology 177:117–131, 2001. Return to text.
34. Cook et al., Ref. 8, p. 126. Return to text.
6. The Radiometric Dating Game

© 1998 by David Plaisted. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 10 March 2002]
• How radiometric dating works in general

• Why methods in general are inaccurate
• Why K-Ar dating is inaccurate
• How errors can account for the observed dates
• Why older dates would be found lower in the
geologic column especially for K-Ar dating
Dr. Plaisted responds
• Do different methods agree with each other on
to comments and
the geologic column?
criticisms of this
• Possible other sources of correlation
article here.
• Anomalies of radiometric dating
• Why a low anomaly percentage is meaningless
• The biostrategraphic limits issue
• Preponderance of K-Ar dating
• Excuses for anomalies
• Need for a double-blind test
• Possible changes in the decay rate
• Isochrons
• Atlantic sea floor dating
• Conclusion
• Gentry's radiohaloes in coalified wood
• Carbon 14 dating
• Tree ring chronologies
• Coral dating
• Varves
• Growth of coral reefs
• Evidence for catastrophe in the geologic column
• Rates of erosion
• Reliability of creationist sources
Radiometric dating methods estimate the age of rocks using calculations based on the decay rates of
radioactive elements such as uranium, strontium, and potassium. On the surface, radiometric dating methods appear
to give powerful support to the statement that life has existed on the earth for hundreds of millions, even billions, of
years. We are told that these methods are accurate to a few percent, and that there are many different methods. We
are told that of all the radiometric dates that are measured, only a few percent are anomalous. This gives us the
impression that all but a small percentage of the dates computed by radiometric methods agree with the assumed
ages of the rocks in which they are found, and that all of these various methods almost always give ages that agree
with each other to within a few percentage points. Since there doesn’t seem to be any systematic error that could
cause so many methods to agree with each other so often, it seems that there is no other rational conclusion than to
accept these dates as accurate.
However, this causes a problem for those who believe based on the Bible that life has only existed on the earth for a
few thousand years, since fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be over 500 million years old by radiometric
methods, and some fossils are found in rocks that are dated to be billions of years old. If these dates are correct, this
calls the Biblical account of a recent creation of life into question.
After study and discussion of this question, I now believe that the claimed accuracy of radiometric dating methods is
a result of a great misunderstanding of the data, and that the various methods hardly ever agree with each other, and
often do not agree with the assumed ages of the rocks in which they are found. I believe that there is a great need for
this information to be made known, so I am making this article available in the hopes that it will enlighten others
who are considering these questions. Even the creationist accounts that I have read do not adequately treat these
issues.
At the start, let me clarify that my main concern is not the age of the earth, the moon, or the solar system, but rather
the age of life, that is, how long has life existed on earth. Many dating methods seem to give about the same ages on
meteorites. Thus radiometric dating methods appear to give evidence that the earth and meteorites are old, if one
accepts the fact that decay rates have been constant. However, there may be other explanations for this apparent age.
Perhaps the earth was made from older pre-existing matter, or perhaps decay rates were briefly faster for some
reason. When one considers the power of God, one sees that any such conclusions are to some extent tentative. For
some evidence for a young universe, see http://users.aol.com/profhilljw/davidspg/snr.htm and
http://users.aol.com/profhilljw/davidspg/hst.htm . For some evidence for a young sun, see
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-276.htm. I believe that life was recently created. I also believe that the evidence
indicates that the earth has recently undergone a violent catastrophe.
Geologic time is divided up into periods, beginning with the Precambrian, followed by the Cambrian and a number
of others, leading up to the present. Some fossils are found in Precambrian rocks, but most of them are found in
Cambrian and later periods. We can assume that the Precambrian rocks already existed when life began, and so the
ages of the Precambrian rocks are not necessarily related to the question of how long life has existed on earth. The
Cambrian period is conventionally assumed to have begun about 550 million years ago. Since Cambrian and later
rocks are largely sedimentary and igneous (volcanic) rocks are found in Cambrian and later strata, if these rocks are
really 550 million years old, then life must also be at least 550 million years old. Therefore, my main concern is with
rocks of the Cambrian periods and later.
How Radiometric Dating Works in General

Back to top
Radioactive elements decay gradually into other elements. The original element is called the parent, and the result of
the decay process is called the daughter element. Assuming we start out with pure parent, as time passes, more and
more daughter will be produced. By measuring the ratio of daughter to parent, we can measure how old the sample
is. A ratio of zero means an age of zero. A higher ratio means an older age. A ratio of infinity (that is, all daughter
and no parent) means an age of essentially infinity.
Each radioactive element has a half-life, which tells how long it takes for half of the element to decay. For
potassium 40, the half-life is about 1.3 billion years. In general, in one half-life, half of the parent will have decayed.
In two half-lives, half of the remainder will decay, meaning 3/4 in all will have decayed. In general, in n half-lives,
only 1/(2^n) of the original parent material will be left.
Potassium 40 (K40) decays to argon 40, which is an inert gas, and to calcium. Potassium is present in most
geological materials, making potassium-argon dating highly useful if it really works. Potassium is about 1/40 of the
earth’s crust, and about 1/10,000 of the potassium is potassium 40. Uranium decays to lead by a complex series of
steps. Rubidium decays to strontium. Thus we obtain K-Ar dating, U-Pb dating, and Rb-Sr dating, three of the most
common methods.
When it is stated that these methods are accurate to one or two percent, it does not mean that the computed age is
within one or two percent of the correct age. It just means that there is enough accuracy in the measurements to
compute t to one or two percentage points of accuracy, where t is the time required to obtain the observed ratio of
daughter to parent, assuming no initial daughter product was present at the beginning, and no daughter or parent
entered or left the system. For isochrons, which we will discuss later, the conditions are different. If these conditions
are not satisfied, the error can be arbitrarily large.
In order to use these methods, we have to start out with a system in which no daughter element is present, or else
know how much daugher element was present initially so that it can be subtracted out. We also need to know that no
parent or daughter has entered or left the system in the meantime. Radiometric dating is commonly used on igneous
rocks (lava), and on some sedimentary minerals. But fossils can generally not be dated directly. When lava is hot,
argon escapes, so it is generally assumed that no argon is present when lava cools. Thus we can date lava by K-Ar
dating to determine its age. As for the other methods, some minerals when they form exclude daughter products.
Zircons exclude lead, for example, so U-Pb dating can be applied to zircon to determine the time since lava cooled.
Micas exclude strontium, so Rb-Sr dating can be used on micas to determine the length of time since the mica
formed.
I found the following statement in an on-line (non creationist) reference, as follows:
“This is possible in potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating, for example, because most minerals do not take argon into their
structures initially. In rubidium-strontium dating, micas exclude strontium when they form, but accept much
rubidium. In uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating of zircon, the zircon is found to exclude initial lead almost completely.”
[from the Britannica Online, article “Geochronology: The Interpretation and Dating of the Geologic Record.”] So
because of this, one can do Rb-Sr dating on micas because they exclude strontium when the micas form. Thus one
would know that any strontium that is present had to come from the parent rubidium, so by computing the ratio and
knowing the half life, one can compute the age.
In general, when lava cools, various minerals crystallize out at different temperatures, and these minerals
preferentially include and exclude various elements in their crystal structures. So one obtains a series of minerals
crystallizing out of the lava. Thus the composition of the lava continues to change, and later minerals can form
having significantly different compositions than earlier ones. Lava that cools on the surface of the earth is called
extrusive. This type of lava cools quickly, leaving little time for crystals to form, and forms basalt. Lava that cools
underground cools much more slowly, and can form large crystals. This type of lava typically forms granite or
quartz.
A good general introduction to radiometric dating from an evolutionary perspective can be found at
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html.
Why Methods in General are Inaccurate

Back to top
I admit this is a very beautiful theory. This would seem to imply that the problem of radiometric dating has been
solved, and that there are no anomalies. So if we take a lava flow and date several minerals for which one knows the
daughter element is excluded, we should always get the exact same date, and it should agree with the accepted age
of the geological period. Is this true? I doubt it very much. If the radiometric dating problem has been solved in this
manner, then why do we need isochrons, which are claimed to be more accurate?
The same question could be asked in general of minerals that are thought to yield good dates. Mica is thought to
exclude Sr, so it should yield good Rb-Sr dates. But are dates from mica always accepted, and do they always agree
with the age of their geologic period? I suspect not.
Indeed, there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we
have the following requirements:
For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40
from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.
4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.
The requirements for radiometric dating are stated in another way, at the web site
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter7.html:
“But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of
these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth’s igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are
far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in
which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present
initially).”
Here are more quotes about radiometric dating from http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm:
“All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause
these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them.
These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the
radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The
assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events’ or `second’ or `third events.’ ”
And again,
“It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios
or the rates at some time in the past.”
It is known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up
radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry. Some more quotes from the same source:
a. In the lead-uranium systems both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks, and lead volatilizes and
escapes as a vapor at relatively low temperatures. It has been suggested that free neutrons could transform Pb-206
first to Pb-207 and then to Pb-208, thus tending to reset the clocks and throw thorium-lead and uranium-lead clocks
completely off, even to the point of wiping out geological time. Furthermore, there is still disagreement of 15
percent between the two preferred values for the U-238 decay constant.
b. In the potassium/argon system argon is a gas which can escape from or migrate through the rocks. Potassium
volatilizes easily, is easily leached by water, and can migrate through the rocks under certain conditions.
Furthermore, the value of the decay constant is still disputed, although the scientific community seems to be
approaching agreement. Historically, the decay constants used for the various radiometric dating systems have been
adjusted to obtain agreement between the results obtained. In the potassium/argon system another adjustable
“constant” called the branching ratio is also not accurately known and is adjusted to give acceptable results.
Argon-40, the daughter substance, makes up about one percent of the atmosphere, which is therefore a possible
source of contamination. This is corrected for by comparing the ratio argon-40/argon-36 in the rock with that in the
atmosphere. However, since it is possible for argon-36 to be formed in the rocks by cosmic radiation, the correction
may also be in error. Argon from the environment may be trapped in magma by pressure and rapid cooling to give
very high erroneous age results. In view of these and other problems it is hardly surprising that the potassium/argon
method can yield highly variable results, even among different minerals in the same rock.
c. In the strontium/rubidium system the strontium-87 daughter atoms are very plentiful in the earth’s crust.
Rubidium-87 parent atoms can be leached out of the rock by water or volatilized by heat.
All of these special problems as well as others can produce contradictory and erroneous results for the various
radiometric dating systems.
So we have a number of mechanisms that can introduce errors in radiometric dates. Heating can cause argon to leave
a rock and make it look younger. In general, if lava was heated after the initial flow, it can yield an age that is too
young. If the minerals in the lava did not melt with the lava, one can obtain an age that is too old. Leaching can also
occur; this involves water circulating in rock that can cause parent and daughter elements to enter or leave the rock
and change the radiometric age.
Thus it is easy to rationalize any date that is obtained. If a date is too old, one can say that the mineral did not melt
with the lava. (Maybe it got included from surrounding rock as the lava flowed upward.) If the date is too young,
one can say that there was a later heating event. One can also hypothesize that leaching occurred.
But then it is claimed that we can detect leaching and heating. But how can we know that this claim is true, without
knowing the history of rocks and knowing whether they have in fact experienced later heating or leaching?
The problems are compounded because many of the parent and daughter substances are mobile, to some extent. I
believe that all parent substances are water soluble, and many of the daughter products as well. A few sources have
said that Sr is mobile in rock to some extent. This could cause trouble for Rb-Sr dating. In fact, some sources say
that Sr and Ar have similar mobilities in rock, and Ar is very mobile.
Especially the gaseous radiometric decay byproducts such as argon, radon, and helium are mobile in rock. So if a
rock has tiny cracks permitting gas to enter or escape or permitting the flow of water, the radiometric ages could be
changed substantially even without the rock ever melting or mixing.
For example, suppose that 1/300,000 of the argon in a rock escapes in one day. Then in 1000 years the rock will
have less than 1/(2.7) of its original argon. In 5000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7^5) of its original argon.
Now, there is probably not much argon in a rock to start with. So the loss of a tiny amount of argon can have
significant effects over long time periods. A loss of argon would make the rock look younger.
In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or from surrounding rocks and make it look older. And this
can also happen by water flowing through the rock through tiny cracks, dissolving parent and daughter elements. It
would be difficult to measure the tiny changes in concentration that would suffice to make large changes in the
radiometric ages over long time periods.
I also question the assertion that argon, for example, is excluded from certain minerals when they crystallize and
never enters later on. Geologists often say that ages that are too old are due to excess argon. So it must be possible
for that excess argon to get in, even though the crystal is supposed to exclude it. Here is one such reference,
although this is to a mineral that does not exclude argon:
“As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a
few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been
determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which
released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the
isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium-
strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon.”
[from the Online Encyclopedia Britannica article, “Geochronology: The Interpretation and Dating of the Geologic
Record, Potassium-argon methods.”]
Another problem is that the crystal structure typically has imperfections and impurities. For example, different kinds
of quartz have different colors due to various impurities that are included but not part of the repetitive unit of the
quartz crystal. So even if the crystal excludes the daughter element, it could be present in impurities. Thus crystals,
as they form, may have tiny imperfections that accept parent and daughter products in the same ratios as they occur
in the lava, so one can inherit ages from the lava into minerals in this way. It is also possible that parent and
daughter elements could be present in boundaries between regular crystal domains. I don’t know how we can be
sure that a crystal will exclude argon or other daughter substances except by growing it in the laboratory under many
conditions.
There can also be argon or other daughter products added from the air or from other rocks. One could say that we
can detect whether the daughter is embedded in the crystal structure or not. But this would require an atom by atom
analysis, which I do not believe is practical.
Why K-Ar Dating is Inaccurate

Back to top
Since K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating is one of the most prevalent techniques, some special commentary about it is
in order. Potassium is about 2.5 percent of the earth’s crust. About 1/10,000 of potassium is K40, which decays into
Ar40 with a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Actually, only about 1/8 of the potassium 40 decays to argon, and the rest
decays to calcium. Thus after n half-lives, (1/2)^n of the original potassium 40 will remain. Of the 1 - (1/2)^n which
has decayed, about 7/8 will have decayed into calcium, and the remaining 1/8 will have decayed into argon 40.
Argon is about 3.6 x 10 ^ -6 of the earth’s crust. We can assume, then, that the magma is probably about 1/40
potassium and about 1/400,000 K40. After 570 million years, about 26 percent of this potassium will have decayed,
so that there will be about 1/3 as much decay product as K40. About 1/8 of the decay product will be Argon 40, so
there will be about 1/24 as much argon 40 as K40. Thus we should expect about 1/9,600,000 of a rock having an
average concentration of potassium, to be argon, if the rock is really 570 million years old. This is about one ten
millionth of the mass of the rock, a very tiny percentage. And yet, with a large amount of argon in the air and also
filtering up from rocks below, and with excess argon in lava, with argon and potassium water soluble, and argon
mobile in rock, we are still expecting this wisp of argon to tell us how old the rock is! The percentage of Ar40 is
even less for younger rocks. For example, it would be about one in 100 million for rocks in the vicinity of 57 million
years old.
To get one part in 10 million of argon in a rock in a thousand years, we would only need to get one part in 10 billion
entering the rock each year. This would be less than one part in a trillion entering the rock each day, on the average.
This would suffice to give a rock having an average concentration of potassium, a computed potassium-argon age of
over 500 million years!
We can also consider the average abundance of argon in the crust. If we assume that a rock has 1/400,000 K40, that
is, 2.5 x 10 ^ -6 K40, and 3.6 x 10 ^ -6 Ar40, then eight times this much K40 must have decayed, thus about 28.8 x
10 ^ -6 parts of K40 have decayed, so there is less than 1/10 of the original K40 left. This implies a radiometric age
of over 4 billion years. So a rock can get a very old radiometric age just by having average amounts of potassium
and argon. It seems reasonable to me that the large radiometric ages are simply a consequence of mixing, and not
related to ages at all, at least not necessarily the ages of the rocks themselves. The fact that not all of the argon is
retained would account for smaller amounts of argon near the surface, as I will explain below. This could happen
because of properties of the magma chambers, or because of argon being given off by some rocks and absorbed by
others.
I don’t see how one can possibly know that there are no tiny cracks in rocks that would permit water and gas to
circulate. The rates of exchange that would mess up the dates are very tiny. It seems to me to be a certainty that
water and gas will enter rocks through tiny cracks and invalidate almost all radiometric ages.
Let me illustrate the circulation patterns of argon in the earth’s crust. About 2.5 percent of the earth’s crust is
believed to be potassium, and about 1/10,000 of this is K40 which decays to Ar40 with a half life of 1.3 billion
years. So argon is being produced throughout the earth’s crust, and in the magma, all the time. In fact, it probably
rises to the top of the magma, artificially increasing its concentration there. Now, some rocks in the crust are
believed not to hold their argon, so this argon will enter the spaces between the rocks. Leaching also occurs,
releasing argon from rocks. Heating of rocks can also release argon. Argon is released from lava as it cools, and
probably filters up into the crust from the magma below, along with helium and other radioactive decay products.
All of this argon is being produced and entering the air and water in between the rocks, and gradually filtering up to
the atmosphere. But we know that rocks absorb argon, because correction factors are applied for this when using K-
Ar dating. So this argon that is being produced will leave some rocks and enter others. The partial pressure of argon
should be largest deepest in the earth, and decrease towards the surface. This would result in larger K-Ar ages lower
down, but lower ages nearer the surface.
As for K-Ar dating, here is a quote given above:
“As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a
few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been
determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which
released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the
isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium-
strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon.”
So this confirms that argon can travel from rock to rock when one rock is heated. Now, argon is very soluble in
magma, which can hold a lot of it:
“Laboratory experiments have been conducted on the solubility of argon in synthetic basaltic melts and their
associated minerals.31, 32 Minerals and melts were held near 13000C at one atmosphere pressure in a gas stream
containing argon. After the material was quenched, the researchers measured up to 0.34 ppm 40Ar within synthetic
olivine. They noted, ‘The solubility of Ar in the minerals is surprisingly high’.33 Their conclusion is that argon is
held primarily in lattice vacancy defects within the minerals.”
I note that this concentration of argon, if it were retained in the rock, would suffice to give it a geological age well
over 500 nillion years, assuming an average concentration of potassium. This is from a paper by Austin available at
http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm. This paper also discusses Mount St. Helens K-Ar dating, and historic
lava flows and their excess argon.
So magma holds tremendous amounts of argon. Now, consider an intrusive flow, which cools within the earth. All
its argon will either remain inside and give an old age to the flow, or will travel through surrounding rock, where it
can be absorbed by other rocks. If one assumes that the amount of argon in the magma is consistent with an age of 4
billion years, then there should be about 7/8 as much argon 40 as potassium 40. For a rock 570 million years old,
there should be about 1/24 as much argon as potassium 40. So magma should have at least 20 times as much argon
as a rock 570 million years old by K-Ar dating. In fact, the argon in the magma may well be even higher, as it may
concentrate near the top. This amount of argon is enough to raise 20 times the volume of magma to a K-Ar age of
570 million years, and probably 200 times the volume of the magam to an age of 57 million years. So one sees that
there is a tremendous potential for age increases in this way. It is not necessary for this increase in age to happen all
at once; many events of this nature can gradually increase the K-Ar ages of rocks. In general, older rocks should
have more argon because they have been subject to more exposure to such argon, but their true age is not necessarily
related to their K-Ar radiometric age.
We can also consider that most volcanoes and earthquakes occur at boundaries between plates, so if the lava has
flowed before, it is likely to flow again nearby, gradually increasing the age. I suppose earthquakes could also allow
the release of argon from the magma.
Other mechanisms include dissolving of rock, releasing its argon, fracturing of rock, with release of argon, argon
from cooling lava under water entering the water and entering other rocks, and argon from cooling lave entering
subterranean water and being transported to other rock. There are so many mechanisms that it is hard to know what
pattern to expect, and one does not need to rely on any one of them (such as more argon in the magma in the past) to
account for problems in K-Ar dating.
Since even rocks with old K-Ar dates still absorb more argon from the atmosphere in short time periods, it follows
that rocks should absorb quite a bit of argon over long time periods, especially at higher pressures. In fact, if a rock
can absorb only a ten millionth part of argon, that should be enough to raise its K-Ar age to over 570 million years,
assuming an average amounts of potassium. It wouldn’t require many internal cracks to allow a ten millionth part of
argon to enter. Also, as the rock deforms under pressure, more cracks are likely to form and old ones are likely to
close up, providing more opportunity for argon (and other gases) to enter.
I mentioned a number of possibilities that could cause K-Ar dates to be much older than the true ages of the rocks.
Here is another way that K-Ar dates can be too old: If we assume the earth went through a catastrophe recently, then
the crustal plates might have been agitated, permitting lava and argon to escape from the magma. Thus a lot of argon
would be filtering up through the crust. As intrusive flows of lava cooled inside the crust, they would have been in
an environment highly enriched in argon, and thus would not have gotten rid of much of their argon. Thus they
would have hardened with a lot of argon inside. This would make them appear old. The same goes for extrusive
flows on the surface, since argon would be filtering up through the earth and through the lava as it cooled.
The following was sent to me by a friend:
In areas where tremendous tectonic activity has taken place, highly discordant values for the ages are obtained. The
difficulties associated are numerous and listed as follows:
1. There seems to be a great deal of question regarding the branching ratio for K40 into Ar40 and Ca40. The value
that has been used for Ar40/Ca40 has varied from 0.12 to 0.08. But the value is not really known. The observed
value is between 0.11 and 0.126, but in order to match K-Ar ages, which average somewhat higher [lower?] than the
U-Th-Pb ages, to the latter ages, the value 0.08 is arbitrarily taken. However, this doesn’t remedy the situation and
the ages are still too high [low?]. The geochronologists credit this to “argon leakage”.
2. There is far too much Ar40 in the earth for more than a small fraction of it to have been formed by radioactive
decay of K40. This is true even if the earth really is 4.5 billion years old. In the atmosphere of the earth, Ar40
constitutes 99.6% of the total argon. This is around 100 times the amount that would be generated by radioactive
decay over the age of 4.5 billion years. Certainly this is not produced by an influx from outer space. Thus, a large
amount of Ar40 was present in the beginning. Since geochronologists assume that errors due to presence of initial
Ar40 are small, their results are highly questionable.
3. Argon diffuses from mineral to mineral with great ease. It leaks out of rocks very readily and can move from
down deep in the earth, where the pressure is large, and accumulate in an abnormally large amount in the surface
where rock samples for dating are found. They would all have excess argon due to this movement. This makes them
appear older. Rocks from deeper in the crust would show this to a lesser degree. Also, since some rocks hold the
Ar40 stronger than others, some rocks will have a large apparent age, others smaller ages, though they may actually
be the same age. If you were to measure Ar40 concentration as function of depth, you would no doubt find more of
it near the surface than at deeper points because it migrates more easily from deep in the earth than it does from the
earth into the atmosphere. It is easy to see how the huge ages are being obtained by the K40-Ar40 radiometric clock,
since surface and near-surface samples will contain argon due to this diffusion effect.
Some geochronologists believe that a possible cause of excess argon is that argon diffuses into mineral progressively
with time. Significant quantities of argon may be introduced into a mineral even at pressures as low as one bar.
...
If such [excessive] ages as mentioned above are obtained for pillow lavas, how are those from deep-sea drilling out
in the Atlantic where sea-floor spreading is supposed to be occurring?
5. Potassium is found to be very mobile under leaching conditions. As much as 80% of the potassium in a small
sample of an iron meteorite was removed by running distilled water over it for 4 and 1/2 hours. This could move the
“ages” to tremendously high values. Ground-water and erosional water movements could produce this effect
naturally.
6. Rocks in areas having a complex geological history have many large discordances. In a single rock there may be
mutually contaminating, potassium- bearing minerals.
7. There is some difficulty in determining the decay constants for the K40-Ar40 system. Geochronologists use the
branching ratio as a semi-emperical, adjustable constant which they manipulate instead of using an accurate half-life
for K40.
A number of recent lava flows (within the past few hundred years) yield potassium-argon ages in the hundreds of
thousands of years range. This indicates that some excess argon is present. Where is it coming from? And how do
we know that it could not be a much larger quantity in other cases? If more excess argon were present, then we
could get much older ages.
It is true that an age difference in the hundreds of thousands of years is much too small to account for the observed
K-Ar ages. But excess argon is commonly invoked by geologists to explain dates that are too old, so I’m not
inventing anything new. Second, there may have been a lot more more argon in the magma in the past, and with
each eruption, the amount decreased. So there would have been a lot more excess argon in the past, leading to older
ages.
For rocks that are being dated, contamination with atmospheric argon is a persistent problem that is mentioned a
number of times. Thus it is clear that argon enters rock easily. It is claimed that we can know if a rock has added
argon by its spectrum when heated; different temperatures yield different fractions of argon. It is claimed that the
argon that enters from the atmosphere or other rocks, is less tightly bound to the crystal lattice, and will leave the
rock at a lower temperature. But how do we know what happens over thousands of years? It could be that this argon
which is initially loosely bound (if it is so initially) gradually becomes more tightly bound by random thermal
vibrations, until it becomes undetectable by the spectrum technique. The fact that rock is often under high pressure
might influence this process, as well.
How Errors Can Account for the Observed Dates

Back to top
Thus there are a number of sources of error. We now consider whether they can explain the observed dates. In
general, the dates that are obtained by radiometric methods are in the hundreds of millions of years range. One can
understand this by the fact that the clock did not get reset (if one accepts the fact that the magma “looks” old, for
whatever reason). That is, we can get both parent and daughter elements from the magma inherited into minerals
that crystallize out of lava, making these minerals look old. Since the magma has old radiometric dates, depending
on how much the clock gets reset, the crust can end up with a variety of younger dates just by partially inheriting the
dates of the magma.
Thus any method based on simple parent to daughter ratios such as Rb-Sr dating is bound to be unreliable, since
there would have to be a lot of the daughter product in the magma already. And Harold Coffin’s book Creation by
Design lists a study showing that Rb-Sr dates are often inherited from the magma.
Even the initial ratios of parent and daughter elements in the earth do not necessarily indicate an age as old as 4.5
billion years. Radioactive decay would be faster in the bodies of stars, which is where scientists assume the heavy
elements formed. Imagine a uranium nucleus forming by the fusion of smaller nucleii. At the moment of formation,
as two nucleii collide, the uranium nucleus will be somewhat unstable, and thus very likely to decay into its
daughter element. The same applies to all nucleii, implying that one could get the appearance of age quickly. Of
course, the thermonuclear reactions in the star would also speed up radioactive decay. But isochrons might be able
to account for pre-existing daughter elements.
Furthermore, some elements in the earth are too abundant to be explained by radioactive decay in 4.5 billion years
(such as calcium, argon, and, I believe, strontium). Some are too scarce (such as helium). So it’s not clear to me how
one can be sure of the 4.5 billion year age, even assuming a constant decay rate.
Why Older Dates would be Found Lower in the Geologic Column For K-Ar Dating
Back to top
In general, potassium-argon dates appear to be older the deeper one goes in the crust of the earth. We now consider
possible explanations for this.
There are at least a couple of mechanisms to account for this. In volcano eruptions, a considerable amount of gas is
released with the lava. This gas undoubtedly contains a significant amount of argon 40. Volcanos typically have
magma chambers under them, from which the eruptions occur. It seems reasonable that gas would collect at the top
of these chambers, causing artificially high K-Ar radiometric ages there. In addition, with each successive eruption,
some gas would escape, reducing the pressure of the gas and reducing the apparent K-Ar radiometric age. Thus the
decreasing K-Ar ages would represent the passage of time, but not necessarily related to their absolute radiometric
ages. As a result, lava found in deeper layers, having erupted earlier, would generally appear much older and lava
found in higher layers, having erupted later, would appear much younger. This could account for the observed
distribution of potassium-argon dates, even if the great sedimantary layers were laid down very recently. In addition,
lava emerging later will tend to be hotter, coming from deeper in the earth and through channels that have already
been warmed up. This lava will take longer to cool down, giving more opportunity for enclosed argon to escape and
leading to younger radiometric ages. A discussion of these mechanisms may be found at the Geoscience Research
Institute site.
Another factor is that rocks absorb argon from the air. It is true that this can be accounted for by the fact that argon
in the air has Ar36 and Ar40, whereas only Ar40 is produced by K-Ar decay. But for rocks deep in the earth, the
mixture of argon in their environment is probably much higher in Ar40, since only Ar40 is produced by radioactive
decay. As these rocks absorb argon, their radiometric ages would increase. This would probably have a larger effect
lower down, where the pressure of argon would be higher. Or it could be that such a distribution of argon pressures
in the rocks occurred at some time in the past. This would also make deeper rocks tend to have older radiometric
ages.
Recent lava flows often yield K-Ar ages of about 200,000 years. This shous that they contain some excess argon,
and not all of it is escaping. If they contained a hundred times more excess argon, their K-Ar ages would be a
hundred times greater, I suppose. And faster cooling could increase the ages by further large factors. I also read of a
case where a rock was K-Ar dated at 50 million years, and still susceptible to absorbing argon from the air. This
shows that one might get radiometric ages of at least 50 million years in this way by absorbing Ar40 deep in the
earth without much Ar36 or Ar38 present. If the pressure of Ar40 were greater, one could obtain even greater ages.
Yet another mechanism that can lead to decreasing K-Ar ages with time is the following, in a flood model: One can
assume that at the beginning of the flood, many volcanoes erupted and the waters became enriched in Ar40. Then
any lava under water would appear older because its enclosed Ar40 would have more trouble escaping. As time
passed, this Ar40 would gradually pass into the atmosphere, reducing this effect and making rocks appear younger.
In addition, this would cause a gradient of Ar40 concentrations in the air, with higher concentrations near the
ground. This also could make flows on the land appear older than they are, since their Ar40 would also have a
harder time escaping.
Do Different Methods Agree with Each Other on the Geologic Column?

