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
COVID-19
Psalm 8 and COVID-19
Here in Dallas County, we are under shelter-in-place orders as part of the plan to slow the progress of the global coronavirus pandemic.1 Many...

COVID-19
Spacecraft Model Construction for Isolated Families
The European Space Agency has posted a number of do-it-yourself science activities for families homebound during the coronavirus pandemic.1...

NEWS
Woodcocks: Fit for Different Situations
In today’s change-filled world, God is ubiquitously displaying His creativity to provide for our most important needs. God’s creative providence...

NEWS
Unfounded Fears Arise from Deep Canyon
New concerns have surfaced this week about melting ice from within the deepest point on the continents.1 Worry over the rapid melting of the...

COVID-19
An Ocean of Viruses
A virus is a very tiny structure. In its simplest definition, a virus is some nucleic acid (either DNA or RNA) packed inside a protein coat. It is designed...

NEWS
Inside April 2020 Acts & Facts
How is ICR preparing for our next season of ministry? How does science confirm that turtles have always been turtles? Were dragons really dinosaurs?...

APOLOGETICS
Signs of the Times: Glacier Meltdown
What if meteorologists only got paid if their weather predictions proved to be correct? If so, predicting the weather would be a risky business, like...

ACTS & FACTS
Why Don't They Believe in Creation?
After an ICR scientist presents convincing evidence for biblical creation, listeners often ask, “If all you just said is true, then why don’t...

ACTS & FACTS
Dr. John Whitcomb: A Life Well Lived
The Institute for Creation Research was saddened to hear of Dr. John Whitcomb’s passing on February 5, 2020. It’s been 60 years since...

DISCOVERY CENTER
Dragon Encounters at the ICR Discovery Center
Some of the most eye-opening evidence you’ll find at the ICR Discovery Center for Science & Earth History is located in the Dragon Encounters...