Rate This
Article
[click here]
Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]
Radioisotopes & the Age of The Earth
Video by Institute
for Creation Research
Featuring Steve
Austin Ph.D.
Review copyright 2005 epicidiot.com
|
See reviews of other videos featuring Steve Austin See also
|
Contents
- Outline - What is this video all about?
- Alien Analogy
- Bass Diabase Sill
- St, Helens Lava Dating
- Helium Diffusion Show a Young Earth
- References - Want to learn more?
- Viewer Feedback
See also Young Earth Evidence and How Old is the Earth?
More reviews of origins videos
The Privileged Planet - Do we live on a planet specially created for life?
Unlocking the Mystery of Life - What is Irreducible Complexity?
Mount St. Helens - Evidence for Catastrophe or fraud?
And More...
General overview of Dr. Austin's presentation
The following are the
views of the video producers.
For a counter view see Comments
below
Dr. Austin starts by explaining why he used to believe in an old Earth, but now believes in a young Earth using the same list for both.
- Laminated sedimentary rocks that seem to be deposited slowly
- Large canyons with small rivers
- Petrified forests
- Coal beds deposited in peat swamps.
- Radioisotope dating
|
Note: Others contend that many of the geological features that are believed to have been created over a long time were actually the result of Noah's flood. |
Grand Canyon: He believes that the Grand Canyon shows evidence of a lot of water over a little time, as opposed to the standard geological view of a little water over a very long time.
The petrified forest: This also shows evidence of creation over a short period of time.
These topics are covered in more detail in the Mount St. Helens eruption video.
RATE Project: The next topic is the RATE project. Some of the goals of RATE are to test the assumptions of radioisotope dating and to develop alternate models for interpreting radioisotope dating.
Video Presentation
Alien Analogy
Dr. Austin gives the example of two space travelers visiting Earth who want to determine the age of high school students. The first alien observes the heights of the students over a three-year period and determines that the average height is 65 inches at an increase of 1 inch per year. Therefore, divide the height by the rate of change to get an age of 65 years old.
The second alien observes the weights of the students over the same three-year period and determines that the average weight is 130 pounds at an increase of 2 pounds per year. Therefore, divide the weight by the rate of change to get an age of 65 years old.
Both aliens ignore that the parents say they are only teenagers (eyewitness testimony).
He then sums of the aliens' errors:
- Assumed a constant rate of change.
- Assumed zero initial condition (birth height and weight equal to zero)
- Ignored the eyewitness.
He then discusses the assumptions made in radioisotope dating:
- Constant decay
- Beginning quantities of the parent and daughter elements are known.
- Closed system
Do scientists really make such assumptions?
See Alien Analogy comments.
A box of Uranium atoms example to explain half lives by showing how half the remaining atoms disappear every half life. This is used to show how assumptions are used by scientists when estimating ages using Uranium.
The goals and progress of the RATE project are discussed. See RATE for more information about this interesting project.
Comments
Alien Analogy Comments
The alien analogy says that the aliens were in error because that made false assumptions. It's fitting that he didn't call them "intelligent life," because what intelligent being would make these assumptions without trying to verify them. This could have been done.
The alien analogy implies that radiometric dating is in error because it makes similar assumptions:
- The rate of radioactive decay has remained constant.
- The beginning quantities of the parent and daughter elements are known.
Scientists don't like to rely on assumptions, so unlike the unintelligent aliens, much research has done to verify these assumptions.
What is the evidence for constant decay rates?
- The decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have been observed since their rates were directly measurable. They have not been shown to vary their rates within limits of accuracy.
- The supernova SN1991T produced large quantities of radioactive isotopes. The gamma rays from these isotopes that show that their decay rates are the same as those currently measured on Earth. Since it is 60,000,000 light-years light-years away, the events we are seeing now happened 60,000,000 years ago. Therefore the radioactive decay rates have not significantly changed in 60,000,000 years.
See Radiometric Dating for more information.