Back to top
Let us consider the question of how much different dating methods agree on the geologic column, and how many
measurements are anomalous, since these points are often mentioned as evidences of the reliability of radiometric
dating. It takes a long time to penetrate the confusion and find out what is the hard evidence in this area.
In the first place, I am not primarily concerned with dating meteorites, or precambrian rocks. What I am more
interested in is the fossil-bearing geologic column of Cambrian and later age.
Now, several factors need to be considered when evaluating how often methods give expected ages on the geologic
column. Some of these are taken from John Woodmoreappe’s article on the subject, but only when I have reason to
believe the statements are also generally believed. First, many igneous formations span many periods, and so have
little constraint on what period they could belong to. The same applies to intrusions. In addition, some kinds of rocks
are not considered as suitable for radiometric dating, so these are typically not considered. Furthermore, it is at least
possible that anomalies are under-reported in the literature. Finally, the overwhelming majority of measurements on
the fossil bearing geologic column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method. (And let me recall that both
potassium and argon are water soluble, and argon is mobile in rock.) 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. For example, if 80 percent of the measurements were done using K-Ar dating, and the other 20 percent
gave random results, we still might be able to say that most of the measurements on a given strata agree with one
another reasonably well. So to me it seems quite conceivable that there is no correlation at all between the results of
different methods on the geologic column, and that they have a purely random relationship to each other.
Let us consider again the claim that radiometric dates for a given geologic period agree with each other. I would like
to know what is the exact (or approximate) information content of this assertion, and whether it could be (or has
been) tested statistically. It’s not as easy as it might sound.
Let’s suppose that we have geologic periods G1 ... Gn. Let’s only include rocks whose membership in the geologic
period can be discerned independent of radiometric dating methods. Let’s also only include rocks which are
considered datable by at least one method, since some rocks (I believe limestone) are considered not to hold argon,
for example.
Now, we can take a random rock from Gi. We will have to restrict ourselves to places where Gi is exposed, to avoid
having to dig deep within the earth. Let’s apply all known dating methods to Gi that are thought to apply to this kind
of rock, and obtain ages from each one. Then we can average them to get an average age for this rock. We can also
compute how much they differ from one another.
Now we have to be careful about lava flows -- which geologic period do they belong to? What about rocks that are
thought not to have their clock reset, or to have undergone later heating episodes? Just to make the test unbiased, we
will assign altitude limits to each geologic period at each point on the earth’s surface (at least in principle) and
include all rocks within these altitude limits within Gi, subject to the condition that they are datable.
The measurements should be done in a double-blind manner to insure lack of unconscious bias.
For each geologic period and each dating method, we will get a distribution of values. We will also get a distribution
of averaged values for samples in each period. Now, some claim is being made about these distributions. It is
undoubtedly being claimed that the mean values ascend as one goes up the geologic column. It is also being claimed
that the standard deviations are not too large. It is also being claimed that the different methods have distributions
that are similar to one another on a given geologic period.
The only correlation I know about that has been studied is between K-Ar and Rb-Sr dating on precambrian rock.
And even for this one, the results were not very good. This was a reference by Hurley and Rand, cited in
Woodmorappe’s paper. As far as I know, no study has been done to determine how different methods correlate on
the geologic column (excluding precambrian rock).
The reason for my request is that a correlation is not implied by the fact that there are only 10 percent anomalies, or
whatever. I showed that the fact that the great majority of dates come from one method (K-Ar) and the fact that
many igneous bodies have very wide biostratigraphic limits, where many dates are acceptable, makes the percentage
of anomalies irrelevant to the question I am asking. And since this agreement is the strongest argument for the
reliability of radiometric dating, such an assumption of agreement appears to be without support so far.
The question of whether different methods correlate on the geologic column is not an easy one to answer for
additional reasons. Since the bulk of K-Ar dates are generally accepted as correct, one may say that certain minerals
are reliable if they tend to give similar dates, and unreliable otherwise. We can also say that certain formations tend
to give reliable dates and others do not, depending on whether the dates agree with K-Ar dates. Thus we can get an
apparent correlation of different methods without much of a real correlation in nature. It’s also possible for other
matter to be incorporated into lava as it rises, without being thoroughly melted, and this matter may inherit all of its
old correlated radiometric dates. Coffin mentions that fission tracks can survive transport through lava, for example.
It may also be that lava is produced by melting the bottom of continents and successively different layers are melted
with time, or there could be a tendency for lighter isotopes to come to the top of magma chambers, making the lava
there appear older. But anyway, I think it is important really to know what patterns appear in the data to try to
understand if there is a correlation and what could be causing it. Not knowing if anomalies are always published
makes this harder.
It is often mentioned that different methods agree on the K-T boundary, dated at about 65 million years ago. This is
when the dinosaurs are assumed to have become extinct. This agreement of different methods is taken as evidence
for a correlation between methods on the geologic column. One study found some correlated dates from bentonite
that are used to estimate the date of the K-T boundary. I looked up some information on bentonite. It is composed of
little glass beads that come from volcanic ash. This is formed when lava is sticky and bubbles of gas in it explode.
So these small particles of lava cool very fast. The rapid cooling might mean that any enclosed argon is retained, but
if not, the fact that this cooling occurs near the volcano, with a lot of argon coming out, should guarantee that these
beads would have excess argon. As the gas bubble explodes, its enclosed argon will be rushing outward along with
these tiny bubbles as they cool. This will cause them to retain argon and appear too old. In addition, the rapid
cooling and the process of formation means that these beads would have Rb, Sr, U, and Pb concentrations the same
as the lava they came from, since there is no chance for crystals to form with such rapid cooling. So to assume that
the K-Ar dates, Rb-Sr dates, and U-Pb dates all reflect the age of the lava, one would have to assume that this lava
had no Sr, no Pb, and that all the argon escaped when the beads formed. Since the magma generally has old
radiometric ages, I don’t see how we could have magma without Pb or Sr. In fact, I doubt that there is fresh
uncrystallized lava anywhere on earth today that has zero U/Pb and Rb/Sr ages, as would be required if bentonite
gave an accurate date for the K-T boundary. So to me it seems to be certain that these ages must be in error.
Furthermore, the question arises whether bentonite always gives correlated ages, and whether these ages always
agree with the accepted ages for their geologic period. I believe that bentonite occurs in a number of formations of
different geologic periods, so this could be checked. If bentonite does not always give correlate and correct ages,
this calls into question its use for dating the K-T boundary.
Possible Other Sources of Correlation

Back to top
Note that if there are small pockets in crystals where both parent and daughter product can accumulate from the
lava, then one can inherit correlated ages from the lava into minerals. Thus even the existence of correlations is not
conclusive evidence that a date is correct.
Anomalies of Radiometric Dating

Back to top
If a date does not agree with the expected age of its geologic period, and no plausible explanation can be found, then
the date is called anomalous. But if we really understand what is going on, then we should be able to detect
discrepant dates as they are being measured, and not just due to their divergence from other dates.
Geologists often say that the percentage of anomalies is low. But there are quite a number of rather outstanding
anomalies in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These anomalies are reported in the scientific
literature. For example, one isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded a date of 34 billion
years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have been recorded. It’s also not uncommon for two methods to agree and
for the date to be discarded anyway. Samples with flat plateaus (which should mean no added argon) can give wrong
dates. Samples giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples that give evidence of being
disturbed can give correct dates. The number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not insignificant. I
don’t know what the exact percentage is.
Many dates give values near the accepted ones. But even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent.
And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever is making some of these dates inaccurate
could be making all of them inaccurate.
It’s interesting to note that in a few cases, old radiometric dates are above young ones.
The fact that different methods often give different dates is noted by geologists. Here are some quotes from
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter7.html:
“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they claimed to be. Age
estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by
hundreds of millions of years). There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ The uncertainties
inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists... [47]
As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent
lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano
in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different
methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates
average 1.41 billion years. [48]”
Another source said that about 5 or 6 of the historic lava flows give ages in the hundreds of thousands of years.
Geologists explain the Kaupelehu date by the lava being cooled rapidly in deep ocean water and not being able to
get rid of its enclosed argon.
Here are some quotes from John Woodmorappe’s paper, “Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised,” Creation
Research Society Quarterly 16(2)102-29, p. 147, September 1979, that indicate that radiometric dates are scattered,
and that anomalies are often not reported:
“Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the
uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated ... ” (Waterhouse).
“In general, dates in the `correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement
with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.” (Mauger)
“ ... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous.” (Curtis et al)
“ ... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct
age.” (Armstrong and Besancon).
“In general, strong discordances can be expected among ages deduced by different methods.” (Brown and Miller)
Woodmorappe also mentions that very self-contradictory age spreads in the Precambrian era are common.
In addition, Woodmorappe gives over 300 sets of dates “that are in gross conflict with one another and with
expected values for their indicated paleontological positions.” This table is limited to dates that approach 20%
discrepancy, too old or too young. This does not include dates from minerals that are thought to yield bad dates, or
from igneous bodies with wide biostrategraphic ranges, where many dates are acceptable. He states that the number
of dates within range are less than the number of anomalies, except for the Cenozoic and Cretaceous. When one
adds in the fact that many anomalies are unreported, which he gives evidence for, the true distribution is anyone’s
guess. He also combines evidence from the literature to conclude that “somewhat less than half of all dates agree
with 10% of accepted values for their respective biostratigaphic positions.” I believe this estimate even includes
igneous bodies with very wide biostrategraphic limits, and does not include unpublished anomalies.
There have been criticisms of John Woodmorappe’s study, but no one has given any figures from the literature for
the true percentage of anomalies, with a definition of an anomaly, or the degree of correlation between methods.
Steven Schimmrich’s review of this study often concerns itself with John W’s presentation of geologists explanation
for anomalies, and not with the percentage of anomalies; the later is my main concern.
Here are a couple of more quotes about anomalies:
“Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that
the potassium-argon `clock’ did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the
Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225
years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.”
[Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, page 400.]
A similar situation is reported in the December 1997 issue of Creation ex nihilo in which lava with a K-Ar age of
about 45 million years overlays wood that was carbon dated by 3 laboratories using AMS dating to about 35,000
years.
Still another evidence for problems with radiometric dating was given in a recent talk I attended by a man who had
been an evolutionist and taken a course in radiometric dating. The teacher gave 14 assumptions of radiometric
dating and said something like “If creationists got a hold of these, they could cut radiometric dating to pieces.”
Another evidence that all is not well with radiometric dating is given in the following quote from Coffin p. 302:
“We find that most primary radioactive ores that have not been exposed to weathering exist in secular equilibrium.
Many sedimentary uranium ores are not.”
Since equilibrium should be reached in 1 million years, this is a problem for sediments that are assumed to be older
than 1 million years.
On another point, if we can detect minerals that were not molten with the lava, as has been claimed, then this is one
more reason why there should be no anomalies, and radiometric dating should be a completely solved problem. But
that does not appear to be the case, at least (especially) on the geologic column.
I’m not claiming that anomalous results are being hidden, just that the agreement of a mass of results, none of which
has much claim to reliability, does not necessarily mean much.
Picking out a few cases where radiometric dates appear to be well-behaved reminds me of evolutionary biologists
focusing on a few cases where there may be transitional sequences. It does not answer the overall question. And as I
said above, I’m also interested to know how much of the fossil-bearing geologic column can be dated by isochrons,
and how the dates so obtained compare to others.
Concerning K-Ar anomalies, here is a quote from Woodmorappe’s paper cited above, p. 122:
“K-Ar ages much greater than inferred earth age are also common. Gerling et al called attention to some chlorites
yielding K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 b.y. It had been noted that some minerals which yield such dates (as beryl, cordierite,
etc.) can be claimed to have trapped excess argon in their channel structures or to have fractioned the Ar isotopes,
but none of this can apply to the simple mica-like structures of chlorite. They also pointed out that for the anomalies
to be accounted for by excess argon, unreasonably high partial pressures of Ar during crystallization would have to
be required. They concluded by suggesting some unknown nuclear process which no longer operates to have
generated the Ar.”
This implies that excess argon is coming from somewhere. Here is another quote from Woodmorappe about
isochrons, since some people think that mixing scenarios or other age-altering scenarios are unlikely:
“Shafiqullah and Damon said: ‘The Ar40/Ar36 vs. K40/Ar36 isochrons are valid only when all samples of the
system under consideration have the same non-radiogenic argon composition. If this condition does not hold, invalid
ages and intercepts are obtained. Models 2-9 yield isochron ages that are too high, too low, or in the future,
sometimes by orders of magnitude.’”
from Woodmorappe, “An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology, Report 1,” Creation
Research Society Quarterly 16(4)209-19, March 1980, p. 218.
The fact that the only “valid” K-Ar isochrons are those for which the concentration of non-radiogenic argon (Ar36)
is constant, seems very unusual. This suggests that what is occuring is some kind of a mixing phenomenon, and not
an isochron reflecting a true age.
The following quote is from http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm:
“Processes of rock alteration may render a volcanic rock useless for potassium-argon dating . . We have analyzed
several devitrified glasses of known age, and all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave virtually zero
ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that devitrification took place shortly after the formation of a
deposit.” *J.F. Evernden, et. al., “K / A Dates and Cenozoic Mannalian Chronology of North America,” in
American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 154.
Why a Low Anomaly Percentage is Meaningless

Back to top
One of the main arguments in favor of radiometric dating is that so many dates agree with each other, that is, with
the date expected for their geologic period. But it’s not evident how much support this gives to radiometric dating. If
a rock dates too old, one can say that the clock did not get reset. If it dates too young, one can invoke a later heating
event. Neither date would necessarily be seen as anomalous. If lava intrudes upon geologic period X, then any date
for the lava of X or later will not be seen as anomalous. And even if the date is one or two geologic periods earlier, it
may well be close enough to be accepted as non-spurious. If one does not know the geologic period of a rock by
other means, then of course one is likely to date it to find out, and then of course the date agrees with the geologic
period and this will not be seen as anomalous. So it is difficult to know what would be a reasonable test for whether
radiometric dating is reliable or not. The percentage of published dates that are considered as anomalous has little
bearing on the question.
The Biostrategraphic Limits Issue

Back to top
The issue about igneous bodies may need additional clarification. If a lava flow lies above geologic period A and
below B, then allowable ages are anything at least as large as A and no larger than B. This is called the
biostratigraphic limit of the flow. Now, according to Woodmorappe’s citations, many lava flows have no such limits
at all, and most of them have large limits. For example, a flow lying on precambrian rock with nothing on top would
have no limits on its dates. And such flows often have a large internal scatter of dates, but these dates are not
considered as anomalies because of the unrestricted biostratigraphic limit. Other flows with wide biostratigraphic
limits have weak restrictions on allowable dates. This is one reason why just reporting the percentage of anomalies
has little meaning.
John W. states that very many igneous bodies have little or no biostrategraphic limits, so just about any age is
acceptable. Thus these ages, though they generally have a considerable scatter, are not considered as anomalies. He
cites another reference that most igneous bodies have wide biostrategraphic limits. Thus just by chance, many dates
will be considered within the acceptable ranges. If the igneous body is constrained to have a date between that of
geologic period X1 and X2, with times T1 and T2, and if we regard any date within 20 percent as non-anomalous,
then any date between T1/1.2 and T2*1.2 will be considered as non-anomalous, and this will include a considerable
portion of geologic history. Again, the percentage of anomalies means nothing for the reliability of radiometric
dating.
Now, igneous bodies can be of two types, extrusive and intrusive. Extrusive bodies are lava that is deposited on the
surface. These cool quickly and have small crystals and form basalt. Intrusive bodies are deposited in the spaces
between other rocks. These cool more slowly and have larger crystals, often forming granite. Both of these tend on
the average to have wide biostrategraphic limits, meaning that a large spread of ages will be regarded as non-
anomalous. And if we recall that most radiometric dating is done of igneous bodies, one sees that the percentage of
anomalies is meaningless. Thus we really need some evidence that the different methods agree with each other.
To make the case even stronger, “Many discrepant results from intrusives are rationalized away immediately by
accepting the dates but reinterpreting the biostrategraphic bracket,” according to John Woodmorappe. This of course
means that the result is no longer anomalous, because the geologic period has been modified to fit the date. Finally,
the fact that the great majority of dates are from one method means that the general (but not universal) agreement of
K-Ar dating with itself is sufficient to explain the small percentange of anomalies (if it is small).
Preponderance of K-Ar Dating

Back to top
Now, the point about agreement is that whatever figure is given about how often ages agree with the expected age, is
consistent with the fact that there is no agreement at all between K-Ar and other methods, since so many
measurements are done using K-Ar dating. And one of the strongest arguments for the validity of radiometric dating
is that the methods agree. So I’m very interested to know what data there is about how often _different_ methods
agree.
So when one combines all of the above figures, the statement that there are only 10 percent anomalies or 5 percent
or whatever, does not have any meaning any more. This statement is made so often as evidence for the reliability of
radiometric dating, that the simple evidence that it has no meaning, is astounding to me. I don’t object to having
some hard evidence that there are real agreements between different methods on the geologic column, if someone
can provide it. The precambrian rock is less interesting because it could have a radiometric age older than life, but
this is less likely for the rest of the geologic column.
It’s not surprising that K-Ar dates often agree with the assumed dates of their geological periods, since the dates of
the geological periods were largely inferred from K-Ar dating.
By the way, Ar-Ar dating and K-Ar dating are essentially the same method, so between the two of them we obtain a
large fraction of the dates being used.
Some information from an article by Robert H. Brown at the Geoscience Research Institute site confirms the
preponderance of K-Ar dating:
History of the Radioisotope based Geologic Time Scale
Before the discovery of radioactivity in the late nineteenth century, a geological time scale had been developed on
the basis of estimates for the rates of geological processes such as erosion and sedimentation, with the assumption
that these rates had always been essentially uniform. On the basis of being unacceptably old, many geologists of the
time rejected these early twentieth century determinations of rock age from the ratio of daughter to radioactive
parent (large). By 1925, increased confidence in radioisotope dating techniques and the demands of evolution theory
for vast amounts of time led to the establishment of an expanded geological time scale. With the K-Ar dating
techniques developed after World War II, this time scale was refined to the standard Geologic Time Scale adopted
in 1964. The construction of this time scale was based on about 380 radioisotope ages that were selected because of
their agreement with the presumed fossil and geological sequences found in the rocks. Radioisotope ages that did
not meet these requirements were rejected on the basis of presumed chemical and/or physical modifications that
made the “ages” unreliable indicators of real time. About 85% of the selections were K-Ar date s, 8% rubidium-
strontium dates, and 4% uranium-lead dates. Igneous rocks are particularly suited to K-Ar dating. The crucial
determiners are therefore volcanic (extrusive igneous) rocks that are interbedded with sediments, and intrusive
igneous rocks that penetrate sediments.
This verifies what I said about almost all of the dates used to define correct ages for geologic periods being K-Ar
dates. Also, the uncertainty in the branching ratio of potassium decay might mean that there is a fudge factor in K-
Ar ages of up to a third, and that the occasional agreements between K-Ar ages and other ages are open to question.
So the point is that there is now no reason to believe that radiometric dating is valid on the geologic column.
Excuses for Anomalies

Back to top
Another issue is that sometimes the geologic periods of rocks are revised to agree with the ages computed. This also
makes data about percentages of anomalies less meaningful.
It sometimes seems that reasons can always be found for bad dates, especially on the geologic column. If a rock
gives a too old date, one says there is excess argon. If it gives a too young date, one says that it was heated recently,
or cannot hold its argon. How do we know that maybe all the rocks have excess argon? It looks like geologists are
taking the “majority view” of K-Ar dating, but there is no necessary reason why the majority of rocks should give
the right date.
The following quote is from the article by Robert H. Brown, cited earlier:
What is a Radioisotope Age?

The relationship of a radioisotope age with real-time must be based on an interpretation. A discussion of rubidium-
strontium ages in the Isotope Geoscience Section of the journal, Chemical Geology, specifically states that a
radioisotope age determination “does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system. Any
interpretation will reflect the interpreter’s presuppositions (bias).
Need for a Double-Blind Test

Back to top
Concerning the need for a double blind test, it would seem that there are many places where human judgment could
influence the distribution of measured radiometric dates. It could increase the percentage of anomalies, if they were
regarded as more interesting. It could decrease them, if they were regarded as flukes. Human judgment could
determine whether points were collinear enough to form an isochron. It could determine whether a point can
justifiably be tossed out and the remaining points used as an isochron. It could determine whether one should accept
simple parent-to-daughter K-Ar ratios or whether some treatment needs to be applied first to get better ages. It could
influence whether a spectrum is considered as flat, whether a rock is considered to have undergone leaching or
heating, whether a rock is porous or not, or whether a sample has been disturbed in some way.
Since one of the main reasons for accepting radiometric dates (at least I keep hearing it) is that they agree with each
other, I think that geologists have an obligation to show that they do agree, specifically on the geologic column.
Since we do not know whether or how much human judgment is influencing radiometric dating, a double blind
study is most reasonable. And it should not be restricted to just one or two well-behaved places, but should be as
comprehensive as possible.
Possible Changes in the Decay Rate

Back to top
The following information was sent to me by e-mail:
Radiometric dating is predicated on the assumption that throughout the earth’s history radioactive decay rates of the
various elements have remained constant. Is this a warranted assumption? Has every radioactive nuclide proceeded
on a rigid course of decay at a constant rate? This has been challenged by studies involving Carbon (C)-14.
At the temperature or pressure, collisions with stray cosmic rays or the emanations of other atoms may cause
changes other than those of normal disintegration. It seems very possible that spontaneous disintegration of
radioactive elements are related to the action of cosmic rays and the rate of disintegration varying from century to
century according to the intensity of the rays. The evidence for a strongly increasing change in the cosmic ray influx
is most favorable especially in light of the decay of the earth’s magnetic field.
Most geochronologists maintain that pleochroic haloes give evidence that decay constants have not changed.
Crystals of biotite, for example, and other minerals in igneous or metamorphic rocks commonly enclose minute
specks of minerals containing uranium or thorium. The a-(alpha) particles emitted at high velocity by the
disintegrating nuclides interact, because of their charge, with electrons of surrounding atoms which slow them down
until they finally come to rest in the host material at a distance from their source that depends on their initial kinetic
energy and the density and composition of the host. Where they finally stop to produce lattice distortions and defects
there generally occurs discoloring or darkening. Each of the 8 a-particles emitted during the disintegration of U238
to Pb206 produces a dark ring in biotite. Each ring has its own characteristic radius in a given mineral (in this case
biotite). This radius measures the kinetic energy, hence the probability of emission of the corresponding a-particle
and also the half-life of the parent nuclide according to the Geiger-Nuttall law. The Geiger-Nuttall law is an
empirical relation between half-life of the a-emitter and the range in air of the emitted a-particles. If the radii of
these haloes from the same nuclide vary, this would imply that the decay rates have varied and would invalidate
these series as being actual clocks. Are the radii in the rocks constant in size or are there variable sizes?
Most of the early studies of pleochroic haloes were made by Joly and Henderson. Joly concluded that the decay rates
have varied on the basis of his finding a variation of the radii for rocks of alleged geological ages. This rather
damaging result was explained away saying that enough evidence of correct radii for defferent geologic periods and
sufficient variation in the same period have been obtained that one is forced to look for a different explanation of
such variations as were observed by Joly.
Measurements were later made in an excellent collection of samples with haloes. It was found that the extent of the
haloes around the inclusions varies over a wide range, even with the same nuclear material in the same matrix, but
all sizes fall into definite groups. The measurements are, in microns, 5,7,10,17,20,23,27, and 33.
More recent studies have been made by Robert V. Gentry. Gentry also finds a variation in the haloes leading him to
conclude that the decay constants have not been constant in time.
Gentry points out an argument for an instantaneous creation of the earth. He noted form his studies of haloes: “It
thus appears that short half-life nuclides of either polonium, bismuth, or lead were incorporated into halo nuclei at
the time of mica crystallization and significantly enough existed without the parent nuclides of the uranium series.
For the Po218 (half-life of 3 minutes) only a matter of minutes could elapse between the formation of the Po218 and
subsequent crystallization of the mica; otherwise the Po218 would have decayed, and no ring would be visible. The
occurrence of these halo types is quite widespread, one or more types having been observed in the micas from
Canada (Pre-Cambrian), Sweden, and Japan.” The argument seems hard to refute.
So, then, careful scientists have measured variations in halo radii and their measurements indicate a variation in
decay rates. The radioactive series then would have no value as time clocks.
The following quotation also suggests a cause for a change in the decay rate:
Slusher (Slusher, H.S., 1981. Critique of Radiometric Dating, Institute for Creation Research, Technical monograph
2 (2nd ed.), 46 pp, p. 55) cites F.B. Jueneman (Industrial Research, Sept., 1972, p. 15) in the following speculation:
“The remnant of that local big bang is a pulsar called Vela-X (PSR 0833-45), which recent observations have
positioned in the southern sky some 1,500 light years away, and which is considered to have given rise to the huge
Gum Nebula ... Being so close, the anisotropic neutrino flux of the super-explosion must have had the peculiar
characteristic of resetting all our atomic clocks.”
This is significant because it is known that neutrinos do interact with the nucleii of atoms, and it is also believed that
much of the energy of supernovae is carried away by neutrinos.
Isochrons
Back to top
Isochrons are an attempt to avoid the need for an absence of daughter element initially in computing radiometric
ages. The idea is that one has a parent element, X, a daughter element, Y, and another isotope, Z, of the daughter
that is not generated by decay. One would assume that initially, the concentration of Z and Y are proportional, since
their chemical properties are very similar. Radiometric decay would generate a concentration of Y proportional to X.
So we would obtain an equation of the form
Y = c1*X + c2*Z
By taking enough measurements of the concentrations of X, Y, and Z, we can solve for c1 and c2, and from c1 we
can determine the radiometric age of the sample. A good general introduction to isochrons from an evolutionary
perspective can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html.
Let’s apply this to potassium argon dating, where X is K40, Y is Ar40, and Z is probably Ar36. If the concentration
of K varies in a rock, that it is unlikely for the concentration of added argon 40 to vary in a way that will yield an
isochron. But if the concentration of K does not vary, then one can still get an isochron if the concentration of the
non-radiogenic isotope Ar36 of the daughter product varies. So let’s call an isochron a “super-isochron” if the
concentration of the parent element varies from one sample to another. Let’s call it a “wimpy isochron” otherwise.
The question is, what percentage of isochrons are super-isochrons, and how do their dates agree with the
conventional dates for their geologic period? I would think that it may be rare to have a super-isochron. If one is
dealing with minerals that exclude parent or daughter, then one cannot get an isochron at all. If one is dealing with
minerals that do not exclude parent and daughter elements, then most likely the parent element will be evenly
distributed everywhere, and one will have a wimpy isochron that cannot detect added daughter product, and thus
may give unreliable ages. Whole rock isochrons may also tend to be wimpy, for the same reason. Even super
isochrons can yield ages that are too old, due to mixings, however.
False K-Ar isochrons can be produced if a lava flow starts out with a lot of excess Ar40 which becomes well mixed,
along with potassium. Then while cooling or afterwards, a mixture of Ar36 and Ar40 can enter the rock, more in
some places than others. Other isotopes of argon would work as well. I believe that this will produce a good K-Ar
isochron, but the age calculated will be meaningless.
There is another way that false isochrons can be produced. For a wimpy isochron, say a K-Ar isochron, we can
assume that initially there is a uniform concentration of K everywhere, and concentrations of Ar40 and Ar36 that
form an isochron. Then a lot of Ar40 enters, uniformly, through cracks in the rock or heating. This will retain the
isochron property, but will make the isochron look too old.
My reasoning was that if the lava is thoroughly mixed, then the concentration of parent material should be fairly
constant. If the concentration of parent substance is not constant, it could indicate that the lava is not thoroughly
mixed. Or it could have other explanations. If the lava is not thoroughly mixed, it is possible to obtain an isochron
from the mixing of two different sources, in which case the radiometric age is inherited from the sources, and does
not necessarily yield the age of the flow.
Someone pointed out to me that many Rb-Sr isochrons are super isochrons. I find this information very interesting,
and thank him for it. I’d be curious to know which strata they occur in, as my main interest is the geologic column
of Cambrian and above. My impression is that these are not on this part of the geologic column. And how well do
the dates correlate with others for the same formation?
There are also mixing scenarios that can produce even super isochrons having invalid ages. And geologists admit in
any event that isochrons can sometimes give false ages.
Here is a mixing scenario for false isochrons. Consider this possibility: There are two sources of lava, A and B.
Suppose these mix together so that at point 0 we have only A, at point 1 we have only B, and in between we have
varying concentrations. Half way between there is a mixture of half A and half B, for example. Suppose X is a
parent substance, Y is its daughter, and Z is a non-radiogenic isotope of the daughter. Suppose A has a little X and
lots of Y and not much Z, all uniformly distributed, and B has some mixture of Y and Z, all uniformly distributed.
Then this varying mixture of A and B, with all A at 0 and all B at 1, produces a good isochron. There is no way this
mixture can be distinguished from a similar case in which A has lots of X and little Y, and B is the same as before,
and a lot of time passes.
It is claimed that mixing can often be detected. If this is so, then the question remains, for super isochrons on the
geologic column which can be shown not to be caused by mixing, how do they correlate with other methods, and
with the expected dates for their geologic period?
My understanding is that isochrons measure the time since a rock was last well mixed. For a lava flow, this could be
the time of the flow. Or it could be that several flows all come from the same well-mixed magma, and might yield a
joint isochron giving the time of the flow. It seems to me that a single lava flow might not mix well, and thus the age
obtained would be that of the magma and not the time of the flow. So this points out another problem with
interpretation of isochrons.
I’m also curious to know how much of the geologic column is datable by super isochrons for which no mixing can
be shown.
Atlantic Sea Floor Dating

Back to top
One often hears about K-Ar dates of the Atlantic Ocean bottom which increase from zero at the mid-Atlantic ridge
to about 150 million years at the edges. This is taken as proof that the continents began separating about 150 million
years ago. However, this can be explained by assuming that argon rises to the top of the magma, so magma deeper
down looks younger. The magma deeper down would have come to the surface later, and thus would be nearer to
the mid-Atlantic ridge. Or if the continents split quickly, the observed pattern of dates could be explained by a
decreasing concentration of Ar40 in the water. In any event, I don’t see how the lava in the center of the Atlantic
could have a young age in the conventional view, since it would have cooled rapidly under a lot of water, and would
have retained its argon, making it look old.
Conclusion
Back to top
An evolutionist said his experience is that whenever he looks into a creationist source, it blows up on him. My
experience is that whenever I look into an evidence for evolution or (now) the reliability of radiometric dating on the
geologic column, it blows up on me, too.
I don’t deny that there is some degree of plausibility to radiometric dating, although I have to wonder if many field
geologists secretly have their doubts about it. My concern is instead to know how much stamina the evidence has
against other evidence that may call it into question. My conclusion for the geologic column is, not much.
Gentry’s Radiohaloes in Coalified Wood

