Clocks in Rocks? - ICR

7/25/2019 Clocks in Rocks? - ICR

1/50


2/50

About ICRAfter more than four decades of ministry, the Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific researchorganizations.Research remains a leader in scientific research within the context of creation. Founded by Dr. Henry Morrisin 1970, ICR exists to conduct scientific research within the realms of origins and earth history, and then to educate thepublic both formally and informally through graduate and professional training programs, through conferences and seminarsaround the country, and through books, magazines, and media presentations.

ResearchAs a research organization, ICR conducts laboratory, field, theoretical, and library research on projects that seek tounderstand the science of origins and earth history. ICR scientists have conducted multi-year research projects at keylocations such as Grand Canyon, Mount St. Helens, Yosemite Valley, Santa Cruz River Valley in Argentina, and on vitalissues like Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE), Flood-activated Sedimentation and Tectonics (FAST), and othertopics related to geology, genetics, astro/geophysics, paleoclimatology, and much more

ICR's Bio-Origins Research Initiative

ICRs current research focus is to scientifically challenge the arguments used to support evolu tion. Molecular data havebeen accumulating steadily over the past several decades, and evolutionists have hailed these discoveries as the newproof of evolution. Might these data instead reveal profound evidence for the creation biology model? ICR has l aunchedthe Bio-Origins program to answer this question through its research projects and the efforts of its science team.With anemphasis on gleaning new knowledge and new apologetic points, the ICR Bio-Origins program will equip believers with newdata to refute evolution.The ICR Bio-Origins programs main research emphasis is the issue of common ancestry, especially as it relates toevidence from molecular biology. Recent discoveries in molecular biology have given evolutionists new ammunition withwhich to attack the creation model. Conversely, despite decades of creation research, few studies have sought to addressthe biological questions raised by Scripture on this front. The Bio-Origins program seeks to answer the tough questions ofcreation biology with a dual emphasis on refuting the strongest evolutionary ancestry arguments and buttressing theweakest creation biology apologetic points. Its primary focus is molecular comparisons across diverse species, with aspecific emphasis on molecular comparisons between humans and chimpanzees. Through the results of these studies, we

hope to answer the major questions we have identified.

THE SCIENCE TEAM

Name: Dr. Vernon R. Cupps

Title: Research Associate

Specialty: Nuclear Physics, Physics

Dr. Vernon Cupps received his B.S. and M.S. in Physics at the University of Missouri-Columbia, and his Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics at Indiana University-Bloomington, where heworked at the Indiana University Cyclotron Facility. From there, he spent time at the LosAlamos National Laboratorybefore taking a position as Radiation Physicistat Fermi National

Accelerator Laboratory, where he directed and supervised a radiochemical analysis laboratoryfrom 1988 to 2011. He is a published researcher with 73 publications, 18 of which are in refereedjournals. Dr. Cupps currently serves on the research team at the Institute for CreationResearchin Dallas, Texas.

Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins earned a masters degree in plant science in 1990 from the University ofIdaho, where he performed research in plant hormones. He received his Ph.D. in Genetics fromClemson Universityin 1996. While at Clemson, he worked as a research technician in a plantbreeding/genetics program, with a research focus in the area of quantitative and physiologicalgenetics in soybean. After receiving his Ph.D.,he worked at a genomics instituteand became afaculty member in the Department of Genetics and Biochemistry at Clemson. He had becomea Christian as an undergraduate at Washington State University in 1982, with a goal to eventuallywork as a scientist and author in the creation science field. In 2009, Dr. Tomkins joined theInstitute for Creation Research as Research Associate. He is the primary author of The Design

and Complexity of the Cell.

Name: Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins


Specialty: Genetics


3/50

Name: Dr. Tim Clarey


Specialty: Geology, Dinosaurs

Tim Clarey received a B.S.in Geology (summa cum laude) in 1982 from Western MichiganUniversity in Kalamazoo, Michigan, followed by a Master of Science in Geology in 1984from the University of Wyoming and a Master of Science in Hydrogeology in 1993 fromWestern Michigan University. His Ph.D. in Geology was received in 1996 from WesternMichigan University. From 1984 to 1992, Dr. Clarey worked as an exploration geologist at

Chevron USA, Inc., developing oil drilling prospects and analyzing assets and leasepurchases. He was Full Professorand Geosciences Chairat Delta Collegein Michigan for17 years before leaving in 2013 to join the science staff at the Institute for Creation

Research, having earlier conducted research with ICR in its FAST program. He has published many papers on variousaspects of the Rocky Mountains and has authored two college laboratory books.

After receiving his Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard Medical School in2009, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson joined ICRas a Research Associate. While at Harvard, he assistedin adult stem cell research, specifically on the role of Vitamin D in regulating blood stem cells.Dr. Jeanson has a B.S. in Molecular Biology and Bioinformatics from the University ofWisconsin-Parkside, where his research efforts involved working with single-cell algae todecipher molecular mechanisms of plant function. Additionally, he has submitted testimony to theMassachusetts governing bodies in opposition to human embryonic stem cell research and hasbeen a panelist at the Massachusetts Citizens for Life convention. As Deputy Director for LifeSciences, Dr. Jeansons current research at ICR involves the investigation of molecularmechanisms of biological change from a young-earth perspective. He regularly contributes

research articles to ICR's monthly magazineActs & Factsand is the author of The Lost Treasures of Genesis.

As Director of Research, Dr. Lisle leads ICRs gifted team of scientists who continue toinvestigate and demonstrate the evidence for creation. He graduated summa cumlaude fromOhio Wesleyan Universitywhere he double-majoredin physicsand astronomyand minoredin mathematics. He earned a masters degreeand a Ph.D.in astrophysicsat the Universityof Colorado. Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysicsand has made a number of scientificdiscoveries regarding the solar photosphere and has contributed to the field of general relativity.After completion of his research at the University of Colorado, Dr. Lisle began working in full-time apologetics ministry, focusing on the defense of Genesis. Dr. Lisle was instrumental in

developing the planetarium at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, writing and directing popular planetarium shows includingThe Created Cosmos. Dr. Lisle speaks on topics relating to science and the defense of the Christian faith using logic andcorrect reasoning; he has authored numerous articles and books demonstrating that biblical creation is the only logical

possibility for origins.

Brian Thomas received his bachelor's degree in biology from Stephen F. Austin StateUniversity, Nacogdoches, Texas, in 1993. After teaching at Angelina Christian School andbeginning graduate studies in science education at the Institute for Creation ResearchGraduateSchool, he returned to Stephen F. Austin, where he earned a master's degreein biotechnologyin 1999. From 2000 to 2005, he taught 9thand 12thgrade biologyat Ovilla Christian SchoolinOvilla, Texas, as well as biology and chemistry as an adjunct professor at Navarro Collegein Waxahachie, Texas. He taught biology, chemistry, and anatomy as an assistant professor atDallas Baptist University from 2005 until 2008. Mr. Thomas is the Science Writer at ICR, where he

is responsible for contributing news and magazine articles, editing, and speaking on creation issues. He is the authorof Dinosaurs and the Bible.

Name: Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson

Title: Deputy Director for Life Sciences

Specialty: Molecular Biology, Stem Cells

Name: Dr. Jason Lisle

Title: Director of Research

Specialty: Physics, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Apologetics

Name: Brian Thomas

Title: Science Writer

Specialty: Biology, Problems in Evolution, Origin of Life,Dinosaurs


4/50

Frank Sherwin received his bachelor's degree in biology from Western State College,Gunnison, Colorado, in 1978. He attended graduate school at the University of NorthernColorado, where he studied under the late Gerald D. Schmidt, one of the foremostparasitologists in America. In 1985, Mr. Sherwin obtained a master's degree in zoology. He

published his research in the peer-reviewed Journal of Parasitology.He contributes his scientificexpertise to a variety of ICR's publications on creation science. He is the author of The OceanBookand Guide to Animals, and co-author of The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature's History ofLifeand The Human Body: An Intelligent Design, and is one of ICR's most sought-after speakers.

Dr. Hebert earned a masters degreein physics in 1999 from Texas A&M University, where hestudied optics and was a Deans Graduate Fellow 1995 -1996. He received his Ph.D.in 2011 fromthe University of Texas at Dallas, where his research involved a study of the possibleconnection between fair-weather atmospheric electricity and weather and climate. He has taughtat both the high school and university levels. He joined ICR in 2011 as a research associate,where he will have the opportunity to help extend Dr. Larry Vardimans work on climates beforeand after Noahs Flood, among other research endeavors.

Dr. Randy Guliuzza is a captivating speaker who presents well-documented and often humorous

scientific and biblical talks to audiences of all ages. He has represented ICRin several scientificdebates at secular universities and in other forums. Dr. Guliuzza has a B.S.in Engineeringfromthe South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, a B.A. in theology from Moody BibleInstitute, and M.D. from the University of Minnesota, and a Masters in Public Health fromHarvard University. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corpsand is aregistered Professional Engineer. In 2008, he retired as Lt. Col.from the U.S. Air Force, wherehe served as Flight Surgeonand Chief of Aerospace Medicine. He is the author of Made inHis Image: Examining the complexities of the human bodyandClearly Seen: Constructing Solid

Arguments for Design.