Bass Diabase Sill of the Grand Canyon
See the paper by Dr. Austin on this subject. His main point was that the K-Ar isochron gave a date of 0.84 billion years, the Rb-Sr isochron dating gave a date of 1.06 billion years, the Pb-Pb isochron dating was 1.2 billions years, and the Sm-Nd isochron gave a date of 1.4 billion years. His point was, given these various dates, what is the true age of the Bass Diabase Sill, and can radiometric dating be trusted? He then proposed that the results could be explained by an alpha decay that was greater that the beta decay. This beta/alpha decay idea is discussed in a RATE paper.
Was Dr. Austin using valid dating techniques?
See Bass Diabase Sill comments.
Bass Diabase Sill Comments
Dr. Austin used a method called isochron dating. For isochron dating to work the data points must be derived from materials which were isotopically homogeneous when the object formed. In his book "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe," Austin states that his data points came from different lava flows. This violates this basic rule of isochron dating, thus ensuring that he would get meaningless results.
Also, the scatter from the data that Dr. Austin used suggested that the samples did not meet the requirements of the above homogeneous rule, therefore indicating that the resulting date was probably meaningless. However, Austin selectively choose data points that fell close to a single line, making it "appear" to be a valid isochron dating. Since Dr. Austin is a geologist, he should have known that the samples used would not produce a meaningful isochron dating. In any case, the data showed that it didn't and should not have been used. And if he wasn't sure, he could have consulted a paper HE WROTE in 1988 which states that this problem is well known and cites references for how to detect it. Basically it appears that he created a situation that he should have known would fail, and then was surprised by it.
Suppose I told you cell phones don't work in tunnels, and you immediately drove to a tunnel and couldn't use your phone. Would it be honest for you to claim that cell phones didn't work?
For an in-depth, and somewhat technical, discussion of this problem, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html#icr-claims
Mt. St. Helens Lava Dating
Following this was an example of a rock from the 11-year-old Mount St. Helens eruption that was sent in for K-Ar dating. It got an age of 350,000 ± 50,000 years. The minerals in the sample were dated as 2.8 million years old. Since it is known that these samples were only a few years old, these results are clearly wrong.
Was Dr. Austin using valid dating techniques?
See Lava Dating comments.
He makes the statement that many labs doing Argon dating have quit doing them, seeming to imply this was because of its inaccuracy.
Go
here for an
in-depth (although somewhat technical)
discussion of what isochron dating is and how it works.
Lava dating Comments
Radiometric dating requires that the object is old enough so that the ratio of the parent and daughter elements can be accurately measured. This varies for the different dating types. In general, the longer the half life of the parent isotope, the longer time that is needed.
Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating, such as used by Dr. Austin on the Mt. St. Helens samples, is used for items greater than 100,000 years old. Using K-Ar to date rocks from Mt. St. Helens is clearly an invalid use of this dating technique and one should expect to get erroneous results.
Dr. Austin is a geologist. It's hard to imagine that he isn't aware of this well-known requirement for the use of K-Ar dating. Remember the cell phone example above?
See the following for what is considered the usable dating range for K-Ar. (If you meet Dr. Austin, please pass these on to him)
- Isotopes Commonly used for Radiometric Dating
- Radiometric measurements of time
- Wikipedia - Potassium-argon dating
But why did the lava samples give such an old date?
One might reasonably note that since the samples are young, they simply
should not have been able to measure the daughter elements, therefore giving an
un-measurable or very young date as opposed to a very old date.
This misconception is based on a common misconception about how radiometric dating works. It is not the amount of daughter element that determines the date, but the ratio of parent to daughter that determines the age. Lava samples will usually have some Argon contamination. When the sample is very young, the ratio of contamination Argon to decay Argon (daughter Argon) can be fairly high. This will make the ratio of daughter to parent appear to be too large, giving an apparent old age date. Once the sample has had time (i.e. is old enough) for true daughter Argon to accumulate, the contamination, unless it was extreme, becomes insignificant and has only a small effect on dating. This is why very young samples should not be dated using K-Ar. Remember, there is practically ZERO true daughter when the sample is formed, therefore even a small amount of contamination will be significant compared to the true daughter. Once enough time has passed, then there is enough true daughter Argon so that small amounts of contamination Argon do not greatly affect the ratio of parent to daughter. Remember, it's the ratio, not the amount that counts.
