Posted on 08/17/2012 11:21:22 AM PDT by fishtank
More Fluctuations Found in Isotopic Clocks
by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Aug. 17, 2012
Age-dating a rock using its radioactive isotopes only works by assuming that the rate at which that "clock" ticks was constant in the past and essentially identical to that in the present. Not long ago, scientists discovered excess helium in crystals1 and "orphaned" polonium radiohalos,2 both of which imply that the decay rates of isotopes commonly used to date earth rocks were dramatically accelerated in the past. Even today, researchers are finding small but significant changes in isotope decay rates, and these add credibility to the idea that isotopic processes were once very different from today's processes.
One standard isotopic clock system uses decaying uranium isotopes. Uranium spontaneously and slowly decays to lead (Pb on the Periodic Table of Elements). Two different uranium isotopes, 235U and 238U, decay into lead at different rates. Geologists assume that the ratio between these is constant and known, giving a convenient shortcut to uranium dating, which only requires that the two uranium amounts be measured.
Of course, this shortcut age-dating method assumes that 238U and 235U have decayed at today's rates throughout the past. It also assumes that the relative amounts of the two have been constant. Physics Today editor Johanna Miller recently wrote, "Standard Pb-Pb dating protocol uses a 238U/235U ratio of 137.88 with zero uncertainty. But several recent studies have cast doubt on that number."3
Miller cited one experiment that found that the uranium ratio (the heavier 238U to lighter weight 235U) is not constant. The study authors wrote, "Our observations have a direct impact on the U-series and U-Th-Pb chronometers," meaning that dates "determined" by uranium decay will need revision.4
Yet another study reported natural variation in the uranium ratio. These authors suggested that natural processes separate the isotopes from one another and skew the ratio, thereby skewing the ages gained by the assumption that the ratio was constant. These authors wrote, "The discovery that 238U/235U varies in nature also has implications for the precision and accuracy of U-Pb dating. The total observed range in U isotope compositions would produce variations in 207Pb/206Pb ages of young U-bearing minerals of up to 3 Ma [million years old], and up to 2 Ma for minerals that are 3 billion years old."5
Two to three million years are not a huge part of three billion. So, adjusting already-published dates to reflect these new and larger error margins will not displace billion-year-old age assignments. However, if today's comparatively tame natural processes affect isotope ratios, then ancient and much more violent processes could have affected those ratios and rates much more, just as the helium in crystals and orphaned radiohalos imply.
Another isotope system used for dating, though more rarely that uranium, is that which occurs when a radioactive samarium isotope decays to the element neodymium. A 2012 Science report re-measured samarium's decay rate, finding that it occurs only about 66 percent as fast as "the currently used value" for age dating.6 This is a huge discrepancy! It means that all published samarium-dated rock ages need to be re-evaluated.
In addition, Purdue University just applied for a patent on a solar flare warning system that relies on ways in which the earth-sun relationship somehow alters nuclear decay rates. Purdue News reports that "Advance warning could allow satellite and power grid operators to take steps to minimize impact and astronauts to shield themselves from potentially lethal radiation emitted during solar storms."7 Their invention would rely on detecting changes in the rate of manganese 54 decaying to chromium 54. Researchers observed the decay rate changes occurring about a day prior to solar flares.
Even carbon dating is in hot water. Scientists typically use this method to age-date carbon-containing objects thought to be only tens of thousands of years old. The relevant radioactive carbon isotope (14C) decays so fast that it should no longer exist in earth materials that are a million or more years old.8 Recently, researchers measured elevated levels of 14C in correlated tree rings and attributed the spike to an unidentified "massive cosmic event."9 If natural processes did alter carbon isotope ratios, then why trust dates that assume the ratios were never altered?
Science shows that isotopic clocks are not all trustworthy.10 The isotope ratios and rates upon which they depend are variable, even on today's comparatively calm earth surface. During the tumultuous Flood, when immeasurable quantities of mantle material were ejected onto earth's surface and water potentially contaminated everything, isotopic clocks ticked much, much faster.11
References
Humphreys, D.R. 2005. Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay. In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Vol. 2. Vardiman, L. et al., eds. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society.
Gentry, R.V. 1974. Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmolocial Perspective. Science. 184 (4132): 62-66.
Miller, J. 2012. Time to reset isotopic clocks? Physics Today. 65 (6): 20-21.
Stirling, C.H. et al. 2007. Low-temperature isotopic fractionation of uranium. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 264 (1): 208-225.
Weyer, S. et al. 2008. Natural fractionation of 238U/235U. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 72 (2): 345-359.
Kinoshita, N. et al. 2012. A Shorter 146Sm Half-Life Measured and Implications for 146Sm-142Nd Chronology in the Solar System. Science. 335 (6076): 1614-1617.
Venere, E. New system could predict solar flares, give advance warning. Purdue News. Posted on purdue.edu, August 13, 2012. Despite this, 90 instances of C-14 in supposedly million-year-old earth materials were reviewed and 10 more were presented in Baumgardner, J.R. et al. 2003. Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism. R.L. Ivey, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 127-142.
Lovett, R. A. Mysterious radiation burst recorded in tree rings. Nature news. Posted on nature.com June 3, 2012, accessed August 10, 2012.
Austin, S.A. 2005. Do Radioisotope Clocks Need Repair? Testing the Assumptions of Isochron Dating Using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotopes. In Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Vol. 2.Vardiman, L.et al., eds. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society. When heated to plasma, bare nuclei of rhenium radioisotopes decay a billion times faster than normal. See Bosch, F. et al. 1996. Observation of Bound-State β- Decay of Fully Ionized 187Re: 187Re- 187Os Cosmochronometry. Physical Review Letters. 77 (26): 5190-5193.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on August 17, 2012.