Back to top
Here is some more material from my web site bearing on the question of the age of the geologic column:
It is also of interest in regard to radiometric dating that Robert Gentry claims to have found “squashed” polonium
haloes as well as embryonic uranium radiohaloes in coal deposits from many geological layers claimed to be
hundreds of millions of years old. (See the Oct. 15, 1976 issue of Science.) These haloes represent particles of
polonium and uranium which penetrated into the coal at some point and produced a halo by radioactive decay. The
fact that they are squashed indicates that part of the decay process began before the material was compressed, so the
polonium had to be present before compression. Since coal is relatively incompressible, Gentry concludes that these
particles of uranium and polonium must have entered the deposit before it turned to coal. However, there is a very
small amount of lead with the uranium; if the uranium had entered hundreds of millions of years ago, then there
should be much more lead. The amount of lead present is consistent with an age of thousands rather than millions of
years. It’s hard to believe, according to conventional geological time scales, that this coal was compressed any time
within the past several thousand or even hundred million years.
Here is a quote from Coffin, page 306, about Gentry’s findings:
“Coalified wood from Triassic and Jurassic sediments (225- to 135-million-year conventional geologic age) contains
radiohaloes. Published lead-206/uranium-238 ratios for their inclusion centers may be expressed in terms of
uranium-lead radioisotope ages ranging between 236 thousand and 2.9 million years. No presently available
experimental evidence would exclude the possibility that essentially all the lead-206 in the halo centers was
introduced together with the uranium (either directly or as parent polonium-210 or lead-210) and thus did not
accumulate from uranium.”
In fact, a couple of the haloes have ages consistent with an origin thousands of years ago.
Thus the amount of lead with the uranium is consistent with an age in the hundreds of thousands to millions of years
range, much too small for conventional geologic time. And it is reasonable to assume that almost all of this lead
came with the uranium, rather than being a result of decay, suggesting that the true age could be much younger than
this.
Note that this phenomenon of squashed haloes appears in different coal deposits in different geologic formations,
and all give about the same U-Pb ages. The squashing is in the vertical direction, and I can’t think of any way this
could happen at a time later than the burial of the logs or whatever under a lot of sediment. Coal is not water soluble
(at least, coal cars aren’t covered, and no one seems to worry about thunderstorms dissolving the coal away), and
wood is waterproof, so one would expect that coalified wood would also be waterproof. Coal has small pores. If it
had cracks, they would have to be small, since the cell structure is still visible. And if there was a flow of water, it
would be more likely to remove soluble uranium than insoluble lead, making the date older. But it is possible that
small cracks exist and that uranium could be deposited by a flow of water at some more recent date.
If there were such cracks, we would expect uranium to be entering at regular intervals, and to give a range of ages
up to about 225 million years or even higher due to lead being introduced with the uranium. But note that all of the
haloes give young ages. The fact that all the ages are so young suggests that the coal is young, too.
It seems most likely that the uranium entered at the same time as the polonium. The fact that so many of the
polonium haloes are squashed indicates that the polonium entered before the wood was covered with sediement. I
think the most reasonable explanation is that this coal has an age at most a few millions of years old, possibly much
younger, and that the geologic time scale is in error. Some of the haloes have ages of 200,000 or 300,000 years, so
the true age would have to be this or younger. This applies to several geologic periods. In fact, a couple of the haloes
have such low ratios as to imply an age in the thousands of years.
Another possible objection made by an evolutionist is that the radon 222 that results from uranium decay is an inert
gas and may have escaped, resulting in little lead being deposited. This would make the observed haloes consistent
with an old age for the coal. However, the fact that these uranium haloes are embryonic (very faint) also argues for a
young age. In addition, not all of the radon would be on the surface of the particles of uranium. That which was
inside or bordering on coal would likely not be able to escape. Since radon 222 has a half-life of about 4 days, it
would not have much time to escape, in any event. Such haloes were also found in shale, with young U/Pb ages as
well, and it may be less likely for the radon to escape from shale.
Carbon 14 Dating
Back to top
The following material is from http://www.rae.org/ch04tud.html: (It looks like C14 dating is the “bad boy” of
radiometric dating.)
Dr. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 method, which won for him a Nobel prize, expressed his shock that human
artifacts extended back only 5000 years, a finding totally in conflict with any evolutionary concept. Older dates were
found to be very unreliable (CRSQ , 1972, 9:3, p.157). By this time tens of thousands of C14 dates have been
published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates
are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological
age notions. One example given was Ice-Age materials that were dated by C14 to fall within the Christian era
(CRSQ , 1969, 6:2, p.114). In his book on prehistoric America, Ceram notes a classic case of the difficulties that
befall C14 dating. Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years (Ceram, 1971, p.257-
259).
Another classic C14 problem was noted for Jarmo, a prehistoric village in northern Iraq. Eleven samples were dated
from the various strata and showed a 6000-year spread from oldest to most recent. Analysis of all the archaeological
evidence, however, showed that the village was occupied no more than 500 years before it was finally abandoned
(Custance, 1968, Mortar samples can be given normal C14 tests since mortar absorbs carbon dioxide from the air.
Mortar, however, from Oxford Castle in England gave an age of 7,270 years. The castle was built about 800 years
ago. The kind of contamination is unclear. Living trees near an airport were dated with C14 as l0,000 years old,
because the wood contained contamination from plane exhaust (CRSQ , 1970, 7:2, p.126; 1965, 2:4, p.31). p.19).
[I wouldn’t be surprised if these last 2 examples have simple explanations.]
C14 analysis of oil from Gulf of Mexico deposits showed an age measured in thousands of years - not millions. Data
produced by the Petroleum Institute at Victoria, New Zealand, showed that petroleum deposits were formed 6,000-
7,000 years ago. Textbooks state that petroleum formation took place about 300,000,000 years ago (Velikovsky,
1955, p.287; CRSQ , 1965, 2:4, p.10). Fossil wood was found in an iron mine in Shefferville, Ontario, Canada, that
was a Precambrian deposit. Later the wood was described as coming from Late Cretaceous rubble, which made it
about 100 million years old instead of more than 600 million years old. Two independent C14 tests showed an age
of about 4000 years (Pensee , Fall 1972, 2:3, p.43).
The last major glacial advance in America was long dated at about 25,000 years ago. C14 dates forced a revision
down to 11,400 years. The United State Geological Survey carried out studies that gave a C14 date as recent as 3300
years ago, but no text treats such a puzzling find that falls well within historic times (Velikovsky, 1955, p.158-159;
CRSQ , 1968, 5:2, p.67). Here is a remarkable example of C14 difficulties in a book published by Stanford
University Press. Six C14 ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the formation of the Bering Land
Bridge. The dates ranged from 4390 to 15,500 Before Present.
The first problem was that the results were so disarranged from bottom to top of the core that no two samples were
in the correct order. Then the oldest date was discarded because it was ‘inconsistent’ with other tests elsewhere.
Next the remaining dates were assumed to be contaminated by a fixed amount, after which the authors concluded
that the delta under study had been formed 12,000 years ago (Hopkins, 1967, p.110-111). ... Even more astonishing
is this cynical statement made at a symposium of Nobel Prize winners in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1969: If a C14 date
supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if
it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it (Pensee , Winter 1973, p.44).
As for the contamination issue, someone asserted that any C14 date of 30,000 years or more is due to contamination.
If this is so, then why do they say the method is accurate to 50,000 years? If any C14 date has ever yielded a value
over 30,000 years, this implies that such contamination is not ubiquitous. Of course, it could be that older
measurement techniques were less accurate. Now, 30,000 years is about 5 half lives of C14, which means that a
contamination of 1/32 (slightly less) would be required to achieve this date for a sample of infinite age. This is a
substantial contamination.
Anyway, as for C14 dating in general, it seems clear that many, many results are much too young according to the
standard view, and that explaining away one or two of them does not appreciably diminish the problem.
Here is another instance of an anomalously young carbon 14 date:
At the 1992 Twin Cities Creation Conference, there was a paper presented called “Direct Dating of Cretaceous-
Jurassic Fossils (and Other Evidences for Human-Dinosaur Coexistence)”. Among other things, the results of
carbon-dating of Acrocanthosaurus bones are given.
The authors noted that dinosaur bones are frequently (“as a rule”) found with a black carbon residue of some sort on
the bones. The authors speculated that this residue could be the leftovers of the decayed skin and flesh: they quote
the Penguin Geology Encyclopedia’s definition of “carbonization”: “Carbonization; the reduction of organic tissue
to a carbon residue. An unusual kind of fossilization in which the tissue is preserved as a carbon film. Plants are
commonly preserved in this manner, soft-bodied animals more rarely.” Since this material is organic, it can be used
to carbon-date the fossils.
The authors describe in detail the measures taken to ensure that no other source of carbon contamination was present
inside or outside the bones. When the bones were ground up and carbon-dated, the dates they received from the lab
from different methods were 9,890 to 36,500 years BP (before present).
Some have claimed that this bone was covered with shellac, causing the carbon 14 date to be young. Concerning this
issue, one individual sent me the following information:
The papers of Miller’s that are cited by Lepper are:
Fields, W., H. Miller, J. Whitmore, D. Davis, G. Detwiler, J. Ditmars, R. Whitelaw, and G.Novaez, 1990, “The
Paluxy River Footprints Revisited,” in _Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism held
July 30-August 4, 1990, Volume 2, technical symposium sessions and additional topics_, edited by R.E. Walsh and
C.L. Brooks, pp. 155-168, Christian Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh.
and
Dahmer, L., D. Kouznetsov, A. Ivenov, J. Hall, J. Whitmore, G. Detwiler, and H. Miller, 1990, “Report on Chemical
Analysis and Further Dating of Dinosaur Bones and Dinosaur Petroglyphs,” same proceedings, pp. 371-374.
The above two articles are the ones that purportedly refer to carbon 14 dating of a dinosaur bone covered with
shellac. The article I referred to is the following:
“Direct Dating of Cretaceous-Jurassic Fossils (and Other Evidences for Human-Dinosaur Coexistence)” (1992 Twin
Cities Creation Conference).
In this paper, the authors describe in detail the measures taken to ensure that no other source of carbon
contamination was present inside or outside the bones.
The fact that these are separate papers, and the fact that every attempt was made to avoid contamination, suggests
that these are two different incidents. I also received the following information from another person:
As far as I can ascertain from the paper, the researchers responsible specifically mention that the dinosaur bones
being dated were not coated with shellac (page 10). Otherwise, the details of the material at your website are as in
the paper, and the comment about a black carbon residue around fossilised dinosaur bones is referenced in their
paper to a secular source, so it is not simply their observation. The comments from the Penguin Geology
Encyclopedia merely add to their case.
However, of the results they give in their paper, I personally would only be comfortable with the AMS results
obtained on the same sample in two different laboratories - the one at 25,750+/-280 years BP and the other at
23,760+/-270 years BP. The other results were obtained on unspecified equipment or via the less reliable older beta
technology and generally appear not to have been cross-checked in another laboratory.
Again I confirm that the claim about the shellac appears to be totally false and merely a smokescreen to avoid the
implications of an uncomfortable radiocarbon date.
So, based on all of this information, it looks like there were two separate incidents, and the one I referred to involved
a dinosaur bone that was not covered with shellac, but still gave a young carbon 14 date.
Finally, some more quotes about carbon 14 dating from http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm:
A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed
the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about
12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.
b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as “infinite.”
c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of
less than 50,000 years.
d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.
I think it is interesting that so few specimens have old dates, suggesting a rapid increase in the amount of carbon 14
in the atmosphere.
On the same subject, some fossils from the Paluxy River are “anomalous” as well. Carbonized (burnt) wood was
discovered in Cretaceous limestone, and dated to 12,800 to 45,000 YBP.
Coffin gives quite a bit of evidence from increases of C14 ages with depth that the concentration of C14 has
increased rapidly in recent years, making C14 dates too old, especially after about 4000 years ago. The fact that C14
is still increasing in the atmosphere shows that the earth recently went through some kind of a catastrophe, and this
increase is even admitted by some evolutionists.
It has been claimed that Carbon 14 dating was revolutionized in 1969 or so. But it remains to establish how much in
error the old dates were. It seems to be a common pattern that when dating methods are revised, we are told how
inaccurate the old methods were, but are not told how inaccurate the current methods are.
A number of people requested references for my statements about young carbon 14 dates for coal and oil and fossils.
Here is what I found at http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
Consider this: if a specimen is older than 50,000 years, it has been calculated that it would have such a small amount
of C14 that for practical purposes it would show an infinite radiocarbon age. So it was expected that most deposits
such as coal, gas, etc. would be undatable by this method. In fact, of thousands of dates in the journals Radiocarbon
and Science to 1968, only a handful were classed “undatable” - most were of the sort which should have been in this
category. This is especially remarkable with samples of coal and gas supposedly produced in the Carboniferous
period 300 million years ago! Some examples of dates which contradict orthodox (evolutionary) views:
Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years.
(Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).
Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) should have been 50 million to
135 million years old, yet C14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966. Many
of the earlier radiocarbon dates on objects such as coal and gas, which should be undatable, have been attributed to
contamination from, for example, workers’ fingerprints, creationist researchers are currently working on the
construction of an apparatus, using existing technology, to look for very low levels of C14 activity in, for example,
coal after excluding contamination. Such low-level activity would not be expected on the basis of old earth theory,
and so is not looked for at present.)
Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits (near Los Angeles), supposedly 100,000-one million years
old, gave a date of 28,000 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968)
Tree Ring Chronologies

Back to top
Tree ring chronologies are also used to give a history of the earth stretching back over 8000 years. Are these
accurate? Here is some information from http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/faq/radiocarbon.shtml:
One way to infer how the atmospheric concentration of carbon-14 changed in the past is by tree-ring dating. Some
types of trees, that grow at high elevations and have a steady supply of moisture, reliably add only one ring each
year. In other environments, multiple rings can be added in a year. 4 The thickness of a tree ring depends on the
tree’s growing conditions, which will naturally vary from year to year. Some rings may even show frost or fire
damage. By comparing sequences of ring thicknesses in two different trees, a correspondence can sometimes be
shown. Ring patterns will correlate strongly for two trees of the same species that grew near each other at the same
time. Weaker correlations (or less confident matches) exist between trees of different species growing
simultaneously in different environments. Claims are frequently made that wood growing today can be matched up
with some scattered pieces of dead wood so that tree-ring counts can be extended back more than 8,600 years. This
may not be true.
These claimed “long chronologies” begin with either living trees or dead wood that can be accurately dated by
historical methods. This carries the chronology back perhaps 3,500 years. Then the more questionable links are
established based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Standard statistical techniques could establish just how
good the dozen or more supposedly overlapping tree-ring sequences are. However, tree-ring specialists refuse to
subject their judgments to these statistical tests, and they have not released their data so others can carry out these
statistical tests. 5
There are some general problems with constructing a chronology by piecing together records of tree rings from
different trees. When trying to find the best solution to a problem like this, there are generally a huge number of
possible solutions. So one uses a heuristic program to try to find a good one. There may also be many other
solutions that are nearly as good. In fact, there may be others that are even better. So it’s not clear to me that there is
one clear-cut chronology based on tree ring dating. It was claimed that carbon 14 levels were not considered at all in
constructing this chronology. I’d like to have his reference for that. In such a case, one typically defines a goodness
function for each solution, and this could incorporate the desire to maintain a nearly constant carbon 14 level in the
atmosphere. Add to this the fact that different trees can respond differently to the same climatic condition, and the
fact that trees sometimes have more than one ring (especially if there is more than one rainy season per year) and
one has even more uncertainty. Without a very thorough examination of the data, it’s hard to know how to interpret
the result. I’d be interested to know what the authors of this work say about the existence of other chronologies, and
how much less of a good fit they are.
In such an optimization problem, it is difficult to know if one has the true solution, so not much weight should be
given to the chronology obtained. It’s not enough just to eyeball it and say it looks convincing. It should be
subjected to several optimization procedures and one should also optimize for shorter chronologies as well to see
how much (if any) the quality suffers.
Someone gave me some information about constructing tree ring chronologies by piecing together sub-chronologies.
But in a problem like this, sometimes one can get a better solution in the end by taking a sub-optimal choice along
the way. So the described procedure will not necessarily find the best chronology.
The following message was sent to me by e mail on February 11, 1998:
As one who has taught dendrochronnology, I have a few opinions on this particular subject. Also, one of my
graduate students went to work for Ferguson in his lab at U of A, and in fact was the curator of his work after his
death, and is presently probably the only one who knows anything about how he [Ferguson] produced the
bristlecone chronology. Another of my graduate students gave a seminar to the lab on dendrochronology of fossil
trees and had ample opportunity to analyze the procedures there, and to work with Ferguson for a while. I can say on
pretty firm grounds that the Bristlecone chronology before 4000bp is fraught with problems and unanswered
questions. While Ferguson was alive, he never allowed anyone to analyze his original data or the bases for the many
suppositions that went into the establishment of the chronology. Thus the chronology was not subjected to the
normal rigors of science. This is regrettable, because I believe he was a careful and sincere scientist. Of course one
could always excuse Ferguson for not revealing the bases of his decisions (for example, the most important rings in
any chronology are the “missing rings” which have to be added by the investigator). But suffice to say the
chronology before 4000bp is entirely dependent on C14 dates of the wood, and is thus tautologous. This does not
mean it is meaningless or necessarily wrong, just that I wouldn’t base too much on it.
Another article discussing difficulties with tree ring chronologies can be found at
http://www.tagnet.org/gri/w/articles/or22_47.htm .
Coral dating
Back to top
Some coral formations apparently show a longer year in the past, of about 400 days. This is taken as a confirmation
of radiometric dating, since the earth’s rotation should be gradually slowing down due to the effect of the moon and
tides. Here is some information that was sent to me by a proponent of this method:
How does a flood explain the accuracy of “coral clocks”? The moon is slowly sapping the earth’s rotational energy.
The earth should have rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a day would have been less than 24
hours, and there would have been more days per year. Corals can be dated by the number of “daily” growth layers
per “annual” growth layer. Devonian corals, for example, show nearly 400 days per year. There is an exceedingly
strong correlation between the “supposed age” of a widerange of fossils (corals, stromatolites, and a few others --
collected from geologic formations throughout the column and from locations all over the world) and the number of
days per year that their growth pattern shows. The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric dating, and the
theory of superposition... is a little hard to explain away as the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 300-
day-long flood.
Clocks tied to the Earth’s rotational energy lack the precision of isotopic dating methods, and they are only
applicable to a small number of formations which have excellent preservation of fairly small details. However, they
do provide an excellent (if rough) confirmation of the isotopic methods’ accuracy.
The computation of the slowdown of the earth’s rotation is not simple, however. If one extrapolates the current
slowdown backwards, one obtains a rate that is too fast. So a correction is applied for resonances of the moon with
tides. To me this is rather involved, and not convincing.
Also, if the earth was rotating faster in the past, it was not necessarily due to the elapse of time and the slowdown
from tides. The earth could have been rotating faster more recently if there had been some kind of a catastrophe.
There was even an article in Science, 25 July 1997, titled “Evidence for a Large-Scale Reorganization of Early
Cambrian Continental Masses ...” in which the authors propose that at one time the lithosphere rotated 90 degrees. If
we can assume the axis of rotation or crust of the earth are in motion for some reason, this could cause an apparent
change in the length of the year. Maybe some event in the core of the earth or some gyroscopic effect or some
asteriod impact would cause this. So it’s not clear that one can even take a longer year from coral records as
confirmation of assumed geologic time.
It is also possible that different lengths of the year in the past are due to unusual patterns of ocean currents or
temperature or availability of nutrients, and not to the length of the year. Just having summer 20 days early one year
and 20 days late the next might make the year seem 400 days long. If the axis of the earth were vertical in the past,
there would have been no seasons at all, and the apparent years could have been caused by any number of factors.
Here is another scenario that could explain a different period for the year in recent history. Suppose a nearby
supernova showered the earth with elementary particles, many of which passed through matter while only weakly
interacting with it. But suppose that there were enough such particles to destabilize the nucleii of atoms slightly.
This would not have much effect on most nucleii, but it would cause radioactive nucleii to decay. Thus one would
have a rapid increase in the decay rate, which would make the matter of the earth and planets appear old very
quickly. This would generate a lot of heat, which could lead to many volcano eruptions. It could also lead to
convection currents in the core of the earth, redistributing the mass there and causing the rotation of the earth to
speed up or slow down dramatically. Of course, this would lead to a major, worldwide catastrophe. In addition, there
might be unusual gyroscopic effects. At the same time, the heating effect on another planet could have caused it to
explode, producing the asteroids. At any rate, one could get changes in the length of year this way in recent history.
Varves
Back to top
Varves are thin repetitive sedimentary layers that are used to argue for a long history of the earth. It is claimed that
one varve was deposited each year. But to me, the fact that they show so little evidence of erosion or any kind of
activity between the layers is suspicious -- they are all so flat and even. In addition, many well-preserved fossil fish
are found in the Green River varves. This is an evidence that these varves were laid down rapidly. (Experiments
have shown that if fish are not buried rapidly, the bones fall apart.)
Growth of coral reefs

Back to top
It is also often claimed that the growth of coral reefs to their current size would require very long time periods.
Coffin shows that coral reefs can grow very fast when they are farther from the surface of the ocean. At the surface,
the growth rate slows due to water action and various other factors. So coral reefs are also not an evidence for a long
history of the earth since the origin of life.
Evidence for Catastrophe in the Geologic Column
Back to top
Here are some quotes from “The Age of the Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits?,” 1998, by Gorman Gray, pp.
118 - 119, supporting the idea that the geologic column was laid down catastrophically:
“... deposits above the `great unconformity’ (the boundary between Precambrian and Cambrian) are now thought by
most geologists to have been deposited rapidly and catastrophically. ... The evidence is ubiquitous for catastophic
deposits. Evolutionary geologists now acknowledge numerous local catastrophes to account for many different
regions while refusing to accept the very simple explanation of one cataclysm responsible for all of them.”
“Although the well-informed leadership in geology realizes that catastrophism is evident everywhere, it is not
known so well at the university level.”
“Even though the basic concept of uniformitarian gradualism for deposited strata has been overthrown, curiously
there has been no adjustment in the dates applied to the geologic column. It appears that there are strong forces to
hold on to the millions of years concept of geology (in spite of the facts) in order to preserve the supposed time for
evolution to occur.”
“Evolutionary geologists now hypothesize millions of years of non-activity between formations in order to preserve
the evolutionary time schedule. There is no evidence supporting numerous hiatuses. One would think in even a
thousand years there would be roots or worm burrows or stream erosion or clam tracks. Instead, most of the
interfaces are sharply defined. Evolutionists are saying essentially that no evidence means evidence for long periods
of time between formations.”
“After these discoveries, geologists began looking at the well-known formations throughout the world and
discovered that most of them showed the characteristics of turbidite formation. Over half the depositions on North
America have now been identified as turbidities and each year of study yields more which are falling to this
concept.”
“The latter [sedimentary layers of Cambrian or later age] are worldwide phenomena and many of the formations
cover areas of hundreds or thousands of square miles. ... gradual deposition is precluded in the nature of turbidite
formations.”
I note that turbidities are formed rapidly by flows under water, but have a layered structure. The point of these
quotes is that much of the geologic column is now recognized to have been laid down in this manner, now over half
of the formations in North America. At present, there is hardly anywhere where this kind of turbidity activity is
depositing a significant amount of sediment that will remain for any length of time. River deltas are about as close
as one can come, and they are generally not flat like the great sedimentary deposits, and do not cover such a large
area. So the evidence is that conditions in the past when these deposits were being laid down were much different
than at present. Also, the fact that there is no worldwide unconformity above the Great Unconformity suggests that
there was no break in this continuous pattern of deposition, and that the geologic column (up to some point, maybe
somewhere in the Mesozoic) was laid down all at once.
There are many evidences of catastrophic conditions in the geologic column, such as polystrate fossils, and fossils
giving evidence of rapid burial. For example, a fossil of an 80 to 90 foot baleen whale was found by miners in
diatomaceous earth near Lompoc, California. Here is the quote, from Coffin, page 37, about the Baleen whale:
“A recent discovery has caused scientists to begin rethinking the origin of the deposit. Miners found an 80 to 90 foot
baleen whale in the white earth. If a long time was required to cover the huge mammal, the bones would not have
remained attached together.”
He mentions experiments that show that fish bones rapidly separate when the fish die and fall to the bottom, even if
predators are kept away. So this really does seem to be an evidence of rapid burial. And this implies also that all of
the well-preserved fossils that are found, were buried rapidly.
This casts doubt on the idea that this deposit was laid down gradually. fish fossils are sometimes found in the midst
of eating other fish, or giving birth. I realize that geologists say the polystrate fossils (trees extending through many
layers) fell into place later on, but these fossils are very common, and a logical corollary of catastrophic deposition.
I think it is interesting that many igneous bodies have wide biostrategraphic limits. This implies that several
geological periods are missing, with only a lava flow to show for it. This seems unlikely if these periods were really
millions of years long, since there should be some evidence of their passing, but becomes more plausible if these
periods were much shorter.
Coffin (and creationists in general) have given many, many evidences of catastrophic conditions in the geologic
column. As for Specimen Ridge, which has many layers of upright fossil trees on top of one another, Coffin gives a
detailed analysis of this, showing that the assumption of many forests growing on top of one another is not realistic,
and gives evidences for the mechanism of rapid transport of trees from somewhere else. He does this as well for the
forests of Joggins Petrified Trees of Nova Scotia.
I wish I had time to type in his quotes about the huge volcano eruptions of the past. These are not like anything we
know today. Instead, great cracks opened up in the surface of the earth and great quantities of lava just gushed out.
No need for a volcano at all! There have been similar eruptions recently, but much more minor. Such an event
would of course have the possibility of enriching the atmosphere or water in Ar40 and making the lava appear old
just because less Ar40 would escape.
He also mentions that if the Americas and Europe-Africa separated at the assumed slow rate, there would have been
enough runoff from erosion to keep the Atlantic Ocean full, so there would not be any Atlantic Ocean at all today.
Now, I want to discuss evidences of erosion between geologic layers. The relative lack of erosion is evidence of
rapid deposition and catastrophic conditions in the past. Coffin writes,
“Some geologists estimate that up to 40 percent of the sediments laid down in the past came from turbidity
currents.” (p. 93)
And according to a later reference, the number has increased since then. Turbidities are associated with rapid
deposition.
As for the issue of uniformity, here is a quote from Coffin, page 104:
“Uniformity, however, has become through the years an inflexible and controlling element in geological research,
not an hypothesis that one can discard if the facts don’t fit. If the results of research don’t support uniformity, the
research is at fault. The scientist then initiates new research or reinterprets the facts even though he may have to
bend or rearrange them unrealistically.”
“It is my firm opinion that the concept of uniformity has greatly delayed the advance of geological science. It has
stagnated in some areas for years with little progress compared to other sciences. Some geologists have noted the
condition but have not recognized the reason why.” (page 107)
Coffin notes an increasing tendency to accept catastrophism in geology, however. He mentions Derek Ager’s book,
“The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record,” which supports catastrophism.
As for the degree of erosion between strata and evidence of catastrophism, Coffin writes of the grand canyon region
(page 111):
“The strata extend for scores and even hundreds of miles with relatively little change in composition, texture, and
thickness. We look in vain to find comparable beds forming today.”
“But such erosion and depositional features [gulleys and gorges, deltas etc.] are unknown for some of the beds, and
the deposits are massive, quite homogeneous, and not typical of stream and river action.”
He mentions giant mud cracks fifteen or more feet high in the geological record.
“However, when we look at the geological record and see thin, flat-lying beds extending sometimes for hundreds of
miles, we are at a loss to find their modern counterparts.” (page 87)
“The deposits of the past often show essentially no evidence of erosion on their surfaces.” (page 88)
“In some places in the world we can trace very thin beds, only an inch or two thick, over hundreds of miles.” (page
89)
“Although we do find some erosion between certain beds, usually the amount is small compared to the nature of the
earth’s surface today.” (page 90)
Coffin also gives evidence that the great coal beds were laid down rapidly.
Anyway, I’d encourage readers to consult the book for details: Origin by Design, by Harold Coffin, 1983, Review
and Herald Publishing Association.
As for fossils, it has been proposed that water with certain unusual chemical compositions or certain kinds of
bacteria can cause fossils to be preserved, even if rates of sedimentation are slow. This must be an unusual
occurrence, since I don’t ever recall seeing the bottom of a lake with zillions of well-preserved dead fish covered
with preservative bacteria. In fact, I don’t think that there is anywhere in the world today that fossils like those in the
fossil record are forming, except possibly as a result of floods and rapid accumulations of sediment. So if the present
is the key to the past, we should assume that such rapid accumulations of sediment occurred in the past, too, when
all of these fossils formed. Otherwise, we are giving up on uniformitarianism to some extent. And what evidence is
there that all of these well-preserved fossils were formed by such unusual conditions, anyway?
Note that since well-preserved fossils imply rapid burial, and many fossils occur together, many creatures must have
died at about the same time. Otherwise, their fossils would be widely separated in the rapidly falling sediment.
Having many creatures die at once suggests catastrophic conditions.
Someone claimed that Harold Coffin is clueless for promoting a catastrophist view of geology. Those who think that
must think that Ager is clueless, too, for promoting a similar view in his book, “The Nature of the Stratigraphic
Record.” But remember that Ager is not a creationist, and people are generally not so free in their criticism of non-
creationists.
We have several evidences for catastrophism in the geologic column: 1.) Turbidities, which some geologists believe
are very common. 2) Massive fossil deposits. 3) Geological layers whose boundaries are marked by little erosion or
signs of plant or animal life. 4) Massive volcanic eruptions, unmatched by anything known today. All in all, I think
the picture is convincing, even though there may be many other features that are not as easy to understand in this
framework.
Concerning the catastrophic nature of the geological record, here are some non-creationist references. This material
may be found at http://members.aol.com/DWR51055/tasc/faqs.htm, which is a creation FAQ of the Triangle Society
for Scientific Creation:
b. “Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological
history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no
evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial
inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on.” William R. Corliss, Unknown
Earth (Glen Arm, Maryland: The Sourcebook Project, 1980), p. 219.
RECORD IS CATASTROPHIC, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Univ. of Chicago, “A great deal has
changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a ‘way of
life’ although they may avoid the word catastrophe... The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the
record. The days are almost gone when a geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the
total amount of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in centimeters per
thousand years. The nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exist in popular treatments of
geology, in some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks....one can hardly blame the creationists for having
the idea that the conventional wisdom in geology is still a noncatastrophic one.” Field Museum of Natural History
Bulletin (Vol.54, March 1983), p.2 1
CATACLYSMIC BURIAL, JOHN R. HORNER, “...there were 30 million fossil fragments in that area. At a
conservative estimate, we had discovered the tomb of 10,000 dinosaurs ...there was a flood. This was no ordinary
spring flood from one of the streams in the area but a catastrophic inundation. ... That’s our best explanation. It
seems to make the most sense, and on the basis of it we believe that this was a living, breathing group of dinosaurs
destroyed in one catastrophic moment.” DIGGING DINOSAURS, 1988, p.131
FOSSIL PROGRESSION?, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, “A
large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten
the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification
inevitable in secondary sources: lowlevel textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some
wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In
general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into
textbooks...One of the ironies of the creationevolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken
notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to
accommodate this ‘fact’ in their Flood Geology.” New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981
Rates of Erosion
Back to top
As for the separation of the continents, I found some references about rates of erosion: (This is not a creationist
source.)
The span since the Precambrian is long enough, at present rates of erosion, for rivers to have shifted the equivalent
of 25 to 30 times the bulk of the existing continental masses, but the rate of erosion and sedimentation is estimated
to have increased with time.
...
Such transitory streams, rivers, or creeks are noted for their gullying effects, especially for their rapid rates of
erosion, transportation, and deposition. There have been reports of up to 8 feet (2 m) of deposition in 60 years and
like amounts of erosion during a single flood event.
...
Roughly contemporaneous with the time of the Aztec Empire, this period was characterized by what O’Hara
described as “staggeringly high” environmental impacts and erosion rates of 208 metric tons of soil per hectare (85
tons per acre) per year.
All above quotes are from the online Encyclopedia Britannica, and the first one is from the article “The River
System through Time.” Anyway, rates of erosion can vary, but one would have to justify that they have been much
smaller in the past. In addition, the fact that there are so many evidences of rapid erosion in the geologic column
casts doubt on the statement that rates of erosion were slower then.
I wanted to make an additional comment on the separation of the continents. The Americas are thought to have split
off about 150 million years ago. Since the precambrian, erosion would have moved about 25 to 30 times the
continental masses. Since 150 million years ago, it would be about 10 continental masses. Assuming half goes into
the Atlantic and half into the Pacific, it would be about 5 continental masses each way. Now, the average depth of
the oceans is less than 5 times the average elevation of the land, so this would be enough erosion to cover an ocean
area equal to the combined area of the Americas, Europe, and Africa, which would easily fill the Atlantic Ocean. Of
course, as sediment enters the water, the sea level would rise to some extent.
Now, it is possible that this sediment would cause the crust of the earth beneath the Atlantic Ocean to sink to some
extent. But since there is a fixed amount of mass beneath the crust, this would mean that the crust would have to rise
somewhere else. Where would that be? Since the whole Atlantic would be covered with sediment, it is not likely
that any place in the Atlantic would rise. The continents are massive, much more under sea level than above, so it is
not likely that they would rise much, either. The oceans near the continents would be receiving erosion just like the
Atlantic, so they would not rise much, either. The only place left would be somewhere near the middle of the Pacific
Ocean. So, in order for this to rise, the downward force on the Atlantic would have to be transmitted through the
1800 miles of solid rock under the crust, to somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. This seems highly improbable.
In fact, the amount of sediment entering the Atlantic would be even higher than I estimated above, since the
mountain chains in the Americas are much closer to the Pacific than the Atlantic. Also, the Ural Mountains are on
the eastern border of Europe, and the mountains of Africa are far to the east, having a similar effect.
Of course, so much sediment entering the ocean would cause the sea level to rise, to some extent. This would further
lower the level of the continents relative to the ocean, and tend to cause the earth to become flooded.
Coffin mentions that at current rates of erosion, the Gulf of Mexico would fill up in 6 million years, for example.
Objections have been raised to this estimate, which I now consider.
It is possible that the crust of the earth would sink to some extent as matter infilled the Gulf of Mexico. But
remember that the crust of the earth is about 4 miles thick under the oceans, and about 20 miles thick under the
continents. So the thickness under the Gulf of Mexico would probably be in between these limits. In addition, there
is 1800 miles of solid rock underneath the crust. The crust moves in plates, implying that it has considerable rigidity
and would not bend easily. And note that infilling of sediment would replace water with sediment, so only the
difference in density would add to the pressure on the crust. By the time the crust got around to bending, the Gulf
would probably be almost full.
Sediments do compact, meaning that more sediment would be required to fill the Gulf. But I believe that the
measurement Coffin was referring to already took this fact into account. In addition, shells and bones continually
fall to the bottom, and corals grow. Only an inch of accumulation in 100 years would lead to about a mile of
sediment in 6 million years, even without erosion. The Gulf of Mexico is about 2 miles deep at its deepest part,
except for one place near Mexico, so its average depth may be about a mile. All in all, the filling in of the Gulf of
Mexico in 6 million years is not unreasonable. Coffin also notes that the current delta must have formed in at most a
few thousand years, assuming the northern border of the Gulf of Mexico was initially straight. Thus one would have
to assume that the Mississippi River had a different course, emptying into the Great lakes, as early as 5000 years ago
to sustain the current chronology.
Reliability of Creationist Sources

