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.
Has anyone dated Mick recently?
5.56mm
Freedom of Religion is more about freedom than Religion.
The practical effect was to establish a Country that was not “told” by their Gov’t what religion they must practice.
That is it.
Individuals are to be free to practice whatever religion they wish.
It made no statement about which region is correct, and yes, some folks will and do have “incorrect” religions.
I’m willing in a free society to explore, as I have, the merits associated with those positions.
It doesn’t in anyway mean that they are correct, just because they exist.
We are back to relativism.
Agreed. But I think religious beliefs that are logical leads people to make logical agruments in support of them. This article is a litany of logical fallacies, and gives me no reason to have faith in the theology behind it.
You may be correct about logical fallacies contained in the referenced article.
But that, in and of itself, doesn’t logically mean that the conclusions are incorrect.
In addition, try to set aside the “faith” behind any argument and simple consider the evidence as a skeptical scientist. Ask a lot of questions, and question ever assumption.
When I say set aside faith, I mean the faith in Darwinism as well.
There are so many problems that it has become unworkable.
Best of luck to you.
I do not accept that premise because I do not assume restrictions on the power of God. Because I do not start from that premise, I arrive at different conclusions.
Just so you know.
I did not grow up with a Biblical or Cristian belief. I was left to my own to decide. I spent the better part of the past 25 years searching.
Ironically, it was Joseph Campbell's work on mythology that started me on this path. It has been a rough and rocky road, however the burning questions about the core of belief kept me going. It was never about what I wanted or needed to feel better. It has been, and is, what foundations a certain system are based on.
And as I said before, if you are sincere, then keep asking questions. DO NOT accept anything on authority alone.
Thanks for the ping!
More gibberish from the science haters.
What was really reported was that the ratio of U238 to U235 differed by half a percentage point more than was commonly believed.
That means instead of a rock formation being a billion years old, it’s 995 million years old.
But that, in and of itself, doesn’t logically mean that the conclusions are incorrect.
No, it does not. I have no problem with the proposition that the conclusions may be true. I do have a problem with the proposition that it must be true, and this proves it. It's implied that the decay rate of Uranium can be accelereated to 4 million times normal by heating it to magma temperatures. If that works you should be able to make an atom bomb with a chunk of Uranium and a blast furnace.
[ dividing infinity (eternity) by anything gets a little silly. ]
Why?.. its done all the time! (wry smile)..
Eternity is composed of many moments..
which are like strings... in the Quantum moment..
“Quantum Moment Theory”, <<-I may have just coined a phrase.. LoL
What?
Infinity relates to distance.
eternity relates to time.
(doesn't it? )
I thought I had a "Quantum Moment" the other day, but when I looked, it was different.
[ Infinity relates to distance. eternity relates to time.? ]
Good question.. seems to be a speed question..
How far can you go in a specified Quantum Moment..
Humans may never know the answer to this question..
LoL...
Ping for later. Thanks.
Indeed.
So . . . Why ask me? ( ^8 }
I find it interesting that you keep making sweeping generalized statements. I personally believe that one of the most wonderful gifts from God is the capability and capacity to evolve. This discovery of non-constant decay rates is quite remarkable. It seems analogous to the discovery of a non-static speed of light. You seem to prefer to attack people like me who believe in a Creator. Our ability to understand even 10% of the mysteries of life, love, and science are impeded by your irrational insistence on presuming that I am stupid, and made worse by liberals that think like you in government. Please think about abandoning your position of haughty arrogance and read the entire Bible; every word. If you remain convinced that you cannot both love and respect science and your Creator, then out of respect you might want to reconsider saying Creationism is akin to ignorance.
The actual, countable annual layers in ice cores can be counted back to 20,000 years after which the ice has compacted so much it becomes difficult to distinguish them. However the ice cores themselves are steeper still by miles. But just for the sake of proof, you already have 14,000 years of ice that existed before the people who misinterpret the Bible say the universe existed.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3409400161.html
Are you joking tacticalogic?
When did Isaac Newton ever publicly disagree with radiometric dating? Indeed, how could he have done so, since nobody at the time had ever even heard of "radiation?"
It seems to me that, in Newton's time, knowledge of the atom and atomic behavior hadn't advanced all that much beyond the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus of Abdera (ca. 460 – 370 BC).
Excellent observation, MrB!!! Thank you!
What evolutionists seem not to wish to explain is how a purely "blind, random process" can generate consistency and rationality in nature.
Another way to put the question (as Plato did): If natural phenomena are solely the products of ceaseless change (i.e., "evolution"), then how can anything ever be anything at all?
tacticalogic, allmendream: Care to take a stab at that question?
It seems the fundamental duality of the Universe consists of that which does not change, and that which is capable of changing. Evolution entirely omits the former from its mindscape....
Which is why Darwin's theory appears to be so irrational to me. FWIW.
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.