Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted? | The Institute for Creation Research
 
Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted?

For decades creation scientists have shown that the answer to this question is a clear NO! Its results have been shown to be inconsistent, discordant, unreliable, and frequently bizarre in any model. Creationists have, in particular, pointed out the weak assumptions on which the method is based, and the contradictory nature of its results. A research consortium has recently convened at ICR to go further and develop a workable understanding of the radioisotope decay data from a young-earth perspective. The old-earth model doesn't work, and a better model must replace it.

However, as we look forward to a better alternative, it would behoove us to look back and restate the powerful tried and true arguments relating to the erroneous assumptions and contradictory results.

Assumption One: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past. We know that some elements decay over time into another element, i.e., uranium (parent) changes into lead (daughter). Since these decay rates are now very stable, this has seemed to be a reasonable assumption. However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated.

For example, the existence of short half-life polonium halos in rock have been used by many to argue for rapid formation (i.e., creation) of host rocks. Even evolutionists admit that the halos are a mystery. Yet nearby a full uranium halo might be found which would take a long period of time to form. These two 'mutually-exclusive' facts convince one that something has been overlooked.

Assumption Two: No parent or daughter material has been added to or taken from the specimen. We know of many ways in which the materials can be made mobile, most particularly through ground water leaching. But even when questionable specimens are rejected, many results are still unusable, and explained away by contamination.

Furthermore, since the dynamic Flood of Noah's day covered the entire globe, what rock could have escaped its effects?

Assumption Three: No daughter material was present at the start. Only rocks and minerals which formerly were in a hot molten condition (like lava) can be dated. But what if the original melt already had some radiogenic lead? The resulting rock would inherit a deceivingly "old" date. In recent years, the "isochron" method has been derived to differentiate between inherited material and true daughter material. Unfortunately, even this has now come into disfavor. Many "pseudo-isochrons" have now been published which yield bizarre, useless dates.

This assumption actually denies the possibility of creation, for God may have created an array of radioisotopes which, if analyzed with false assumptions, could be misinterpreted as age.

The method's unreliability is shown when rocks of known age are dated. For instance, the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens dates at 2.8 million years old! Such anomalous results are common.

While the method obviously doesn't work well, a better understanding of the method is still needed. To that end, pray for the new research group.

*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.

Cite this article: John D. Morris, Ph.D. 1997. Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted?. Acts & Facts. 26 (8).

The Latest
NEWS
Inside December 2021 Acts & Facts
How can we understand Christ’s role as our mediator from a scientific perspective? Why was ICR's first dinosaur excavation significant for...

APOLOGETICS
Christ’s Providence Is Clearly Seen in Bird Migrations
Just as monkeys can’t accidently type Shakespeare texts, birds can’t migrate by evolutionary luck, despite imagined eons of time for “lucky”...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: Snowflakes
by Christy Hardy and Susan Windsor* You’re never too young to be a creation scientist! Kids, discover fun facts about God’s creation with...

ACTS & FACTS
The Gift of God Himself
Each Christmas we remember how deeply God loves us. His wondrous plan of salvation—first set in motion in the Garden of Eden—was miraculously...

ACTS & FACTS
Early Land Plant Evolution?
In a recent Science article, two evolutionists consider land plants (embryophytes) to have evolved from stoneworts (charophyte algae).1 A...

ACTS & FACTS
Biblical Creation and Intellectual Foolishness
In a recent interview discussing his new book In Quest of the Historical Adam, philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig acknowledged his...

ACTS & FACTS
Are Birds “Cousins” to Reptiles?
Are today’s birds genealogical “cousins” to today’s reptiles due to a shared evolutionary ancestry? No. However, birds and...

ACTS & FACTS
Haleakala National Park: One of Many Young-Looking Volcanoes
You can start the day atop the cold peak of Mt. Haleakala and end it on a warm beach on Maui. The sprawling volcanic mountain rises 10,000 feet above...

ACTS & FACTS
The Oceans Point to a Young Earth
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D., and Tim Clarey, Ph.D.* Over 70% of Earth's surface is covered by water, most of which is marine and contained in...

ACTS & FACTS
Jesus Christ Is Our Perfect Mediator
We’ll never get bored throughout eternity. There is always something wonderfully new to learn about our precious Lord Jesus, the uplifting Holy...