Back to top
The reliability of creationist sources is often questioned because those who write them are not always experts in the
areas they write about. But I believe that their message is true, namely, God created the universe, the earth, and all
that is in it, God created life on earth recently, and the earth since then has experienced a major catastrophe. If in a
few instances creationist discussion of anomalies in radiometric dating is based on a misunderstanding of the
literature, there are plenty of other acknowledged anomalies that they could have used just as well. All in all, I
would much prefer creationist sources to the talk.origins FAQ and standard textbook treatments, which gloss over
problems that specialists in the fields do not hesitate to admit, and present uniformitarianism, evolution, and
radiometric dating as if these were beyond reproach. But I am thankful for the many voices being raised against this
triumvirate of confusion, and believe that in the minds of many it is losing credibility, despite the resistance of
establishment science. Most people only have time to become familiar with one of these three aspects, and so their
doubts are calmed by belief in the evidence from the other two. But all three of them are in confusion.
In general, it’s good to read both sides of the story. So I continue to recommend the creation web sites, including the
following:
http://www.rae.org (This has a good selection of links to other sites)
http://zim.com/gjlane/science.htm(Many links)
http://www.ldolphin.org/URLres.shtml (More links than you can ever visit.)
David Plaisted’s (the author’s) Home Page
7. Radioactive ‘dating’ failure
Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years
by Andrew Snelling
20 January 2001
First published in:
December 1999 – February 2000
[SUBSCRIBE to the full-color CREATION family magazine TODAY!]
Standing roughly in the centre of New Zealand’s North Island, Mt Ngauruhoe is New Zealand’s newest volcano and
one of the most active (Figures 1 and 2). It is not as well publicized as its larger close neighbour MT Ruapehu,
which has erupted briefly several times in the last five years.
However, Mt Ngauruhoe is an imposing, almost perfect cone that rises more than 1,000 metres (3,300 feet) above
the surrounding landscape to an elevation of 2,291 m (7,500 feet) above sea level1 (Figure 3). Eruptions from a
central 400 m (1,300 foot) wide crater have constructed the cone’s steep (33°) outer slopes.
Mt Ngauruhoe is thought to have been active for at least 2,500 years, with more than 70 eruptive periods since 1839,
when European settlers first recorded a steam eruption.2 Of course, before that, the Maoris witnessed many eruptions
from the mountain. The first lava eruption seen by Europeans occurred in 1870.3 Then there were ash eruptions
every few years until a major explosive eruption in April–May 1948, followed by lava flowing down the north-
western slopes in February 1949.2,3 The estimated lava volume was about 575,000 cubic metres (20 million cubic
feet).
The eruption lasting from May 13, 1954 to March 10, 1955 began with an explosive ejection of ash and blocks.2,3
Then almost 8 million cubic metres (280 million cubic feet) of lava flowed from the crater in a series of 17 distinct
flows on the following 1954 dates:
• June 4, 30
• July 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 23, 28, 29, 30
• August 15(?), 18
• September 16, 18, 26
These flows are still distinguishable today on the northwestern and western slopes of Ngauruhoe (Figure 4). The
August 18 flow was more than 18 m (55 feet) thick and still warm almost a year after congealing. Explosions of ash
completed this long eruptive period.
Afterwards, Ngauruhoe steamed almost continuously, with many small ash eruptions2 (Figure 5). Cannon-like,
highly explosive eruptions in January and March 1974 threw out large quantities of ash as a column into the
atmosphere, and as avalanches flowing down the cone’s sides. Blocks weighing up to 1,000 tonnes were hurled 100
m (330 feet). However, the most violent explosions occurred on February 19, 1975, accompanied by what eye-
witnesses described as atmospheric shock waves.4 Blocks up to 30 m (100 ft) across were catapulted up to 3 km
(almost 2 miles). The eruption plume was 11–13 km (7–8 miles) high.
Turbulent avalanches of ash and blocks swept down Ngauruhoe’s sides at about 60 km (35 miles) per hour.2 It is
estimated that at least 3.4 million cubic metres (120 million cubic feet) of ash and blocks were ejected in 7 hours.4
No further eruptions have occurred since.
Dating the rocks
Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:
35. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter
radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;5
36. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be
added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters; and
37. The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.
If any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any ‘dates’ are false.
The potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating method is often used to date volcanic rocks (and by extension, nearby fossils).
In using this method, it is assumed that there was no daughter radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in rocks when they formed.6
For volcanic rocks which cool from molten lavas, this would seem to be a reasonable assumption. Because argon is
a gas, it should escape to the atmosphere due to the intense heat of the lavas. Of course, no geologist was present to
test this assumption by observing ancient lavas when they cooled, but we can study modern lava flows.
Potassium-argon ‘dates’
Eleven samples were collected from five recent lava flows during field work in January 1996 — two each from the
February 11, 1949, June 4, 1954 and July 14, 1954 flows and from the February 19, 1975 avalanche deposits, and
three from the June 30, 1954 flow7 (Figure 6). The darker recent lavas were clearly visible and each one easily
identified (with the aid of maps) on the northwestern slopes against the lighter-coloured older portions of the cone
(Figures 4 and 7). All flows were typically made up of jumbled blocks of congealed lava, resulting in rough, jagged,
clinkery surfaces (Figure 8).
The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), for whole-
rock potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating — first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second
sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, a piece of the third sample from the
June 30, 1954 flow.7 To also test the consistency of results within samples, second pieces of two of the June 30,
1954 lava samples were also sent for analysis.
Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K–Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K–Ar dating. No specific
location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as
probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work.
The ‘dates’ obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1.7 The ‘ages’ range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2)
million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago. One sample from each
flow yielded ‘ages’ of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ‘ages’ of millions of years. The
low ‘age’ samples were all processed by the laboratory in the same batch, suggesting a systematic lab problem. So
the lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This
ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real. Furthermore, repeat measurements on
samples already analysed (A#2 and B#2 in Table 1) did not reproduce the same results, but this was not surprising
given the analytical uncertainties at such low levels of argon. Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these
rocks. Some geochronologists would say <0.27 million years is actually the correct ‘date’, but how would they know
that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct ‘age’ if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?!
Because these rocks are known to be less than 50 years old, it is apparent from the analytical data that these K–Ar
‘ages’ are due to ‘excess’ argon inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth.7 Thus, when the lavas
cooled, they contained appreciable (non-zero) concentrations of ‘normal’ 40Ar, which is indistinguishable from
daughter radiogenic 40Ar* derived by radioactive decay of parent 40K. This violates assumption (1) of radioactive
dating, and so the K–Ar method fails the test. This same failure is also known to occur in many other rocks,
including both recent volcanics8 and ancient crustal rocks.9
Conclusions
The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954 and 1975 lava flows at
Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work. Argon gas, brought
up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know
the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield ‘ages’ up to 3.5
million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we
don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we
trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?
However, we do know Someone who was present when all the earth’s rocks formed — the Creator Himself. He has
told us when that was, in His eyewitness account in the Bible’s first book, Genesis, so we know how old all the
rocks are. How much better to place our confidence in the Creator who made and knows everything, and who never
fails or tells lies, than in a radioactive dating method that has been repeatedly demonstrated to fail and to yield false
ages for the earth’s rocks.
The K–Ar (potassium-argon) dating method
Fossils are almost never dated by radiometric methods, since they rarely contain suitable radioactive elements. A
common way of dating fossils (and rocks which do not contain radioactive elements) is by ‘dating’ an associated
volcanic rock. This is commonly done using the K–Ar method. It depends on the rate at which radioactive potassium
decays into the gas argon.
The K–Ar method works on the assumption that the ‘clock’ begins to ‘tick’ the moment that the rock hardens. That
is, it assumes that no argon derived by radioactive decay was present initially, but after the lava cooled and
solidified, the argon from radioactive decay was unable to escape and started to accumulate. However, it is well-
known that if a radiometric ‘date’ contradicts a fossil-derived (evolutionary) age, the date is discarded as erroneous.
See Lubenow, M., The pigs took it all, Creation 17(3):36–38, 1995.
FLOW DATE SAMPLE LAB CODE K–Ar ‘AGE’ (million years)
February 11, 1949 A R-11714 <0.27
B R-11511 1.0 ± 0.2
June 4, 1954 A R-11715 <0.27
B R-11512 1.5 ± 0.1
June 30, 1954 A #1 R-11718 <0.27
A #2 R-12106 1.3 ± 0.3
B #1 R-12003 3.5 ± 0.2
B #2 R-12107 0.8 ± 0.2
C R-11513 1.2 ± 0.2
July 14, 1954 A R-11509 1.0 ± 0.2
B R-11716 <0.29
February 19, 1975 A R-11510 1.0 ± 0.2
B R-11717 <0.27
Table 1. Potassium-argon ‘dates’ of recent Mt Ngauruhoe (New Zealand) lava flows.7
Ed. note, this Creation magazine article by Dr Snelling is based on his technical paper, Ref. 7, which has far more
detail about research methods and answers to possible criticisms than was possible in Creation magazine.
References
52. Williams, K., Volcanoes of the South Wind: A Field Guide to the Volcanoes and Landscape of the
Tongariro National Park, Tongariro Natural History Society, Turangi, New Zealand, 1994. Return to text.
53. Nairn, I.A. and Wood, C.P., Active Volcanoes and Geothermal Systems, Taupo Volcanic Zone, New
Zealand Geological Survey Record 22:5–84, 1987. Return to text.
54. Gregg, D.R., The Geology of the Tongariro Subdivision, New Zealand Geological Survey Bulletin n.s.40,
1960. Return to text.
55. Nairn, IA and Self, S., Explosive eruptions and pyroclastic avalanches from Ngauruhoe in February 1975,
Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 3:39–60, 1978. Return to text.
56. This is true for K–Ar dating, one of the most common methods, and the one discussed here. The so-called
‘isochron’ technique for dealing with the chemical analyses of the rocks being ‘dated’ attempts to bypass
this assumption. A discussion of isochron ‘dating’, along with the associated problems of false (pseudo)
isochrons, is outside the scope of this paper, but see Austin, S.A. (ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to
Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, pp. 111–131, 1994. Return to text.
57. Dalrymple, G.B., The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, p. 91, 1991. Return
to text.
58. Snelling, A.A., The cause of anomalous potassium-argon ‘ages’ for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe,
New Zealand, and the implications for potassium-argon ‘dating’, In: Walsh, R.E. (ed.), Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
pp. 503–525, 1998. Return to text.
59. Snelling, AA, Excess argon’: the ‘Archilles’ heel’ of potassium-argon and argon-argon ‘dating’ of volcanic
rocks, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, Impact #307, 1999. Return to text.
60. Snelling, AA, Potassium-argon and argon-argon dating of crustal rocks and the problem of excess argon,
Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, Impact #309, 1999.Return to text.
8. Radio-dating in rubble
The lava dome at Mount St Helens debunks dating myths

by Keith Swenson
First published in:
June–August 2001
Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. In most
people’s minds it is the best ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. But is the method all it’s cracked up to be?
Can we really trust it? The lava dome at Mount St Helens provides a rare opportunity for putting radioisotope dating
to the test.
New lava dome

In August of 1993, with geologist Dr Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research, I climbed
into the crater of Mount St Helens to view the lava dome. It was one of those experiences that was well worth every
exhausting moment! The dome (top figure) looks like a small mountain, roughly 1.1 km (û mile) long and 350 m
(1,100 ft) high. It sits directly over the volcanic vent at the south end of the huge horseshoe-shaped crater that was
blasted out of the mountain by the spectacular eruption on 18 May 1980.1 From the crater, the dome appears as a
huge steaming mound of dark, block-like rubble. It is made of dacite, a fine-grained volcanic rock that contains a
sprinkling of larger, visible crystals, like chopped fruit in a cake.
Actually, the present lava dome at Mount St Helens is the third dome to form since the 1980 eruption, the previous
two having been blasted away by the subsequent eruptions.
The current dome started growing after the volcano’s last explosive eruption on 17 October 1980. During 17 so-
called dome-building eruptions, from 18 October 1980 to 26 October 1986, thick pasty lava oozed out of the
volcanic vent like toothpaste from a tube.1
Dacite lava is too thick to flow very far, so it simply piled up around the vent, forming the mountain-like dome,
which now plugs the volcanic orifice.
How radioactive ‘dating’ really works

Why does the lava dome provide an opportunity to test the accuracy of radioisotope dating? There are two reasons.
First, radioisotope-dating methods are used on igneous rocks—those formed from molten rock material. Dacite fits
this bill. Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically. Second, and most importantly,
we know exactly when the lava dome formed. This is one of the rare instances in which, to the question, ‘Were you
there?’ we can answer, ’Yes, we were!’
The dating method Dr Austin used at Mount St Helens was the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in
geological circles. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or ‘variety’ of the element potassium)
spontaneously ‘decays’ into argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon).2 This process proceeds very slowly at a
known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years.1 In other words, 1.0 g of potassium-40 would, in
1.3 billion years, theoretically decay to the point that only 0.5 g was left.
Contrary to what is generally believed, it is not just a matter of measuring the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40
in a volcanic rock sample of unknown age, and calculating a date. Unfortunately, before that can be done, we need
to know the history of the rock. For example, we need to know how much ‘daughter’ was present in the rock when it
formed. In most situations we don’t know since we didn’t measure it, so we need to make an assumption—a guess.
It is routinely assumed that there was no argon initially. We also need to know whether potassium-40 or argon-40
have leaked into, or out of, the rock since it formed. Again, we do not know, so we need to make an assumption. It is
routinely assumed that no leakage occurred. It is only after we have made these assumptions that we can calculate an
‘age’ for the rock. And when this is done, the ‘age’ of most rocks calculated in this way is usually very great, often
millions of years. The Mount St Helens lava dome gives us the opportunity to check these assumptions, because we
know it formed just a handful of years ago, between 1980 and 1986.
The dating test

In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this
sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were
carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-
argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating
laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low
argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St
Helens and was only 10 years old.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. Age / millions of
What do we see? First and foremost that they are Sample
years
wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero
argon’ indicating that the sample was too young 1. Whole rock 0.35 ± 0.05
to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged 2. Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06
from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? 3. Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2
Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this
invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some 4. Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3
argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, 5. Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6
giving the appearance of great age. Note also that
the results from the different samples of the same Table 1. Potassium-argon ‘ages’ for whole rock and mineral
rock disagree with each other. concentrate samples from the lava dome at Mount St Helens
It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold (from Austin1).
standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for
millions of years of Earth history. When the
method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years
old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we
accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of
radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God.

38. Austin, S.A., Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens
volcano, CEN Tech. J. 10(3):335–343, 1996. Return to text.
39. Potassium-40 also decays into calcium-40 as well as argon-40. This can be allowed for because the ratio of
argon to calcium production is known. Return to text.
40. Ref. 1, p. 338. Return to text.
Countering the critics
Understandably, Dr Austin’s devastating research into radioisotopic dating has been criticized by those who believe
in millions of years. One common tactic is to claim that Dr Austin is ‘not an expert in the field’. This is quite wrong.
Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections.
One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts
‘large error-bars on the data’. By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see
the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young? Anyway, the analytical error is reported by the
laboratory (see ± values on Table 1), and in every case the error is much less than the supposed age of the sample.
Some have argued that the magma (underground lava) must have picked up chunks of old rock as it moved through
the Earth. They claim that these pieces of old rock (xenoliths) contaminated the sample and gave the very old age.
This criticism is unfounded because Dr Austin was particularly careful to identify xenoliths and ensure none were
included in the sample.1
Of course, it would always be possible to claim that the sample contained xenoliths that Dr Austin did not see. This
would not be the first time this rationalization has been used. Dalrymple, for example, described a case where the
date was wrong, but xenoliths couldn’t be seen under the microscope. He suggested that excess argon from
microscopic xenoliths which were somehow distributed uniformly through the sample such that they were invisible.2
Others have claimed Dr Austin’s dacite sample gave an old age because it contained old feldspar crystals. They said
that Dr Austin should have known they were old because the crystals were large and zoned. However, Dr Austin’s
results (Table 1) show that the wrong ages were not confined to one particular mineral. The idea that the age of a
mineral can be anticipated by its size or colour is incorrect. Dalrymple, for example, found that the wrong ages in his
samples were unrelated to crystal size, or any other observable characteristic of the crystal.2
Another critic said that Dr Austin should only have dated the volcanic glass from his sample, because the glass
would have solidified when the lava dome formed. However, Dalrymple found that even volcanic glass can give
wrong ages and rationalized that it can be contaminated by argon from older rock material.
All these objections amount to reasoning after the event and do nothing to diminish the devastating consequences for
radioisotope dating of Dr Austin’s work. The method is fraught with problems and does not give reliable dates. John
Woodmorappe has shown that reasoning after the event is commonly used to ‘interpret’ radioactive dating results.3

61. Austin, S.A., Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens
volcano, CEN Tech. J. 10(3):335–343, 1996. Return to text.
62. Dalrymple, G.B., 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:47–55,
63. Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, ICR, El Cajon, California, 1999. Return to
text.
More and more wrong dates

Is this dating failure from Mount St Helens an isolated case of radioisotope dating giving wrong results for rocks of
known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple,1 one of the big names in radioactive dating [and a self-confessed intermediate
between an atheist and agnostic], lists a number of cases of wrong potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows
(Table A). There are many other examples of obviously wrong dates. Only recently, Creation magazine reported
that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975.2
One sobering example comes from the Grand Canyon in Arizona (see diagram in original article). The Cardenas
Basalt in the bottom of the canyon is an igneous rock layer suitable for radioisotope technology. When dated by the
rubidium-strontium isochron method, the Cardenas Basalt yielded an age of 1.07 billion years. Most geologists
consider this a ‘good’ date because it agrees with their evolutionary chronology.3 However, we know the date can’t
be right, because it conflicts with Biblical chronology.
It is a different story when the same rubidium-strontium method is used to date lava from volcanoes on the north rim
of the Grand Canyon. We know these volcanoes are some of the youngest rocks in the canyon, because they spilled
lava into the canyon after it had been eroded. Geologists generally think that these volcanoes erupted ‘only’ a
million years or so ago. The measured age? 1.34 billion years.3 If we were to believe the dating method, the top of
the canyon would be older than the bottom! Of course, geologists don’t believe the result in this case, because it
does not agree with what they believe to be the right age. We don’t agree with the result either. Such an obviously
conflicting age speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating. It also speaks volumes about
the way ‘dates’ are accepted or rejected by the geological community.
Historic Lava Flow Potassium-argon age (in millions of years)
Hualalai, basalt 1.60 ± 0.16
(Hawaii, 1.41 ± 0.08
AD 1800–1801) >(2 samples)
Mt Etna, basalt (Sicily, 122 BC) 0.25 ± 0.08
Mt Etna, basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 0.35 ± 0.08
Mt Lassen, plagioclase
0.11 ± 0.03
(California, AD 1915)
Sunset Crater, basalt 0.27 ± 0.09
(Arizona, 0.25 ± 0.15
AD 1064–1065) (2 samples)
Table A. Potassium-argon ‘ages’ for historic lava flows (from Dalrymple1).
References
5. Dalrymple, G.B., 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:47–55,
6. Snelling, A., Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years ,
Creation 22(1):18–21, 2000. Return to text.
7. Austin, S.A. (ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee,
California, pp. 111–131, 1994. Return to text.
KEITH SWENSON, M.D.,

Dr Swenson is a practising physician in Portland, Oregon. He serves as President of Design Science Association, a
Portland-based creation science organization, for which he leads study tours to Mount St Helens. Return to top.
9. How do you date a New Zealand volcano?

by Robert Doolan
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 13(1):15
December 1990–February 1991
Among impressive volcanic scenery in northern New Zealand lies the city of Auckland. The district is known for its
volcanic cones. In fact, there are more than 50 recognized small volcanoes in the city and surrounding areas. But the
largest volcano by far in Auckland is also the youngest. It is called Rangitoto. How young is this youngest volcano?
Now your problem starts. Rangitoto is generally regarded as young for several reasons. Evidence based on botany
and geomorphology, and a hint from Maori legend that the name can mean 'red sky', contribute to a common
acceptance that Rangitoto is youthful. Some of the lavas (scoria) have no vegetation, and seem to be no more than a
few hundred years old.
Conflicting dates
In the late 1960s, scientists from the Australian National University in Canberra dated numerous volcanoes in
Auckland using the potassium-argon method.1 Ten samples from both vegetated and unvegetated lava on Rangitoto
were dated. Results seemed to show that Rangitoto was not a few hundred years old as it appeared to be. Ages from
the 10 samples ranged from 146,000 years up to almost half a million years! So how old is Rangitoto? A couple of
hundred years? Or half a million? The scientists took a sample of wood from beneath some Rangitoto lava and dated
it by the carbon- 14 method.2 The wood gave an age of only 225 years (plus or minus 110 years) -- which potentially
puts it in the lifetime of George Washington and German composer Johann Sebastian Bach. This is about the age all
evidence points to except potassium-argon dating. If lava which is little more than 200 years old can be wrongly
dated at up to 465,000 years by the potassium-argon method, could potassium-argon dating always be wrong?
Wrong every time
The scientists who did the Rangitoto tests dated 16 volcanoes in all. Eleven of these were able to be compared with
carbon-14 dates. In every case the potassium-argon dates were clearly wrong to a huge extent. Similar conflict was
found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801 -- less than 200 years
ago -- was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old.3 If the real dates were not fairly well
established by other means, who could have proved that the potassium-argon dates were so wrong? So how do you
date a volcano? The lesson seems to be that how ever you date it, don't count on the potassium-argon method.
References
41. Ian McDougall, H. A. Polach and J.J. Stipp, 'Excess radiogenic argon in young subaerial basalts from the
Auckland volcanic field, New Zealand', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol.33. 1969, pp. 1485-1520.
Return to text.
42. Carbon-14 dating is regarded by creationists as reasonably reliable for recent objects. For explanation see
The Answers Book, pp.43-SO. (See ad p.40 this issue.) Return to text.
43. J. G. Punkhouser and J.J. Naughton, 'He and Ar in ultramafic inclusions',Journal of Geophysical Research,
Vol.73,1968, pp. 4601-4607. Return to text.
Footnote
Many geological layers have actually been assigned vast radiometric ages on the basis of potassium-argon dating of
volcanic intrusions into the layers. Well-known fossil hunter Richard Leakey's Skull 1470 was 'dated' by the same
method used on surrounding volcanic material.
10. The way it really is
Little-known facts about radiometric dating

by Tas Walker
Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations.
Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable,
given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives
the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).
However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we
can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can
crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an
instrument that directly measures age.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what
radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can
obtain any date we like.
It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they
think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is
another thing to understand what it means.
So, how do geologists know how to interpret their radiometric dates and what the ‘correct’ date should be?
Field relationships
A geologist works out the relative age of a rock by carefully studying where the rock is found in the field. The field
relationships, as they are called, are of primary importance and all radiometric dates are evaluated against them.
For example, a geologist may examine a cutting where the rocks appear as shown in Figure 1. Here he can see that
some curved sedimentary rocks have been cut vertically by a sheet of volcanic rock called a dyke. It is clear that the
sedimentary rock was deposited and folded before the dyke was squeezed into place.
By looking at other outcrops in the area, our geologist is able to draw a geological map which records how the rocks
are related to each other in the field. From the mapped field relationships, it is a simple matter to work out a
geological cross-section and the relative timing of the geologic events. His geological cross-section may look
something like Figure 2.
Clearly, Sedimentary Rocks A were deposited and deformed before the Volcanic Dyke intruded them. These were
then eroded and Sedimentary Rocks B were deposited.
The geologist may have found some fossils in Sedimentary Rocks A and discovered that they are similar to fossils
found in some other rocks in the region. He assumes therefore that Sedimentary Rocks A are the same age as the
other rocks in the region, which have already been dated by other geologists. In the same way, by identifying fossils,
he may have related Sedimentary Rocks B with some other rocks.
Creationists would generally agree with the above methods and use them in their geological work.
From his research, our evolutionary geologist may have discovered that other geologists believe that Sedimentary
Rocks A are 200 million years old and Sedimentary Rocks B are 30 million years old. Thus, he already ‘knows’ that
the igneous dyke must be younger than 200 million years and older than 30 million years. (Creationists do not agree
with these ages of millions of years because of the assumptions they are based on.2)
Because of his interest in the volcanic dyke, he collects a sample, being careful to select rock that looks fresh and
unaltered. On his return, he sends his sample to the laboratory for dating, and after a few weeks receives the lab
report.
Let us imagine that the date reported by the lab was 150.7 ± 2.8 million years. Our geologist would be very happy
with this result. He would say that the date represents the time when the volcanic lava solidified. Such an
interpretation fits nicely into the range of what he already believes the age to be. In fact, he would have been equally
happy with any date a bit less than 200 million years or a bit more than 30 million years. They would all have fitted
nicely into the field relationships that he had observed and his interpretation of them. The field relationships are
generally broad, and a wide range of ‘dates’ can be interpreted as the time when the lava solidified.
What would our geologist have thought if the date from the lab had been greater than 200 million years, say 350.5 ±
4.3 million years? Would he have concluded that the fossil date for the sediments was wrong? Not likely. Would he
have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? No. Instead of questioning the method, he would say
that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified. He may suggest that the rock contained
crystals (called xenocrysts) that formed long before the rock solidified and that these crystals gave an older date.3 He
may suggest that some other very old material had contaminated the lava as it passed through the earth. Or he may
suggest that the result was due to a characteristic of the lava—that the dyke had inherited an old ‘age’.
The error is not the real error
The convention for reporting dates (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) implies that the calculated
date of 200.4 million years is accurate to plus or minus 3.2 million years. In other words, the
age should lie between 197.2 million years and 203.6 million years. However, this error is
not the real error on the date. It relates only to the accuracy of the measuring equipment in
the laboratory. Even different samples of rock collected from the same outcrop would give a
larger scatter of results. And, of course, the reported error ignores the huge uncertainties in
the assumptions behind the ‘age’ calculation. These include the assumption that decay rates
have never changed. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of
billions of times.1 Creationist physicists point to several lines of evidence that decay rates
have been faster in the past, and propose a pulse of accelerated decay during Creation Week,
and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year.2
References
44. Woodmorappe, J., Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in
laboratory, TJ 15(2):4–6, 2001. Return to text.
45. Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F., Radioisotopes and the age of the
Earth, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and Creation Research
Society, St. Joseph, Missouri, USA, 2000. Return to text.
What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million
years? No problem. Would he query the dating method, the chronometer? No. He would again say that the
calculated age did not represent the time when the rock solidified. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the
rock had been disturbed by groundwater or weathering.4 Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a
localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field.
No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it. He would
simply change his assumptions about the history of the rock to explain the result in a plausible way. G. Wasserburg,
who received the 1986 Crafoord Prize in Geosciences, said, ‘There are no bad chronometers, only bad
interpretations of them!’5 In fact, there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’
radiometric dating results.
Why use it?

