Share
A- A A+

Article from:

Creation  Volume 23Issue 3 Cover

Creation 23(3):24
June 2001

Free Email News
Creation magazine print - 1 yr new subn


US $25.00
View Item
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $9.00
View Item
frame top left frame top frame top right
frame left
Creation Magazine Volume 23 Issue 3 CoverFirst published:
Creation 23(3):24
June 2001
frame right
frame bottom left frame bottom frame bottom right

More and more wrong dates

Radio-dating in Rubble

Is this dating failure from Mount St Helens an isolated case of radioisotope dating giving wrong results for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple,1 one of the big names in radioactive dating [and a self-confessed intermediate between an atheist and agnostic], lists a number of cases of wrong potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Table A). There are many other examples of obviously wrong dates. Only recently, Creation magazine reported that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975.2

Grand Canyon lava flow diagram

Geology of the Grand Canyon showing calculated radioisotope ‘dates’ (after Austin3).

One sobering example comes from the Grand Canyon in Arizona (see diagram, left). The Cardenas Basalt in the bottom of the canyon is an igneous rock layer suitable for radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method, the Cardenas Basalt yielded an age of 1.07 billion years. Most geologists consider this a ‘good’ date because it agrees with their evolutionary chronology.3 However, we know the date can’t be right, because it conflicts with Biblical chronology.

It is a different story when the same rubidium-strontium method is used to date lava from volcanoes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon. We know these volcanoes are some of the youngest rocks in the canyon, because they spilled lava into the canyon after it had been eroded. Geologists generally think that these volcanoes erupted ‘only’ a million years or so ago. The measured age? 1.34 billion years.3 If we were to believe the dating method, the top of the canyon would be older than the bottom! Of course, geologists don’t believe the result in this case, because it does not agree with what they believe to be the right age. We don’t agree with the result either. Such an obviously conflicting age speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating. It also speaks volumes about the way ‘dates’ are accepted or rejected by the geological community.

Table A. Potassium-argon ‘ages’ for historic lava flows (from Dalrymple1).

Historic Lava Flow Potassium-argon age
(in millions of years)
Hualalai, basalt
(Hawaii,
AD 1800–1801)
1.60 ± 0.16
1.41 ± 0.08
>(2 samples)
Mt Etna, basalt (Sicily, 122 BC) 0.25 ± 0.08
Mt Etna, basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 0.35 ± 0.08
Mt Lassen, plagioclase
(California, AD 1915)
0.11 ± 0.03
Sunset Crater, basalt
(Arizona,
AD 1064–1065)
0.27 ± 0.09
0.25 ± 0.15
(2 samples)

Related Articles

References

  1. Dalrymple, G.B., 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:47–55, 1969. Return to text.
  2. Snelling, A., Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years, Creation 22(1):18–21, 2000. Return to text.
  3. Austin, S.A. (ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, pp. 111–131, 1994. Return to text.

It has been said that “Information is power”. When it comes to creation information we’d have to agree. Keep the ‘powerful’ evidence for God being Creator coming. Support this site

Copied to clipboard
339
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.