Dr. James Johnson serves ICRs Christian education programs (including ICRsSchool ofBiblical Apologetics,Origins Matter Short Courseseries, andACSI lectures). Previously he taughtfor LeTourneau University, Dallas Christian College, and Concordia University Texas (history,ethics, biosciences, ecology, apologetics, evidence, law, and international studies). Johnsonsforensic science background includes a J.D. (University of North Carolina, 1984), trial attorneyand judicial experience, two post-doc certifications, and American Academy of ForensicSciences membership. As a paternity establishment officer (certified by the Texas AttorneyGenerals Office), he has provided expert testimony in court proceedings, as well as biogenetic

family history analysis used to change Texas birth certificates. Dr. Johnsons biblical studies background includes biblicallanguages study (American Bible Society Award, 1982, mostly for Hebrew and Aramaic), a Th.D. (Emmanuel College ofChristian Studies, 1996), ACSI credentials, and service as a Protestant chaplain (BSA, National Capital Area).

Name: Frank Sherwin

Title: Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, and Science Writer

Specialty: Zoology, Oceans, Flood, Microbiology, Dinosaurs

Name: Dr. Leo (Jake) Hebert III


Specialty: Physics, Climate Change, Apologetics

Name: Dr. Randy Guliuzza

Title: National Representative

Specialty: Human Body, Apologetics, Worldview

Name: Dr. James J. S. Johnson

Title: Chief Academic Officer, Associate Professor of ApologeticsSpecialty: Bible, Apologetics, Education, Forensic Science, History
http://www.icr.edu/soba/http://www.icr.edu/soba/http://www.icr.edu/soba/http://www.icr.edu/soba/http://www.icr.org/origins-matter/http://www.icr.org/origins-matter/http://www.icr.org/origins-matter/http://www.icr.org/soba-acsi/http://www.icr.org/soba-acsi/http://www.icr.org/soba-acsi/http://www.icr.org/soba-acsi/http://www.icr.org/origins-matter/http://www.icr.edu/soba/http://www.icr.edu/soba/


5/50

Dr. John Morris, perhaps best known for leading expeditions to Mt. Ararat in searchof Noah's Ark, received his Doctorate in Geological Engineering at theUniversity of Oklahoma in 1980. He served on the University of Oklahoma

facultybefore joining the Institute for Creation Researchin 1984. Dr. Morris heldthe position of Professor of Geologybefore being appointed President in 1996.He travels widely around the world speaking at churches, conferences, schools,and scientific meetings. Dr. Morris has written numerous books and articles on thescientific evidence that supports the Bible. Dr. Morris is the author or co-author ofsuch books as The Young Earth, The Modern Creation Trilogy,The Fossil Record:Unearthing Nature's History of Life, and The Global Flood: Unlocking Earth'sGeologic History.

Clocks in Rocks? Radioactive Dating, Part 1..6 The Iconic Isochron: Radioactive Dating, Part 2.8 The Noble Clock: Radioactive Dating, Part 310 Alkali Metal Dating, Rb-Sr Dating Model: Radioactive Dating, Part 413 Both Argon and Helium Diffusion Rates Indicate a Young Earth15 Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology...17 "Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks.18 Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World...19 Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.20 Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crustal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argon.22 Dating Niagara Falls ..23 The Dating Gap. .24 Polonium Radiohalos: Still "A Very Tiny Mystery".25 Radiohalos - Significant And Exciting Research Results.26 Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified.27 Grand Canyon Lava Flows: A Survey of Isotope Dating Methods.29 Radiometric Dating Using Isochrons.. .30 More Fluctuations Found in Isotopic Clocks..32 New Direct Fossil Dating Technique Promises to Fail... ..32

Can Scientists Now Directly Date Fossils?................................................................................................................34 Dubious Radiogenic Pb Places U-Th-Pb Mineral Dating in Doubt34 Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable..35 Doesn't Radioisotope Dating Prove Rocks Are Millions of Years Old?......................................................................36 The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates..37 A Tale of Two Hourglasses.. .37 Some Recent Developments Having to do with Time..38 It's Official: Radioactive Isotope Dating Is Fallible.40 Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable. .41 New Way to Find Age of Ancient Pottery.. .41 New RATE Data Support a Young World...42

C14

Rethinking Carbon-14... 43 Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages.45 Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating46 Carbon Dating of '70 Million Year Old' Mosasaur Soft Tissues Yields Surprising Results.47 Radiocarbon in "Ancient" Fossil Wood48

Name: Dr. John D. Morris

Title: President

Specialty: Geology, Flood, Fossil Record, Age of the Earth, MountSt. Helens


6/50

Clocks in Rocks? Radioactive Dating, Part 1by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. *

We dont know what we are talking about. Many of us believed that string theory was a very dramatic break with ourprevious notions of quantum theory. But now we learn that string theory, well, is not that much of a break. The state ofphysics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity. They were missing something absolutely fundamental.We are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then.David Gross at 23rd Solvay Conference in December 2005

Radioactive dating is a key concept in determining theage of the earth. Many secular scientists use it todismantle the faith of people and cause them to acceptuniformitarian assumptions that, in addition to beingscientifically erroneous, demand a figurative anddistorted interpretation of the young age model. Beingknowledgeable about such a widespread dating methodis essential for people to address opposing argumentsand critics. Is radioactive dating valid?Naturalradioactivity was discovered in 1896 by the Frenchphysicist Henri Becquerel. A decade later, American

chemist Bertram Boltwood suggested that lead was adisintegration product of uranium and could be used asan internal clock for dating rocks. By the mid-1940s, Willard Libby realized that the decay of14C mightprovide a method of dating organic matter. He proposedthat the carbon in living matter might include 14C as wellas non-radioactive carbon. For14C researchhis lifesworkLibby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry

in 1960, and the age of radioactive dating was born.Before wedelve into radioactive decay and its use in dating rocks, letsreview some essential nuclear physics concepts.Each atom ismade up of protons and neutrons concentrated in the atomscenterits nucleusaround which electrons orbit. Theprotons and neutrons form the nucleus of an atom with

approximate diameters ranging from 1.75 fm for the hydrogenatom to 15 fm for the uranium atom.1This nucleus containsapproximately 99.94 % of the atoms total mass. The smallestelectron orbitals range from approximately 1.06 for thehydrogen atom to 3.5 for the uranium atom.2Thus, theclosest electrons orbit approximately 100,000 times fartherfrom the center of the nucleus than the outermostnucleons.3This means that the atom is mostlyempty space asErnest Rutherford aptly demonstrated with his alpha particle-gold foil scattering experiment in 1911.4The chemicalproperties of each element are defined by the number ofprotons it contains in its nucleus and, consequently, thenumber of corresponding electrons that orbit it. However,elements beyond hydrogens single proton have varyingnumbers of neutrons that do not necessarily equal the amountof protons in the nucleus. This feature of nuclear constructionproduceselemental families, groups of elements with thesame number of protons but differing numbers of neutrons.Because these families have the same number of protons inthe nucleus, they also have the same number of electronsorbiting the nucleus and thus exhibit the same chemicalbehavior. It is the differing number of neutrons that give rise to


7/50

stable and unstable isotopes (radioisotopes) within a given elemental family. As it turns out, nearly every element fromHydrogen (Z=1) to Bismuth (Z=83) has at least one stable isotope, with Technetium (Z=43) and Promethium (Z=61) as theexceptions. All elements above Bismuth in the Periodic Table are unstable, i.e., they are in a constant state of releasingenergy, ordecaying.Alpha decay generally occurs only in the heavier radioactive nuclides, i.e., radionuclides, (A146) andcan be thought of as an attempt to stabilize the nuclear charge to mass ratio. 5,6For alpha emission, the decay energy ismanifest as the kinetic energy of the ejected alpha particle (). It is this type of radioactive decay which produces radiohalosin rock-contained minerals.7Each nucleus that alpha decays produces a unique set of alpha-particle energies. As thesealpha particles travel through a mineral matrix, they deposit their energy in the mineral itself. This energy damages thecrystalline structure of the mineral and leaves in its wake a signature in the form of a series of discolored concentric rings radiohaloscharacteris tic of the radionuclide that produced the alpha particles. Interestingly, it is in these radiohalos wefind the best indirect observational evidence, measured at todays rates of decay, supporting millions of years ofradioisotope decay. These radiohalos originate from tiny point-like inclusions of238U or some other naturally occurring

radioisotope within the crystal.Unfortunately for the secularist, there are radiohalos formed from what appears to beprimordial Po (polonium), rather than Po in the form of daughter isotopes from U decay. Due to the extremely short half-livesof the Po isotopes, this would present a serious problem for those wanting to date the rocks at millions or billions of yearsold. Diffusion rates of the4He (helium)produced by the associated decay chains out of the crystals and the buildup of4Hein the atmospheresuggest that only thousands of years of decay have occurred.8Thus, the observed evidence in rocksextracted from the earths crust present several conundrumsproblems that center on assumptions made in usingradioisotope decay within a rock sample as a clock to date the origins of that sample. These issues will be detailed insubsequent articles.In the processes of beta and positron decay, the energy is shared between the emitted beta or positronparticles and an antineutrino or neutrino respectively. This makes energy spectroscopy for these decays more challengingthan for alpha or gamma decays. If the parent nucleus decays to an excited state of the daughter nucleus for any of theabove decays, then gamma rays can also accompany the emitted particles.Less common modes of decay are directemission of a neutron or proton, double-beta decay, and spontaneous fission. As with alpha decay, these modes aregenerally observed in the heavier radionuclides with a few exceptions such as53Co (proton emission),13Be, and5He(neutron emission).The process of radioactive decay can be envisioned as an hour-glass implanted in a rock suite. The