Someone may ask, ‘Why do geologists still use radiometric dating? Wouldn’t they have abandoned the method long
ago if it was so unreliable?’ Just because the calculated results are not the true ages does not mean that the method is
completely useless. The dates calculated are based on the isotopic composition of the rock. And the composition is a
characteristic of the molten lava from which the rock solidified. Therefore, rocks in the same area which give similar
‘dates’ are likely to have formed from the same lava at about the same time during the Flood. So, although the
assumptions behind the calculation are wrong and the dates are incorrect, there may be a pattern in the results that
can help geologists understand the relationships between igneous rocks in a region.
Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years
old. The vast age has simply been assumed.2 The calculated radiometric ‘ages’ depend on the assumptions that are
made. The results are only accepted if they agree with what is already believed. The only foolproof method for
determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible.
And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the Bible to constrain their interpretations of the
geological evidence.
What if the rock ages are not ‘known’ in advance—does radio-dating give
coherent results?
Recently, I conducted a geological field trip in the Townsville area, North Queensland. A geological guidebook,1
prepared by two geologists, was available from a government department.
The guidebook’s appendix explains ‘geological time and the ages of rocks.’ It describes how geologists use field
relationships to determine the relative ages of rocks. It also says that the ‘actual’ ages are measured by radiometric
dating—an expensive technique performed in modern laboratories. The guide describes a number of radiometric
methods and states that for ‘suitable specimens the errors involved in radiometric dating usually amount to several
percent of the age result. Thus … a result of two hundred million years is expected to be quite close (within, say, 4
million) to the true age.’
This gives the impression that radiometric dating is very precise and very reliable—the impression generally held
by the public. However, the appendix concludes with this qualification: ‘Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric
dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. … if a contradiction occurs, then the cause
of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable’.
This is exactly what our main article explains. Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what
geologists already believe the age should be.
Townsville geology is dominated by a number of prominent granitic mountains and hills. However, these are
isolated from each other, and the area lacks significant sedimentary strata. We therefore cannot determine the field
relationships and thus cannot be sure which hills are older and which are younger. In fact, the constraints on the
ages are such that there is a very large range possible.
We would expect that radiometric dating, being allegedly so ‘accurate,’ would rescue the situation and provide
exact ages for each of these hills. Apparently, this is not so.
Concerning the basement volcanic rocks in the area, the guidebook says, ‘Their exact age remains uncertain.’ About
Frederick Peak, a rhyolite ring dyke in the area, it says, ‘Their age of emplacement is not certain.’ And for Castle
Hill, a prominent feature in the city of Townsville, the guidebook says, ‘The age of the granite is unconfirmed.’
No doubt, radiometric dating has been carried out and precise ‘dates’ have been obtained. It seems they have not
been accepted because they were not meaningful.
Reference
64. Trezise, D.L. and Stephenson, P.J., Rocks and landscapes of the Townsville district, Department of
Resource Industries, Queensland, 1990. Return to text.

8. In addition to other unprovable assumptions, e.g. that the decay rate has never changed. Return to text.
Return to text.
9. Evolutionary geologists believe that the rocks are millions of years old because they assume they were
formed very slowly. They have worked out their geologic timescale based on this assumption. This
timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very
quickly. Return to text.
10. This argument was used against creationist work that exposed problems with radiometric dating.
Laboratory tests on rock formed from the 1980 eruption of Mt St Helens gave ‘ages’ of millions of years.
Critics claimed that ‘old’ crystals contained in the rock contaminated the result. However, careful
measurements by Dr Steve Austin showed this criticism to be wrong. See Swenson, K., Radio-dating in
rubble, Creation 23(3):23–25, 2001. Return to text.
11. This argument was used against creationist work done on a piece of wood found in sandstone near Sydney,
Australia, that was supposed to be 230 million years old. Critics claimed that the carbon-14 results were
‘too young’ because the wood had been contaminated by weathering. However, careful measurements of
the carbon-13 isotope refuted this criticism. See Snelling, A.A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’
sandstone, Creation 21(3):39–41, 1999. Return to text.
12. Wasserburg, G.J., Isotopic abundances: inferences on solar system and planetary evolution, Earth and
Planetary Sciences Letters 86:129–173, 150, 1987. Return to text.
TAS WALKER, B.Sc.(Hons) [geology], B.Eng.(Hons), Ph.D., worked in power station design and operation, and
the geological assessment of coal deposits. He works full-time researching and speaking for Answers in Genesis in
Australia.
11. The Failure of U-Th-Pb 'Dating' at Koongarra, Australia
by Andrew Snelling
First published in
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal
9(1):71-92, 1995
Abstract
As with other radiometric 'dating' methods, the U-Pb and Pb-Pb isochron methods have been questioned in the open
literature, because often an excellent line of best fit between ratios obtained from a set of good cogenetic samples
gives a resultant 'isochron' and yields a derived 'age' that has no geological meaning. At the Koongarra uranium
deposit, Australia, there is ample evidence of open system behaviour, or repeated migration, of U and Pb — ore
textures, mineral chemistry, supergene alteration, uranium/daughter disequilibrium, and groundwater and soil
geochemistry. Yet U-Th-Pb isotopic studies of the uranium ore, host rocks and soils have produced an array of false
'isochrons' that yield 'ages' which are geologically meaningless. Even a claimed near-concordant U- Pb 'age' of 862
Ma (million years) on one uraninite grain is identical to a false Pb-Pb isochron 'age' but neither can be connected to
any geological event. The open system behaviour of the U-Th-Pb system is clearly the norm, as is the resultant
mixing of radiogenic Pb with 'common' or background Pb, even in soils in the surrounding region, apparently even
up to 17 km away! Because no geologically meaningful results can be interpreted from the U-Th-Pb data at
Koongarra (three uraninite grains even yield a 232Th/208Pb 'age' of 0 Ma), serious questions must be asked about the
validity of the fundamental/foundational basis of the U-Th-Pb 'dating' method. This makes the task of creationists
building their model for the geological record much easier, since claims of U-Th-Pb radiometric 'dating' having
'proven' the claimed great antiquity of the earth, its strata and fossils can be justifiably ignored.
Introduction
Radiometric dating has now been used for almost 50 years to establish 'beyond doubt' the multi-billion year age of
the earth's geological column. Although this column and its 'age' was firmly settled well before the advent of
radiometric dating, the latter has been used to quantify the, 'ages' of the strata and the fossils in the column, so that in
many people's minds today radiometric dating has 'proved' the presumed antiquity of the earth.
However, it is important to remember that all radiometric dating methods are based on three main assumptions:-
46. The physico-chemical system must have always been closed. Thus no parent, daughter or other decay
products within the system can have been removed, and no parent, daughter or other decay products from
outside the system can have been added.
47. The system must initially have contained none of its daughter elements or decay products, or at the very
least we need to know the starting conditions/state of the decay system.
48. The decay rate, referred to as the half-life of the radioactive parent element, must have always been the
same, that is, constant.
The highly speculative nature of all radiometric dating methods becomes apparent when one realizes that none of the
above assumptions is either valid or provable. Put simply, none of these assumptions can have been observed to
have always been true throughout the supposed millions of years the radioactive elements have presumed to have
been decaying.
Of the various radiometric methods, uranium-thorium- lead (U-Th-Pb) was the first used and it is still widely
employed today, particularly when zircons are present in the rocks to be dated. But the method does not always give
the 'expected' results, leading to fundamental questions about its validity. Indeed, the U- Th-Pb system is well
known to be prone to open system behaviour, with U being particularly geochemically mobile, meaning that U is
readily lost from the crystal lattices of the minerals used for 'dating', including zircons. Pb is also prone to diffusion
from minerals. Thus it is questionable as to why this radiometric 'dating' method is still used. Instead, it is
increasingly being applied in more sophisticated ways to geological 'dating' problems.
In the conclusion to a recent paper exposing shortcomings and criticising the validity of the popular rubidium-
strontium (Rb-Sr) isochron method, Zheng wrote:
'. . . some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be
modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a
geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in
plotting 87Sr/86Sr vs. 87Rb/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in
evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd
and U-Pb isochron methods'1
Amongst the concerns voiced by Zheng were the problems being found with anomalous isochrons, that is, where
there is an apparent linear relationship between 87Sr/86Sr and 87Rb/86Sr ratios, even an excellent line of best fit
between ratios obtained from good cogenetic samples, and yet the resultant isochron and derived 'age' have no
distinct geological meaning. Zheng documented the copious reporting of this problem in the literature where various
names had been given to these anomalous isochrons, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron and
pseudoisochron; secondary isochron, inherited isochron, source isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line, and mixing
isochron.
Similar anomalous or false isochrons are commonly obtained from U- Th-Pb data, which is hardly surprising given
the common open system behaviour of the U- Th-Pb system. Yet in the literature these problems are commonly
glossed over or pushed aside, but their increasing occurrence from a variety of geological settings does seriously
raise the question as to whether U-Th-Pb data ever yields any valid 'age' information. One such geological setting
that yields these false U -Th -Pb 'ages' and 'isochrons' is the Koongarra uranium deposit and the surrounding area
(Northern Territory, Australia).
Figure 1. Regional geology map showing the location of the Koongarra uranium deposit
Figure 2. Local geology map showing the location of the Koongarra No. 1 and No. 2
orebodies. Because of surficial cover the geological units and outline of the mineralisation
are projected to the surface from the base of weathering.
The Koongarra Area

The Koongarra area is 250 km east of Darwin (Northern Territory, Australia) at latitude 12°52'S and longitude
132°50'E. The regional geology has been described in detail by Needham and Stuart-Smith2 and by Needham3,4 (see
Figure 1), while Snelling5 describes the Koongarra uranium deposit and the area's local geology (see Figure 2).
The Koongarra uranium deposit occurs in a metamorphic terrain that has an Archaean basement consisting of domes
of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north (see Figure
1). Some of the lowermost overlying Lower Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during
amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (estimated to represent conditions of 5-8 kb and 550-630° C) at 1800-
1870 Ma (million years ago, according to conventional evolutionary dating). Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding
accompanied metamorphism. The Lower Proterozoic Cahill Formation flanking the Nanambu Complex has been
divided into two members. The lower member is dominated by a thick basal dolomite and passes transitionally
upwards into the psammitic upper member, which is largely feldspathic schist and quartzite. The uranium
mineralisation at Koongarra is associated with graphitic horizons within chloritised quartz-mica (±feldspar ±garnet)
schists overlying the basal dolomite in the lower member (see Figures 2 and 3). A 150 Ma period of weathering and
erosion followed metamorphism. A thick sequence of essentially flat-lying sandstones (the Middle Proterozoic
Kombolgie Formation) was then deposited unconformably on the Archaean-Lower Proterozoic basement and
metasediments. At Koongarra subsequent reverse faulting has juxtaposed the lower Cahill Formation schists and
Kombolgie Formation sandstone.
Figure 3. Simplified cross section through the No. 1 orebody, Koongarra, showing geology, distribution of
uranium minerals and alteration, and present groundwater flow.
Owing to the isoclinal recumbent folding of metasedimentary units of the Cahill Formation, the typical rock
sequence encountered at Koongarra is probably a tectono-stratigraphy (see Figure 3):-
Hanging Wall -muscovite-biotite-quartz-feldspar schist (at least 180m thick)
-garnet-muscovite-biotite-quartz schist (9-100 m thick)
-sulphide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist (±garnet) (about 25 m thick)
-distinctive graphite-quartz-chlorite schist marker unit (5-8 m thick)
Mineralised Zone -quartz-chlorite schist (±illite, garnet, sillimanite, muscovite) (50 m thick)
Footwall -reverse fault breccia (5-7m thick)
-sandstone of the Kombolgie Formation
Polyphase deformation accompanied metamorphism of the original sediments, that were probably dolomite, shales
and siltstones. Johnston6 identified a D2 event as responsible for the dominant S2 foliation of the schist sequence,
which at Koongarra dips at 55° to the south-east The dominant structural feature, however, is the reverse fault
system that dips at about 60° to the south-east, sub-parallel to the dominant S2 foliation and lithological boundaries,
just below the mineralised zone.
The Uranium Deposit

There are two discrete uranium orebodies at Koongarra, separated by a 100 m wide barren zone (see Figure 2). The
main (No.1) orebody has a strike length of 450 m and persists to 100 m depth. Secondary uranium mineralisation is
present in the weathered schists, from below the surficial sand cover to the base of weathering at depths varying
between 25 and 30 m (see Figure 3). This secondary mineralisation has been derived from decomposition and
leaching of the primary mineralised zone, and forms a tongue-like fan of ore-grade material dispersed down-slope
for about 80 m to the southeast. The primary uranium mineralised zone in cross-section is a series of partially
coalescing lenses, which together form an elongated wedge dipping at 55° to the southeast within the host quartz-
chlorite schist unit, sub-parallel to the reverse fault. True widths average 30 m at the top of the primary mineralised
zone but taper out at about 100 m below the surface and along strike.
Superimposed on the primary prograde metamorphic mineral assemblages of the host schist units is a distinct and
extensive primary alteration halo associated, and cogenetic, with the uranium mineralisation (see Figure 3). This
alteration extends for up to 1.5 km from the ore in a direction perpendicular to the host quartz-chlorite schist unit,
because the mineralisation is essentially stratabound. The outer zone of the alteration halo is most extensively
developed in the semi-pelitic schists, and is manifested by the pseudomorphous replacement of biotite by chlorite,
rutile and quartz, and feldspar by sericite. Silicification has also occurred in fault planes and within the Kombolgie
Formation sandstone beneath the mineralisation, particularly adjacent to the reverse fault. Association of this outer
halo alteration with the mineralisation is demonstrated by the apparent symmetrical distribution of this alteration
about the orebody. In the inner alteration zone, less than 50 m from ore; the metamorphic rock fabric is disrupted,
and quartz is replaced by pervasive chlorite and phengitic mica, and garnet by chlorite. Uranium mineralisation is
only present where this alteration has taken place.
The primary ore consists of uraninite veins and veinlets (1-10 mm thick) that cross-cut the S2 foliation of the
brecciated and hydrothermally altered quartz-chlorite schist host. Groups of uraninite veinlets are intimately
intergrown with chlorite, which forms the matrix to the host breccias. Small (10-100 µm) euhedral and subhedral
uraninite grains are finely disseminated in the chloritic alteration adjacent to veins, but these grains may coalesce to
form clusters, strings and massive uraninite. Coarse colloform and botryoidal uraninite masses and uraninite
spherules with internal lacework textures have also been noted, but the bulk of the ore appears to be of the
disseminated type, with thin (< 0.5 mm) discontinuous wisps and streaks of uraninite, and continuous strings both
parallel and discordant to the foliation (S2), and parallel to phyllosilicate (001) cleavage planes.
Associated with the ore are minor volumes (up to 5%) of sulphides, which include galena and lesser chalcopyrite,
bornite and pyrite, with rare grains of native gold, clausthalite (PbSe), gersdorffite-cobaltite (NiAsS-CoAsS) and
mackinawite (Fe, Ni)1.1S. Galena is the most abundant, commonly occurring as cubes (5-10 µµ ωιδε) disseminated
in uraninite or gangue, and as stringers and veinlets particularly filling thin fractures within uraninite. Galena may
also overgrow clausthalite, and replace pyrite and chalcopyrite. Chlorite, predominantly magnesium chlorite, is the
principal gangue, and its intimate association with the uraninite indicates that the two minerals formed together.
Oxidation and alteration of uraninite within the primary ore zone has produced a variety of secondary uranium
minerals, principally uranyl silicates.7 Uraninite veins, even veins over 1 cm wide, have been completely altered in
situ. Within the primary ore zone this in situ replacement of uraninite is most pronounced immediately above the
reverse fault breccia, and this alteration and oxidation diminish upwards stratigraphically. It is accompanied by
hematite staining of the schists, the more intense hematite alteration in and near the reverse fault breccia being due
to hematite replacement of chlorite. The secondary mineralisation of the dispersion fan in the weathered schist above
the No.1 orebody is characterised by uranyl phosphates found exclusively in the 'tail' of the fan. Away from the tail
uranium is dispersed in the weathered schists and adsorbed onto clays and iron oxides.
The 'age' of the uranium mineralisation is problematical. The mineralisation, however, must post-date both the
Kombolgie Formation sandstone and the Koongarra reverse fault, since it occupies the breccia zones generated by
the post Kombolgie reverse faulting. The pattern of alteration which is intimately associated with the ore also
crosses the reverse fault into the Kombolgie sandstone beneath the ore zone, so this again implies that the ore was
formed after the reverse fault and therefore is younger than both the Kombolgie sandstone and the reverse fault.
Because of these geological constraints, Page et al.8 suggested the mineralisation was younger than 1600-1688 Ma
because of their determination of the timing of the Kombolgie Formation deposition to that period. Sm-Nd isotopic
data obtained on Koongarra uraninites9,10 appears to narrow down the timing of mineralisation to 1550-1650 Ma. It
is unclear as to when deep groundwater circulation began to cause oxidation and alteration of the primary uraninite
ore at depth, but Airey et al.11 suggest that the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan
in the weathered schists above the No.1 orebody seems to have begun 'only' in the last 1- 3Ma.
Evidence Of An Open System

There are five main lines of independent evidence that the mineral-rock systems at Koongarra have been open to
diffusion and migration of U, Th and daughter isotopes including Pb. Such behaviour of these isotopes has crucial
implications to all attempts to 'date' the Koongarra uranium ore using the U- Th-Pb isotopic systems.
(1) Ore Textures

Mineralogical and textural studies of the ore under both optical and scanning electron microscopes12,13 indicate that
there have been as many as three remobilisations of the uranium during the history of the ore. Pb has likewise been
mobile. That is, both the primary U and Pb minerals, uraninite and galena respectively, have been dissolved and
redeposited/recrystallised, often some distance away from their original locations. This is shown diagrammatically
in Figure 4 as several generations of uraninite and galena.
Figure 4. Paragenesis diagram showing the stages of formation and development of the minerals
comprising the Koongarra uranium deposit.
Figures 5-10 illustrate examples of the ore textures under the microscopes, the accompanying descriptions indicating
how the textures have been interpreted.
Figure 5. Remobilisation and redeposition of

uraninite (white mineral). Photomicrograph
shows uraninite veins (left and right) partially
destroyed by dissolution of uranium which
has been redeposited as scattered veinlets and
shapeless masses of a new generation of
uraninite (middle). (Magnification 10X).
Figure 6. Uraninite (light grey) has been

dissolved and redeposited as thin veinlets and
shapeless masses within a chlorite (dark grey)
matrix which is also replacing the main
uraninite grain. (Magnification 120X).
Figure 7. Two generations of uraninite grains

(lighter grey), and more oxidised supergene
veins and patches (darker grey). The small
scattered white grains are galena.
(Magnification 200X).
Figure 8. Two generations of uraninite grains

(white, left of photomicrograph) and later thin
supergene encrustations (mid grey) around
quartz grains (dark grey). The very bright
mineral (right) is galena which has similarly
dissolved and redeposited. (Magnification
200X).
Figure 9. Remobilised uraninite (light grey)

deposited as scattered grains with a chlorite
(dark grey) matrix. A remobilised galena vein
(white-grey) cuts across the uraninite-chlorite
association. (Magnification 50X).
Figure 10. An enlarged view of uraninite

(dark grey) sub-grains within a larger vein.
Galena (light grey) veinlets which both cross-
cut and separate the uraninite sub-grains. The
Pb in the galena is supposed to have migrated
from the uraninite where it was supposedly
produced by radioactive decay.
(Magnification 50X).
PS 17860/1 PS 17863/4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3
UO2 89.17 89.43 89.65 89.86 90.70 91.14 91.27 91.29 92.20 89.77 88.91
PbO 7.67 7.22 6.67 6.14 5.93 5.31 4.92 4.57 5.70 5.65 4.66
CaO 1.64 1.77 1.73 1.82 1.83 1.79 1.80 2.13 0.38 0.38 0.27
SiO2 0.39 0.42 0.43 0.46 0.53 0.57 0.56 0.50 0.24 1.00 2.34
ΣFe(FeO) 0.45 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.44 0.46 0.45 0.46 l.d. 0.11 0.46
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
MnO
MgO l.d. 0.11 l.d. l.d. 0.11 0.11 l.d. 0.12 0.39 0.94 1.86
P2O5 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.23 0.18 0.23 0.30 0.13 0.17 0.13
Total 99.53 99.60 99.13 98.93 99.77 99.56 99.23 99.37 99.04 98.02 98.91
PS 17862/3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
UO2 85.58 86.35 86.45 86.96 87.26 88.04 88.48 89.63 89.81 86.64
PbO 11.29 10.69 10.25 9.86 9.24 8.48 7.93 6.73 6.27 6.79
CaO 1.68 1.51 1.56 1.58 1.64 1.74 1.86 1.83 2.09 1.81
SiO2 0.50 0.41 0.46 0.47 0.45 0.46 0.53 0.60 0.63 0.78
ΣFe(FeO) 0.56 0.48 0.52 0.49 0.50 0.46 0.45 0.47 0.58 2.09
MnO 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.36 0.30 0.35 0.29
MgO 0.24 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.15 0.15 l.d. 0.18
P2O5 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.12 0.17 0.19 1.14
Total 100.39 100.10 99.92 99.98 99.71 99.85 99.80 99.88 99.92 99.72
PS 17865/6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
UO2 85.40 85.97 86.47 86.46 87.07 87.79 88.53 89.14 89.30 90.24 90.52
PbO 12.22 11.21 10.73 10.14 9.43 8.79 8.31 7.83 7.20 6.24 5.93
CaO 1.17 1.45 1.33 1.90 1.79 1.79 1.81 1.99 2.02 2.01 1.95
SiO2 0.33 0.36 0.36 0.49 0.51 0.47 0.52 0.49 0.43 0.58 0.48
ΣFe(FeO) 0.37 0.39 0.36 0.48 0.53 0.49 0.51 0.47 0.56 0.47 0.45
MnO 0.27 0.31 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.32 0.30 0.35 0.34 0.38 0.35
MgO 0.34 0.26 0.28 0.23 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.28 0.13 0.18
P 2O 5 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.16 l.d. 0.16
Total 100.23 100.07 99.63 100.19 99.89 99.97 100.31 100.54 100.29 100.05 100.02
PS 17867/8 PS 17868/9
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6
UO2 84.81 85.13 86.24 89.03 89.54 85.12 86.77 81.34 82.41
PbO 10.49 9.11 8.30 5.19 5.14 8.34 9.36 11.46 10.29
CaO 1.37 1.89 1.86 2.70 3.15 4.68 2.17 3.77 4.06
SiO2 2.38 1.35 1.54 1.20 0.85 0.83 0.70 1.20 0.99
ΣFe(FeO) 0.33 0.44 0.34 0.43 0.52 l.d. 0.53 l.d. ll.d.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
MnO
MgO 0.54 0.17 0.20 0.10 l.d. 0.19 0.11 0.12 0.16
P2O5 l.d. l.d. 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.56 l.d. 0.43 0.50
Total 99.92 98.09 98.62 98.79 99.31 99.72 99.64 98.32 98.41
_
[ denotes not measured; l.d. denotes less than detection limits]
Table 1. Analyses of some representative Koongarra uraninites.
(2) Mineral Chemistry

Uraninite compositions in the ore are never uniform. Electron microprobe analyses of uraninite grains and veins,13
that is, micro-analyses of volumes of uraninite between 5 and 10 µm in diameter (see Table 1), reveal that uraninite
compositions, particularly U, Pb and Ca contents, vary not only from grain to grain within anyone sample regardless
of which generation of uraninite it is, but even at the microscopic level within uraninite grains themselves. Figure 11
illustrates how Pb and Ca have both substituted for U in the UO2 cubic lattice in varying amounts across the
uraninite veins and grains.
Figure 11. Compositional traverse across a uraninite grain similar to those in Figure 10.
Uranium - Lead Oxides

Curite 2PbO.5UO3.4H2O
Fourmarierite PbO.4UO3.4H2O
Vandendriesscheite PbO.7UO3.12H2O
Uranyl Silicates
Kasolite Pb(UO2)SiO4.H2O
Sklodowskite Mg(UO2)2Si2O7.6H2O
Uranophane Ca(UO2)2Si2O7.6H2O
Uranyl Phosphates
Saleeite Mg(UO2)2(PO4)2.8-10H2O
Sabugalite HAl(UO2)4(PO4)4.16H2O
Metatorbernite Cu(UO2)2(PO4)4.8H2O
Torbernite Cu(UO2)2(PO4)2.8-12H2O
Renardite Pb(UO2)4(PO4)2(OH)4.7H2O
Dewindtite Pb(UO2)2(PO4)2.3H2O
Uranyl Sulphate
Johannite Cu(UO2)4(SO4)2(OH)2.6H2O
Uranyl Vanadates
Carnotite - Tyuamunite K2(UO2)2(VO4)2.3H2O-Ca(UO2)2(VO4)2.5-8H2O
Table 2. The secondary uranium minerals at Koongarra.
(3) Supergene Alteration
As has already been briefly noted, supergene alteration (principally oxidation) of uraninite has not only occurred
where the zone of surficial weathering has intersected the top of the No.1 orebody, but at depth within the primary
ore. Uraninite grains and veins have been replaced by colourful secondary uranium minerals (see Table 2), their
occurrence and compositions depending on the chemistries of the immediate rock/mineral environments and the
circulating ground waters (see Figures 3 and 12). The net result has been the complete destruction of the uraninite in
what was the top of the No.1 orebody, with its replacement (sometimes in situ) by uranyl silicate or uranyl
phosphate minerals (usually the latter), and the dispersion of the rest of the U over distances of up to 50 m or more
down-slope by ground waters in the weathered zone. Additionally, at the same time there has been yet another
remobilisation of both U and Pb in the primary ore zones, with in situ replacement of uraninite (see Figures 13-15)
and deposition of supergene uraninite (see Figure 16) and the uranyl silicate minerals sklodowskite and uranophane
(see Figures 17 and 18) from the U in solution from circulating ground waters (see Figure 3 again).7 Electron
microprobe analyses (see Table 3) show that the U and Pb contents have decreased as uraninites were altered to
uranyl silicates, while the iron and manganese oxides lining fractures in the host rocks have absorbed the U and Pb
that had been dissolved during the oxidation of the uraninites and migrated in the circulating ground waters (see
Table 4).
Figure 12. Schematic diagram showing the paths of secondary uranium mineral from uraninite in the
Koongarra uranium deposit.
Figure 13. Kasolite (white) and uranophane

(grey) replacing a former uraninite vein. Note
that the former vein shape, even the sub-
grains, have essentially been preserved.
(SEM magnification 210X; scale bar
microns.)
Figure 14. Globular uraninite mass (black

shape just to the left of center) being altered
marginally to sklowdowskite (grey concentric
sheath). (Magnification 2X; scale bar 3 mm.)
Figure 15. Kasolite (light grey) and

sklodowskite (dark grey) replacing a former
uraninite vein. (SEM magnification 210X.)
Figure 16. Supergene colloform banded

uraninite (grey) deposited in what was
originally a void. The banding is produced by
a time sequence of uraninite deposition.
(SEM magnification 840X.)
Figure 17. A sklodowskite (white) vein

composed of radiating aggregates of needle-
shaped crystals. (SEM magnification 220X;
scale bar 50 microns.)
Figure 18. Uranophane (white) veinlets

deposited between quartz (grey) grain
boundaries. (SEM magnification 220X; scale
bar 50 microns.)
PS 17867/8: Uraninite Uranophane-Sklodowskite

1 2 3 4 5 6
UO2 84.81 85.13 86.24 76.74 69.58 66.45
PbO 10.49 9.11 8.30 8.99 1.05 0.15
CaO 1.37 1.89 1.86 2.89 4.89 3.86
SiO2 2.38 1.35 1.54 5.53 12.06 14.83
ΣFe(FeO) 0.33 0.44 0.34 0.29 0.70 l.d.
MgO 0.54 0.17 0.20 0.75 1.16 4.76
Al2O3 0.11 l.d. l.d. 0.75 l.d. 0.31
P 2O 5 l.d. l.d. 0.14 0.36 0.35 0.34
V2O3 l.d. l.d. l.d. 0.24 0.31 l.d.
Total 100.03 98.09 98.62 96.54 90.10 90.70
CAS 195: Uraninite Uranophane-Sklodowskite

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
UO2 82.18 85.49 86.22 88.27 90.53 63.74 68.76 66.50 66.44
PbO 11.55 9.34 7.93 6.39 4.65 9.83 4.48 3.55 1.60
CaO 3.08 2.80 3.15 3.13 3.06 2.34 2.98 2.77 2.86
SiO2 1.48 1.66 1.64 1.50 1.14 11.58 9.95 12.00 12.30
ΣFe(FeO) 0.80 0.40 0.88 0.39 0.41 0.87 0.20 0.23 l.d.
MgO l.d. l.d. l.d. l.d. l.d. 0.39 0.19 0.20 1.13
Al2O3 - - - - - - - - -
P2O5 l.d. 0.13 l.d. l.d. l.d. 2.38 2.15 2.86 2.11
V2O3 - - - - - - - - -
Total 99.09 99.82 99.82 99.68 99.79 91.13 88.71 88.11 86.44
[- denotes not measured; l.d. denotes less than detection limits]
Table 3. Analyses of alteration sequences of uraninites to uranyl silicates at Koongarra.
CAS 165 CAS 114/1 CAS 114/2 CAS 95/1 CAS 95/2 CAS 95/3
UO2 2.81 1.63 1.05 0.36 2.83 1.91
PbO 12.42 4.41 0.30 5.03 8.16 3.34
CaO 0.20 0.09 l.d. 0.04 0.15 0.12
SiO2 2.49 3.11 6.28 2.87 2.54 3.20
ΣFe(FeO) 5.50 8.71 81.46 0.47 11.09 58.16
MnO2 77.48 80.35 1.96 88.52 73.53 27.70
MgO 0.12 0.37 2.09 0.29 0.52 0.22
Al2O3 0.15 1.23 - 2.70 0.82 1.75
P 2O 5 0.33 l.d. - - l.d. l.d.
V2O3 l.d. - - 0.31 0.65 0.26
Total 101.50 99.90 93.14 100.59 100.29 96.66
[- denotes not measured; l.d. denotes less than detection limits]
Table 4. Analyses of iron and manganese oxides in fractures in the Koongarra primary ore.
(4) Uranium/Daughter Disequilibrium
There are two methods of measuring the grade of a uranium ore sample:-
65. by assaying for U directly using standard chemical or related techniques, and
66. by measuring the radioactivity given off by the ore sample, the quantity of such radioactivity being directly
related, and proportional, to the U content.
However, because the radioactivity measured is actually the gamma radiation given off by the daughter element
bismuth-214 (214Bi) far down the 238U decay chain, any addition or removal of daughter elements between 238U and
214
Bi will result in a discrepancy between the above two measurements of the U content of the ore sample. To assess
this possibility the two measurements are compared:-
Three possibilities arise:-

