You've got two decay products, lead and helium, and they're giving two different ages for the zircon.

Dr. Jake Hebert. He received his Ph.D. in physics from University of Texas at Dallas.

Radiometric Dating

For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.

Along with scores of other Bible-believing geologists, ICR scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:

  • First, rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope ages.
  • Second, various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
  • Third, many dating methods that don't involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.

These observations give us confidence that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. See the articles below for more information on the pitfalls of these dating methods.

Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable

Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption is that simple measurements can lead to reliable ages.

But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general—and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating. More...

Questionable Dating of Bloody Mosquito Fossil

The discovery of fresh blood in a spectacular mosquito fossil strongly contradicts its own "scientific" age assignment of 46 million years. What dating method did scientists use, and did it really generate reliable results? More...

Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable

Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable

For about a century, radioactive decay rates have been heralded as steady and stable processes that can be reliably used to help measure how old rocks are. They helped underpin belief in vast ages and had largely gone unchallenged.

But certain decay rates apparently aren’t as stable as some would hope. More...

The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates

Many scientists rely on the assumption that radioactive elements decay at constant, undisturbed rates and therefore can be used as reliable clocks to measure the ages of rocks and artifacts. Most estimates of the age of the earth are founded on this assumption.

However, new observations have found that those nuclear decay rates actually fluctuate based on solar activity. More...

Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted?

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1:5) More...

Investigating Polonium Radiohalo Occurrences

Polonium radiohalos remain "a very tiny mystery." More...

Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating

The field of radiocarbon dating has become a technical one far removed from the naive simplicity which characterized its initial introduction by Libby in the late 1940's. It is, therefore, not surprising that many misconceptions about what radiocarbon can or cannot do and what it has or has not shown are prevalent among creationists and evolutionists - lay people as well as scientists not directly involved in this field. In the following article, some of the most common misunderstandings regarding radiocarbon dating are addressed, and corrective, up-to-date scientific creationist thought is provided where appropriate. More...

Radiocarbon in "Ancient" Fossil Wood

The presence of measurable radiocarbon in fossil wood supposedly tens and hundreds of millions of years old has been well-documented. More...