parent radioisotope would be approximately represented by the sand in the upper chamber and the daughter radioisotope(what an element slowly turns into through decaying) by the sand that accumulates in the lower chamber. The throughputrate, the rate at which the sand accumulates in the bottom chamber, is characteristic of a specific decay sequence and canbe viewed as roughly analogous to the neck of the hour-glass, which controls the rate at which the sand falls. (See Figure 1below.)Secularists believe that nuclear decay has been a part of the natural world since its formation some 13.8 billion yearsago, and the nuclear decay rates for the various radioisotopes have been constant throughout that time. This perspective,generally termed the uniformitarian view of nature, constitutes a pillar of the secularists worldview and is fundamental ingenerating the concept of deep time in the origins discussion. Unfortunately for the secularist, there are serious problemswith the uniformitarian view as it is applied to radioactive dating. Recent experimental evidences verify that the decay ratesof radioisotopes can vary significantly from the currently accepted valuesby as much as 109times faster (thats1billiontimes faster) when exposed to certain environmental factors.9,10,11It is particularly interesting that the alpha-decayrates of228Th are increased by as much as 104(10,000 times) under conditions which give rise to high pressurewaves.10These conditions could have easily existed during the Flood. One cannot help but wonder what this might sayabout nuclear decay processes inside stars or large exoplanets.

There are significant problems with the radioactive dating methodology currently employed by secularists. The closed-system assumptionso critical to all radioactive dating methodsstrains credibility when applied over millions of years. Canany system remain unaffected by its environment over millions of years?


8/50

The Iconic Isochron: Radioactive Dating, Part 2by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. *

In this article well look at isochron dating. Anisochron is a line on an isotope ratio diagramdenoting rock samples. The slope of the line isrelated to the age of the samples.The simplest way to think of it is this: Some rock

materials (isotopes) decay, and we can determinethe age of a rock in todays laboratories bydetermining how much of a specific isotopecontained in the rock has decayed. Both thedecaying isotope and the isotope it produces (itsdaughter) can be compared to an isotope of thedaughters elemental family that does not decay.These two ratios, when plotted on a graph for manydifferent samples from a rock suite, shouldhypothetically produce a straight line under certainassumed conditions. The Y intercept of that line willthen provide the initial ratio of the daughter isotopesat the time the rock suite formed, and the slope (m)will provide the age of the rock suite.Note: The

equations may be daunting, especially to thelayman, so weve placed them in sidebars. Hang inthereread the narrative and well get to theanswer were looking for.To find out how muchmaterial began the decay process long ago, weneed to determine N0, the number of parent atomspresent when the rock was formed. But thispresents a problem for any given material since noone can go back in time and measure that number.Decay constants for radioisotopes typically used indeep-time dating range from 0.0654 10-10yr-1 for147Sm to 9.85 10-10yr-1for 235U.So the equation insidebar A guarantees deep time at todays decayrates, unless N (the number of parent atoms now)and N0are very close in magnitude. At this point theclosed system assumption was introduced andsecularists assumed that all, or most, of thedaughter nuclei present in a given material werethere as a direct result of the parents decay. Onecan then estimate N0 by setting it equal to thenumber of daughter nuclei plus the number ofparent nuclei present at the current time, assumingno daughter nuclei were present at the beginning ofthe decay sequence. (See sidebar B.)Of course,one can never be sure that all the daughter nucleicame from the radioactive decay of the parentbecause the assumption of a closed system on ornear Earths crust for millions of years stretchescredibility. Thus, geochronologists need a more

reliable method of dating materials than thestraightforward accumulation radioactive decayclock.The better dating method is called theisochron method of radioactive dating. Thisapproach theoretically bypasses the issue ofunknown initial conditions for isotopeconcentrations by combining a linear equationanalysis with a nonlinear equation to simulatetime evolution of isotopes in rock.The key newconcept introduced in this dating method isthis: Researchers seek to develop a ratio of theparent and daughter nuclei to a stable non-

radiogenic nucleus of the daughters elemental family.In implementing this approach, scientists assumed that the initial ratioof daughter nuclei will remain the same throughout the rock matrix where there are no parent nuclei i.e., from the time of

solidification until the present time, all daughter nuclei are produced only by decay of the parent nuclei in the sample beinganalyzed.This initial ratio can be quantified by graphing the ratio of the daughter nuclei versus the ratio of the parent nucleito the non-radiogenic daughter nuclei for chemically different parts of a rock sample on an XY plot and extending theresulting straight line to the Y intercept where there are zero parent nuclei. This assumes there has been no migration ofdaughter or parent nuclei within the matrix since its solidification. It also assumes that the daughter isotopes had sufficienttime to uniformly distribute themselves throughout the material matrix; i.e., crystallization cannot be too rapid. This secondassumption is the homogeneity assumption. Forming an isotope ratio also has the practical advantage in that mostinstruments used to quantify isotopes are more accurate in determining ratios than absolute values. (See sidebar C.)


9/50

If the mathematics in this age equation are sound, why would any rational person question the model the equationrepresents? Models are essentially the modern equivalent of a hypothesis and are subject to the criteria for evaluating any

scientific hypothesis. Do the isochron results or predictions match observation and experimental data? Do the assumptionsthat constitute essential elements of the model make rational sense? If the answer to either of these equations is no, thenscientists must reject the model and generate a new one.First, lets take a hard look at the critical assumptions of the isochron model. The three basic assumptions are: The solid material matrix mustremain a closed system from the time of formation to the present time;The initial amount of the daughter isotope is known; andThe decay has occurred at a constant rate over time.A fourth and more subtle assumptionhomogeneityassumes that the daughter isotopes distribute themselves evenly throughout the solid rock matrix as it solidifies but the parentnuclei do not.First assumption issue: That a solid material matrix near the surface of the earth would remain a closed system over millionsof years strains plausibility. Hydrothermal activity,1 ionic transport, partial melting, and nuclear reactions resulting fromcosmic ray bombardment are all factors that could change elemental distributions in a rock formation over time.Second assumption issue: The isochron model was created to solve the known daughter isotope assumption, but does it?In order for the initial amount of the daughter isotopes to be known, the isotopes have to be uniformly distributed throughout

a rock formation when it solidifies, and it must solidify slowly enough for this uniformity to occur. If molten material passesthrough solid rock, partially liquefying it, then a mixing of two rock formations occurs. Currently, there is not a definitive wayto tell the difference between a mixing line and an isochron line. 2Therefore, one must assume that the isochron line beganwith a slope of zero much like the earlier methods of assuming initial parent or daughter concentrations.Third assumption issue: As pointed out in the first article of this series, recent experimental evidence throws the absoluteconstancy of the radioactive decay constant into serious question. Under conditions that possibly existed during the greatFlood, it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that the radioactive decay rates were accelerated enough to produceevidence of great age in Earths rock formations, especially those of igneous or metamorphic origins.3


10/50

Homogeneity assumption issue: Finally, thereis the intractable problem of the homogeneityassumption conflicting with the necessity thatthe isochron generate several independentequations in order to establish a linearrelationship in both the present and past. If thedaughter isotopes are uniformly distributedthroughout the rock formation during cooling,then the parent isotope should also beuniformly distributed in the non-mineral wholerock parts of the rock. The vast majority ofisochrons reported in the literature are of the

whole rock variety, yet only the individualmineral isochrons are internally consistentwith this particular assumption.Fractionation4i.e., separation of isotopes bypurely physical processes during coolingpresents significant problems for thehomogeneity assumption of isochron-modeldating, particularly for the K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and theU-Pb based methods.So how do the actualdata compare with the model results? First,the various isotope combinations used in theisochron method of dating are clearlydiscordantthey do not produce the sameage for a given rock formation.5 Second, the

isochron method gives erroneous ages forrock formations of known age.6 Specifically,rocks gathered from recently erupted Mt.Ngauruhoe in New Zealand gave a K-Ar dateof 270,000 to 3.5 million years, a Rb-Sr dateof over 133 million years, a Sm-Nd date of

nearly 200 million years, and Pb-Pb dates of 3.9 billion yearsall this from rocks known to be less than 60 years old!Another example involves lavas from the Virunga Toro-Ankole regions of the east African Rift Valleys.7Lavas from these riftvalleys known to be Pliocene (