13. Ratio = 1. The ore sample is said to be in equilibrium since the two measurements agree, implying that the
U and its daughter elements are in equilibrium; neither have apparently migrated.
14. Ratio > 1. The ore sample is said to be in disequilibrium, and since the U content is greater than the
daughter element content either U has been added to the sample or daughter elements removed.
15. Ratio < 1. Again the ore sample is aid to be in disequilibrium, but now the U content is less than the
daughter element content implying either U removal or daughter element addition to the sample.
No. of Average U3O8 Average
No. Group Description σa
Samples (%) Ratio
No. 1 Orebody
0.16
1 Weathered zone 13 0.275 0.914
0
0.15
2 Host wall rocks 19 0.025 0.792
1
0.06
3 Massive ore 11 8.074 0.959
9
Intermediate between No. 1 and 2 0.13
4 2 0.171 0.971
orebodies 2
No. 2 Orebody
0.10
5 Massive ore 9 1.608 0.925
2
0.12
Total number of samples 54 Mean = 0.884
7
a
Standard deviations of average ratio
Table 5. Summary of disequilibrium patterns in the Koongarra orebodies.
Measurements on ore samples from Koongarra indicate that the ore is in overall disequilibrium (Table 5 and Figure
19).14 High resolution gamma-ray spectroscopy was then used to determine which daughter elements of 238U have
been mobilised.15 These investigations showed that even though the high grade uraninite (massive) ore is near
equilibrium, radium-226 (226Ra) and radon-222 (222Rn), and the immediate host rocks being relatively enriched in U,
having been precipitated from the circulating groundwaters that had dissolved it from the orebody. Figure 20
schematically illustrates these movements of isotopes caused by the present day circulation of groundwaters.
Figure 19. Frequency histogram of disequilibrium ratios measured on

Koongarra ore and host rock samples.
Figure 20. Uranium (U) and (Ra) migration and precipitation (ppt) caused by
present-day groundwater circulation and chemistry.
(5) Groundwater and Soil Geochemistry
Because of the tropical, monsoonal climate, the ground waters in the Koongarra area are fast moving, annually
recharged and low in salinity, the water table rising and falling by as much as 10 m between the wet and the dry
seasons. However, U is dissolved by the ground waters from the mineralised aquifer rocks, the level of dissolved U
depending on the prevailing pH, Eh, salinity and degree of adsorption. A survey of the chemistry of the ground
waters in open drill holes in and near the Koongarra orebodies revealed that a hydrogeochemical halo exists in and
around the ore zones reflecting the alteration chemistry of the host rocks and ore, with U levels up to 4100 µg/l.16
Such measurements confirm the other observations already cited that indicate U is being dissolved from the ore
minerals by present day circulating ground waters, dispersed and partly redeposited. Furthermore, the ground waters
are also dispersing U- Th decay products such as helium (He) from the ore zone, with measured levels up to 14.2
µl/l.17
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the soils overlying the ore zones and the immediate areas of host rocks carry
anomalous U concentrations compared to background levels.18 That the ground waters have been responsible for
dispersing U ( and Pb) into the surrounding soils is also clearly demonstrated by analyses down through the soil
profile. Furthermore, Dickson et al.19,20 found the Pb isotopic signature of the U ore in the soils above the No.2
orebody, which is concealed by about 40 m of barren overburden, and in the soils to the south of the No.1 orebody
within the hydrogeochemical halo.
Concentration (Wt%) Atomic Ratios Ages Lead Isotope Ratios

Sample %T t
%U %Pb 206 m.y. t207 m.y.
No. h
62.3 0.14
J804/1 8.07 0.30 1.312 0.0673 861 862 864 21330 1450 7.10
8 2
38.2 0.12
J804/b 4.45 0.28 1.264 0.0727 774 841 1025 9875 731.9 34.84
1 6
55.0 0.07
J801 3.64 0.34 0.810 0.0826 447 610 1282 16870 1408 54.20
7 1
44.0 0.13
J807 5.35 0.33 1.259 0.0703 796 838 954 12920 921.9 35.49
8 0
52.6 0.11
J809 5.45 0.39 1.061 0.0679 699 744 882 105800 7200 62.64
1 4
Common lead correction
Mt Isa lead 16.11 15.61 36.72
Table 6. U-Th-Pb concentrations and isotopic compositions of Koongarra uraninites.
Sample No.
J801 10290 1016 55.81
J803 41240 3258 143.9
J804 11530 883 8.539
J809 10540 1261 47.41
J820 4824 709.2 35.15
J821 3399 461.0 43.24
Table 7. Isotopic compositions of Koongarra galenas.
'Dating' of the Primary Ore
Hills and Richards21,22 isotipically analysed individual grains of uraninite and galena that had been hand-picked from
drill core (see Table 6 and 7). Only one of the five uraninite samples gave a near-concordant 'age' of 862 Ma, that is,
the sample plotted almost on the standard concordia curve, and Hills and Richards22 interpreted this as recording
fresh formation of Pb-free uraninite at 870 Ma (see Figure 21). The other four uraninite samples all lay well below
concordia and did not conform to any regular linear array. Hills and Richards were left with two possible
interpretations. On the one hand, preferential loss of the intermediate daughter products of 238U (that is, escape of
radon, a gas) would cause vertical displacement of points below an episodic-loss line, but this would only produce a
significant Pb isotopic effect if the loss had persisted for a very long proportion of the life of the uraninite (which is
incidentally not only feasible but likely). Alternatively, they suggested that contamination by small amounts of an
older (pre-900 Ma) Pb could cause such a pattern as on their concordia plot, to which they added mixing lines that
they postulated arose from the restoration to each uraninite sample of the galena which separated from it (see Figure
21 again).
Figure 21. Conventional 206Pb/238U concordia diagram of uraninites from Koongarra. The
insert shows the hypothetical directional shift in uraninite data points supposedly explained
by contamination from associated galena.
This of course assumes that the Pb in the galenas was also derived predominantly from U decay. They plotted their
Pb ratios in all their uraninite samples on a standard 207Pb/206Pb diagram, and contended that the pattern of data
points did not conform to a simple age interpretation (see Figure 22). Instead, they contended that the scatter of
points could be contained between two lines radiating from the diagram's origin, lines that essentially represented
isochrons for uraninites and galenas from the Ranger and Nabarlek uranium deposits, similar orebodies in the same
geological region. From the positions of the Koongarra uraninites and galenas on these diagrams they claimed that
the galenas contained left-over radiogenic Pb from earlier uraninites as old as 1700-1800 Ma (the 'age' of the Ranger
uranium mineralisation), these earlier uraninites being obliterated by the U having remobilised at 870 Ma, the 'age'
of the lone Pb-free uraninite sample.
Figure 22. Conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb plots of galenas and uraninites from
Koongarra. Limiting fields of anomalous-lead lines corresponding to 'ages' of 1800 Ma and
860 Ma.
In a separate study Carr and Dean23 isotopically analysed unweathered whole- rock samples from the Koongarra
primary ore zone (see Table 8). These were samples of drill core that had been crushed. Their isotopic data on four
samples were plotted on a U-Pb isochron diagram and indicated a non-systematic relationship between the 238U
parent and the 206Pb daughter. In other words, the quantities of 206Pb could not simply be accounted for by
radioactive decay of 238U, implying open system behaviour. They also plotted their four results on a standard
207
Pb/206Pb isochron diagram (see Figure 23) and found that these samples fell on a poorly defined linear array
whose apparent age they did not quantify.
Figure 23. Conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb plot of the weathered

and unweathered whole-rock samples from Koongarra. The weathered
and unweathered samples fall on separate 'isochrons'.
Sample Pb (ppm) U (ppm)

Primary Ore
1 0.0233 0.0752 2438.350 183.370 56.708 80 590.0
2 0.0682 0.0908 1162.990 105.594 79.351 168.0
3 0.0110 0.0692 6845.720 473.718 75.415 112 154.0
4 0.0346 0.0649 5719.990 371.474 198.191 19 17.0
Weathered Zone Ore
5 0.1785 0.1192 387.664 46.210 69.205 5 413.0
6 0.3804 0.2028 124.773 25.310 47.465 5 861.0
7 0.5029 0.2790 72.814 20.315 36.616 50
8 0.9277 0.4118 44.155 18.184 40.964 10
9 0.1608 0.1403 248.526 34.859 39.963 30
10 0.1650 0.1420 241.053 34.225 39.772 30
11 1.0477 0.3534 55.190 19.502 57.822 3
12 0.1213 0.1252 363.622 45.537 44.119 58
13 0.1233 0.1250 357.688 44.709 44.106 10
Table 8. Results of Pb isotopic, U concentration and Pb concentration analyses for Koongarra whole-rock samples.
'Dating' of Weathered Rocks and Soils
Carr and Dean23 also isotopically analysed a further nine whole-rock samples from the weathered schist zone at
Koongarra (see Table 8). Some of these samples were again crushed drill core, but the majority were crushed
percussion drill chips. When their isotopic data were plotted on a U-Pb isochron diagram, six of the nine samples
plotted close to the reference 1000 Ma isochron, while the other three were widely scattered (see Figure 24).
However, on the 207Pb/206Pb diagram all nine weathered rock samples plotted on a linear array which gave an
apparent isochron 'age' of 127050Ma (see Figures 23 and 25).
Figure 24. A U-Pb (238U/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb) isochron diagram with the
weathered whole-rock samples plotted on it. Most fall on the 1000 Ma
reference isochron, while the 10 Ma reference isochron is also drawn in as
a guide to the two outliers.
Figure 25. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb isochron diagram

showing all the weathered whole-rock samples plotted as a linear array
which gives an apparent isochron 'age' of 127050Ma. (This diagram is an
expansion of the lower left hand corner of Figure 23.)
In unrelated investigations, Dickson et al.19,20 collected soil samples from above the mineralisation at Koongarra and
from surrounding areas, and these were analysed for Pb isotopes to see if there was any Pb isotopic dispersion halo
around the mineralisation sufficiently large enough to warrant the use of Pb isotopic analyses of soils as an
exploration technique to find new uranium orebodies. The technique did in fact work, Pb isotopic traces of the
deeply buried No.2 orebody mineralisation being found in the soils above, as mentioned earlier. This mineralisation,
40 m below the surface, is blind to other detection techniques.
Dickson et al.20 found that all 113 soil samples from their two studies were highly correlated (r = 0.99986) on a
standard 207Pb/206Pb diagram, yielding an apparent (false) isochron representing an 'age' of 144520 Ma for the
samples (see Figure 26). However, most of the soil samples consisted of detritus eroded from the Middle Proterozoic
Kombolgie sandstone, so because the samples from near the mineralisation gave a radiogenic Pb signature Dickson
et al. interpreted the false 'isochron' as being due to mixing of radiogenic Pb from the uranium mineralisation with
the 'common' Pb from the sandstone.
Figure 26. Plot of 207Pb/206Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb for all 113 soil samples from
the Koongarra area analysed by Dickson et al., indicating the high
correlation of r = 0.99986 between the two variables with a fitted
regression line yielding an apparent isochron 'age' of 144520 Ma. The
insert shows the distribution of samples about a threshold dividing
radiogenic Pb and country rock Pb along this proposed mixing line.
Discussion
Primary Ore Samples
Snelling24 has already highlighted a telling omission by Hills and Richards.22 Having included all the Pb isotopic
ratios they had obtained on their five uraninite samples, they tabulated also the derived 'ages', except for those
obtainable from 208Pb (see Table 6 again). Since their data table lists the necessary ingredients for 208Pb 'age'
calculations - %Th, 208Pb proportion, and 208Pb/207Pb and 208Pb/204Pb ratios - their omission of the 208Pb 'ages' is both
conspicuous and significant. These Th-derived 'dates' should normally be regarded as the most reliable, since Th is
less mobile in geochemical environments and therefore open system behaviour is less likely than for U.
The 204Pb content of the uraninite is regarded as 'common' or original Pb since it is not derived from any parent
element via radioactive decay. Because this so-called 'common' Pb is also believed to carry a significant quantity of
the 206Pb, 207Pb and 208Pb isotopes, a 'common' Pb correction has to be applied to the raw data before calculation of
the U- Th-Pb 'ages'. This, of course, is an admission that not all the quantities of these Pb isotopes are derived by
radioactive decay, some being with the U and Th 'in the beginning'. The standard used to correct the data in Table 6
was the Mt Isa Pb standard with an isotopic composition:-
1.44% 204Pb 23.20% 206Pb
22.48% 207Pb 52.88% 208Pb
It should be noted in passing also that the choice of this standard is based on one of several theories of element
nucleogenesis and Pb isotopic evolution,25,26 making the whole 'age' calculation procedure rather subjective, based
on further assumptions.
When this 'common' Pb correction is applied to the data in Table 6,27 most of the 208Pb has resulted from 'common'
Pb contamination. In fact, in samples J804/1, J804/b and J807 all the 208Pb is due to contamination and none to 232Th
decay, thus resulting in 208Pb 'ages' of 0 Ma (within the experimental/analytical errors) for these samples. The
remaining two samples yield 208Pb 'ages'27 of 275 Ma (J801) and 61 Ma (J809), both considerably less than all other
Pb 'ages'. Since they are as valid as any of the other resultant 'ages' calculated, these 232Th/208Pb 'ages' should have
been at least reported (one suspects they were left out of the tabulated results because of the uncomfortable
implications). After all, the 232Th/208Pb 'age' of 0 Ma is the only Pb isotopic 'date' from that study supported directly
by a majority of samples (three out of the five), and Th-derived , dates' should be reliable as the 232Th decay chain is
a standard isotopic 'clock', but a 0 Ma 'age' makes little more sense than their 870 Ma 'age' from the U- Pb data. In
any case, Hills and Richards' 'age' of 1700-1800 Ma for the first generation of U mineralisation at Koongarra neither
fits the geological criteria for an expected 1550-1600 Ma 'age', nor does their 870 Ma 'date' correlate with any
geological event capable of remobilising U and Pb to produce the presumed second generation of U mineralisation.
Using the procedure of Ludwig,28 standard 207Pb/206Pb diagrams were prepared for the uraninite, galena and whole-
rock data sets, and combinations thereof, to check the regression statistics and possible derived 'isochrons' using the
standard York29 method. In each case the mean square of weighted deviates (MSWD), which tests the 'goodness of
fit' of data to a line, is large to extremely large, which reflects in the derived isochron 'ages' of 841140 Ma
(uraninites), 1008420 Ma (galenas), 668330 Ma (whole-rocks), 818150 Ma (uraninites plus galenas) and 863130 Ma
(all three data sets combined), all 'ages' being within the 95% confidence limits (see Figures 27-31). It is perhaps
fortuitously significant that the combination of all three data sets yields an isochron 'age' of 863130 Ma, almost
identical to Hills and Richards' near-concordant 'age' of 862 Ma, although this was using a line-fitting routine of
Ludwig28 that assigns equal weights and zero error-correlations to each data point to avoid the mistake of weighting
the points according to analytical errors when it is clear that some other cause of scatter is involved, which is clearly
the case here. The normal York29 algorithm assumes that the only cause for scatter from a straight line are the
assigned errors, and for the combined data set here the amount of scatter calculated thereby yields an astronomical
MSWD of 669000 and a bad line of fit that yields an isochron 'age' of 1632410 Ma (see Figure 32). This 'result' may
make more geological sense, but the regression statistics are such that derivation of any 'age' information from these
data is totally unjustified, even though it can be rightfully argued that these samples form a cogenetic set (they are
all samples of U ore or its components from the same primary ore zone at Koongarra).
Figure 27. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with all

Koongarra uraninites plotted on it using Ludwig's ISOPLOT program and
defining an apparent isochron with a model 2 'age' of 841 140 Ma.

Koongarra galenas plotted on it using Ludwig's ISOPLOT program and
defining an apparent isochron with a model 2 'age' of 1008 420 Ma.
Figure 29. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with all the
unweathered whole-rock samples from Koongarra plotted on it using
Ludwig's ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent isochron with a
model 1 'age' of 668 330 Ma.
Figure 30. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with both

Koongarra uraninites and galenas plotted on it using Ludwig's ISOPLOT
program and defining an apparent isochron with a model 2 'age' of 818
150 Ma.

Koongarra uraninites, galenas and unweathered whole-rock samples
plotted on it using Ludwig's ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent
isochron with a model 2 'age' of 863 130 Ma.

Koongarra uraninites, galenas and unweathered whole-rock samples
plotted on it using Ludwig's ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent
isochron with a model 1 'age' of 1632 410 Ma.
It is not uncommon to find that 'ages' derived from standard 207Pb/206Pb plots are erroneous, even though the data fit
well-defined linear arrays ('isochrons'). Ludwig et al.30 found that this was due to migration of both Pb and
radioactive daughters of 238U yielding a 207Pb/206Pb 'isochron' giving 'superficially attractive results which would
nonetheless be seriously misleading' because the derived 'age' (in their example) was more than six times higher than
the U-Pb isochron 'age'. Similarly, Cunningham et al.31 obtained 207Pb/206Pb isochron 'ages' up to 50 times higher
than those derived from 'more reliable' U-Pb isochrons for whole-rock U ore samples, even though 'the apparent
slight degree of scatter is almost entirely a misleading artifact'. Likewise, at Jabiluka, an almost identical style of
uranium deposit in the identical geological setting only about 60 km due north of Koongarra, Gulson and Mizon32
had considerable difficulty obtaining Pb-Pb and U-Pb isochron 'ages' for the U mineralisation due to 238U daughter
leakage and diffusion out of the U minerals and ore into the surrounding host rocks and constituent minerals, that
therefore had gained excess radium (Ra) and 206Pb. Ironically, at Koongarra the U-Pb isochron using Ludwig28 on
Hills and Richards' uraninite data yields an 'age' of 857149 Ma (with an MSWD of 13400, tolerably large compared
to that obtained with the Pb-Pb isochron) (see Figure 33), almost identical to the 'fortuitous' Pb-Pb isochron 'age'
obtained using Ludwig's modified algorithm on the combined three data sets (863130 Ma), as well as Hills and
Richards' single near-concordant 862 Ma 'age'.
Figure 33. A conventional 206Pb/238U vs. 207Pb/235U concordia diagram

with all the Koongarra uraninites plotted on it using Ludwig's ISOPLOT
program and defining an apparent isochron that intersects concordia at
857 149 Ma.
As has already been described, Snelling and Dickson14 have demonstrated that there is significant uranium/daughter
disequilibrium in the primary ore and surrounding host rocks at Koongarra due to the redistribution of both U and its
Ra decay product, just as Gulson and Mizon found at Jabiluka. That Ra mobility at depth in the primary ore zone is
currently more significant than U migration has been confirmed by Dickson and Snelling,15 which of course results
ultimately in the redistribution of 206Pb, the end-member of the whole 238U decay chain. Dickson et al.33 have
demonstrated that Ra is transported through the unweathered rocks in this area in the ground waters, while Davy et
al.34 have determined the emanation rate of radon (Rn) gas from the Koongarra No.1 orebody, an ever present
hazard in uranium ore mining operations. The Rn gas is known to migrate along fractures and rise through the
ground over considerable distances to form a halo in the air above, while Rn is also transported in ground waters.
Thus it is to be expected that the pattern of oxidation of uraninites and dispersion of U should reflect the present-day
circulation of ground waters7 and that present-day ground waters should be carrying U and He.16,17 Such
groundwater dispersion of U and mobility of Ra has, of course, resulted in U and Pb dispersion into the surrounding
soils,18 where the Pb isotopic signature of the U ore is clearly evident.19,20
These observations alone demonstrate the open system behaviour of the U- Th-Pb system that renders meaningless
any 'age' information derived. However, both Hills12 and Snelling13 have recognised that U and Pb also have
migrated several times and on a considerable scale in the primary ore zone, with the latest redistribution having
produced supergene uraninites, often with colloform banding, found as fracture and cavity infillings (see Figure 16
again), and between quartz and gangue grain boundaries. The unit cell dimensions of these uraninites, plus this
textural evidence, supports the conclusion that these uraninites have precipitated after dissolution of earlier formed
uraninite and transportation in low-temperature ground waters. With such wholesale repeated migrations of U also,
all attempts at 'dating' must be rendered useless, especially when whole-rock samples, in which different generations
of uraninites are lumped together, are used. Indeed, it must surely be virtually impossible to be certain of the precise
status and history of any particular piece of uraninite selected for 'dating'. Even though every conceivable precaution
is taken when selecting grains for 'dating', how can we be sure that the U and Pb isotopes and isotopic ratios
measured represent the 'original', unaffected by the gross element movements for which there is such abundant
evidence? The uraninite grains or ore samples 'dated' always contain radiogenic Pb both within crystal lattices of
minerals, and as microscopic inclusions or grains and veins of galena, but how can we be sure all the Pb was
generated by radioactive decay from U in situ? In any case, the uraninite grains and veins do not have uniform
compositions - either between or within grains - so that 'dating' of sub-sections of any grain or vein would be
expected to yield widely divergent U-Pb and Pb-Pb ratios and therefore 'ages' even within that single grain or vein.
Thus it is logical to conclude, as others have already,35-37 that U- Th-Pb ratios may have little to do with the 'ages' of
many minerals, rocks and ores.
Weathered Rocks and Soils

In contrast to the poor-fitting linear arrays produced from the Pb-Pb data of minerals and whole-rocks from the
primary ore zone, that all appear to give an apparent (false) isochron 'age' grouped around 857-863 Ma, both Carr
and Dean23 and Dickson et al.20 found that weathered schist whole-rock and soil samples produced good fitting
linear arrays that would normally represent 'isochrons' that yield 'ages' of 1270 Ma and 1445 Ma respectively (see
Figures 25 and 26 again). The weathered whole-rock samples all of course come from Koongarra itself, and consist
of secondary ore samples from the weathered schist zone, plus weathered schist samples that contain U dispersed
down-slope by ground waters moving through the weathered rock. Because these whole-rock samples come from a
volume of rock through which U is known to be migrating, leading to redistribution not only of U but of its decay
products, it is therefore very surprising to find that these whole-rock samples define a good enough linear array to
yield an 'isochron'. Even the observed scatter calculated using Ludwig28 is much less than that associated with fitting
an 'isochron' to the 207Pb-206Pb data from the primary ore zone samples, which is again surprising given U migration
in the weathered zone, the data from which one would expect to show considerable scatter and thus no 'age'
consensus. Furthermore, it is baffling as to why the 'isochron'-derived 'age' (1270 Ma) of the weathered secondary
ore zone should be so much 'older' than the 'isochron'-derived 'age' (857-863 Ma) of the primary ore, which of
course is ultimately the source through weathering and groundwater transport of the U, decay products and the
stable Pb isotopes that are in the secondary and dispersed ore. Perhaps the only explanation is that the 'isochron'
represents the mixing of radiogenic Pb from the mineralisation with the 'common' or background Pb in the
surrounding schists, which are even in a relative sense older than the U mineralisation.
The idea of such an 'isochron' being a mixing line was suggested by Dickson et al.20 They were, however, dealing
with the Pb isotopic data obtained from soil samples collected from depths of only about 30-40 cm, the majority of
which represented sandy soils consisting of detritus eroded from the Kombolgie sandstone. For this mixing
explanation to be feasible there should be some other evidence of mobilisation of Pb in the area. Dickson et al.
found that not only were there high 206Pb/204Pb ratios in three of their soil samples from the near-surface (0-1 m)
zone south of the No.1 orebody in the hydrogeochemical halo, but there was a lack of any other U-series daughter
products in the same samples. This near-surface zone is inundated for approximately six months of the year as a
result of the high monsoonal rainfall in this tropical area. Towards the end of the ensuing six-month dry season the
water table has been known to drop in some cases more than ten metres from its wet season 'high'. This means that
the top of the weathered schist zone is regularly fluctuating between wet and dry conditions, so that any trace
elements such as Pb leached from the weathered ore and transported by ground water in the weathered schist zone
would also be dispersed vertically up into the thin surficial sand cover on top of the weathered schist - the sandy
soils that were sampled by Dickson et al.19,20 Snelling18 found that Pb was a significant pathfinder element for
uranium ore in the Koongarra environment, anomalous Pb being present in the surficial sand cover above the zone
of weathered primary ore, and that there was even hydrodynamic dispersal of Pb at a depth of 0.5-1.5 m. Dickson et
al.19 found a similarity between the isotopic ratios for Pb extracted from their soil samples by either a mild HCI-
hydroxylamine (pH 1) or a strong 7M HCI- 7M HNO3 leach, which indicates that Pb is loosely attached to sand
grain surfaces in the samples rather than tightly bound in silicate or resistate mineral lattices. This in turn suggests
Pb is adsorbed from ground waters, meaning that radiogenic Pb is being added to the 'common' or background Pb in
the sand by both vertical and lateral groundwater dispersion.
However, not all of Dickson et al.'s soil samples came from the area immediate to the Koongarra orebodies, nor
were they all samples of Kombolgie sandstone detritus. That this mixing line explanation for the apparent 'isochron'
is clearly demonstrated for these samples from the immediate Koongarra area is not in question, although it is
somewhat surprising that these soil samples should give an apparent isochron 'age' (1445 Ma) somewhat older than
that obtained from the weathered schist samples beneath (1270 Ma). Indeed, the 'common' or background Pb in the
respective samples should reflect an 'older' apparent age in the schists compared to the sandstone, due to their
relative ages based on the geological relationship between them. (Remember, the schists are supposed to be the
product of regional metamorphism at 1800-1870 Ma, while the Kombolgie sandstone is regarded as having been
deposited around 1600- 1680 Ma.) However, the apparent ages are the other way around, the sandy soils from the
Kombolgie sandstone detritus yielding an 'older' apparent age (1445 Ma) compared to that yielded by the weathered
schists (1270 Ma). Perhaps this difference is a reflection of the extent of mixing in each type of sample at their
respective levels in the weathering profile. Nevertheless, what is astounding is that Dickson et al.20 found that even
though several of their soil samples consisted of weathered schist or basement granite (containing accessory zircon)
up to 17km from the known U mineralisation, they still plotted on the same apparent 'isochron'. Indeed, the 'fit' is
comparatively good (see Figure 34), as indicated by the MSWD of only 964 using Ludwig,28 yet much of this
observed scatter can be attributed to two samples out of the 113, one of which was subsequently found to be
probably contaminated by cuttings from an adjacent drill hole.19 If that sample is removed from the regression
analysis the MSWD drops to 505, indicating that almost half of the observed scatter is due to that one data point
alone. If the data point that is the next worst for fitting to the apparent 'isochron' is removed, then the MSWD drops
by a further 315 to a mere 190. Yet in both cases the apparent 'isochron' or 'mixing line' still has lying on or close to
it the samples from up to 17 km away from the known U mineralisation and the samples that are not Kombolgie
sandstone detritus. The final 'isochron' fitted to the remaining 111 samples still yields an 'age' of 142018 Ma (see
Figure 34 again).

Koongarra area soil samples plotted on it using Ludwig's ISOPLOT
program and defining an apparent isochron with a model 1 'age' of 1428
33 Ma for all 113 samples and 1420 18 Ma for 111 samples (2 outliers
removed).
While Carr and Dean's nine weathered schist whole- rock samples are not strictly cogenetic with Dickson et al.'s 113
soil samples, the two sample sets are obviously related because the source of the radiogenic Pb in the majority of the
soil samples from the immediate Koongarra area is the same as that in the weathered schists. Not surprisingly, when
the regression analysis was performed on Carr and Dean 's nine weathered schist whole-rock samples using
Ludwig,28 the MSWD for the observed scatter was 24100, indicating a poor fit to an 'isochron' which yielded an 'age'
of 1287120 Ma (see Figure 35). Yet when these nine samples were added to the 113 soil samples the MSWD
dropped substantially to 1210, and not surprisingly the fitted 'isochron' yielded an 'age' of 134627 Ma, an 'isochron
age' intermediate between those of the two data sets being combined (see Figure 36). However, when the two soil
samples responsible for the majority of the scatter in that data set were removed the MSWD dropped to 430 and
yielded an 'isochron age' of 133617 Ma (see Figure 36 again).
Figure 35. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with the

weathered whole-rock samples from Koongarra plotted on it using
model 1 'age' of 1287 120 Ma.

