Transcript Radioactive decay pt.2

Session 2 – Radioactive decay Pt.2
In this session we will continue our discussion on
the topic of radioactive decay
Last week we covered Carbon Dating, which is the
most popular (to the public) dating method
Carbon dating was used to date living things (that
had died), methods we look at now are used for
lava flows, rocks/minerals and are where people
get the dates of billions of years from
Potassium-Argon Dating
This method is used to date
when a lava flow cooled
from magma to rock
Doesn’t agree with C-Dating
In Australia, some wood was buried by a basalt
lava flow, as can be seen from the charring. The
wood was: dated: by radiocarbon analysis at about
45,000 years old, but the basalt was “Dated” by
the K-Ar method at 45 million years.
How it works
Potassium decays to argon with a half life of
roughly 1.2 billion years
Argon is a noble gas which means it doesn’t
combine with other elements easily (like helium)
The dating method assumes that when the sample
taken solidified from liquid magma, there
was no argon present
Look what Wikipedia says on the topic
”Argon is a gas that does not ordinarily combine
with other elements. So, when a mineral forms —
whether from molten rock, or from substances
dissolved in water — it will be initially argon-free,
even if there is some argon in the liquid. However,
if the mineral contains any potassium, then decay
of the 40K isotope present will create fresh argon40, that will remain locked up in the mineral.”
Is that assumption true?
"The primary assumption upon which KAr model-age dating is based assumes
zero 40Ar in the mineral phases of a rock
when it solidifies. This assumption has
been shown to be faulty.”
(Dr. Sean D. Pitman, CEN Tech. J., Vol. 10, No. 3, p:342 1996)
It is now known that excess Argon is
carried from the mantle up to the earth’s
crust, which means it is equally likely that
the argon we are measuring is a result of
that and not decay from potassium.
“Potassium and uranium, both common parent
elements, are easily dissolved in water,
so could be leached out of rocks.”
(Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (Ph.D Physical Chemistry)
Refuting evolution – page: 110)
It doesn’t even always agree with itself
“Twenty-seven samples yielded potassium-argon
“model ages” ranging from 405.1+-10 to 2,574.2+73 million years.”
(Dr. Andrew A. Snelling Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:841)
The best evidence against potassium-argon dating
is the fact that it can never work when we
know the date already!
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.7±0.01 Ma
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.6±0.16 Ma; 1.41±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.25±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.35±0.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.11±0.03 Ma
Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.3±7.2 Ma
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.5±6.8 Ma
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.4±2 Ma
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian,
Glass Mountains, California (<500 years old) 12.6±4.5 Ma
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 22.8±16.5 Ma
Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ (<800 years old) 0.15±0.47 Ma
Alkali basalt plug, Benue, Nigeria (<30 Ma) 95 Ma
Olivine basalt, Nathan Hills, Victoria Land,
Antarctica (<0.3 Ma) 18.0±0.7 Ma
Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb, Mt Erebus,
Antarctica (1984) 0.64±0.03 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 years old) 21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<1,000 years old) 42.9±4.2 Ma; 30.3±3.3 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt (<1 Ma) 690±7 Ma
Seamount basalt, near East Pacific Rise (<2.5 Ma) 580±10 Ma; 700±150
Many other methods exist but function
very similarly
We will look at a few popular ones specifically, and
then look at a problem that affects them all
Rubidium-Strontium
Volcanic eruptions are given dates that are
impossible: Example, in East Africa one lava flow
using this method gave a date of 773 million years
– But we know it blew up in the past few thousand
years from historical record
Initial daughter products known?
Variations in the initial 87Sr/86Sr ratios for samples
of young lava from a single volcano have been
found. Therefore, the assumption of a well-defined
initial ratio for many suites of rock is difficult to
defend, and yet this is a crucial assumption for
successful Rb-Sr isochron dating.
It has been shown that the samples can be
contaminated by outside sources which cause the
dates to look older. Both materials are also mobile
Neodymium-Samarium
Method has contradicted their own theory
Rocks from the Peninsula Ranges Batholith of
southern California, which by their own methods
should be 100 million years old, gave a Sm-Nd age
of 1.7 billion years.
The method also has the problem of the elements
being mobile in some cases. Look what Dr. Snelling
has to say:
“A study of the Sm-Nd radioisotope systematic in
minerals in two granites has shown that
hydrothermal fluids interacting with the host rocks,
as the granites intrudes and crystallizes, are
capable of carrying Sm and Nd in the rocks over
distances of at least 1 km.” - Dr. Andrew Snelling
Uranium-Thorium-lead
This is one of the most popular methods used
today and is considered one of the most reliable
Quick quote to sum up problems:
“It has to be concluded, therefore, that U-Th-Pb
“dating” involves many pitfalls, which are really
only surmounted by making further assumptions,
and by dependence on uncertain cross-checks.
Both U and Pb mobility undermine whole-rock
“Dating”, and Pb migration within, and loss from,
individual mineral grains is so prevalent that
interpreting the resultant isotopic data is largely
dependent upon the bias of the investigators to
produce the desired outcomes.”
Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:833
Despite all this, if each method has so many
problems unrelated at times to other methods,
how can they all agree?
They don’t
“The Cardenas basalt flows yielded a potassiumargon “Isochron age” of only 516+-30 million years,
which is less than half of the rubidium-strontium
“Isochron age” of 1,111+-81 million years, while the
samarium-neodymium “Isochron age” of 1,588+-170
million years is more than three times the potassiumargon “Isochron age” Earths Catastrophic past – Volume 2 – Page:841
Eleven whole-rock samples yielded a K-Ar “isochron
age” of 841.5+-164 million years, a Rb-Sr “Isochron
age” of 1,055+-46 million years, a Pb-Pb “isochron
age” of 1,250+-130 million years.