11/50

Positron decay

Almost 90% of 40K decays occur when one of its protons emit an electron (or beta particle) as it transmutes to the groundstatethe state in which the nucleus is stable (not excited) and not decayingof 40Ca (calcium). The second-mostprominent decay mode is through electron capture by one of its protons, which converts it to an excited state of the noblegas 40Ar that then decays to the 40Ar ground state by emitting a 1.4608 MeV gamma ray.1The electron capture decay modecan also proceed directly to the ground state of 40Ar for 0.16% of 40K decays. Finally, a positron decay mode to the groundstate of 40Ar has been observed in approximately 0.001% of 40K decays. Figure 1 schematically illustrates these threeprocesses.Potassium (K), along with lithium (Li), sodium (Na), rubidium (Rb), and caesium (Cs), is an alkali metal that reactsviolently with water, air, and the halogen elements (fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine). It is so chemicallyreactive that it must be stored under oxygen-free liquid paraffin to prevent oxidation. Thus, it can move somewhat freely inmost rock matrices. Most minerals that can incorporate calcium or sodium into their structure can also accommodatepotassium, since all three elements have similar atomic radii. Interestingly, the 40Ar atom is small enoughmore than 10times smaller2than the inter-crystalline distances in sanidine3that it can move freely between a rock suite and itssurrounding environment. Clearly, the closed-system assumption (i.e., that the rock sample being tested has not interacted

with its environment) cannot be reasonably presumed to hold for any significant period of time in the K-Ar system, much lessfor millions or billions of years.Radioactive potassium (40K) only constitutes 0.0117% of the potassium in nature.This fact, coupled with its extremely long half-life, makes it an experimentalchallenge to separate its decay product 40Ar from primeval and cosmogenicallyproduced 40Ar in any rock sample; i.e., extremely small amounts of40Ar aregenerated by decay of 40K. Thus, it becomes impossible to definitively determinewhich 40Ar is the result of 40K decay and which is the result of another process. Thiscan have a profound effect on obtaining a reliable date as the initial presence oraddition of even small amounts of 40Ar to a rock suite or any samples containedwithin the rock would cause the sample to appear older than it really is.Dating using the potassium-argon (K-Ar) clock employs three different methods. AsPaul has exhorted us to test all things, lets carefully look at these three methods: The straightforward potassium-argon (K-Ar) solution methodThe isochron methodThe argon-argon (Ar-Ar) methodIn the straightforward solution method, the concentration of 40Ar is assumed to havebeen zero when the rock suite specimen crystallized, and therefore any 40Ar that ispresent is considered to be the result of 40K decay.From recent experimental evidence,7 we know that assumption 7 does not hold.Assumptions 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all closed-system assumptions that are not realistic,especially in secular deep-time frames. Assumption 8 is strongly dependent on the


12/50

methodology used and the personnel making the measurements. 39K, the most abundant isotope of potassium (93.3%), iseasily converted to 40K by absorption of prompt and thermal neutrons,8and therefore assumption 6 does not rigorously hold.Finally, to assume that 40Ar cannot move at least somewhat freely through a rock matrix is unreasonableso scratchassumption 1.Of the eight assumptions, nonecan be considered to rigorously hold in all situations. Therefore, dating by this method is atbest a hypothesis concerning the age of any rock suite or mineral; it is certainly not a scientific fact!In the straightforwardmodel for K-Ar dating, it was assumed that no primeval, outgassed, absorbed, or cosmogenic (i.e., caused by cosmicrays) 40Ar existed in the rock matrix being analyzed. As pointed out in last monthsActs & Factsarticle,9 this is a shakyassumption. So the K-Ar straightforward method becomes the K-Ar isochron method by adding the original concentration of

argon 40 (40Aro) to the right side of the equation anddividing both sides of the equation by non-radiogenic 36Ar (an isotope not produced by

radioactive decay that is used as an index isotope).Assumption 9 is simply a contradiction for any whole-rock sample and only workable for a collection ofdifferent mineral samples contained in the same rocksuite. The family of potassium feldspars have a widerange of blocking temperatures (~900C to 135C),and therefore assumption 10 is not generallyapplicablemeaning one cannot definitivelydifferentiate between a true isochron and a mixingline (an imperfect mixing of two or more rock types).Methods of correcting for atmospheric absorption ofargon are still quite hypothetical,10makingassumption 11 questionable. Assumptions that areintegral to both these K-Ar dating methods make the

dates obtained with them hypothetical estimates atbest; but again, they are certainly not scientificfact.The third method for dating rock suites using theK-Ar decay chain as a clock is commonly referred toas the argon-argon (Ar-Ar) method. This methodavoids the homogeneity problem for whole-rocksamples by only measuring isotope ratios of Ar, andit avoids the need for an index isotope such as 36Ar.It also avoids the problem of accurately measuringthe absolute concentrations of potassium and argon(assumption 8), so it is most often used to date verysmall or very rare samples such as meteorites orlunar rocks and minerals.Now, in order to calculatethe approximate age from the 40Ar to 39Ar ratio, oneneeds to evaluate J.11In order to directly calculate J,

we must measure the 39K to 40K ratio and irradiationtime accurately, and we must know the energyspectrum for the neutron flux (the number ofneutrons per square centimeter per second in agiven object) and the energy dependence of the(n,p) reaction cross-section (the probability that aneutron incident on a 39K nucleus will produce aproton and an 39Ar nucleus) over that entire energyspectrum. Unfortunately, the (n,p) cross-sectionsover the entire reactor neutron energy range are notwell known and neither is the energy spectrum. So, aflux monitor of known age is irradiated with the rock

sample, and the measured 40Ar to 39Ar ratio for that monitor, or standard, provides the J forthat particular irradiation. Two questions immediately arise: How do we know the age of the

flux monitor, and how good is the assumption that 40K,40

Ar, and39

Ar are unaffected by theirradiation process?When a rock sample is irradiated with a broad spectrum of neutrons,such as those produced by a nuclear reactor, many competing reactions occursimultaneously. Competing reactions for various Ar isotopes can invalidate the datingprocess. They are listed in FauresPrinciples of Isotope Geology.12 This means that aseries of corrections must be made13 that are especially serious for young samples lessthan one million years old (< 106 years) and those having significant concentrations of Ca(i.e.,K < 1.0).In addition to the eight assumptions that go into the straightforward model, itmust also be assumed that all measurable 36Ar originates from atmospheric diffusion intothe rock matrix, all measurable 39Ar is produced by the (n,p) reaction on 39K, and theisotope production factor, J, can be accurately correlated with the decay of 40K into 40Ar.For any mineral with a substantial chlorine (Cl) content, the assumption concerning 36Arbecomes problematic since the neutron capture cross-section for 35Cl (which indirectlyproduces 36Ar through the beta decay of 36Cl) is approximately 44 barns (10-24cm2), a verylarge production cross-section for the most abundant form of chlorine.


13/50

The second assumptioni.e., allmeasurable 39Ar is produced by the (n,p)reaction at nuclear reactor energiesappearsto be a reasonable assumption providedspallation14 cross-sections on transition metalssuch as scandium, calcium, titanium, cobalt,nickel, and iron are comparatively small. Theonly way to correlate the decay of 40K into 40Arto the reactor production of 39Ar is through thenuclear reaction constant J, but J must bedetermined using a standard of knownage

this is clearly a circular methodology! Besidesall the dubious assumptions that go into it, thismethod is deliberately biased by the standardused to determine J. This appears to beacademic propaganda rather than goodscience.Other than the unreasonableassumptions that form an integral part of allthree K-Ar dating methods, there are manyexamples listed by Andrew Snellingin Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth in

which the methods give erroneous K-Ar dates.15Thus, the K-Ar model does not meet even the basic criteria of a hypothesisin the scientific method.Researchers who use results from these dating methods to conclude that rock sample dates areevidence of a millions or billions-year-old Earth are simply not using a legitimate scientific method. Dating methods that usebetter assumptions which can reliably reproduce known ages of rocks are needed. The potassium-argon dating method

once heralded as a solid scientific methodhas proven to be unreliable.

Alkali Metal Dating, Rb-Sr Dating Model: Radioactive Dating, Part 4by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. *

Editors note: Weve received a widerange of responses to Dr. VernonCupps recent radioactive datingImpact articles. Most readersappreciate the hard science, but many

have struggled with the equations.The purpose of this series is todemonstrate in no uncertain termsthat these dating methods do not

prove that Earth is millions or billionsof years old, as is often reported. To

provide context for Part 4, below is asummary of the first three articlesall are available online.Part 1: Clocks in Rocks?There are significant problems with radioisotope dating in general. The critical closed-system assumption is not realistic nosystem can remain unaffected by its environment over millions of years. Evolutionists appeal to radioactive dating because itappears to confirm the deep time their models demand, but the actual data dont match the evolutionary model.

Part 2: The Iconic IsochronThe isochron dating method gives erroneous

ages for rock formations of known age.Specifically, rocks gathered from recentlyerupted Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand gaveisochron dates of between 270,000 years and3.9 billion yearsfrom rocks known to be lessthan 60 years old! The isochron model is onlya hypothesis. Models, no matter how eleganttheir mathematics, are only as good as theirassumptions and how well they reproducereality through observation and experimentaldata. The scientific method simply does notallow isochron-model dating to be presentedas scientific fact.Part 3: The Noble ClockIn addition to the unreasonable assumptionsthat form an integral part of all three K-Ar(potassium-argon) dating methods, there aremany examples in which the methods giveerroneous dates. The K-Ar model does notmeet even the basic criteria of a scientifichypothesis. Researchers who use thesedating methods to conclude that rock-sample
http://www.icr.org/article/8348http://www.icr.org/article/8348http://www.icr.org/article/8371http://www.icr.org/article/8371http://www.icr.org/article/noble-clock-radioactive-dating-parthttp://www.icr.org/article/noble-clock-radioactive-dating-parthttp://www.icr.org/article/noble-clock-radioactive-dating-parthttp://www.icr.org/article/8371http://www.icr.org/article/8348


14/50

dates are evidence of a millions- or billions-year-old Earth are not using a legitimate scientific method. The potassium-argondating methodonce heralded as a solid scientific methodhas proven to be unreliable.Using rubidium (Rb) decay as aclock to date minerals was first suggested by Otto Hahn and Ernst Walling in 1938. Five years later, Hahn performed thefirst age determination using this method.Like potassium (K), rubidium is an alkali metal and therefore chemically behavesmuch like potassium. Physically, it has an ionic radius of 1.48 , which is close to potassiums (1.33 ) and therefore shoul dmove within a crystal structure in a similar manner. This allows rubidium to readily substitute for potassium in all K-bearingminerals.

Determining the half-life of Rb presentsscientists with a challenge for two reasons.First is the extremely long half-life of Rb, andsecond is because Rb beta decays with a

relatively small energy of 275 keV. Duringbeta decay, the decay energy is shared; thus,the emitted beta particle has a spectrum ofenergies rather than a single unique energy,making direct detection of the beta particledifficult. From 1964 through 2012, sevenattempts were made to directly measure thehalf-life of Rb. The results of thesemeasurements have varied from 4.77 0.10 x1010yrs. in 1964 to 4.967 0.032 x 1010yrs. in2003. A value of 4.88 x 1010 yrs. is used byGunter Faure and Teresa Mensing3and is thecurrent value recommended by the Union ofGeological Sciences. Whether this decrease is

real or simply due to better measurementtechniques remains uncertain. In any case,there is some uncertainty in one of the criticalparameters used by isochron dating models ofRb decay.A little-advertised characteristic ofrubidium-containing minerals is that they aremoderately rare in nature.4 When they dooccur in rock samples, they are usually insuch small amounts that they cannot be seen

without a microscope (see Figure 1).Therefore, separating the element from therock sample is difficult. This makes mineralisochrons for the Rb-Sr decay sequence rareand is the reason most isochrons in theliterature for this dating method use whole-rock isochrons.What are the criticalassumptions that go into this dating method?One basic assumption that was outlined in aprevious Acts & Facts article5 constantdecay ratesis equally invalid for this datingmethod.A second basic assumption, that therock suite remains a truly closed system overmillions of years, is simply not reasonablesince both Rb and Sr are mobile and easilytransported via diffusion or hydrothermalaction in a rock suite. In addition, 86Sr has ahigh neutron capture cross-section of 190barns for thermal neutrons and thus canproduce 87Sr independent of the presence of87Rb; it would not take much 87Sr produced inthis manner to seriously skew the agecalculated by this method. The closed-systemassumption probably does not hold for thisdating method.The third basic assumption isthat the initial concentration of the daughterisotope can be derived by applying theisochron method to a group of rock samples inthe present time. There are a number ofcritical secondary assumptions hidden in thisthird basic assumption:The rock formation was sufficiently mixed thatm = 0 can be assumed to be its initialcondition.87

Sr can only be generated by the radioactivedecay of 87Rb during the entire life of the rockformation.87Rb nuclei are only removed from the rockformation via their decay to 87Sr.The number of 86Sr atoms/unit weight of therock remains constant in time. This is critical

since such small amounts of 87Sr are involved.


15/50

The temperature of the rock formation, or any part of it, has never gone above the closure temperature for strontium orrubidium-containing minerals. This could result in the inheritance of isotopic ratios from heterogeneous source rock.Assumptions 2 through 5 are related to the closed-system assumption and come into play in the Rb-Sr isochronmethodology through assumptions made in deriving the time evolving linear equation fundamental to the method. All threeisotopes used in this method86Sr, 87Sr, and 87Rbcan be produced in a given rock suite by cosmogenic processes. Forexample, 87Sr can not only be produced by the neutron capture reaction on 86Sr, it can also be produced by the (n,) nuclearreaction on 90Zr. This reaction has a much smaller cross-section (~ 25 X 10-3 barns) than the (n,) reaction on 86Sr, buteven small amounts of 87Sr generated by processes other than decay of 87Rb will negate one of the basic assumptions uponwhich the whole methodology of Rb-Sr isochrons are built. 87Rb can be converted to 88Rb through the (n,) reaction (~ 310barn cross-section), thus removing it from the rock matrix without decay to 87Sr.If the temperature of the rock formation goesabove the closure temperature, then the strontium and rubidium atoms are essentially free to move within the rock formationand interact with their environment, thus disrupting the presumed initial isotope ratios. So essentially, this methodology

assumes that all 87Sr found in a rock formation above a level consistent with a baseline ratio to 86Sr is generated byradioactive decay with no allowance for 86Sr, 87Sr, and 87Rb being primordially present or generated by other processes.Assumption 1 is directly related to our old friend the homogeneous assumption. As previously discussed,5 this assumptionis critically flawed. If we assume that the rock formation cooled slowly enough for all elements within it to reach chemical andphysical equilibrium, then the whole-rock samples of the formation should have the same concentrations of each element ina given sample. This applies not only to strontium but also to rubidium. Therefore, for a true isochron, the whole-rocksamples should all fall at a single point, nota series of points. A single mineral should exhibit the same behavior. We canthen conclude that an isochron can only be constructed from a group of different, separated minerals in the same rockformation that formed at the same time. Unfortunately, Faure points out that model dates derived from the analysis ofseparated minerals are generally unreliable.6 So, as pointed out above, most of the Rb-Sr isochrons in the literature arewhole-rock isochrons. The fact that we can construct linear relationships from samples of current rock formations could justas easily have arisen from mixing that occurred as the rock solidified than from a reliable clock frozen in time for millions orbillions of years.So what does the observable evidence say about the Rb-Sr isochron dating method? New Zealands Mt. Ngauruhoe

example gave a Rb-Sr isochron date of over 133 million years to rock known to be less than 60 years old.

7

Another exampleof rock from east Africas Virunga Toro-Ankole region yielded an Rb-Sr isochron model age of 773 million years for rockknown to be younger than five million years even from the secular viewpoint. 8Whole-rock and mineral Rb-Sr isochrons of granitic rocks from the northern Scottish Highlands Carn Chuinneag complexgive ages of 548 10 million years and 403 5 million years respectively. 9This is about a 150 million-year differencewhich one is correct?Dr. Steve Austin dated the Grand Canyon Cardenas Basalt at between 0.98 0.06 and 1.10 0.05billion years using the Rb-Sr isochron dating model. He also dated the Grand Canyon Uinkaret Plateau basaltic rocks atbetween 1.27 0.04 and 1.39 0.03 billion years using the Rb-Sr dating method.10Other than the fact that the range ofdates does not overlap within the stated error bars, it is interesting that the highest rock strata are dated to be at least eightmillion years olderthan the base level rock strata. This conflicts with the long-standing axiom of rock strata being indicativeof geological ages.Therefore, the assumptions the Rb-Sr isochron dating method is based on do not seem to be reasonable,and the predictions of this model do not coincide with observations. What can we conclude? Can we believe a model thatdoes not reproduce the known ages of rocks is valid for dating rocks of unknown ages?The most important thing we mustremember about radioisotope dating is that the present-day measurements and observations are valid scientific facts. Whatis not valid scientific fact is the extrapolation of those measurements and observations into the past. If the many

assumptions that go into extrapolating current measurements into the past are reasonable, and if they are verified by currentobservations, then they can, at best, be considered rational approximations to past events. But if the assumptions are notwholly reasonable and verifiable, then they cannot be used as reliable scientific dating methods. Evolutionists may claim thatradioactive dating methods prove the earths strata to be millions of years old, but they wont tell you that th ose methods arebuilt on a house of cards that cannot bear the weight of scientific scrutiny.

Both Argon and Helium Diffusion Rates Indicate a Young Earthby Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. *

IntroductionIn the final report ofICRsRadioisotopes andthe Age of theEarth (RATE) project, Dr.Russell Humphreysreported that heliumdiffusion from zircons inborehole GT-2 at FentonHill, New Mexico, gave anage for the earth of 6,000 2,000 years.1This youngage agrees with a the

young age model, but is at variance with the billions of years conventionally held. Gary Loechelt has been a frequent critic ofHumphreys procedures for calculating the young age by helium diffusion.2Humphreys has responded to Loechelt and othercritics, demonstrating that their concerns were invalid and successfully defending his findings.However, due to Loechelts persistent criticisms, Humphreys recently took a deeper look at one of the key papers on whichhis helium diffusion research was based, and he found some rather odd assumptions about local heating near theborehole.3He concluded that some of the assumptions about the heating history of the borehole were made to avoidproblems the authors of the paper (Harrison et al4) would otherwise have had with the diffusion of argon from the sample.
http://www.icr.org/rate/http://www.icr.org/rate/http://www.icr.org/rate/http://www.icr.org/rate/http://www.icr.org/rate/http://www.icr.org/rate/


16/50

Humphreys decided to develop a second, independent methodfor estimating the age of the earth based on the diffusion ofargon from feldspar in the same Fenton Hill borehole. Theresult was a slightly younger age for the earth than his earlierhelium diffusion method.

A Brief Review of DiffusionWhen radioactive isotopes decay in rock, various gases areproduced as a byproduct. For example, uranium-238 in therock decays to lead by alpha decay, producing alpha particlesthat combine with electrons to form helium. Potassium-40

decays directly to argon-40 by inverse beta decay and electroncapture. The gases produced by radioactive decay are thenfree to move through the minerals in which they are imbeddedand escape into the atmosphere.However, the rate at whichthe gases can escape is highly dependent on the temperatureof the minerals. For example, the rate of helium diffusion at thehot temperatures 15,000 feet below the surface is about 160times faster than the rate at the cooler temperatures at 4,000feet. Consequently, rock deep in the crust of the earth will bemore depleted in helium than rock near the surface.Humphreyswas able to calculate the diffusivity, a measure of the rate ofescape of helium from the zircons in the granite at Fenton Hill.Figure 1 displays observed and theoretical diffusivities forhelium as a function of temperature. Note that temperature in

degrees Celsius is hotter on the left side of the figure, so thediffusivity increases upward to the left. The diffusivity is plottedon a logarithmic scale and increases by a factor of 10 for eachtick on the vertical axis.There are five white data points shownon the red and green curves in the lower right portion of the

figure. These are actual concentrations of helium measured from the Fenton Hill core used to compute diffusivity. Thediffusivity for the red curve (the uniformitarian model) was computed by dividing the difference between the theoreticalamount of helium produced over the conventional age of the rock and the measured amount remaining by the conventional1.5-billion-year age of the rock.The diffusivity for the green curve (the young age model) was computed by dividing thedifference in helium concentration by 6,000 years. Note there is a factor of about 100,000 in diffusivity between the twocurves. In other words, the rate at which helium diffuses from the rock must be many times slower for the uniformitarianmodel in order to explain the concentration of helium observed in the rock today.The RATE project obtained samples ofgranite from the Fenton Hill borehole and submitted them to one of the most widely respected helium laboratories fordetermination of helium diffusion rate as a function of temperature. Humphreys hypothesized before the laboratory work wascompleted that the results would fit the young age model rather than the uniformitarian model and support a young

earth.5Figure 1 clearly shows that his hypothesis was confirmed. The blue data from the laboratory experiments matchedthe green curve so well that Humphreys has said several times in his public lectures, Never in my entire scientific careerhave I ever seen a numerical prediction verified so accurately. Using the laboratory-measured diffusion rates, he was ableto compute an estimated age of the earth and its uncertainties. The value was 6,000 2,000 years.The New Argon ResultsThe deep Precambrian granite basement rock from theFenton Hill GT-2 borehole contained not only zircons fromwhich helium diffusion rates could be determined, but also apotassium-bearing microcline feldspar containing argon-40 thatcould be used to estimate age. Harrison et al conducted argon-argon dating and diffusivity measurements on five feldsparsamples.4They were forced to assume recent heating of therock in the borehole from a nearby volcano to explain theabundant release of argon evident in the samples.

They rejected several of the samples from their full analysisbecause the diffusion rates resulted in a young earth. However,they reported the laboratory results on all five samples. Figure 2shows their Age Spectrum for one of their rejected samples(sample 5) collected from the hottest temperature at a depth of15,000 feet below the surface. It shows the conventionalestimate for age as a function of the percent of argon releasedby heating experiments in the laboratory.The peak of 1160 Ma in Figure 2 shows that over one billionyears worth of potassium-40 to argon-40 decay occurredinsitu.RATE hypothesized that this decay occurred duringseveral episodes of accelerated nuclear decay in the past, themore recent during the year of the Flood.RATE also hypothesized an accelerated cooling mechanismthat would have gotten rid of much of the resulting radiogenicheat. Harrison et al had more confidence in the estimate oflosses of argon in sample 5. Humphreys also believed that theage of sample 5, with a small adjustment in the percentage ofargon loss, was more accurate and better-founded than theothers.


17/50

Humphreys used the argon data from Figure 2 to compute the age of sample 5 to be 5,100 +3,800 -2,100years, where 5,100years was his best estimate with the lowest age of 3,000 years and the oldest age of 8,900 years. Humphreys lowerestimate of 3,000 years was the same as the estimate made by Harrison et al. 4ConclusionsHumphreys concluded that the observed high argon retentions shown in Figure 2 conflict severely with the uniformitarian-assumed long ages. These data say that the feldspar in the Fenton Hill borehole generated over a billion years worth ofargon-40 and then retained it during a period of time that began only thousands of years ago.The argon data thus supportaccelerated nuclear decay, RATEs young helium age, and the youth of the world. Consequently, we can say that bothargon and helium diffusion rates agree that the earth is only thousands of years old.

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geologyby Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Deep inside the Inner Gorge of Grand Canyon,northern Arizona, are the crystalline basementrocks that probably date back even to theCreation itself. Clearly visible in the canyonwalls are the light-colored granites, such as theZoroaster Granite, which are stark against thedarker, folded strata of the Vishnu Schist and

the other metamorphic rock units of the GraniteGorge Metamorphic Suite1(see lowest purpleand green shading in diagram). These areformer sedimentary and volcanic strata thathave been transformed by heat and pressure,possibly during the intense upheavals whenthe dry land was formed .2Among thesemetamorphosed volcanic strata areamphibolites, belonging to the Brahma Schist.These were originally basalt lava flows severalmeters to tens of meters thick. In someoutcrops pillow structures have beenpreserved, testimony to the basalt lavas havingoriginally erupted and flowed under water ontothe ocean floor.Metamorphic rocks are not

always easy to date using radio-isotopes. Results obtained usually signify the "date" of the metamorphism, but they mayalso yield the "age" of the original volcanic (or sedimentary) rock. The "age" or "date" is calculated from the amount of thedaughter isotope produced by radioactive decay of the parent isotope. In Grand Canyon, the "date" of metamorphism of thebasalt lavas to form these Brahma amphibolites has been determined as 1690-1710 Ma (million years ago), based on U-Pbdating of minerals in the overlying Vishnu Schist and underlying Rama Schist that formed during the metamorphism. 3,4It isalso claimed that the original basalt lavas were erupted between 1741 and 1750 Ma, based on U-Pb dating of "original"zircon grains in metamorphosed felsic (granitic) volcanic layers within the Brahma and Rama Schists. 4,5RATE ResearchTwenty-seven Brahma amphibolite samples were collected from various Inner Gorge outcrops as part of theRATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project. These included seven samples from a 150 meter long and 2 meterwide amphibolite body outcropping just upstream from the mouth of Clear Creek at river mile 84 (measured from LeesFerry). All 27 samples were sent to two well-credentialed internationally-recognized, commercial laboratories forradioisotope analysespotassium-argon (K-Ar) at a Canadian laboratory, and rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-

neodymium (Sm-Nd), and lead-lead (Pb-Pb), at an Australian laboratory. Both

laboratories use standard, best-practiceprocedures on state-of-the-art equipment.ResultsThe model K-Ar ages for each of thesamples ranged from 405.110 Ma to2574.273 Ma. Furthermore, the sevensamples from the small amphibolite unitnear Clear Creek, which should all be thesame age because they belong to thesame metamorphosed basalt lava flow,yielded K-Ar model ages ranging from1060.428 Ma to 2574.273 Ma. Thisincludes two samples only 0.84 metersapart that yielded K-Ar model ages of1205.331 and 2574.273 Ma. Thecomputer program Isoplot6was used toplot isochrons and calculate isochron agesfrom the other radioisotope analyses. Thebest isochron plots, where all the variation

from the line of best fit to the data incorporates all the analytical errors, yielded an Rb-Sr isochron age of 124084 Ma, anSm-Nd isochron age of 165540 Ma, and a Pb-Pb isochron age of 188353 Ma.Discussion


18/50

Most people believe that when the different radioisotope dating methods are used on the same rock unit they all yield thesame age. However, the radioisotope dating of these Grand Canyon rocks clearly demonstrates that the disagreement, orisochron discordance, is pronounced. Even when the calculated error margins are taken into account the differentradioisotope dating methods yield completely different "ages" that cannot be reconciled124084 Ma (Rb-Sr), 165540 Ma(Sm-Nd), and 188353 Ma (Pb-Pb) (see diagram). None of the obtained isochron "ages" corresponds to the "date" for anyrecognized event, neither the original lava eruptions nor the subsequent metamorphism. And the K-Ar model "ages" are sowidely divergent from one another (ranging from 405.110 Ma to 2574.273 Ma), even from very closely spaced samplesfrom the same outcrop of the same original lava flow, as to be useless for "dating" any event.These discordant results couldeasily be dismissed as an isolated aberration, perhaps due to the uncertain effects of metamorphism and any subsequentalteration, especially during erosion and weathering. However, they are confirmation of the repeated failure of all theradioisotope "dating" methods to successfully date Grand Canyon rocks.7,8Furthermore, papers in the general geologicalliterature are also reporting discordant radioisotope "dates" when all the methods are applied to the same rock unit, 9but

tenuous "explanations" are given to account for the anomalous amounts of daughter products, and avoid the inescapableconclusion that the radioisotope methods simply do not yield reliable absolute ages.The isochron "ages" yielded by the different parent radioisotopes for the Brahma amphibolites plotted against the presenthalf-lifes (decay rates) of those radioisotopes according to their mode of decay. (Note that there is total disagreementbetween the "dates," and the alpha-decay "dates" are much older than the beta-decay "date.") Yet the RATE research has uncovered much evidence, including the patterns of these discordances between the "dates"from the different radioisotope systems,10that radioisotope decay rates were accelerated in a global catastrophic event inthe recent past.11For example, if accelerated radioisotope decay occurred, then alpha-decaying radioisotopes would yieldolder isochron "ages" than beta-decaying radioisotopes, which is exactly the pattern in the Brahma amphibolites (seediagram above). Because the different radioisotopes are dating the same geologic event, to have produced different "dates"has to mean that the parent radioisotopes have decayed at different rates over the same time period. In other words, thedecay of the parent radioisotopes was accelerated by different amounts, the decay of those yielding older "ages" (the alpha-decayers) having been accelerated more. Obviously, if radioisotope decay was accelerated, say during the Flood, then theradioisotope decay "clocks" could never be relied upon to "date" rocks as many millions of years old. To the contrary, the

rocks could still only be a few thousand years old.ConclusionThe radioisotope methods, long touted as irrefutably dating the earth's rocks as countless millions of years old, haverepeatedly failed to provide reliable and meaningful absolute ages for Grand Canyon rock layers. Irreconcilabledisagreement within and between the methods is the norm, even at the outcrop scale. This is a devastating "blow" to thelong ages that are foundational to uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology. Yet the discordance patterns areconsistent with past accelerated radioisotope decay, which would also render these "clocks" useless. Thus there is noreliable evidence to dispute that these metamorphosed basalt lava flows deep in Grand Canyon date back thousands ofyears ago.

"Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocksby Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

For more than three decades potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rockshas been crucial in underpinning the billions of years for Earth history claimed by evolutionists.Critical to these dating methods is the assumption that there was no radiogenic argon (40Ar*) inthe rocks (e.g., basalt) when they formed, which is usually stated as self-evident. Dalrympleargues strongly:The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or noconcern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because40Ar is an inert gas thatdoes not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks whenthey are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten, the 40Ar formed by the decay of40K escapes fromthe liquid.1However, this dogmatic statement is inconsistent with even Dalrymple's own work 25 yearsearlier on 26 historic, subaerial lava flows, 20% of which he found had non-zero concentrations

of40

Ar*

(or excess argon) in violation of this key assumption of the K-Ar dating method.2

The historically dated flows andtheir "ages" were:Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.60.16 Ma; 1.410.08 MaMt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.250.08 MaMt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.350.14 MaMt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.110.03 MaSunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 0.270.09 Ma; 0.250.15 MaFar from being rare, there are numerous reported examples of excess40Ar*in recent or young volcanic rocks producingexcessively old K-Ar "ages":3Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.37.2 MaKilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.56.8 MaMt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.42 MaMt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.70.01 MaMedicine Lake Highlands obsidian,Glass Mountains, California (


19/50

Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (


20/50

for analysis.At Oak Ridge, Robert Gentry, a creationist physicist, and his colleagues ground up the rock, extracting hard,dense, microscopic crystals calledzircons(figure 2, page iii). The zircons, were, as usual, radioactive. Much of the uraniumand thorium in the earth's continental crust is in zircons, often imbedded in flakes ofbiotite, a black mica. The zircon-containing mica is scattered widely throughout the granitic rocks of the crust.The radioactivity makes helium. As a uraniumatom decays in many steps down to a lead atom, it emits eight alphaparticles, each of which is a helium nucleus composedof two protons and two neutrons. For the crystal size we are concerned with, most of the emitted alpha particles stop withinthe zircon originating them. Then each alpha particle quickly gathers two electrons from the crystal and becomes a completehelium atom.Much Helium Is Still in the Zircons

Helium is a lightweight, fast-moving, and "slippery" atom, not sticking chemically to other atoms. It can diffusethrough solidsrelatively fast, meaning that helium atoms wiggle through the spaces between atoms in a crystal lattice. For the samereason it can leak rapidly through tiny holes and cracks, making it ideal for leak detection in laboratory vacuum systems. The

rates are so great that those who believe in billions of years had expected most of the helium produced during the allegedlong ages to have worked its way out of the crust and into the earth's atmosphere.But the helium is not in the earth'satmosphere! When non-specialists hear that, they usually assume that helium has risen to the top of the atmosphere as itwould in a balloon, and then that it has leaked from the top of the atmosphere into space. But unconfined helium spreadsthroughout the atmosphere from top to bottom, and the loss into space is actually quite small. Dr. Larry Vardiman, an ICRatmospheric scientist, has shown that even after accounting for the slow leakage into space, the earth's atmosphere hasonly about 0.04% of the helium it should have if the earth were billions of years old. 3In 1957 Melvin Cook, a creationistchemist, pointed out this problem in the prestigious scientific journal,Nature, asking in his title, "Where is the earth'sradiogenic helium?"4Radiogenicmeans, "generated by nuclear decay." In nearly half acentury, uniformitarian scientists apparently have not found a good enough answer topublish inNature. But creationists have a simple answer: most of the helium has not enteredthe earth's atmosphere. It is still in the earth's crust and mantle. In fact, the Oak Ridge teamfound that much of it is still in the zircons! It has not even had enough time to leak out of thecrystals where it originated.

Los Alamos measurements

5

of uranium, thorium, and lead in the zircons imply "1.5 billion"years worth of nuclear decayat today's rates. Gentry et al. used the amounts of lead tocalculate how much helium the decay had deposited in the zircons. Then they measuredhow much helium was still in the zircons. Comparing the two gave the percentage of heliumstill retained in the zircons, which they published in 1982.6Their results were remarkable. Upto 58 percent of the radiogenic helium had not diffused out of the zircons. The percentagesdecreased with increasing depth and temperature in the borehole. That confirms diffusionhad been happening, because the rate of diffusion in any material increases strongly with temperature. Also, the smaller thecrystal, the less helium should be retained. These zircons were both tiny and hot, yet they had retained huge amounts ofhelium!Experiments and Theory Needed

Many creationists, knowing how fast helium diffuses in many materials, believed it would be impossible for that much heliumto remain in the zircons after 1.5 billion years. But we had no specific data to support our belief. As of 2000 the only reportedhelium diffusion data for zircons7were ambiguous, and none existed at all for biotite. So the RATE project commissionedexperiments to measure helium diffusion in zircon and biotite samples specifically from the Fenton Hill borehole.We also

needed theoretical models to interpret the data. Thinking biotite was the main restriction, we published 8two models showingthe biotite diffusion rates required to make the zircons retain the observed amounts of helium at the observed boreholetemperatures for a specified time. The "Evolution" model assumed the time was 1.5 billion years, with continuous productionof helium during the whole period. The "young age " model assumed the time was 6,000 years, with most of the heliumproduced in one or more bursts of accelerated nuclear decay near the beginning of that time.RATE Experiments Show How Fast Helium Escapes

Our experiments showed that we need to account for both diffusion from zircon and biotite, but zircon is more important. Theresulting new model differs by less than 0.05% from the previous one. The "Evolution" model did not change. So thenumbers in our first models are still valid, but they now apply to zircon instead of biotite.Our zircon data agree with recentlypublished data from another site,9and both agree with our model. The data allow us to calculate how long diffusion hasbeen taking placebetween 4,000 and 14,000 years! The diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than themaximum rates the "Evolution" model could allow. That leaves no hope for the 1.5 billion years. For most of that allegedtime, the zircons would have to have been as cold asliquid nitrogen(196C below zero) to retain the observed amount ofhelium. Such a "cryogenic Earth" model would not help uniformitarians, because it would violate uniformitarianism!

Three of my colleagues and I10

on the RATE project are preparing a paper with full technical details which we hope topresent at the International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh next summer. In the meantime, friends and supportersof the RATE project have good reason to rejoice with us over these preliminary results, which strongly uphold the 6,000-yeartimescale.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earthby Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.

IntroductionOn May 20-21, 1998, a second conference to addressradioisotopes and theage oftheearth (RATE) met in San Diego,California. Six research scientists with specialized training in Geology, Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Physics met to reporton research completed over the past year. They also discussed plans for future activities. The Institute for CreationResearch (ICR), Answers in Genesis (AIG), and the Creation Research Society (CRS) are jointly sponsoring theseconferences to develop and communicate an understanding of radioisotope data from a young-earth perspective. An initialapproach taken by some of the investigators is to explore models for accelerated rates of decay of radioisotopes duringFlood. Several sources of data suggest that significant quantities of radioactive decay have occurred during the history ofthe earth and cosmos. The conventional age model assumes that this decay has occurred over billions of years at constantrates rather than in concentrated episodes over short periods of time. Some of the RATEresearchers believe otherexplanations that do not require accelerated decay may be the answer, such as the geochemical distribution of elements.