Koongarra area weathered whole-rock and soil samples plotted on it using
model 1 'age' of 1346 27 Ma for all 122 samples and 1336 17 Ma for 120
samples (2 outliers removed).
General Comments
As with all the other apparent isochron 'ages', these results from the weathered rocks and soils have no apparent
geological meaning, because there is no geological event to which these 'ages' might correlate. Indeed, even in the
evolutionary time-frame the weathering of the Koongarra U mineralisation is extremely recent, and in any case,
these 'ages' derived from Pb-Pb 'isochrons' from the weathered rock and soil samples are much 'older' than the
supposedly more reliable U-Pb 'isochron age' of the Koongarra primary ore. But since that latter result has no
apparent geological meaning, because it also cannot be correlated with any known geological event, nothing then is
certain at all from any of these U-Th-Pb isotopic studies of the Koongarra ores, rocks and surrounding soils. Indeed,
it is just as certain that the primary ore is 0 Ma, based on three 232Th/208Pb single sample ages, as is the claim that
one near-concordant result means that there was formation of Pb-free uraninite at 870 Ma. After all, this postulated
formation of Pb-free uraninite is supposed to have occurred in an environment where there was Pb left over from an
earlier 1700-1800 Ma original U mineralisation for which we no longer have any evidence, textural or otherwise,
apart from a rather tenuous interpretation of Pb isotopic evidence that has otherwise shown itself to be devoid of any
capability of providing any 'age' information.
All these results raise serious fundamental questions about the claimed validity of the U-Th-Pb 'dating' method. It
may seem reasonable to regard an apparent 'isochron' as a 'mixing line' within the restricted area close to the known
source of radiogenic Pb, which can be shown by independent evidence to be migrating into rocks and soils that
contain 'common' or background Pb in the immediate environs. However, it strains all credulity to suggest that a
false 'isochron' through a data set derived from samples representing a variety of rock types, of significantly
different evolutionary 'ages', over an area of up to 17 km lateral extent from the known radiogenic Pb source, can
still represent mixing! One can only conclude that all assumptions used to derive the estimates of 'common' or
background Pb, including models for the supposed evolution of the stable Pb isotopes through earth history, from
their presumed commencement on the protoearth with its claimed original Pb isotope content some 4.6 billion or so
years ago, cannot be valid. Equally, we cannot be sure what the U-Th-Pb system's isotopic ratios really mean,
because the basic assumptions that are foundational to the interpretation of these isotopic ratios are fatally flawed.
Not only has open system behaviour of these isotopes been demonstrated as the norm, but even where there is an
apparent 'isochron' with an excellent 'goodness of fit' the derived 'age' is invariably geologically meaningless.
Thus creationists need not be hindered in building their Creation-Flood young-earth model for the geological record
by the many claims in the open geological literature that U-Th-Pb radiometric 'dating' has 'proved' the presumed
great antiquity of the earth, and the strata and fossils of the so-called geological column. Accordingly, all the
apparent isochron and other 'ages' that have been referred to here have been quoted as millions of years (Ma) purely
in order to reveal the shortcomings of the U-Th-Pb 'dating' method. Indeed, even the use of conventional geological
era terms such as 'Archaean' and 'Lower Proterozoic' has been for convenient reference to the rock units under
discussion, there being no absolute 'age' significance attached to these terms here - only a relative position within the
overall rock record. There is clearly a real sequence of rock units that comprise the total geological record, from the
so-called Archaean to the Recent, the formation of which needs to be understood and coherently modelled within the
biblical framework of a recent Creation and global Flood. Much progress towards this goal has been, and is being,
made within the relatively small creationist geological community. Thus the mounting evidence that the claimed
'absolute dating' methods, such as U- Th-Pb radiometrics, are unreliable at best, and in reality produce many results
that are impressive but geologically meaningless, can only assist in this quest.
Conclusions
The concerns raised by Zheng1 regarding U-Pb isochrons are warranted. At Koongarra a 207Pb/206Pb 'isochron'
produced from 11 hand-picked uraninite and galena grains, plus four whole-rock samples, yields an 'age' of 863 Ma,
the same as a near-concordant 'age' of 862 Ma from one of the uraninite grains. Nine weathered whole-rock samples
yield an 'isochron age' of 1270 Ma, while 113 soil samples produce an excellent 'isochron' with an 'age' of 1445 Ma.
All of these 'ages' are geologically meaningless. While the apparent isochron produced by the soil samples may be
identified as a mixing line, produced by the mixing of radiogenic Pb with 'common' or background Pb in the
surrounding rocks and soils, even this explanation strains credulity because the samples come from up to 17 km
away from known U mineralisation, and a few of the soil samples represent different rock types. Not only then has
open system behaviour of these isotopes been demonstrated, as confirmed by the independent evidence of ore
textures, mineral chemistry, supergene alteration, uranium/daughter disequilibrium, and groundwater and soil
geochemistry, but apparent 'isochrons' and their derived 'ages' are invariably geologically meaningless. Thus none of
the assumptions used to interpret the U- Th-Pb isotopic system to yield 'ages' can be valid. If these assumptions were
valid, then the 232Th/208Pb 'age' of 0 Ma for three of the five uraninite samples should be taken seriously. Creationists
should therefore not be intimidated by claims that U-Th-Pb radiometric 'dating' has 'proved' the presumed great
antiquity of the earth, and the strata and fossils of the so-called geological column.
References
4. Zhengh, Y. F., 1989. Influences of the nature of the initial Rb-Sr system on isochron validity. Chemical
Geology, 80:1-16 (p. 14).
5. Needham, R. S. and Stuart-Smith, P. G., 1980. Geology of the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field. In: Uranium
in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, J. Ferguson and A. B. Goleby (eds), International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, pp. 233-257.
6. Needham, R. S., 1984. Alligator River, Northern Territory -1:250,000 Geological Series. Bureau of
Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics Australia, Explanatory Notes, SD 53-1.
7. Needham, R. S., 1988. Geology of the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, Northern Territory. Bureau of
Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics Australia, Bulletin 224, Canberra, Australia.
8. Snelling, A. A., 1990. Koongarra uranium deposits. In: Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and
Papua New Guinea, F. E. Hughes (ed.), The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne,
Australia, pp. 807-812.
9. Johnston, J. D., 1984. Structural Evolution of the Pine Creek Inlier and Mineralisation Therein, Northern
Territory, Australia, Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
10. Snelling, A. A., 1980. Uraninite and its alteration products, Koongarra uranium deposit. In: Uranium in the
Pine Creek Geosyncline, J. Ferguson and A. B., Goleby (eds), International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, pp. 487-498.
11. Page, R. W., Compston, W. and Needham, R. S., 1980. Geochronology and evolution of the Late-Archaean
basement and Proterozoic rocks in the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, Northern Territory, Australia. In:
Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, J. Ferguson and A. B. Goleby (eds), International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna, pp. 39-68.
12. Maas, R., 1987. The Application of Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr Isotope Systematics to Ore Deposits, Ph.D. thesis
(unpublished), The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
13. Maas, R., 1989. Nd-Sr isotope constraints on the age and origin of unconfomlity-type uranium deposits in
the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, Northern Territory, Australia. Economic Geology, 84:64-90.
14. Airey, P. L., Golian, C. and Lever, D. A., 1986. An approach to the mathematical modelling of the uranium
series redistribution within ore bodies. Topical Report AAEC/C49, Australian Atomic Energy Commission,
Sydney.
15. Rills, J. H., 1973. Lead Isotopes and the Regional Geochemistry of North Australian Uranium Deposits,
Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
16. Snelling, A. A., 1980. A Geochemical Study of the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, Northern Territory,
Australia, Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
17. Snelling, A. A. and Dickson, B. L., 1979. Uranium/daughter equilibrium in the Koongarra uranium deposit,
Australia. Mineralium Deposita, 14:109-118.
18. Dickson, B. L. and Snelling, A. A., 1980. Movements of uranium and daughter isotopes in the Koongarra
uranium deposit. In: Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, J. Ferguson and A. B. Goleby (eds ),
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 499-507.
19. Giblin, A. M. and Snelling, A. A., 1983. Application of hydrogeochemistry to uranium exploration in the
Pine Creek Geosyncline, Northern Territory, Australia. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 19:33-55.
20. Gole, M. J., Butt, C. R. M.and Snelling, A. A., 1986. A groundwater helium survey of the Koongarra
uranium deposits, Pine Creek Geosyncline, Northern Territory. Uranium, 2:343-360.
21. Snelling, A. A., 1984. A soil geochemistry orientation survey for uranium at Koongarra, Northern
Territory. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 22:83-99.
22. Dickson, B. L., Gulson, B. L. and Snelling, A. A., 1985. Evaluation of lead isotopic method: for uranium
exploration, Koongarra area, Northern Territory, Australia. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 24:81-
102.
23. Dickson, B. L., Gulson, B. L. and Snelling, A. A., 1987. Further assessment of stable lead isotope
measurements for uranium exploration, Pine Creek Geosyncline, Northern Territory, Australia. Journal of
Geochemical Exploration, 27:63-75.
24. Hills, J. H. and Richards, J. R., 1972. The age of uranium mineralization in Northern Australia. Search,
3:382-385.
25. Hills, J. H. and Richards, J. R., 1976 Pitchblende and galena ages in the Alligator Rivers Region, Northern
Territory, Australia. Mineralium Deposita, 11:133-154.
26. Carr, G. R. and Dean, J. A., 1986. Report to AAEC on a Pb Isotopic Study of Samples from Jabiluka and
Koongarra, Unpublished Report, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Division
of Mineral Physics and Mineralogy, Sydney.
27. Snelling, A. A.,1981. The age of Australian uranium: a case study of the Koongarra uranium deposit. Ex
Nihilo, 4:44-57.
28. Faure, G., 1986. The isotope geology of lead. In: Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd edition, John Wiley
and Sons, New York, Chapter 19, pp.309-340.
29. Dalrymple, G. B., 1991. Isotopes of lead: the hourglass of the solar system. In: The Age of the Earth,
Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, Chapter 7, pp. 305-356.
30. Stieff, L. R., Stern, T. W., Oshiro, S. and Senftle, F. E., 1959. Tables for the Calculation of Lead Isotope
Ages, US Geological Survey, Professional Paper 334A.
31. Ludwig, K. R., 1993. ISOPLOT: A Plotting and Regression Program for Radiogenic-Isotope Data, Version
2.60, United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report 91-445, Denver, Colorado.
32. York, D.,1969. Least-squares fitting of a straight line with correlated errors. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, 5:320-324.
33. Ludwig, K. R., Nash, J. T. and Naeser, C. W., 1981. U-Pb isotope systematics and age of uranium
mineralisation, Midnite Mine, Washington. Economic Geology, 76:89-110.
34. Cunningham, C. G., Ludwig, K. R., Naeser, C. W., Weiland, E. K., Mehnert, H. H., Steven, T. A. and
Rasmussen, J. O., 1982. Geochronology of hydrothermal uranium deposits and associated igneous rocks in
the eastern source area of the Mount Belknap Volcanics, Marysvale, Utah. Economic Geology, 77:453-463.
35. Gulson, B. L. and Mizon, K. J., 1980. Lead isotope studies at Jabiluka. In: Uranium in the Pine Creek
Geosyncline, J. Ferguson and A. B. Goleby (eds), International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 439-
455.
36. Dickson, B. L., Giblin, A. M. and Snelling, A. A., 1987. The source of radium in anomalous accumulations
near sandstone escarpments, Australia. Applied Geochemistry, 2:385-398.
37. Davy, D. R., Dudaitis, A. and O'Brien, B. G., 1978. Radon survey at the Koongarra uranium deposit,
Northern Territory. Topical Report AAEC/E459, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Sydney. In:
Koongarra Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Noranda Australia limited, Melbourne,
Appendix 2.
38. Gentry, R. V., Christie, W. H., Smith, D. H., Emery, J. F., Reynolds, S. A, Walker, R., Cristy, S. S. and
Gentry, P. A., 1976. Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to the time of uranium
introduction and coalification. Science, 194:315-318.
39. Kazmann, R. G., 1978. It's about time: 4.5 billion years. Geotimes, 23(9):18-20.
40. Kazmann, R. G., 1979. Time: in full measure. Eos, 60(2):19-22.
Dr Andrew Snelling is a geologist with a B.Sc. (Hons) from The University of New South Wales and a Ph. D. from
The University of Sydney. He has worked in the mining industry and is still a consultant geologist in the field and in
research projects, but now also works full-time with the Creation Science Foundation where he contributes to
Creation Ex Nihilo magazine and edits the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. He resides in Brisbane, Australia.
12. Flaws in dating the earth as ancient

by Alexander R. Williams
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 18(1):14
Dec. 1995–Feb. 1996
In 1986 the world’s leading science journal, Nature, announced that the most ancient rock crystals on earth,
according to isotope dating methods, are 4.3 billion years old and come from Jack Hills in Western Australia.
W. Compston and R.T. Pidgeon (Nature 321:766–769, 1986) obtained 140 zircon crystals from a single rock unit
and subjected them to uranium/uranium concordia (U/U)1 and uranium/thorium concordia (U/Th)2 dating methods.
One crystal showed a U/U date of 4.3 billion years, and the authors therefore claimed it to be the oldest rock crystal
yet discovered.
A serious problem here is that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit3 gave statistically valid information about
that rock unit.3 No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all the other
139. In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that
no sensible dates could be extracted from the data.
A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the
U/Th method to be undatable. An unbiased observer would be forced to admit that this contradiction prevents any
conclusion as to the age of the crystal. But these authors reached their conclusion by ignoring the contradictory data!
If a scientist in any other field did this he would never be allowed to publish it. Yet here we have it condoned by the
top scientific journal in the world.
This is not an isolated case. I selected it because it was identified by the journal editors as a significant advance in
knowledge. Another example is the work of F.A. Podosek, J. Pier, O. Nitoh, S. Zashu, and M. Ozima (Nature
334:607–609, 1988). They found what might have been the world’s oldest rock crystals, but unfortunately they were
too old!
They extracted diamonds from rocks in Zaire and found by the potassium-argon method that they (the diamonds)
were six billion years old. But the earth is supposed to be only 4.5 billion years old. So Podosek and friends decided
they must be wrong. They admitted, however, that if the date had not been contradicted by the ‘known’ age of the
earth, they would have accepted it as valid.
This clearly shows two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating.
First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter. Such a practice
is not acceptable in any other field of science because it destroys the objectivity upon which science has built its
reputation. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be.
Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are
wrong.
When I presented this and similar criticisms of isotope dating to a gathering of the Lucas Heights Scientific Society
(Sydney, Australia) in 1989, the only response that came from the chief of the division responsible for isotope dating
at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization was the question, ‘Do you have a better dating
method?’
I said ‘No’, and he appeared to be satisfied that if there are no better methods of dating, then these are good enough.
But can you ride a bicycle into the past simply because no one else has a better time-machine? Of course not. In the
same way it is absurd to argue that an inadequate method is adequate because nothing better is available.4
Footnotes
49. Uranium uranium concordia—this method involves graphically comparing the 238U / 206Pb ratio with the
235
U / 207Pb ratio. Return to text.
50. Uranium/ thorium concordia in this method the 238U / 206Pb ratio is graphically compared with the
232
Th/203Pb ratio. Return to text.
51. The rock unit involved is a metamorphosed sandstone (quartzite) in which the zircon crystals represent
grains eroded from source rocks (e.g. granites) and deposited with the sand. Thus the ‘ages’ of the zircon
crystals represent the ‘age’ of the source rock(s) and not the ‘age’ of the quartzite. Return to text.
52. Further details of these examples can be found in my fuller technical article on this subject in the Creation
Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 6(1):2–5, 1992. Return to text.
13. RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!

Cooperation (and quality control) brings results
by Carl Wieland, AiG–Australia
21 August 2003
A few years ago an initiative was undertaken to research thoroughly the whole area of Radioactivity and the Age of
The Earth. The RATE project began as a cooperative venture between the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the
Creation Research Society (CRS) and Answers in Genesis (AiG). (Our contribution was mostly providing the
expertise of geologist Dr Andrew Snelling; however, when he commenced work with ICR, the project rightly
reverted to a joint project of ICR/CRS.)
With the release of several key peer-reviewed papers at the recent ICC (International Conference on Creationism), it
is clear that RATE has made some fantastic progress, with real breakthroughs in this area.
The main ones of these will be described and summarized in this paper, but first I want to give congratulations and
credit to ICR. Even though a substantial proportion of the scientists working on this project have not been actual
ICR staff, ICR’s initiative and perseverance, and in particular the patient skilful coordination of their Dr Larry
Vardiman had the major role in getting things to this point this quickly.
Exciting news on ‘ancient’ granites
When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for ICR),
he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the
direction in which to look for the definitive answer to the radiometric dating puzzle.
Others had tried—and for some, the search went on for a while in the early RATE days—to find the answer in
geological processes. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of
evidence (the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track
dating and more) that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to
imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that
concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.
Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive
processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay
process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week
and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.
There is now powerful independent confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay
has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark
RATE paper1, though technical, can be summarized as follows:
• When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas
which readily escapes from rock.
• Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has
partly decayed into lead.
• By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the
decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic
‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)
• There is a significant amount of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is
at first glance surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its
tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be
hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not
accumulating.
• Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which
helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent
(without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The
consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the
results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian
basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years.
In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay
has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/-
2000) years.
The paper looks at the various avenues a long-ager might take by which to wriggle out of these powerful
implications, but there seems to be little hope for them unless they can show that the techniques used to obtain the
results were seriously (and mysteriously, having been performed by a world-class non-creationist expert) flawed.
More great news on radiocarbon

It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most2)
keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For
instance, AiG has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples
from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were
published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and TJ. In each case, with
contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t
have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the
literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.
In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the
pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no
matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels.3 This effectively limits the age of all buried
biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years. (When one takes into account the likely much lower ratio of radioactive to
‘normal’ carbon pre-Flood4, it brings it right down to within the biblical ‘ballpark’.)
Interestingly, specimens which appear to definitely be pre-Flood seem to have C-14 present, too, and importantly,
these cluster around a lower relative amount of C-14. This suggests that some C-14 was primordial, and not
produced by cosmic rays—thus limiting the age of the entire earth to only a few thousand years.
This latter suggestion about primordial C-14 appears to have been somewhat spectacularly supported when Dr
Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came
back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained
radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.
This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no
way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.
The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of <58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth. And this
age is brought down still further now that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past
acceleration of radioactive decay.5
C-14 labs have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’ specimens they measure still have C-
14. Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ‘contamination’ and ‘background’ is completely unhelpful in
explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown. But it is no problem or
mystery at all if the uniformitarian/long-age assumptions are laid to one side and the real history of the world, given
in Scripture, is taken seriously. The C-14 is there, quite simply, because it hasn’t had time to decay yet. The world
just isn’t that old!
The C-14 results are an independent but powerful confirmation of the stunning helium-diffusion results. 2003 looks
like going down as a bad year for megachronophiles (lovers of long ages), but a good year for lovers of the Word of
God.
Postscript: In addition to the book expected in 2005 reporting the final results of the RATE project, the project
expects to publish a book for laymen summarizing the project shortly thereafter. Dr Don DeYoung will be the
author. He has written several popular books on creation science and has been on the RATE since its inception. His
grasp of the details of the project and his excellent writing skills should combine to produce a highly readable book
for creationist laymen.

53. _ftnref1Humphreys, D. et al., Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay,
www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf.
54. _ftnref2Even with the most sensitive AMS techniques used today, nary an atom of C-14 should be present
after 250,000 years.
55. _ftnref3Baumgardner, J. et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth
creation-flood model, www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf.
56. _ftnref4Factors which would lower the ratio: (1) More C-12 in the biosphere (more land area, higher CO2),
(2) less C-14 production due to stronger magnetic field deflecting cosmic rays better, (3) C-14 starts
building up at creation, so it would only have had 1,600 years to build up, nowhere near equilibrium.
57. _ftnref5This burst of accelerated decay would be expected to have a greater effect, proportionately, the
longer the half-life. Compared to the effect on a uranium isotope with a half-life of billions of years, the
effect of speeded-up decay on C-14, with its half-life of the order of 5,000 years, would be much less,
which would explain why there is still some of this primordial C-14 left. Other papers by RATE scientists
at this ICC dealt with theoretical grounds for this (by Dr Eugene Chaffin, ref. 6) and also gave further
supportive evidence from isochron dates for this varying effect (by Dr Steve Austin, Dr Andrew Snelling
and Bill Hoesch, ref. 7). (‘Good’ isochrons obtained for different decay chains within the same rock
sample, which should have all registered the same ‘date’, varied from one another in a manner consistent
with this.)
58. Chaffin, E., Accelerated decay: theoretical models,
www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Chaffin.pdf.
59. Snelling, A., Hoesch, W. and Austin, S., Radioisotopes in the diabase sill (Upper Precambrian) at Bass
Rapids, Grand Canyon, Arizona: an application and test of the isochron dating method,
www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/ICCBassRapidsSill_2-%20AAS_SA_and_WH.pdf.
14. Billion-fold Acceleration of Radioactivity
Demonstrated in Laboratory
John Woodmorappe
Subsequently published in:
TJ 15(2):4–6, 2001
Our understanding of ostensibly long-lived radioactive ‘clocks’, in the light of the Creationist-Diluvialist paradigm,
must necessarily consider both geologic and physical factors. Among the latter are decay-rate changes, and these
may include a variety of superimposed processes occurring at the same or at different times in the several-thousand
year history of the universe. Up to now, creationist research has summarized evidences of small decay-rate changes,
as well as theoretical analyses suggestive of the possibility of more extreme changes in radioactive decay rates (the
latter usually dependent upon corresponding changes in fundamental physical constants1). Here I report the
experimental demonstration of radioactive decay-rate acceleration by an astonishing nine orders of magnitude. It
requires special conditions but, in and of itself, no alteration of known physical constants.
This acceleration can occur under beta (negatron) decay. During β decay itself, a neutron changes into a proton,
electron and electron-antineutrino, and the electron is expelled as a negative beta particle (β- — often written
without the negative sign, but sometimes it is necessary to distinguish it from the rarer positive beta or positron
decay β+). Because the protons in the nucleus and the β particles have opposite charges, they attract each other, and
the β– must therefore acquire sufficient kinetic energy to overcome this attraction in order to escape the nucleus.
This has been likened to a particle having sufficient energy to crash through the walls of a well.2 In some β–
emitters, the successful escape of a β-particle into the continuum is a relatively infrequent occurrence—hence the
inferred long half life (t½) of the nuclide.
Accelerated β decay
The foregoing discussion assumes that electrons surround
(a) Atom showing the 1s electron orbital. The orbital the nucleus, which of course is nearly always the case. For
is full. (b) The same atom in a completely ionised over 50 years, however, some theoreticians had suggested
state. The atom has been stripped of its electrons. The that negatron decay could be altered in the case of a nucleus
energy required to escape an atom when the electron bereft of its electrons (as occurs in a plasma state). Perhaps
shell is filled (a) is greater than the energy required for the β-particle attempting to leave a bare nucleus would have
the electron to jump to a vacant spot in an electron to overcome a much lower threshold of kinetic energy than
–
shell (b). r* is the distance from nucleus where finding if the electrons were absent. The fleeing β particle could
an electron is most probable. For a 1s orbital r*=a0/Z take refuge in a vacant electron orbital around the nucleus
where a0 = Bohr radius ≅ 52.9 pm; Z=atomic number. instead of attempting to escape all the way into –the
continuum. This process is called bound-state β decay (or
βb decay). Subsequently, theoretical analyses3 suggested that a significant perturbation of radioactive decay rates
could occur in the nuclides of 25 different elements as a consequence of βb decay.
Experimental demonstration of the actual existence of βb decay, however, did not occur until the 1990s. 163Dy, a
stable nuclide under normal-Earth conditions, was found to decay to 163Ho, with t½ = 47 days, under the bare-nucleus
conditions of the completely ionized state.4 More recently, βb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the
rhenium-osmium (187Re-187Os) system. (The Re-Os method is one of the isotopic ‘clocks’ used by uniformitarian
geologists5 to supposedly date rocks.) The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage
ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of
only 33 years.6 This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga
= giga-annum = a billion (109) years).
A Creation Week scenario
Now, let us visualize the following situation at the beginning of
Creation Week. As God creates the atoms which will subsequently Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
be assembled into all of the matter that will constitute all of the Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling,
objects in the physical universe, He first creates them all in a Eugene F. Chaffin
completely ionised state (i.e. nuclei alone). This plasma persists for The age of the earth stands out as one of the
several hours on the First Day, during which time βb decay freely most important issues amoung Christians
takes place under the bare-nucleus conditions of all of the atoms. today! An old-earth interpretation clouds our
This process, though, is insufficient by itself to generate billions of view on the accuracy of Scripture. It supports
years’ worth of excess 187Os.7 However, if there were a the theory of evolution. It affects our
simultaneous weakening of the presently-existing nuclear force, as perception of God. If Scripture can’t be trusted
suggested by Humphreys,8 the Re-Os ‘clock’ would be accelerated on the age of the earth, how can it be trusted on
another few orders of magnitude. Not only the Re-Os clock, but others? But, have we been mislead about the
probably many other radioactive (and even stable) nuclides would reliability of radioactive dating methods? The
experience appreciable amounts of βb decay under the bare-nucleus RATE group believes we have. The RATE
conditions of the plasma. We note that the potential or actual βb group, consisting of six young-earth creationist
decay gives a large ‘head start’ to extreme accelerations of geologists, geochemists, and physicists, is
radioactive decay. Thus the postulated weakening of the nuclear cooperating to research the issue of
force7 may need to be far less drastic than originally supposed Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. They
(when assumed to be acting upon non-ionized atoms) to generate have dared to ask the tough questions and are
billions of years’ worth of decay products in several hours. searching for an alternative explanation for the
It turns out that βb decay is not the only mechanism by which some billions of years found in rocks. They are
ostensibly long-age ‘clocks’ can experience major accelerations in asking questions like:
radioactive decay rate. Consider the lutetium-hafnium (176Lu-176Hf) • Why don’t dating methods agree —
system, which is relatively new, and which is infrequently used by what is the source of the discordance?
uniformitarian geologists to supposedly date rocks.9 At very high • What about the lead found in rocks —
temperatures, part of the 176Lu decay to 176Hf bypasses the did it all come from uranium?
conventional slow route, and goes into an isomeric state which has • Where did all the decay-produced
a half-life of only 3.68 hours.10 In other words, part of the 176Lu helium go — did it escape to the
decay experiences an alternative decay mode to 176Hf which atmosphere or is it still trapped in the
represents, in effect, a shortcut that is 14 orders of magnitude faster rocks?
than the conventional 176Lu decay (t½ = 41 Ga). Moreover, in this • Can accelerated decay explain the
particular instance, no changes in the nuclear force are necessary. abundance of daughter products?
Extreme temperatures suffice, and the greater they are, the shorter
• Do nuclear decay rates change —is it
the effective half life of 176Lu decay to 176Hf. In terms of specifics,
theoretically possible?
at temperatures below about 200 million K, t½ remains unperturbed
• Can inheritance and mixing from
at about 41 Ga. But, over the interval of 200 to 300 MK, the
primordial reservoirs of argon,
effective t½ drops precipitously (by nearly 10 orders of magnitude),
helium, and other end products during
then begins to level off asymptotically at still higher temperatures.
Creation and the Flood explain the
Thus, at 600 MK, the effective t½ of 176Lu is only about 8 days!11
apparent old ages?
This is short enough that if, as discussed earlier, all of the atoms in
the universe had been created in a very hot state—which just means • What about nature’s tiny mystery, the
very high kinetic energies—(and maintained that way for several halos of polonium and uranium? How
hours on the First Day), all the excess 176Hf in existence would did they form and when? What about
have been generated within that short period. fission tracks?
The rapidly-accumulated products of the accelerated radioactive • Can halos and fission tracks tell us
decay subsequently became part of every object in the created something about the history of
universe, albeit at differing concentrations. During the remainder of radioactive decay on the earth?
the Creation Week, as God cooled and organized the plasma into These and many other questions are addressed
solid celestial objects, such as planets, the excess radiogenic in this book. The RATE scientists are working
isotopes became partitioned into the relevant mineral phases, to solve the radioisotope riddle. This book ‘sets
perhaps according to accelerated geochemical processes. The the stage’ for their five-year research initiative
modern uniformitarian geologist misreads this deployment of the on Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. A
radiogenic isotopes as isochrons indicative of up to billions of second book is scheduled for the end of the
years to time. This span of time never happened. research phase in 2005 to report on their
findings.
Conclusion
This exciting demonstration that isotopic ‘clocks’ can be accelerated at least a billion-fold is good news to
creationist scholars. It raises fundamental questions about the temporal stability of isotopic ‘clocks’. What else have
we failed to consider in terms of the physics of radioactive decay? The myth of the virtual invincibility of
radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been
swung wide open.
References
60. Chaffin, E.F., theoretical mechanism of accelerated radioactive decay; in: Vardiman, L. et al.,
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (right), Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and
Creation Research Society, Missouri, 305–331, 2000. See also Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical
environment] Return to text.
61. Alpha (α) decay has also been likened to particles bouncing around inside a well (a potential energy well
created by a combination of nucleus’s positive charge and the ‘strong’ nuclear force) until some of them
acquire sufficient kinetic energy to jump through one of its walls: Humphreys, D.R. Accelerated nuclear
decay: A viable hypothesis? in: Vardiman et al., Ref. 1, pp. 333–379. This is the standard Gamow theory,
and is often referred to as quantum mechanical tunnelling. In α-decay, the electrons are largely irrelevant.
Humphreys suggests, based on an application of the standard theory, that a small diminishing of the nuclear
potential, however, has allowed α-decay to be accelerated a billion-fold or more. Return to text.
62. Takahashi, K. et al., Bound-state beta decay of highly ionized atoms, Physical Review C36(4)1522–1527,
63. Jung, M. et al. First observation of bound-state β– decay, Physical Review Letters 69(15)2164–2167, 1992.
Return to text.
64. Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon,
California, 1999 (top right). See pages 25, 49, 67–68 for the many fallacies of the Re-Os dating method.
Return to text.
65. Bosch, F. et al., Observation of bound-state β– decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical Review Letters
77(26)5190–5193, 1996. For further discussion of this experiment, see: Kienle, P., Beta-decay experiments
and astrophysical implications, in: Prantzos, N. and Harissopulus, S., Proceedings, Nuclei in the Cosmos,
pp. 181–186, 1999. Return to text.
66. Note that bound-state βb decay accelerates the Re-Os ‘clock’ by 9 orders of magnitude. However, in order
to compress 4.5 Ga worth of ‘normal’ radioactive decay into the several hours of the First Day of Creation
Week, the Re-Os ‘clock’ would need to be accelerated by another 5 orders of magnitude.
There has been some concern expressed that radioactive decay would be inconsistent with God creating the
universe ‘very good’. There is always the danger of reading too much into the ‘very good’ statement, and
the context indicates that ‘very good’ refers to the absence of suffering and death for man and other sentient
creatures before the Fall. Radioactive decay does not, of course, have anything in comon with the death and
decay of sentient beings. Moreover, radioactive decay involves the transformation of one nuclide into
another, and does not have any connotation of imperfection in the Creation. Return to text.
67. Humphreys, Ref. 2, p. 362. Return to text.
68. For a discussion of some of the flaws already evident in the new Lu-Hf dating method, see Woodmorappe,
Ref. 5, p. 68. Return to text.
69. Kappeler, F., Beer, H., and K., Wisshak, S-process nucleosynthesis—nuclear physics and the classical
model, Reports on Progress in Physics 52:1006–1008, 1989. Return to text.
70. Klay, N. et al., Nuclear structure of 176Lu and its astrophysical consequences, Physical Review
C44(6):2847–2848, 1991. Return to text.
15. Radioactive decay rate depends
On chemical environment
by Tas Walker
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(1):4–5, 2000
[SUBSCRIBE to the Technical Journal TODAY!]
Radioactive dating is claimed to prove that the earth is billions of years old, but The definitive technical creationist
the methods are based on a number of unprovable assumptions. For example, it is resource on modern radiometric dating
assumed that radioactive decay rates have not changed in the past. Specifically, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth
geochronologists assume that radioactive decay rates are unaffected by physical Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling,
conditions like temperature and pressure. They also assume they are independent Eugene F. Chaffin
of the chemical environment.
The atomic nucleus is extremely tiny compared with the overall size of the atom The age of the earth stands out as one of the
— about 100,000 times smaller in diameter. Since the nucleus is located at the most important issues among Christians
centre of the atom, it is well shielded by the surrounding electrons from external today. The RATE group, consisting of six
physical and chemical conditions. Radioactive decay, being a nuclear process, is young-earth creationist geologists,
thus considered to be independent of external conditions. The constancy of decay geochemists, and physicists, is cooperating
rate is a foundational assumption of the whole radioactive dating methodology. to research the issue of Radioisotopes and
Faure states: the Age of the Earth. They have dared to ask
the tough questions and are searching for an
‘ … there is no reason to doubt that the decay constants of the naturally
alternative explanation for the billions of
occurring long-lived radioactive isotopes used for dating are invariant and
years found in rocks.
independent of the physical and chemical conditions to which they have been
subjected …’1
One of the modes of radioactive decay, electron capture, occurs when a proton in the nucleus of an atom spontaneously captures
an electron from one of the shells2 and becomes a neutron.3 The mass of the atom remains the same but the atomic number
decreases by one. Electron capture is the only radioactive decay mode that is recognised as possibly being affected by physical
conditions such as pressure, but the effect is considered insignificant and is ignored.1
However, a recent paper about the decay of beryllium-7 (7Be) has found that, contrary to previous thinking, the chemical
environment noticeably affects the half-life of radioactive decay by electron capture.4 Beryllium is a rare, hard, light metallic
element in the second column of the periodic table — an alkaline earth element. Its nucleus contains four protons, and the usual
stable form also contains five neutrons, and thus has a mass number of nine. There is a lighter isotope of beryllium with a mass
number of seven, with only three neutrons in its nucleus. The lighter isotope is unstable and decays to Lithium-7 (7Li) by electron
capture (Figure 1). The energy released in this process is mostly emitted as a gamma ray. The half life of 7Be is about 53 days.
Fig 1: The radioactive isotope, 7Be, decays when a proton captures an

