The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods
by Tas Walker
Published: 30 July 2009(GMT+10)
This is the pre-publication version which was subsequently revised to appear in
Creation 32(1):20–21.
Many people assume that the dates scientists quote of millions of years are as reliable
as our knowledge of the structure of the atom or nuclear power. And radioactive
dating is so shrouded with mystery that many don’t even try to understand
how the method works; they just believe it must be right.
But the basic concept of radioactive dating, sometimes called radiometric dating,
is not difficult, especially since all of us regularly calculate how much time has
passed: for example, since our birth, or since we started on a walk. A swimming
race is a familiar situation that illustrates the simple principles involved in
measuring time. Once we understand what we actually need to do we can apply the
same principles to radioactive dating, and see if the methods do what they are claimed
to do.
Picture a swimmer competing in a 1,500 metre race and an observer with an accurate
wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the end of the pool
our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim
the race?
When I have asked an audience this question they have looked at me incredulously
and said, “Starting time?” They realize that you cannot know how long
the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started.
Keep that in mind when you think about working out the age of something. Without
knowing the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the
race. Note: Impossible.
Actually, knowing the starting time is still not enough. During the race you have
to watch the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you know that he has
done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to make sure he touches the end for each
lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That
is why you need three timekeepers to independently record the times during the race
to meet the standard needed to enter the record books.
Would it make any difference if the watch we were using was more accurate? Absolutely
not! You could talk about the tiny quartz crystal and the piezoelectric effect used
to provide a stable time base for the electronic movement. You could describe the
atomic workings of the quartz oscillator and how it resonates at a specific and
highly stable frequency, and how this is used to accurately pace a timekeeping mechanism.
The fact is that you can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by
two or more reliable eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress
and the finish of the race.
you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was
present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored
the way those elements changed over its entire geological history
This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those
who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with
the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc.
But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine
the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure
the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those
elements changed over its entire geological history.
The
educational page hosted by the US Geological Society provides one recent
example of the way radioactive dating is explained to the public. They focus on
the technicalities of radioactive decay, etc. but don’t even mention the fact
that we can’t measure the concentrations of isotopes in the past.
So, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions
about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make.
And that is what geologists do—they make up an assumed geological history
for rock after the event, depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology
lab that measures the isotopes in the rocks now.
Dating secrets explains how this works in practice. Some real-life examples
of how geologists change their assumptions after the event include the dating of
Skull KNM-ER 1470 (see The pigs took it all)
and of the Mungo skeletal remains, Australia (see The dating
game).
Next time you see dates quoted of millions of years remember that the numbers are
not scientific measurements of time elapsed. They are the result of big philosophical
assumptions.
Reader’s comment:
Rob S., United States, 19 February 2010
Your statement “Without knowing the starting time it is impossible to establish
the time for the race” is false. If you know the pool’s length and the
swimmer’s speed, you can calculate the time for the race. You absolutely do
NOT have to know the starting time.
In mathematics the formula is: distance = rate x time
Given the distance and the rate, you can calculate the time. Knowing the end point
gives you the start point and the total time.
Tas Walker responds: So, Rob, how do you measure the swimmer’s
speed?
Rob S. replies:
Take two observable points, measure the distance between them and the time it takes
to swim them, and calculate the rate (r = d/t). Again, absolutely no reference to
the race’s starting point is needed.
Tas Walker responds OK, Rob, so you measure the swimmer's speed
over the last 10 metres of the race. Are you telling me that he has been swimming
at that speed for the whole race? And how do you know how many lengths of the pool
he has swum?
Unless you watched the race from the beginning you would not have a clue as to how
many laps he has swum or how long he took.
Kim B., Australia, 1 March 2011
As a swimmer myself, I can say you are correct. In fact, only a week ago I swam
in a 1500 metre event, where my first 100 metres was eight seconds faster than my
second. I would have been perfectly happy to have an assumption of my final time
deduced from the time for that first 100 metres. Two minutes makes a massive difference
overall!
|
Related articles
Further reading
Recommended Resources
| You are probably accessing this site because you had questions—just like everyone else. That’s why CMI exists. You can keep the free answers on this site coming.  | | |
|