And evolutionists oppose not just the written, revealed word of God but also the Creator who gave it to us.
You cannot possibly claim God to be God and call Him a liar.
It boggles the mind that any evolutionist who claims to be a rational and objective human being would be willing to worship a God who lies to them. How rational is THAT?
Adam was created as a full grown man.
On the next day, a creationist would correctly state that Adam was one day old.
The evolutionist would mock the creationist and appeal to the evidence of Adam’s age,.... and be quite wrong. The creationist would be the one who is correct.
What we observe is what we observe but unless we know ALL the facts, there’s simply no way of making accurate determinations about what we are analyzing.
That means instead of a rock formation being a billion years old, it’s 995 million years old.
What it means is that science is not reliable. Either it cannot be trusted because it is not accurate, it is being constantly *revised* as new data comes in.
Or the decay rates actually are changing thus the premise on which science is built cannot be trusted and all the conclusions built on that are wrong.
Evolutionists who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Someone’s credibility just took a hit.
OUCH!!!
Surely the statement:
“Creationists oppose not just evolution, but also geology, physics, paleontology, astronomy and any other branch of science that refuses to stick with their useless precepts.”
is right up there with, ‘If you’re so smart how come you aren’t rich’ but without the humor or irony.
So the Pope and every other Christian who accepts evolution geology and astronomy rejects the word of God and calls him a liar?
What a myopic insular and hateful view. It must make you feel so smugly good about yourself to condemn all thinking people to hell with your ignorant zeal.
What's evolution geology? A new branch of science?
Or did the great intellectual forget his commas?
It's also disingenuous to suddenly drag other sciences into it. The discussion is about evolution. Being a geologist or astronomer does not by default demand acceptance of evolution.
Anyone's choice is to either believe God and what He put in the Bible, or not, no matter what their title or position. Either the Bible is true or not. If you choose to sit in judgement on it and determine with your limited human understanding, that it is wrong, you are stating that what is in there is not true. You are in effect, calling God a liar. Doesn't matter who it is and what their title is.
As far as the pope's position on evolution, I do believe that that has been addressed to you enough in the past and you have chosen to reject it. It any case, it is irrelevant to me what he chooses to believe on the subject so there's no need to bring it up to me again.
It must make you feel so smugly good about yourself to condemn all thinking people to hell with your ignorant zeal.
Where did I do that? Please post the links to the appropriate comments.
Check the title of the thread. It is about physics not evolution. How disingenuous of you to pretend that the only science under discussion is evolution.
Amusing that you are so bereft of intelligence that you cannot make an argument against science without making it about atheism or trying to make it about me. I feel sorry for you. I will pray for you.
Liberalism is the political expression of the religion of humanism, which indeed is the opposing “truth claim” to God’s truth.
Yes, with enough evolution, people will just become their own Gods. And sometimes they don’t even need a few billion years! ;)
You didn’t need to project and be sleepy about it. Pretty much everyone on FR knows you’re a sleepy liberal dreamer. ;)
Precisely. And notice the endless projections. Liberals pretend to know everything there is to know about geology through circular reasoning like “fossils are this old because of the old rocks they were found in, rocks are that old because of the old fossils found in them”.
YOU were the one who dragged the other sciences into it with your appeal to authority.
Just a degree with a few letters after their name.
I hope you’re feeling better.
WRT to circular dating methods, I always think of the movie “Finding Nemo” where the stingray teacher is singing a song to the “kids”...
the words for the “daters” would go something like this:
“oooooooh, the rocks date the fossils
and the fossils date the rocks,
and we don’t really know if they’re
older than your socks!”
It’s that fossilized uranium.
Or, just an Evo's fossilized CRANIUM
Paradoxically, if you could find that there wouldn't be any.
[[Creationists oppose not just evolution, but also geology, physics, paleontology]]
Actually Creationists and ID’ists Don’t ‘oppose’ any of these fields as these fields have yielded more than enough evidence to show that evolution is a lie! All the evidences that show evolution a lie is simply waved away by evolutionists as though it weren’t important or didn’t refute their claims- We also support mathematics whichg also show beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is scientifically impossible and we also support biology and microbiology which show how intricately and intelligently designed everythign really is. And we also support scientific laws such as the second law of thermodynamics which show that it is impossible for evolution to have occured, and we also support thje study of chemicals andm inerals and genetics etc which show that in the beginning man had biologically pure elements- somethign which nature is incapable of producing with nothign but dirty elements to work with- No- Contrary to the assinine claims of evolutionsits, Creationists do not infact reject science- We embrace it because it shows the NEED for an Intelligent Designer- and when Evolutionsits put forth their assinine arguments abotu how Irreducible Complexity ‘could have evolved’ thewy apparently are too dimwhitted to recognize that their explanatiosn invovle the ‘evolution’ of IC via Intelligently designed circumstances, and biologically impossible scenarios! Miller faield miserably in his attempts to discredit Behe- and apaprently wasn’t sensible enoguh to recognize how silly his arguements sounded, and didn’t recognize the fact that he ended up supporting IC and ID- not refuting it!
And remeenber, anyoen can claim to be Christian, but hteir vehemence agaisnt God and God’s children show that they are anythign but Christian! They apparently think that attaching the title ‘Christian’ to their claims wikll give their silly aergtuments credence with the Real Christian Community
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.