electron from one of the shells and becomes a neutron. The new isotope,
7
Li, has the same mass number but one less proton. After the electron is
captured from the inner shell, one of the electrons in the outer shells will
move to fill the vacancy and produce the most stable configuration.
(Legend for particles: proton +, electron -, neutron blank.)
In the recent paper, geochemist Chih-An Huh reported that the decay rate of 7Be depends on its chemical form.4 The
measurements were done at the unprecedented high precision of ±0.01%, some ten times better than any reported previously. An
extremely sensitive and stable spectrometer was used to monitor gamma rays from the decay of 7Be. Three different chemical
forms of 7Be were measured, the hydrated Be2+ ion in solution surrounded by four water molecules ([Be(H2O)4]2+), the hydroxide
(Be(OH)2), and the oxide (BeO). The measured half lives were 53.69 days, 53.42 days and 54.23 days respectively — a 1.5%
variation from the shortest to the longest. The variation is much greater than previously considered.
Creationists, for many years, have disputed the billions of years from radioactive dating calculations because they conflict with
the 6000-year Bible time-scale. One assumption they have challenged is the constancy of decay rates. Curiously, Richard Kerr
has picked up this scepticism in his report of Huh’s findings, and makes a particular point of addressing creationists:
‘Creationists hoping to trim geologic history to biblical proportions will be disappointed — the variations seen so far
are much too small, just a percent or so, to affect the Earth’s overall time scale.’5
Despite these comments, the 1.5% variation in the half-life of 7Be due to chemical environment was a surprise, and shows that
the previous assumption that rates are constant is not correct. One of the most widely used geological dating methods, the
radioactive decay of 40K to 40Ar, nearly always occurs by electron capture.6 The effect of chemical environment on the decay rate
for 40K should be less than for 7Be because potassium has extra electrons in outer shells. These electrons would shield those inner
electrons that are more vulnerable to electron capture from the external chemical environment. The important question, though, is
what factors may have controlled the distribution of radioactive isotopes within the rocks of the earth.
Creationists have good reason to believe there is something wrong with the explanation that isotopes are due to billions of years
of radioactive decay.7 This is not a blind faith — there are scores of geological evidences indicating that the earth is young.8
Changes in decay rates are only one possible explanation and will probably not be the complete answer. Many other factors need
to be investigated. For example, we need to explore how isotopes behave deep within the earth during partial melting, and also in
magma-rock systems during crystallisation. Creationists are actively investigating these and other pertinent areas as time and
funds allow.9
References
71. Faure, G., Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 41, 1986. Return to text.
72. Only from the s orbitals, because all others have nodes at the nucleus, i.e. regions of zero probability of finding an
electron. Return to text.
73. An electron-neutrino is also released. Return to text.
74. Huh, C.-A., Dependence of the decay rate of 7Be on chemical forms, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171:325–
328, 1999. Return to text.
75. Kerr, R.A., Tweaking the clock of radioactive decay, Science 286(5441):882–883. Return to text.
76. Faure, Ref. 1, p. 30. Return to text.
77. Woodmora ppe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, 1999. Return
to text.
78. See for example, Morris, J., The Young Earth, Creation-Life Publishers, Colorado Springs, 1994; Snelling, A.,
Radioactive dating failure: recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years, Creation 22(1):18–21,
1999; see also his technical paper, The Cause Of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for recent andesite flows at Mt
Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating’. Return to text.
79. Vardiman, L., RATE group prepares status report; ICR Impact #314, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon,
California, 1999. RATE is derived from Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, and is an inter-disciplinary group of
six creationist scientists formed to investigate the radioisotope data from a young-earth perspective (see book, top
right). Recently the group announced a five-year research programme estimated to cost some US$500,000. Return to
text.
16. The collapse of ‘geologic time’

Tiny halos in coalified wood tell a story that demolishes ‘long ages’.
By Steve Taylor, Andy McIntosh, and Tas Walker
First published in:
Creation 23(4):30–34
September–November 2001
The age of things is crucial in the debate over the authority of the Bible.
Most methods that could be used for calculating the Earth’s age, even
though still based on unprovable uniformitarian1 assumptions, give upper
oung Earth
limits much less than the billions of years required for evolution.2 Creation's Tiny Mystery
Evolutionists widely use radio–isotope (or radiometric) dating of rocks Dr Robert Gentry
to support the ‘geologic time’ figure of 4.6 billion years. Dr Gentry has discovered that
Notwithstanding the inherent unreliability and demonstrated inaccuracy granites contain beautiful microscopic
of the radiometric dating techniques (see box p. 33), ages of rock coloration halos produced by the
formations in the millions (and billions) of years are presented as fact in radioactive decay of primordial
schools, universities and the media. polonium, which indicates the Earth
However, there is spectacular, but little-known, evidence that is was formed instantly. Many believe
completely inconsistent with the evolutionary timescale, but entirely this is scientific evidence that the
consistent with the Biblical record of a young Earth and a catastrophic Earth had to be created by God.
global Flood.
The evidence is provided by radio–halos in coalified wood. This work has been published in some of the best peer-
reviewed scientific journals, and its strong case against evolution’s millions of years is so far unanswered by the
evolutionary community.
What are radiohalos?
Radiohalos are spherical, microscopic-sized discolourations in crystals. They are found abundantly in certain
minerals in Earth’s rocks, especially micas from granites. In cross-section on a microscope slide, they appear as a
series of tiny concentric rings, usually surrounding a central core (Figure 1).3
This central core is (at least initially) radioactive. High energy alpha particles, emitted from the core during
radioactive decay, damage the mineral and discolour it, with most of the damage occurring where the particle stops.
How far this particle travels depends on its energy. Since all the alpha particles from a particular type of decay
reaction have the same energy, and the particles are fired in all directions, a spherical shell of discolouration will
form, appearing circular in cross-section.
Imagine shooting a bullet into a huge lump of cork. Eventually, the bullet will stop, leaving behind a ‘trail’ of
damage, the length of which depends on the speed of the bullet. Different radioactive substances shoot alpha
particles (‘bullets’) at different (though specific) speeds, so we can identify the substance from the diameter of the
‘sphere of damage’. The higher the energy of decay, the faster the speed of the ‘bullet’.
Uranium radiohalos
Radioactive uranium generates a beautiful, multi-ringed halo (Figure 1) because it decays in a number of steps. Of
the 15 isotopes (or varieties of elements) in this ‘decay chain’ (see Radioactive decay series), eight emit alpha
particles when they decay, forming eight rings.5 It is a bit like a sequence of guns, each of different power, firing an
eight-gun salute. When this salute or decay chain is fired millions of times in every direction, the bullets from the
different guns make eight concentric rings.
If, instead of radioactive uranium, the core was composed of an isotope along the chain, there would be fewer rings.
Omitting the first few isotopes in the decay series would be like removing the first few guns in our ‘salute’. Thus it’s
quite simple to work out which isotope was origin–ally in the core by counting the rings. Polonium-218 forms three
rings, polonium-214 forms two, and polonium-210 forms only one.
Figure 1. A fully-developed
uranium radiohalo in biotite
Figure 2. Elliptical polonium-
(dark mica). Field of view is Figure 3. Combined circular and elliptical halos
210 halos in compressed
about 80 µm (0.08 mm). A indicate that polonium-210 continued to decay
coalified wood. Length of
uranium halo comprises eight after the wood was compressed. Diameter of
ellipse is about 50 µm (0.05
rings, but some rings are of halo is about 50 µm.
mm).
similar size and cannot easily
be distinguished.
Radiohalos in coalified wood

Radiohalos have also been found in logs recovered from uranium mines on the Colorado Plateau of Western USA.
The logs, partially turned to coal, were found in uranium-rich sedimentary rocks from three different geological
formations.
Some of these formations had previously been assigned radiometric ‘dates’ ranging from 55 to 80 million years.6
Scientists Jedwab7 and Breger8 described these halos, and Dr Robert Gentry, a world authority on radiohalos,
revisited their work. Following extensive investigation, Gentry published his results in the prestigious journal
Science,9 in a book10 and in a video.11
Most of the halos found in the wood had only one ring, indicating that the radioactive cores once contained
polonium-210—the last radioactive isotope in the uranium-238 decay chain (see Radioactive decay series). Clearly,
the wood had been saturated in uranium-rich solutions, and certain spots attracted polonium atoms (also present in
these solutions), allowing small cores of polonium-210 to form. As they decayed, these cores left the characteristic
polonium-210 halo.
But the solutions must have penetrated the logs relatively quickly, certainly within a year or so. How do we know
that? Because the half-life of polonium-210 is only 138 days. That is, within 138 days, half the polonium-210
present would have decayed into the next ‘daughter’ isotope in the chain. In other words, the solution had saturated
the wood within two or three half-lives, about a year. It could not have taken very long, because in 10 half-lives (less
than four years) virtually all of the polonium-210 would have gone.
Only one of the three radioactive isotopes of polonium was deposited in the tiny radioactive specks in the logs. We
know because only one ring formed. The other isotopes from the decay chain (polonium-214 and polonium-218)
were missing. Why? Because they had already decayed away. Their half-lives are very short (164 millionths of a
second and three minutes respectively). So all polonium-214 would have disappeared within a thousandth of a
second, and all polonium-218 would have gone in an hour—long before the uranium-rich solutions could saturate
the logs.
Significantly, the halos were mainly elliptical, not circular (Figure 2). Obviously, after the halos formed, the wooden
logs were compressed, squashing the originally-circular halos into ellipses.
Sometimes a circular halo could be seen together with an elliptical halo (Figure 3). This indicated that radioactive
polonium-210 continued to decay from the same core after the wood was compressed. Thus, because of the 138-day
half-life of polonium-210 as discussed above, there was less than four years between when the solution first
infiltrated the wood and when it was compressed. (The presence of the second halo at the same spot shows that
much less than four years had passed before the compression event, as there was still time to produce another halo
afterwards.)12
Radioactive isotopes have an intrinsically unstable atomic structure which makes them disintegrate so that particles
fly out. One way that a parent radio–active atom can decay into a daughter atom is by ejecting an alpha particle
from its nucleus. Sometimes the daughter element is also unstable and subsequently decays into another unstable
isotope, and so on in a series of steps—a ‘decay chain’.
The isotope uranium-238 starts a decay chain that disintegrates step-by-step into a stable form of lead. It involves
fifteen isotopes and fourteen steps (diagram right). Different isotopes of the same element (e.g. uranium-238 and
uranium-235) have a different mass but nearly identical chemical behaviour. An alpha particle is a helium nucleus
with a mass of 4 atomic mass units. Thus, radioactive decay by emission of an alpha particle (e.g. uranium-238)
produces a daughter isotope (thorium-234) which is 4 atomic mass units lighter.
The half-life of a radioactive isotope is the time required for half its atoms to decay. Different isotopes have
different half lives (e.g. the half-life of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years and of polonium-218 is 3 minutes).
An amazing event
The wood in which these tiny elliptical halos were found speaks of a devastating flood that uprooted and smashed
huge trees, depositing the debris with an enormous volume of sediment over a large area. The halos themselves tell
the story of an unusual geologic event. They speak of uranium-rich solutions saturating the logs in less than a year or
so, forming tiny specks of polonium, which decayed to produce circular radiohalos, which were, in much less than
four years, compressed and deformed.
The story is one of exceptional geological conditions—a highly unusual sequence of events. For one thing, in the
usual ‘slow and gradual’ scenarios, it would take much longer for sufficient sediment to accumulate on top to
deform the wood in this way. What is really amazing and significant, however, is the fact that this elliptical halo
situation has been found in three different geological formations in the same general region. Evolutionists say these
formations represent three different geological periods ranging from 35 to 245 million years.13 To believe this
millions-of-years time–scale, we would need to believe that this amazing sequence of events (with all its precise
timing) occurred three different times, separated by more than 200 million years. Clearly this is an incredible
scenario. It makes more sense to believe that the sequence occurred once and that all the sedimentary formations
were deposited in the same catastrophe, followed by the same earth movement causing deformation. These
polonium halos collapse the ‘long ages’ of geology, and point to the unique, catastrophic Flood recorded in the
Bible. Also, by the same reasoning, these halos leave little room for numerous layers of post-flood sedimentation as
suggested by some authors.14
More confirming evidence

Further confirmation of this spectacular collapse of geologic time is provided by careful analysis of the tiny cores of
some uranium halos found in the same wood samples.15 This revealed a large amount of uranium-238 but almost no
lead-206.16 If the halos were millions of years old, much more ‘daughter’ lead should have been present. The
scarcity of the daughter element, using the same assumptions upon which radiometric dating is based, would
indicate that the halos are only several thousand years old, not millions. Similar results were obtained for halos from
all three geological formations, indicating that all are approximately the same age. Again, the supposed millions of
years of geologic time collapse into only a few thousand.17
Dinosaur tracks Many fossilized dinosaur track patterns suggest that the
Fossilized dinosaur footprints have been found in creatures who made them were fleeing from something; in some
these Colorado mines. In Cyprus Plateau Mine cases this may have been a predator. A soft surface capable of
receiving foot imprints would be unlikely to retain those prints
(Utah), a fossilized dinosaur footprint was found in unless relatively quickly covered by further sediment, such as in
the coal seam next to one of the many coalified a flood catastrophe.
logs of the plateau. In Kenilworth Mine, eight
different types of dinosaur tracks were found.
The pattern of tracks suggests that the animals were fleeing from an imminent catastrophe. Nearby, a huge dinosaur
graveyard has been found at Dinosaur National Monument (Vernal, Utah) in Jurassic sediments.
Obviously, the dinosaurs that made these tracks didn’t escape. The catastrophe got them. The collapse of geologic
time and the young age for the rock formations confirm that these dinosaurs lived on Earth, at the same time as man,
only a few thousand years ago.
Conclusion
This scientific evidence, presented in leading journals, is a major problem for the idea of ‘millions of years’. It is,
however, consistent with the vast fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock deposits of the Colorado Plateau having been laid
down rapidly by the catastrophic global Flood described in the Bible, some 4,300 years ago. The dinosaurs that left
footprints on the plateau, and were then buried and fossilized in the nearby rocks, also lived then—at the same time
as man.
Radiometric dating relies on assumptions

Radiometric dating relies on three unprovable assumptions about the past:
1. The amount of ‘daughter’ isotope in the rock at the start is known.
2. No loss of ‘parent’ or gain of ‘daughter’ since the rock formed (closed system conditions).
3. Constant decay rate of ‘parent’ to ‘daughter’.
If these conditions could be guaranteed, the radiometric dating method would be correct. However, unless eye–
witnesses observed the rock when it formed, and checked it constantly thereafter, it is impossible to guarantee that
these assumptions are correct. Indeed, there are many cases in the scientific literature where assumptions one and
two, though made in good faith, have been shown to be unreliable.
Constancy of decay rate (assumption three) implies that a parameter which scientists have been measuring for only
a century has been constant for millions of alleged years of Earth’s history. This is of course not only unproven but
also unprovable. Decay rates (which can vary greatly today under special conditions) may have been much faster in
the past; evidence suggesting this is now being analyzed by a creationist consortium.1 A good summary of the
documented inconsistencies and inaccuracies of radiometric dating is given by Woodmorappe.2
1. Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth
Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, California, and Creation Research Society, St.
Joseph, Mississippi, 2000.
2. Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, California, 1999.

1. Such as the assumption of constant rates of change.
2. E.g. the amount of helium in the atmosphere, the decay and rapid reversals of Earth’s magnetic field, the salinity
of the oceans, lack of continental erosion, and population statistics. A good summary is given by Morris, J.D., The
Young Earth, Master Books, Arizona, 1994.
3. Primary polonium-218 radiohalos command attention because they provide a record of extinct radioactivity in
minerals constituting some of Earth’s most ancient rocks. See Gentry, R.V., Creation’s Tiny Mystery (3rd ed.), Earth
Science Associates, Tennessee, 1992.
4. Obviously not a perfect analogy, despite being useful—a bullet into cork leaves equivalent damage all along its
path, unlike the alpha particles which do most damage at the end, as stated.
5. The others decay by beta decay (b), not alpha (a). Note that due to overlap, only five of the eight rings of a 238U
halo are normally visible.
6. Steiff, L.R. et al., A preliminary determination of the age of some uranium ores of the Colorado Plateau by the
lead-uranium method, US Geological Survey Circular 271, 1953.
7. Jedwab, J., in: Given, P. (Ed.), Coal Science, American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., 1966.
8. Breger, I., in: Formation of Uranium Ore Deposits, Proceedings of Symposium in Athens 6–10 May 1974, pp.
99–124, International Atomic Energy Authority, Vienna, 1974.
9. Gentry, R.V., Et al., Radiohalos and coalified wood: new evidence relating to the time of uranium introduction
and coalification, Science 194:315–318, 1976.
10. Ref. 3, pp. 51–62.
11. Gentry, R.V., The Young Age of the Earth, Earth Science Associates LLC, Alpha Productions, 1996, available
through AiG.
12. Gentry points out that the second halo could have formed from the decay of an isotope two steps back along the
‘chain’. Since the intermediary isotope undergoes beta, not alpha decay, the two possibilities cannot be distinguished
from the halo. But this would stretch things from a maximum of around four years to some 22 years; a trivial matter.
13. The Eocene (supposedly 35–55 million years ago), the Jurassic (140–205 million years ago) and the Triassic
(205–245 million years ago). See ref. 3, p. 56.
14. See refs. in McIntosh, A.C., Edmondson, T. and Taylor, S., Genesis and catastrophe: the Flood as the major
Biblical cataclysm, CEN Tech. J. 14(1):101–109, 2000.
15. Using X-ray fluorescence (EXMRF) and the more sensitive ion microprobe mass analysis (IMMA).
16. The ratios of uranium to lead were up to 64,000, indicating the halos are only thousands of years old. Halos
millions of years old would have a far lower uranium-to-lead ratio. For details see ref. 3, pp. 61–62; and ref. 9.
17. It is chemically implausible to believe that lead could be leached out, leaving uranium—the reverse is far more
likely.
Click here for a larger image

Different radiohalos have a different number
of rings. Diameter of largest ring is about 70
µm (0.07 mm) in biotite. All four isotopes are
from the uranium-238 decay series.
17. New radiohalo find challenges primordial granite claim

by Tas Walker
TJ 15(1):14–16
Although radiohalos are tiny, they have generated a big debate about Genesis, geology and granite. Radiohalos were
first brought such prominence when Robert Gentry, the world’s leading researcher on halos, claimed they were
evidence of an instantaneous, supernatural creation of granite.1 They were launched into international distinction
when Gentry testified to this claim at the Arkansas Creation Trial in 1982.2 And they are still the cause of
controversy with books, articles and web pages devoted to the pros and cons of Gentry’s original arguments.3–6
Now a new find of polonium radiohalos heralds major implications for the interpretation of their origin.7
Radiohalos are concentric, discoloured circles observed under the microscope in translucent minerals such as biotite,
muscovite, fluorite and diamond (Figure 1).2, 8 It is generally accepted that they were formed by the alpha decay of
radioactive isotopes (Figure 2). The emitted alpha particles damage the mineral, especially at the end of their path
when they finally run out of energy and grab electrons from nearby atoms. They leave a spherical, discoloured
region, which in section appears circular. Radiohalos can be erased when the host mineral is heated, even at
temperatures as low as 250° C.9
Radiohalo types
Gentry describes four types of radiohalos, each with a different number of Figure 1. A 218 Po radiohalo
10 238
concentric rings (Figure 2). They have been related to the U decay series (from Gentry).18
(Table 1) in which eight of the isotopes in the series liberate alpha particles when
they decay. Each of the four types of radiohalos has been linked to a specific parent isotope in the series. The single-
ringed halo corresponds to 210Po, the two-ringed halo to 214Po, the three-ringed halo to 218Po, and the eight-ringed
halo to 238U. A few of the decay steps have similar energy and produce rings close together. These may not be easily
distinguished.
Each alpha particle has a characteristic energy that determines the distance it will travel—hence the spherical shape.
Thus, the diameter of each ring can be related to the decay of a specific parent isotope depending on the host
mineral.11 The shorter the half-life, the greater the decay energy, hence the larger the halo.
Although the uranium isotope has a very long half-life of 4.5 billion years, all the polonium isotopes have short half-
lives, ranging from 138.4 days for 210Po, to 164 microseconds for 214Po.
Polonium halos have been found abundantly in granites, and minerals from some 22 localities have so far been
reported to contain polonium radiohalos.3 Because polonium isotopes have very short half-lives, it has been argued
that ‘granites with Po halos, regardless of their "geological age" are primordial rocks’, created supernaturally and
instantaneously during the Creation week. Indeed it has been contended that such granites cannot be duplicated by
natural processes.12
This conclusion has been disputed because of the geological relationships of the rocks in which polonium halos have
been found.3–5 For example, some samples containing radiohalos were from dikes cross-cutting host rocks which
thus must be older.4 Rather than primordial, it has been suggested that the parent material of the radiohalo was part
of a conventional uranium or thorium decay series segregated by some geological process.
Figure 2. The four types of radiohalos (from Gentry).19
Stone Mountain granite halos

This TJ reports that abundant radiohalos have been found in biotite flakes from granite from Stone Mountain, USA.7
The significance of this find is that the Stone Mountain granite has been interpreted to have formed not during
Creation Week, but during the Flood.
Stone Mountain is located about 30 km east of Atlanta, Georgia and some 200 km south of the southern end of the
Appalachian Mountains. Grant describes Stone Mountain as an isolated granitic monolith rising some 238 m above
the surrounding countryside.13, 14 The granite intrudes both concordantly and discordantly into the country rock,
which is composed primarily of biotite-plagioclase gneiss. The country rock was regionally metamorphosed to
above the sillimanite isograde. At the granite contact, there is some evidence of contact metamorphism. Contact and
structural data indicate that the granitic intrusion was late metamorphic and linked with the regional deformation
associated with the uplift of the Southern Appalachians. The granite contains abundant xenoliths of the country rock.
McQueen places the orogony that built the Appalachians at ‘Phase III’ of the Flood, which starts as the floodwaters
began to decrease. In other words the beginning of Recessive stage of the Flood.15, 16 Froede also ties the regional
deformation to the Flood, linking the source magma for Stone Mountain with a ‘Flood generated orogenic event’.17
The halos were well-defined circles consisting of a single ring 19.2 µm in diameter. No radiohalos had more than
one ring. The radiocenters of these halos were so tiny as to be virtually impossible to see. The observed ring
diameter corresponds to the alpha-decay of 210Po.11
It could be argued that the presence of a single ring does not necessarily mean 210Po was the original parent isotope,
because all four types of radiohalos (Figure 2) have the 210Po ring. The 210Po rings are very faint, and some other
isotopes may have been present, decaying and producing alpha particles. There may not have been sufficient
radioactive material to produce a ring dark enough to be seen.
However, if there were other alpha decays occurring, these could not have been lower energy decays than the 210Po,
otherwise smaller diameter rings would have been produced adding to the discoloration inside the 210Po ring. Such
rings would have been more prominent and clearly visible as darker rings. Such smaller rings cannot be seen, thus
238
U could not have been the original parent material.
On the other hand, some higher energy alpha decays may have occurred, producing rings larger and fainter than the
210
Po ring. There may simply have been insufficient radioactive material to produce larger, visible rings. Thus 214Po
and 218Po cannot be definitely eliminated as possible parent material.
No matter which of the polonium isotopes comprised the original parent material, the decay half-life in all cases is
very short and raises the question of how the ring could have formed in such a quick time period.
Energy
Isotope Decay Half Life
(MeV)
238
U Alpha 4.5 billion years 4.19
234
Th Beta 24.1 days
234
Pa Beta 1 minute
234
U Alpha 0.245 million years 4.77
230
Th Alpha 76,000 years 4.68
226
Ra Alpha 1,600 years 4.78
222
Rn Alpha 3.8 days 5.49
218
Po Alpha 3.0 minutes 6.00
214
Pb Beta 26.8 minutes
214
Bi Beta 19.8 minutes
214
Po Alpha 164 microseconds 7.69
210
Pb Beta 22 years
210
Bi Beta 5 days
210
Po Alpha 138.4 days 5.30
206
Pb Stable Stable
Table 1. The 238U decay series (summarized from Gentry and CCNR).2, 20
Significant find
The field evidence points to Stone Mountain being formed during the Recessive stage of the Flood toward the end of
a major mountain building episode. This orogeny metamorphosed the Flood-deposited country rock, and uplifted the
Southern Appalachians. If this interpretation is correct, the granite was not formed during the Creation Week and the
polonium halos cannot be primordial. Nevertheless, the polonium halos show clearly that the parent radioactive
material was incorporated into the host rock by very rapid geologic processes.
This new report of polonium halos in Stone Mountain granite is most significant for models of granite formation,
and for classification of rocks within the Creation and Flood framework.
References
80. See for example, Gentry, R.V., Radioactive halos: implications for Creation; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), The
First International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Vol. 2, pp. 89–
81. Gentry, R.V., Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, pp. 111–137, 1988. Return to
text.
82. Wise, K.P., Radioactive halos: geological concerns, Creation Research Society Quarterly 25(4):171–176,
83. Wakefield, R. and Wilkerson, G., Geologic setting of polonium radiohalos; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), The
Second International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Vol. 2, pp.
329–344, 1990. Return to text.
84. Wise, K.P., Radiohalos in diamonds, Letters to the editor, CEN Tech. J. 12(3):285–286, 1998. See replies
by Armitage (pp. 286–287) and Gentry (pp. 287–290). Return to text.
85. Snelling, A.A., Radiohalos; in: Vardiman, L., and Chaffin, E.F., (Eds), Radioisotopes and the Age of the
Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, and
Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, pp. 381–468, 2000. Return to text.
86. Armitage, M., New record of polonium radiohalos, Stone Mountain granite, Georgia (USA), TJ 15(1):82–
87. Armitage, M., Internal radiohalos in a diamond, CEN Tech. J. 9(1):93–101, 1995. Return to text.
88. Armitage, M. and Back, E., The thermal erasure of radiohalos in biotite, CEN Tech. J. 8(2):212–222, 1994.
Return to text.
89. Gentry, Ref. 2, p. 278. Return to text.
90. See for example, Gentry, Ref. 2, p. 241. Return to text.
91. See for example, Gentry, Ref. 2, p. 326. Return to text.
92. Grant, W.H., Structural and petrologic features of the Stone Mountain granite pluton, Georgia; in:
Neathery, T.L. (Ed.), Centennial Field Guide Volume 6, Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of
America, pp. 285–290, 1986. Return to text.
93. Grant, W.H., Field excursion, Stone Mountain—Lithonia District, Georgia, Geologic Survey Guidebook 2,
Atlanta, 1962. Return to text.
94. McQueen, D.R., The Southern Appalachian Mountains: An example of 6,000 years of Earth history; in:
Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), The First International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship,
Pittsburgh, Vol. 2, pp. 245–250, 1986. Return to text.
95. Walker, T.B., A biblical geologic model; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), The Third International Conference on
Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, pp. 581–592, 1994. Return to text.
96. Froede, Jr, C.R., Stone Mountain Georgia: a creationist geologist’s perspective, Creation Research Society
Quarterly 31(4):214–224, 1995. Return to text.
99. CCNR, Here is the decay chain of uranium-238, <www.ccnr.org/decay_U238.html>, 7 February, 2000.
Return to text.
For More Information Visit:
www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
www.christiananswers.net

Radio Dating

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Radio Dating

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radio Dating

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RADIOMETRIC DATING METHODS AND THE BIBLE

1. What about carbon dating?

How the carbon clock works

Other factors affecting carbon dating

Other radiometric dating methods

What date would you like?

Methods should work reliably on things of known age

Different dating techniques should consistently agree

Then what do the radiometric ‘dates’ mean?

Anomalies in deep rock crystals

References and notes

3. Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone

The Hawkesbury Sandstone

Radiocarbon (14C) analysis

A ‘dating’ test at Hornton Quarries

Index fossils and geologic dating

Could the radiocarbon be due to contamination?

5. Much-inflated carbon-14 dates

From subfossil trees: a new mechanism.

Alternative global-biospheric conditions

An additional mechanism for spuriously-high carbon-14 dates

References and notes

6. The Radiometric Dating Game

• How radiometric dating works in general

How Radiometric Dating Works in General

I found the following statement in an on-line (non creationist) reference, as follows:

Why Methods in General are Inaccurate

Here are more quotes about radiometric dating from http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm:

Why K-Ar Dating is Inaccurate

As for K-Ar dating, here is a quote given above:

The following was sent to me by a friend:

How Errors Can Account for the Observed Dates

Do Different Methods Agree with Each Other on the Geologic Column?

Possible Other Sources of Correlation

Anomalies of Radiometric Dating

Here are a couple of more quotes about anomalies:

[Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, page 400.]

The following quote is from http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm:

Why a Low Anomaly Percentage is Meaningless

The Biostrategraphic Limits Issue

Preponderance of K-Ar Dating

Excuses for Anomalies

What is a Radioisotope Age?

Need for a Double-Blind Test

Possible Changes in the Decay Rate

The following information was sent to me by e-mail:

Atlantic Sea Floor Dating

Gentry’s Radiohaloes in Coalified Wood

Here is a quote from Coffin, page 306, about Gentry’s findings:

[I wouldn’t be surprised if these last 2 examples have simple explanations.]

Here is another instance of an anomalously young carbon 14 date:

The papers of Miller’s that are cited by Lepper are:

Finally, some more quotes about carbon 14 dating from http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm:

b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as “infinite.”

Tree Ring Chronologies

The following message was sent to me by e mail on February 11, 1998:

Growth of coral reefs

Reliability of Creationist Sources

http://www.ldolphin.org/URLres.shtml (More links than you can ever visit.)