In the Young Sample the contamination Argon is significant compared to the daughter Argon. This would make the ratio of daughter to Parent seem much higher than it actually is. This makes the sample appear to be much older than it really is. In the Old Sample the contamination Argon is not significant compared to the daughter Argon. This would make the ratio of daughter to Parent fairly close to the true ratio and therefore the contamination would have little affect on the dating of this sample. Note: The hourglass represents the transformation of parent to
daughter element across time. As time passes, the parent
transforms to its daughter element. The amount of the parent
decreases while the amount of the daughter increases. |
A common source of Argon contamination is xenoliths that are trapped in the lava. These are bits of older rocks that contain Argon and will cause a false old age date as described above. When geologists are collecting samples, they will watch for these sources of contamination. Dr. Austin mentions in his other papers that he detected xenoliths in the samples. Once those were detected, he should have known that K-Ar was not an appropriate dating technique. This obvious source of contamination pretty much guaranteed that he was going to get a false old age date with such a young sample. Yet he did it anyway. Again, remember the cell phone. To be fair, he does claim he tried to remove the contamination. But this is an extremely difficult task and isn't likely that he got it all. Knowing that the sample was contaminated, it simply shouldn't have been used for K-Ar dating.
Did Dr. Austin check for contamination?
Yes he did.
Did he find evidence of contamination?
Yes he did.
Did he send the sample in anyway?
Yes he did.
Should he have expected to get a false old age date?
Yes he should have.
Did he get a false old age date?
Amazing!!!!
Dr. Austin might be interested in reading this article about how excess Argon causes false dating.
All radiometric dating techniques have problems with contamination. There are ways to detect when these contaminations are likely, such as the presence of xenoliths. Sometimes the signs of contamination will be missed and the radiometric dating will give an unexpected wrong result. Young Earth creationists make much of these instances. But an occasional hiccup doesn't mean the technique is invalid. A policeman's radar gun gives accurate results most of the time. Every once in a while radio interference (i.e. contamination) will cause it to give a false reading. Does this mean that radar guns don't work -or- does it simply mean that they just need to be used with caution? If you know that you are in a radio interference zone (i.e. you see the xenoliths), then don't use the radar gun there. Exercise a little common sense.
Note: K-Ar dating has its problems, mostly from contamination and leaching. That's why it has fallen out of favor to other dating systems such as Ar-Ar which aren't as susceptible to these problems. There are methods for dating lava flows of relatively young age. Argon-Argon gives the correct date for samples from Vesuvius (which erupted in 79 A.D.). Uranium-234 and thorium-230 can also be used to date geologic samples that are only one or two thousand years old. But for many well-known reasons (except maybe to Dr. Austin) K-Ar is a bad choice for the samples Dr. Austin dated.
Dr. Austin is a legitimate geologist with good credentials, so he should be fully aware of the proper methods for collecting and dating geologic samples.
Which begs the question: Why did he use a dating technique that was inappropriate for the samples he collected?
Helium in biotite and Zircon crystals
Biotite and Zircon crystals include thorium and uranium. These create helium as they decay. The helium then slowly leaks out. After billions of years the helium should have all leaked out. Samples taken from the Fenton Hill site dated to 1.5 billion years old, yet it is still there.
This is covered in greater detail in the review of the RATE video Rock of Ages or Rock of Creation?
Helium in biotite and Zircon crystals comments
This argument is based on how fast helium gas escapes from the biotite and zircon samples.