21/50

Geological ResearchDr. Steven Austin of ICR led off the conference with a paper entitled, "Continuing Research on Isochron Dating MethodsApplied to Grand Canyon Rocks." He presented plots of the ratios of various radionuclides usually interpreted as "isochronages" from over 40 rock samples collected from Grand Canyon Pleistocene and Precambrian layers. These samples wereanalyzed using Pb-Pb, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and K-Ar methods. Attention was focused on daughter products of lead, neodymium,strontium, and argon for whole-rock and mineral concentrates. The various linear array plots could be interpreted as"isochrons" from the different dating methods. However, discordant "ages" resulted, even for mineral concentrates from thesame rock. Although the discordant isochron "ages" are the normal pattern, the discordance seems to differ in a predictablefashion. Alpha daughter products give older apparent "ages" than beta daughter products. More measurements andanalyses, especially mineral isochrons, may help identify the cause of the observed trends.Dr. Andrew Snelling of AIGcontinued the geological emphasis with a paper entitled, "Solving the Long-Age Isotope Dating Problem: Geology andGeochemistry." He reported on the K-Ar analyses of recent (less than 50 years old) lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New

Zealand, which produced model ages as high as 3.5 million years. The large age is due to excessive concentrations ofprimordial argon in the samples which renders problematic the use of K-Ar and Ar-Ar as methods for dating rocks. It is notpossible to distinguish the primordial argon incorporated as a rock formed from that produced later by nuclear decay. Dr.Snelling demonstrated that argon is infiltrating the crust of the earth from reservoirs in the mantle over various space andtime scales. Additionally, the Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and U-Th-Pb dating methods also rely on assumptions about the initial startingconditions in the earth's mantle. Various hypothetical models for different compositional domains in the mantle are utilizedby geochemists to explain the measured isotope ratios in crustal rocks, in some instances without resorting to ageinterpretations. Dr. Snelling intends to pursue this explanation as an alternative to accelerated decay.Geophysics and Astrophysics ResearchDr. John Baumgardner, a geophysicist with Los Alamos National Laboratory, offered a paper entitled, "The Distribution ofRadioactive Elements in the Earth and Implications Relative to the History of Nuclear Decay." He presented data for theconcentration of radioactive elements and corresponding heat production for different geological materials and theirdistribution relative to the earth's surface. The data show that the most radioactive rocks are strongly concentrated towardthe earth's surface, particularly in the continental crust. Dr. Baumgardner emphasized the curious fact that the flow of heat

out of the earth is strongly correlated (at a local level) with the amount of radioactivity in the surface rocks. This suggests thesurface heat flow is dominated by the radioactive heat generation in the near surface rocks. However, the amount ofradioactive heat production even in highly radioactive granitic rocks appears to be insufficient to produce the observedpatterns of surface heat flow if one assumes present-day decay rates over a period of just a few thousand years. This hintsthat rates were much higher sometime in the recent past. On the other hand, the amount of radioactive heat production ingranitic rocks appears to be much too large to allow extreme amounts of decay (e.g., several hundred million years' worth atpresent rates) in a short interval of time.Dr. Donald DeYoung, an associate editor with the Creation Research SocietyQuarterlyand professor at Grace College in Indiana, in response to a request to begin writing chapters for the StatusReportto be published by theRATEgroup in the year 2000, presented a paper entitled, "Radiometric Dating Review." Inthis paper he discussed the procedures and assumptions of seven of the more popular dating methods used for rocks,including samarium-neodymium, rhenium-osmium, uranium-lead, thorium-lead, rubidium-strontium, potassium-argon, andargon-argon. He stressed that all of these methods make three main assumptions. In all cases it is assumed in conventionalage dating that the nuclear decay rate or half-life has always remained constant, that the isotopic composition of rocksamples has not been changed by fractionation over time, and that rock samples have been closed systems over time withno migration of parent or daughter elements into or out of the rocks. Dr. DeYoung then explored briefly the magnitude of

accelerated decay necessary to explain all of the daughter products typically found in rocks.Physics ResearchDr. Eugene Chaffin, editor of theCreation Research Society Quarterlyand professor at Bluefield College in Virginia, led off aseries of three physics presentations with, "A Study of the Variation in the Neutron Resonance and Effective Capture CrossSection of Samarium for the Oklo Natural Reactor." The Oklo natural reactor is a fissionable deposit of uranium whichaccumulated in a sandstone layer in Africa and was apparently active during Earth history. By looking at residual daughterelements, Dr. Chaffin has attempted to show that the natural reaction would be consistent with a young Earth, but not onewhich is billions of years old. If an accelerated decay event occurred, the concern is that the ore in the Oklo natural reactorwould not be present in the measured amounts. In this presentation, Dr. Chaffin calls into question the treatment of thecalculated cross section of the samarium isotopes which act as "poisons" in the reactor to slow down the process. Hesuggests that several variables in the calculation of nuclear cross section could change by orders of magnitude underconditions of an accelerated decay rate.Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratory inAlbuquerque, New Mexico, presented a paper entitled, "Helium Diffusion through Granite." Dr. Humphreys offered bothexperimental and theoretical data to support his hypothesis that the concentration of helium is too high in certain minerals in

granite if the earth is billions of years old. The diffusion rate of helium through granite should have permitted most of thehelium to have already "leaked" into the atmosphere. However, if an accelerated decay event occurred only a few thousandyears ago, the measured concentrations of helium would be consistent with the calculated diffusion rate. Helium is producedby radioactive decay of uranium and thorium within zircon crystals embedded in biotite flakes of granite. Although thediffusion rate of a similar gas, argon, has been measured in biotite, no results for helium diffusion have been reported in theliterature. The predictions of diffusion rates between the two age models differ by five orders of magnitude. Dr. Humphreyssuggested that a high-priority experiment for theRATEproject should be a well-designed and executed laboratoryexperiment on the diffusion rate of helium through biotite.Dr. Keith Wanser, a professor of physics at California StateUniversity Fullerton, was invited to present a paper to theRATEgroup entitled, "Non-Exponential Decay of QuantumMechanical Systems Due to Tunneling." Although Dr. Wanser is not part of the steering committee for the RATEproject, hewas invited to participate on the first day of presentations because of the possible significance of his research to the effort.TheRATEgroup plans to include other researchers in the formal presentations from time to time, on an invited basis, asappropriate research and opportunities occur. Dr. Wanser's presentation dealt with the rigorous quantum theory of time-dependent tunneling, which produces non-exponential time dependence in nuclear decay rates. The difficulty in makingthese calculations is finding analytical methods which will allow computation of the decay probability over an extreme rangeof time scales (at least 37 orders of magnitude). He has found an analytical solution for the Green's function which reducesthe time dependence of the decay probability to the evaluation of a single integral. For the alpha decay problem, he plans toinvestigate neodymium first, which has the longest half-life (2.1 x 1015years) and the lowest alpha particle energy (1.83MeV) of any alpha emitter. As such, it is expected to exhibit the greatest non-exponential decay effects at short times.

Other Discussion


22/50

TheRATEgroup met for a second day to discuss plans for additional research and publication of the Status Reportin2000. About a dozen theoretical and experimental research projects were identified for consideration. TheRATEgroup willbe writing research proposals during the next year so that individuals and foundations can be approached for funding.Additional researchers will be selected in their areas of expertise and work directly with one of theRATEscientists.Expressions of interest by scientists should be submitted to Dr. Vardiman at ICR. Inquiries about participation should includea vita, a list of publications, and a research proposal or offer of help. Dr. Vardiman will then forward this package to theappropriate scientist.TheStatus ReportandResearch Planwill be published jointly by ICR, AIG, and CRS in the summer of 2000. Followingrelease of this report theRATEgroup plans to conduct research on this project for a period of five years and report on theprogress in the year 2005.Appeal for PrayerWe would appreciate your involvement in this effort. The most important contribution you can make is through prayer. We

recognize that this is a monumental task, and we need you to pray that we would have wisdom as we work

Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Crustal Rocks and the Problem of Excess Argonby Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

According to the assumptions foundational to potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks, there shouldnot be any daughter radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in rocks when they form. When measured, all 40Ar*in a rock is assumed tohave been produced byin situradioactive decay of40K within the rock since it formed. However, it is well established thatvolcanic rocks (e.g. basalt) contain excess40Ar*, that is,40Ar which cannot be attributed to either atmospheric contaminationorin situradioactive decay of40K.1This excess40Ar*represents primordial Ar carried from source areas in the earth's mantle

by the parent magmas, is inherited by the resultant volcanic rocks, and thus has no age significance.However, are all otherrocks in the earth's crust also susceptible to "contamination" by excess40Ar*emanating from the mantle? If so, then the K-Arand Ar-Ar "dating" of crustal rocks would be similarly questionable.When muscovite (a common mineral in crustal rocks) isheated to 740-860C under high Ar pressures for periods of 3 to 10.5 hours it absorbs significant quantities of Ar, producingK-Ar "ages" of up to 5 billion years, and the absorbed Ar is indistinguishable from radiogenic argon ( 40Ar*).2In otherexperiments muscovite was synthesized from a colloidal gel under similar temperatures and Ar pressures, the resultantmuscovite retaining up to 0.5 wt% Ar at

Documents

Clocks in Rocks? - ICR