“Even worse were two samples collected only 0.84
meters apart from the same outcrop. They yielded
potassium-argon “model ages” of 1,205.3+-31 and
2,574.2 +-73 million years. Otherwise, these samples
yielded a rubidium-strontium “isochron age” of 1,240+84 million years, a samarium-neodynium “isochron
age” of 1,655+-40 million years, and a lead-lead
“isochron age” of 1,883+-53 million years.”
Some dates don’t make sense
Dr. Steve Austin (Geologist) took samples from
different parts of the Grand Canyon and
had them dated
Using radioactive dating methods, an age of 1.07
billion years was assigned to the oldest rocks and a
date of 1.34 billion years to the youngest rock. The
youngest rocks gave an age 270 million years older
than the oldest rocks!
Questioning the rate of decay in history
There is evidence that the half life and rate of
decay has been accelerated in the past
We know that half lives can change
with some elements
lutetium-hafnium(176Lu-176Hf) system, At very
high temperatures, part of the 176Lu decay to
176Hf goes into an isomeric state which has a halflife of only 3.68. This is 14 orders of magnitude
faster than the conventional 176Lu decay
“There is one survey of the scientific literature
that refers to more than two dozen experiments
where changes in decay rates were reported.”
Dr. Tas Walker
It has been demonstrated in the laboratory that
under certain conditions the radioactive decay rate
can be accelerated a billion fold
Decay rates of some elements have been shown to
vary with solar activity (and solar neutrinos),
chemical environment, seasons, and the effects of
radioactive decay in deep magma are unknown
Evidence for accelerated decay
Radioactive decay generated heat, and if
accelerated would melt (to some degree) the
environment around it
“Al-26 does not exist in nature today, except as generated
by cosmic rays near the surface of bodies in space.
Minerals deep within meteorites have been found with
evidence of having once contained Al-26. Those minerals
contain only the daughter Mg-26, not the other two
stable kinds of magnesium, and they look as if they had
been locally melted by the heat of Al-26 decay.”
(Dr. Russell Humphreys)
Evidence for accelerated decay
Explanations have been suggested to explain the H in
the Zircon (and to discredit the idea presented)
Keep in mind though, this study (the dating) was
not done by the creationists
The first objection claims the temperature in that
region was cooler in the past. The warmer the
temperature the faster the helium escapes out of
the zircon, because the warmer it gets the quicker
the atoms move around. If you cool down the area
that means the atoms would move slower and the
helium would not leak out as quickly.
This theory has two primary problems associated
with it. First off the thermal (heat) history for the
area these zircons were taken from shows it would
have been warmer (not cooler) in the past then it
is today, this is due to volcanic history in the area.
Secondly, in order to account for all the helium
that is in these zircons they would need to have
temperatures as low as liquid nitrogen (196
degrees Celsius.) There is no way that this area
could have been that cold in the past!
The second objection questions the measurements
done by the laboratory. Inside of these zircon crystals
1-2% of the helium is not tightly bound to the crystal.
This means if you take it to the laboratory for
measurements 1-2% of the helium will leak out of the
zircon at a faster rate than the rest of the helium will.
Some people claim that when the laboratory made
the measurements of how quick the helium leaks out
of the crystals they were only measuring this 1-2%
that initially leaks out of the crystals very quickly, and
because they were measuring this 1-2% of rapidly
leaking helium their measurements were incorrect.
The problem is the laboratory knows this happens,
and they recommend that people ignore the initial
measurements, which the RATE team did.
The Third Objection claims that the helium was
put into the zircon crystals in the recent past by
outside forces.
Dr. Humphrey’s, who lead this study on the RATE
team, has addressed this issue (and all the others)
and said the following:
“If the helium in the zircons were “excess” and
came from outside them, it would have had to
come through the biotite. As I pointed out on p. 9
of CRSQ 2004, the helium concentration in the
biotite is two hundred times lower than the
concentration in the zircon. That means, according
to the laws of diffusion, that the helium is
presently leaking out of the zircons into the biotite,
not the other way around.”
(Dr. Russell Humphreys)
The theory that claims the helium came from an
outside source says a volcano lava flow is
responsible for the helium. The secular scientists
who originated this theory wants fluids (from
magma) to carry the helium into the granite rock,
through the biotite, and into the zircon crystal.
He claims this happened in the recent past
sometime between 100,000 years ago and
1,400,000 years ago. This scenario has some
serious problems associate with it.
First off the helium would have escaped from the
magma before it reached the zircons, which means
once the magma got there no helium
would be available.
Secondly, the temperatures would have rose
dramatically from this magma interacting with the
granite rock and zircon crystals
Even if it was possible for the magma to bring the
helium into the zircon, it would raise the
temperature dramatically causing it to
escape even quicker
Objection to accelerated radioactive decay?
Radioactive decay causes large amounts of
heat to be released!
Theories have been presented
that can accelerate decay
without this happening
Solid Mantle turned liquid
Splitting it up between day 3
of creation and flood
Water during flood as cooling factor
Is there a scientific mechanism that could
accelerate radioactive decay?
Dr. Eugene Chaffin
(Theoretical
physicist)
String theory
Adjusting the strong
nuclear force can
allowed for
accelerated decay
More simple answers exist to explain a lot of the
radioactive decay elements that we see
• Large initial concentrations of daughter isotopes
in the mantle which were mixed into the crust on
Day 3 of Creation week, and
• Large concentrations of daughter elements
produced during Creation week which were later
mixed into the crust by the Genesis Flood.
Humphreys theory has mechanisms to explain how
the decay could have happened
Memory Verse
Hebrews 1:10 And: “You, LORD, in the
beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.