Fossil dating part 2

If you have not already read part 1 of this article, it is strongly recommended to read that first.

Let’s look at the Potassium to argon dating method on five recent andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand.

One lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, but the date results (which would indicate when the larva solidified) ranged from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma (Mega annum, million years)

But the researchers would argue that “excess” argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained when it solidified!

The problem is, if a massively magnified date can be given to rocks of known age, then how many times is it happening to samples of unknown age?

Why should we trust this method for dating rocks of an unknown age?

The secular scientific literature states many examples, of where “excess argon” causes the dating of rocks of known historical age to be in millions of years. [5]

The excess of argon appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust, which would fit in with the world being only thousands of years old, because the argon hasn’t had enough time to escape. [6]

This technique involves taking a number of rock samples, not too close to each other.

Again parent and daughter isotopes are measured (ie rubidium-87 as the parent and strontium-87 as the daughter).

This is done for all the samples and a straight line is drawn through these points.

The method also involves dividing both the parent and daughter concentrations by the concentration of a similar stable isotope, (ie strontium-86).

But again if the line fits well and the “age” is acceptable, then it is a “good” date.

So the date can again be suited to the evolutionary scheme of things.

An example on how unreliable this method can be, was when Geologist Dr. Steve Austin took samples from the base of the Grand Canyon, and from rocks at the top of the canyon.

A standard laboratory did the isochron technique (rubidium-strontium) and the result was that the top was 270 Ma (Mega annum, million years) older than the samples at the bottom, which was impossible! [7]

Carbon 14 slowly decays by changing back to nitrogen and so releases energy. A ratio of carbon 14 to common carbon, is very similar in a leaf to that in an animal’s body, to that in the atmosphere.

But when a plant or animal dies, the carbon 14 decays as time goes by.

Carbon 14 dating cannot be used to date rocks, but only on things that were once living.

There are a number of factors which alter the results of the carbon 14 method:

One is the differing amounts of cosmic rays reaching the earth.

Another is that the earth’s magnetic field is decreasing, which deflects cosmic rays.

Also, the Genesis flood would have changed the carbon balance. The ratio before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Added to that, volcanoes give out a lot of CO2 which is very low on carbon 14, & many Creationist researchers belief that there was a lot of volcanic activity at the time of the flood.

In theory, anything over about 50,000 years old, should have no detectable carbon 14 left.

So if something has been dated by a different method, which gives a date of millions of years old, and it contains carbon 14, then that is good evidence for it not being that old.

So the carbon14 dating method can be useful, provided these factors are taken into consideration.

If this was a reliable means of determining ages, then they should all agree.

In Australia some wood was found that had been buried in a lava flow which had formed into basalt.

The wood was “dated” by radiocarbon (carbon 14) analysis at about 45,000 years old.

But the basalt was “dated” by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old! [8]

A sample of wood dated 33,720 years old (+ or - 430 yrs) by the carbon 14 method was found in “middle Triassic” rock dated at 230 million years old!

Further checks showed that the carbon 14 date was not due to any contamination. [9]

[9] How carbon 14 creates a problem for the Evolution Theory:

Remember, a specimen older than 50,000 years old, should have so little carbon 14 that it won’t be measurable.

Evolutionists say that the youngest coal is millions of years old, (and they say that most is 10’s or 100’s of millions of years old).

But no source of coal has been found that completely lacks carbon 14.

This seems to be an unsolvable mystery to evolutionists. [10]

"...if radiocarbon is routinely present in coal, oil, graphite & diamonds, then the Earth cannot be billions of years old... ...Furthermore, ice cores only yield chronologies of many thousands of years by assuming the layering is due to annual cycles." [11]

Fossil wood found in “Upper Permian” rock was dated at 250 Ma (Mega annum, million years) old still contained carbon 14!. [12]

"If nuclear decay rates have not been constant in the past, then not only is radioisotopic dating of rocks rendered useless, but many fundamental universal physical constants would have been affected." [13]

Surely these things ought to cast doubt on us relying on these dating techniques?

If you have not already read part 1 of this article, it is strongly recommended to read it.

[4] 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, 1998, pp.503-525

[5] For example, six cases were reported by D. Krummenacher, “Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Rocks,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 1969, 6:47-55. & a large excess was reported in D.E. Fisher, “Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt in Nigeria,” Nature, 1970, 232:60-61.

[6] 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, 1998, p. 520.

[7] S.A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1994, pp. 120-131.

[8] A.A. Snelling, “Radiometric Dating in Conflict,” Creation, 1998, 20(1):24-27.

[9] A.A. Snelling, “Dating Dilemma,” Creation, 1999, 21(3):39-41.

[10] D.C. Lowe, “Problems Associated with the Use of Coal as a Source of 14C Free Background Material,” Radiocarbon, 1989, 31:117-120.

[11] Extract from Dr Andrew Snelling's letter in 'Evangelicals Now' p18 January 2003

[12] A.A. Snelling, Stumping Old-age Dogma. Creation, 1998, 20(4):48-50.

[13] Extract from Dr Andrew Snelling's letter in 'Evangelicals Now' p18 January 2003.