The RATE group took helium diffusion measurements in the lab and then applied them to real-world rock samples. For the lab measurements to have meaning in the real world, then the lab testing environment would have to simulate real-world conditions, such as pressure and temperature. In RATE papers, they state that the lab work was done in a vacuum. This is in contrast to the pressures of their rock samples taken from 2,460-14,000 feet with a pressure of 2,900-17,400 psi. One would expect this to generate an unrealistically high diffusion rate in the lab. For example, tennis balls are pressurized with gas. As long as they are stored in their unopened pressurized can, their internal gas diffuses very slowly and they can maintain their pressure for a long time. However, once you open the can they are exposed to the lower pressure of the atmosphere. This causes their internal gas then diffuses much more rapidly (thus causing them to lose their bounce in just a few weeks). The same applies to the helium gas in the zircon crystals. There is no reason to suspect that the helium is going to diffuse at the same rate in the lab at 0 psi (vacuum) as it does at 10,000 psi in the real world.
Their conclusions are based on applying the helium diffusion rate of rocks in a vacuum to pressurized rocks without any attempt to compensate for the difference in pressures.
This by itself renders their helium diffusion rate argument invalid.
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
Numerous researchers have shown that the diffusion of helium or argon in silicate minerals may vary by many orders of magnitude at a given temperature depending on whether the studies were conducted in a vacuum or under pressure. (McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 154).
Vacuums may also decompose minerals (such as biotites and other micas) or open fractures, which would allow helium to more readily escape than under natural subsurface conditions. Farley (2002, p. 822) warns that laboratory diffusion data must be carefully applied to natural situations:
But wait, there are more problems.
The zircon samples in the lab had been extracted from their surrounding minerals. These act a barrier that also slows down the helium diffusion. Again, one should expect the lab results to have a higher diffusion rate then the zircons in their natural environment.
Even Humphreys (the RATE researcher doing this study) states,
"Measurements of noble gas diffusion in a given type of naturally occurring mineral often show significant differences from site to site, caused by variations in composition." (HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY)
Surely if simply coming from two different types of surrounding minerals will cause "significant differences" in the the diffusion rate, then how can you expect a sample that has had the surrounding minerals removed to have the same diffusion rate? And since he derived his conclusions by applying the diffusion rates of zircons with their surrounding minerals removed to zircons with their surrounding minerals intact, his own statements show that his conclusions are invalid.
Helium includes two major isotopes: 3He and 4He. 3He is a product of the Big Bang and nuclear fusion in stars. Some 3He was trapped within the Earth when our planet formed. 3He is currently degassing from the Earth's interior. 4He is another product of the Big Bang and stellar fusion. Additionally, 4He may form from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium. Helium in the zircon crystals is composed primarily of these sources:
- 3He and 4He that is trapped in the crystal when is formed.
- 3He and 4He that rises, due to volcanic and tectonic activity, from the Earth's interior and accumulates in minerals in the upper crust (such as zircons).
- 4He that is a result of the decay of uranium and thorium.
It is interesting to note that the Fenton Hill site is a volcanic site, thereby making the infusion of extraneous (outside) helium (via method 2 above) likely. This again could lead to excess helium as found in the samples. Even though there are methods of testing for this excess helium, Humphreys has not published the results of any such test, so one would presume that he either hasn't run the test, or the results of the test were unfavorable. Until the results of this test are known, then there is no way of knowing for sure if the helium he is measuring is from radioactive decay in the zircon or from surrounding materials. Therefore, until this basic information is determined, his finding are meaningless.
Other Opposing Views
- Answers in Creation - Critique of the RATE Group’s Zircon-Helium Diffusion Project
- Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data
- More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research
Other Supporting Views
- Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
- HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY
- New Rate Data Support a Young World
- Helium Evidence for A Young World Remains Crystal-Clear
See also the review of the video
Rock of Ages or Rock of Creation?
If Dr. Austin's work is scientifically sound, why doesn't he submit it for publication in a scientific peer-reviewed publication? Maybe the answer is in Lessons from Cold Fusion: Beware of Science by Press Conference.
If Dr. Austin had based his research on an honest discussion of the shortcomings of K-Ar dating, then I would not be criticizing this video. I'd probably be agreeing with him.
It is interesting that while most of the information presented in this video is technically correct, it is somewhat misleading. For more examples of these techniques, see Two Important Threats to Your Children's Health.
|
References
- Support for Dr. Austin
- Rebuttal to some of Dr. Austin's claims including Bass Diabase Sill
- Mount St. Helens Lava
- Excess Argon causes false dating (and how to know in advance)
- Potassium-argon dating of rocks from lava flows known to be modern gave ages millions to billions of years older.
- A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project
- Creation "Science"
- A Visit to the Institute for Creation Research
- The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals
- Isochron Dating
- Reviews of the book version of R.A.T.E.
Viewer Feedback
Add your Comments
Submit a
Rebuttal
Submit an
Article on another topic
2005-11-27 Jeff Wrote:
I think you have an error in the captions for your hourglass diagram. The
first two lines say "The BLUE is the Parent isotope (potassium)" and "The RED is
the Daughter Isotope (Argon)". The following paragraphs highlight "daughter
Argon" in blue text and "Parent" in red text. There is a contradiction here.
Secondly, in the "What did you think about this article?" poll, I think you are making a mistake by presetting the options to the most favourable answers ("Interesting", "Factual" and "Fair and Balanced"). If you ever tried to publish the results of this poll, your opponents would point out this procedural error straight away.
Anyway, thanks for your efforts in sorting out fact from fiction.
epicidiot comments
You're right! The labels were reversed. Oops. And I have improved the poll.
Thanks.
2005-11-30 Anonymous, Atheistic Evolutionist, wrote
Boring, Bogus, Biased to Creation/ID
epicidiot comments
Biased to Creation/ID? Are you sure you read the whole article?
2005-12-15 Anonymous, Theistic Evolutionist, wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced
2006-02-17 Anonymous, Young Earth Creationist, wrote
So So, Bogus, Biased to Evolution
2006-03-27 alec wrote
Boring, Bogus
bogus
2006-03-27 Anonymous wrote
Factual
i like it all except for the alien article there is no such thing aliens are
bogus bogus bogus bogus i would like to see an artical on aliens are bogus crop
circles space ships are all bogues
2006-08-28 Young Earth Creationist wrote
Interesting
I cannot give a true opinion because I am just starting to look into radiometric
dating and carbon dating. I would like to see Dr. Austin reply to why he chose
the eaxmples he did and the dating used if he knew some would be false.
epicidiot reply: So would I.
2006-11-01 Jon Risser wrote
Why did Dr. Austin take a sample of Lava from Mt. St. Helens that was already
known to be 11 years old (and probably known to the hour of its formation) to be
dated. Did he miss the newspaper report that day it erupted. Obviously his
intentions were to get a bogus date using innapropriate testing choice to
decieve his YEC followers into a false assumption about radiometric dating. I
wish there was a geological ethics board to reprimand him.
2006-11-09 steve roesler, Old Earth Creationist, wrote
Interesting, Bogus, Biased to Evolution
It's interesting that the reviewer"s comments seem to (inadvertently?) reaffirm
a basic premise of the book. That K-Ar dating is unreliable if the fossils are
relatively recently deposited is one of the authors key points, something that
the reviewer sgrees with, but doesn't seem to have caught the significance with
respect to the Creation/Evolution debate.
epicidiot reply: But I do catch the significance. If you want to dupe the naive, pick a dating method that is known to be inappropriate for the rocks you are dating and then claim dating methods don't work. Using that reasoning, I could prove that weight scales don't work by weighing a semi truck with a baby scale. But you would rightly think that I was an idiot. But when Steve Austin does the equivalent¼
2006-11-18 Young Earth Creationist wrote
Boring, Biased to Evolution
Creation science was accepted for many thousands of years before evolution
gained the upper hand in accadamia. Insulting the creations doesn't help
persuade anyone.
epicidiot reply: It is not my goal to insult anyone, only to point out when I believe someone is using fraudulent methods to dupe the naive. If you find that insulting, so be it.
2006-12-18 Old Earth Creationist wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced
2006-12-20 Atheistic Evolutionist wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced
