From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

Radio-active dating.

From time to time I have posted here arguing that the ages assigned to
rocks on the basis of radioactive dating are unreliable, partly on the
basis that we really cannot be certain about half-lives of tens of
thousands of years when we have only known about radioactivity for about
a century, but mainly on the basis that the assumption beneath
radioactive dating is flawed.

The boffin finds a piece of rock which contains radioactive element X,
which decays away into element Y at a certain rate. Based on the amount
of Y the boffin concludes that decay has been proceeding for umpteen
billion years - but what is his basis for assuming that there was no Y naturally present in the rock before the decay process started?

An article on p.9 of the New Scientist for 07-04-2012 raises the same
question and with what some of you who have blind faith in anything said
by St Charles (Darwin) may be a surprise. The article begins:

"Two of the solar system's best natural timekeepers have been caught misbehaving, suggesting that the accepted ages for the oldest known
rocks are wrong."

It then describes one of these "timekeepers", which relies upon the
present ratio of certain radioactive elements.

"Because the rate of decay is constant for each isotope and the ratio of isotopes when the solar system formed is known, it is possible to work
out how long after the birth of the solar system the rock formed."

Using the rate of decay (so well known and so constant, remember) the
boffins worked out that the half-life of samarium-146 was 103 million
years +- 5 million.

"But using a new, more accurate technique, Michael Paul of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and colleagues have found that the figure is
just 68 milllion years."

The conclusion is that the rocks formed up to 80 million years earlier
than thought - and I would suggest that possibly the earth is up to 80 millions years younger than thought! Nowhere near enough to allow for
Creation in 4,004 BC, but still a black eye for the blind faith of the evolutionist.

"A second hiccup concerns the starting ratio of a pair of uranium
isotopes, which decay into two lead isotopes. Previously it was assumed" (notice that word, please. Assumed because their assumption allowed them
to claim huge ages for earth) "that all rocks start out wih the same
ratio of uranium isotopes."

Joe Hiess of the British Geological Survey decided to put some facts to
the assumption - which, of course, is a very good and scientific thing
to do.

"Most [of the rocks he studied] had similar ratios but some were wildly different."

He has now come up with a new "average" isotobe ratio which knocks
700,000 years off the age of all these rocks. Of course he has to use an "average" becaues there is no way of knowing for certain the original
ratio in any particular sample. I wonder what conclusions he would reach
if he used Creationist "assumptions"? You never know, he might be able
to publish the sure results of modern science that these rocks have been scientifically shown to be no more than 6,000 years old.

It all depends on your assumptions.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2