Posted on 02/02/2015 7:40:42 AM PST by fishtank
Alkali Metal Dating, Rb-Sr Dating Model: Radioactive Dating, Part 4
by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. *
The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)
Editors note: Weve received a wide range of responses to Dr. Vernon Cupps recent radioactive dating Impact articles. Most readers appreciate the hard science, but many have struggled with the equations. The purpose of this series is to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that these dating methods do not prove that Earth is millions or billions of years old, as is often reported. To provide context for Part 4, below is a summary of the first three articlesall are available online.
Part 1: Clocks in Rocks?
There are significant problems with radioisotope dating in general. The critical closed-system assumption is not realisticno system can remain unaffected by its environment over millions of years. Evolutionists appeal to radioactive dating because it appears to confirm the deep time their models demand, but the actual data dont match the evolutionary model.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image.
* Dr. Cupps is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in nuclear physics from Indiana University-Bloomington.
Cite this article: Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. 2015. Alkali Metal Dating, Rb-Sr Dating Model: Radioactive Dating, Part 4. Acts & Facts. 44 (2).
Here is the Google Scholar search result link for “VR Cupps” and “radiation”.
Snarky remarks to this article by persons without a similar technical background (that Dr. Cupps has) will be interpreted as just that:
... snarky remarks.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22vr+cupps%22+radiation&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32
Is this like ‘Speed Dating’?..................
From Wikipedia: Sources of errorEdit
Rb-Sr dating relies on correctly measuring the Rb-Sr ratio of a mineral or whole rock sample, plus deriving an accurate 87Sr/86Sr ratio for the mineral or whole rock sample.
Several preconditions must be satisfied before a Rb-Sr date can be considered as representing the time of emplacement or formation of a rock.
The system must have remained closed to Rb and Sr diffusion from the time at which the rock formed or fell below the closure temperature (generally considered to be 650 °C);
The minerals which are taken from a rock to construct an isochron must have formed in chemical equilibrium with one another or in the case of sediments, be deposited at the same time;
The rock must not have undergone any metasomatism which could have disturbed the Rb-Sr system either thermally or chemically
One of the major drawbacks (and, conversely, the most important use) of utilizing Rb and Sr to derive a radiometric date is their relative mobility, especially in hydrothermal fluids. Rb and Sr are relatively mobile alkaline elements and as such are relatively easily moved around by the hot, often carbonated hydrothermal fluids present during metamorphism or magmatism.
Conversely, these fluids may metasomatically alter a rock, introducing new Rb and Sr into the rock (generally during potassic alteration or calcic (albitisation) alteration. Rb-Sr can then be used on the altered mineralogy to date the time of this alteration, but not the date at which the rock formed.
Thus, assigning age significance to a result requires studying the metasomatic and thermal history of the rock, any metamorphic events, and any evidence of fluid movement. A Rb-Sr date which is at variance with other geochronometers may not be useless, it may be providing data on an event which is not representing the age of formation of the rock.
Sampling error is taken into account in all radiometric dating techniques.
“The secret things belong unto the Lord our God.”
Sorry .. “It has been given unto you [the Christ believer] to know the mysteries and secrets of the Kingdom.
I have an excellent science background, although I am no Dr. Cupps. My "theory" is that God used evolution. It certainly isn't an original theory, as it was articulated long ago by the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin, who denominational concerns aside, was an internationally respected thinker.
Evolutionary theory certainly has some large gaps, however in many cases, it can rather easily be demonstrated. Isn't it logical to think about God using the process to evolve species He created?
Do you consider the study of evolutionary possibilities to be 'anti-Christian,' or not worthy of a Christian's attention?
So, am I a Creationist?
There are a number of Christians who believe in micro-evolution (within kind, bird—> bird, snake to snake etc) and not macro evolution (between bird—>reptile or reptile—>bird or bacteria—> man in the long run)
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.