Monday, October 19, 2009

The Age of the Earth - Radiometric dating

By Dr. Don Batten

Radiometric dating

  1. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
  2. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
  3. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
  4. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.
  5. Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.
  6. Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).
  7. Demonstrably non-radiogenic “isochrons” of radioactive and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron “dating” that gives billions of years. “False” isochrons are common.
  8. Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock giving different “ages” undermine all “dates” obtained from zircons.
  9. Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.
  10. The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005
  11. Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296–298, 1982; DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).
  12. Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time and a vast age of the earth. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes, Creation 28(2):46–50, 2006.
  13. Squashed pleochroic halos (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical “young” earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.
  14. Australia’s “Burning Mountain” speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for ~40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible).


<< Part 1 | < Part 4 | Part 6


  1. 1). this is just stupid, ofcourse if you use carbon dating on a piece of rock that consists largely of carbon your going to get inaccurate dates...that's the reason why scientists dont perform carbon dating on coal. so stupid. Note: they also dont perform it on igneous rock or water dweling animals that live in environments with high carbon content. ofcourse if it's talking about coal deposits, scientists have already found several explanations to account for the c14:

    2). i fail to see it's point.

    3). what exactly is that supposed to mean? i thought it was creationists that maintained that under certain circumstances fossil can form very quickly, or are you assuming that 'evolutionists' assume that all fossils take a really long time to form lol

    4). considering diamonds consist entirerly of mineralised carbon im not surprised. which is probably why a scientist wouldnt carbon date a bloody diamond!

    5). scientists often perform multiple checks of the same sample in order to make sure the sample has not been contaminated...pointing to instances where contamination has occured and been found does not pose any problem to the dating method.

    6). and yet carbon dating being independently confirmed by tree ring dating up to 8000 years proves it correct.

    9). debunked here:

    10). refer to one

  2. @a 1 "...if you use carbon dating on a piece of rock that consists largely of carbon your going to get inaccurate dates...that's the reason why scientists dont perform carbon dating on coal."

    Wrong, even by the standard of your cited atheism biased article (see comments on geological evidences re talkorigins biases). The reason stated why C14 is not trusted in coal is due to the presence of uranium in the surounding rocks and nothing to do with supposed errors from the high carbon content. That is a bald faced lie Aydan and you know it - shame on you! You trust C14 to be accurate when you have it in other sources but when convienient you discard it in favour of your theory, this is intellectually dishonest but unfortunately standard for talkorigins material. On the whole uranium thing by the way, there should be no-where near enough C14 produced from the uranium around coal to produce a reading of thousands of years old. The only rational way this would be possible is if there is almost pure uranium in the rocks around coal and large amounts in it. This is obviously not the case! Otherwise our coal power houses and mines would all be radiation hazards (which they are not!).

    @a 3 "...are you assuming that 'evolutionists' assume that all fossils take a really long time to form?"

    No Aydan we are assuming the ancient dates given to the fossilised wood is wrong. The wood was dated paeleologically and using other radio-dating methods - that is the problem!

    @a 4 " consist entirerly of mineralised carbon im not surprised."

    No again diamonds are pure carbon and as for the dating issues the structure is so hard that even uranium based C14 has no hope of penetrating, otherwise see my comments on 1.

    @a re 5 - the problem is that the dating methods don't agree, not that the single methods have been tested for error in sampling Aydan.

    @a re 5 - yet you don't trust it in the most simple of tests on diamonds and coal - I smell a rat! It is too convienient for you to discard in one setting and yet you discount findings based on radiocarbon in another - what do you really believe? Or have you just swallowed what talkorigins and the other evolutionary blogs say without examining it?

    @a re 9 - Henke is full of noise and not much else, his rebuttal could be quickly proven by sending a sample from the site (I think one was offered by the RATE team) and testing it himself, yet he declines to do anything other than internet blogging - noble indeed!
    The rebuttal of these posts by Henke is found here: and here: - niether have been addressed by Henke since and no-one else is stepping up to comment, not even the evolutionist who tested the zircons in the first place - odd don't you think?

    Aydan all these facts point to the earth having a maker and life including yours being His by right. You are moral and intelligent by nature, the rational mind in you claims that justice is only right for any crimes committed in this life. Apply that to yourself in the light of what your maker has said we should do and not do. If you like me have ever stollen anything, lied, lusted (which God views as adultery of the heart), hated (which is murder in God's eyes) or dishonoured God or your parents; then Aydan you need a saviour like me. Turn to Jesus Christ, He came to live, die and rise again to save sinners like us from our sin, if you trust in Him he will save you from the punishment of hell you and I deserve. Have faith in Him who is revealed in creation and confirmed in His word the bible. Atheism is a bleak philosophy if followed to its end brings only dispair. Turn from your sins and trust in the one saviour. God Bless you and know that we are praying for you.

  3. Most of the claims presented above come from the RATE project and have been rebutted elsewhere.

    The RATE radiocarbon analysis, for example, is flawed. What they claim to be “intrinsic radiocarbon” in the samples is a combination of sample contamination and measurement background.

    Modern radiocarbon measurements are extremely sensitive and never measure a true “zero” value. They always measure a non-zero amount of “background” that must be corrected for. Some of this is due to true contamination of the sample (either in situ or in collection), some is due to the complex steps required to prepare the sample for measurement, and some is due to backgrounds in the measurement system (either radiocarbon contamination or instrumentation “noise”).

    For more information on radiocarbon, see "RATE's Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?" by Kirk Bertsche. For information on Polonium Halos, see "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite & Granite" by Lorence Collins. For problems with He in Zircons, see the papers by Randy Isaac, Gary Loechelt, and Rodney Whitefield. These and many more responses to RATE by Evangelical Christians may be found on the website of the American Scientific Affiliation.


Note: All comments that contain inappropriate or off-topic material will not be approved. Also, generally posts that contain links/URLs will not be approved.