Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Blzbba
"But what about U-Pb (Uranium-lead) radio-isotope dating, which, to date (bad pun) has been shown to be extremely accurate?

U-TH-PB DATING: AN EXAMPLE OF FALSE ISOCHRONS

"Excerpted the Conclusion fro above link

The concerns raised by Zheng [28] regarding U-Pb isochrons are warranted. At Koongarra a 207Pb/206Pb “isochron” produced from 11 hand-picked uraninite and galena grains, plus four whole-rock samples, yields an “age” of 863 Ma, the same as a near-concordant “age” from one of the uraninite grains. Nine weathered whole-rock samples yield an “isochron age” of 1270Ma, while 113 soil samples produce an excellent “isochron” with an “age” of 1445Ma. All of these “ages” are geologically meaningless. While the apparent isochron produced by the soil samples may be identified as a mixing line, produced by the mixing of radiogenic Pb with common or background Pb in the surrounding rocks and soils, even this explanation strains credulity because the samples come from up to 17km away from known uranium mineralization, and a few of the soil samples represent different rock types. Not only then has open system behavior of these isotopes been demonstrated, but apparent “isochrons” and their derived “ages” are invariably geologically meaningless. Thus none of the assumptions used to interpret the U-Th-Pb isotopic system to yield “ages” can be valid. If these assumptions were valid, then the 232Th/208Pb “age” of 0Ma for three of the five uraninite samples should be taken seriously. Creationists should therefore not be intimidated by claims that U-Th-Pb radiometric “dating” has “proved” the presumed great antiquity of the earth, and the strata and fossils of the so-called geological column. "

49 posted on 04/28/2004 2:42:04 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: DannyTN
I would expect something like that from the Institute for Creation Research...

BTT - I have to leave work now and will look at it in more depth later. Appreciative of your responses, I am.
51 posted on 04/28/2004 2:47:07 PM PDT by Blzbba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: DannyTN
The deal with these dating techniques is they're incredibly complicated and really only people that do them could fully explain how they work.

But they're accepted by absolutely everyone except for a tiny band of young-earth creationidiots.

The Institude for Creation Idiocy does a fairly good job, however, of creating technical-sounding but bogus arguments against them for the benefit of their scientifically uneducated audience.
52 posted on 04/28/2004 3:00:29 PM PDT by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson