Radiometric Dating and the Hourglass Analogy

 

How does Radiometric Dating work?

 

Every chemical element usually has different forms, or isotopes, which each have different masses. Some isotopes, such as carbon-14, potassium-40, as well as all isotopes of uranium, undergo radioactive decay to produce “daughter” isotopes of a different element. By measuring the quantities of radioactive isotopes and their daughter isotopes, secular geologists claim they can determine how much time has passed since a specific time in the past, such as when the rock cooled and crystallized from an initially molten state.

 

The Assumptions of Radiometric Dating

 

The actual scientific data consist of isotope ratios. However, the deep time “determination” is an interpretation. Jonathan Sarfati wrote in his book, Refuting Compromise, about the assumptions of radiometric dating and he compared it to an hourglass. This same analogy will be used in this study to better understand the assumptions of radiometric dating. Think of an hourglass and the sand in the top container representing the parent isotope, the sand in the bottom representing the daughter isotope, and the sand flow between the two representing radioactive decay. When the hourglass is up-ended, sand flows from the top container to the bottom one at a rate that can be measured. If we observe an hourglass with the sand still flowing, we can determine how long ago it was up-ended from the quantities of sand in both containers. Or can we? Unless we have actually observed the hourglass since it was up-ended, we must first assume three things which we can never know for sure are true. 

 

Assumption of Initial Conditions

 

Using the hourglass analogy, we know the quantities of sand in both containers at the start. Normally, an hourglass is up ended when the top container is empty. However, if the top container was not completely empty, then it would take less time for the sand to fill the new bottom container to a particular level. Similarly, radiometric dating must assume the initial quantities of both the parent and daughter elements. Therefore, the first assumption in radiometric dating is initial conditions. The question now becomes, is there any proof that this assumption has had an effect on the date of rocks? 

 

Andrew Snelling has shown that the composition of an igneous rock often depends on which reservoir in the mantle the magma came from, as opposed to being the result of decay in the hardened rock. In fact, isotope ratios are often used to identify the source of a reservoir. With Carbon-14, several factors would lower the initial ratio of this radioactive isotope to the stable isotope Carbon-12, which would result in higher Carbon-14 dates:

 

  • More Carbon-12 in the pre-Flood biosphere (more biomass, higher atmospheric CO2), while the Flood would have buried lots of Carbon-12, making the post-flood Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio higher.
  • Less Carbon-14 production due to a stronger magnetic field deflecting cosmic rays better.
  • Carbon-14 starts building up at creation, so it would only have had 1,600 years to build up, nowhere near equilibrium
  • Volcanoes emit carbon dioxide with no Carbon-14, and plants can absorb this.

 

In other words, carbon‑14 dating can give inflated ages because the initial carbon‑14/carbon‑12 ratio may have been lower than assumed. If the starting point is off, then the calculated “age” will be much older than the actual time that has passed.

 

Assumption of a Constant Decay Rate

 

Secondly concerning the hourglass analogy, another assumption is that the flow rate has stayed consistent. For example, if the sand had become damp recently, then the sand would flow more slowly than it had in the past when dry. If the flow were greater in the past, it would take less time for the sand to reach a certain level than if the sand had always flowed at the present rate. 

 

Radiometric dating must assume a constant decay rate. Radioactive decay is not significantly influenced by factors such as temperature and pressure. Physicists and Geologists who have contributed to the RATE book, however, have adduced several lines of evidence that decay has been faster in the past (L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society, 2000)). They propose a pulse of accelerated decay rate during creation week and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year. Among the evidence is:

 

  • Carbon-14 data showing the earth itself is only thousands of years old, so the billions of years of decay at present rates of the long half-life isotopes must have occurred at much higher rates to fit within this short time span. 
  • The presence of helium atoms still within the rock where they were apparently formed by nuclear α-decay. The diffusion rate of helium through minerals would suggest that it would have escaped if the rocks were really billions of years old.
  • High correlation of heat flow at the earth’s surface with concentration of radioactive isotopes. This is consistent with a pulse of accelerated decay during the Flood year to produce heat that hasn’t had time to dissipate. This explains a correlation that had been a mystery to geophysicists. 

 

In short, the RATE authors argue that the decay rates were not constant but accelerated during specific events. This explains why we see large amounts of daughter isotopes (like helium) in rocks, while still claiming the Earth is only thousands of years old. Their model attempts to reconcile radiometric data with a young‑Earth timeline.

 

Assumption of a Closed System

 

The final assumption is that the system has remained closed. Using the hourglass analogy, one must assume that no sand has been added or removed from either container. However, suppose that sand has been added to the top container or removed from the bottom container. Then if you calculated the time since the last up-ending by measuring the sand in both containers, it would be shorter than the actual time. If the reverse happened, that is, sand was added to the bottom container or taken from the top one, then the calculated time would be longer than the real time. 

 

Radiometric dating must assume that no “parent” or “daughter” elements entered or left the system. This is a huge assumption. Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling has shown that nearly all parent/daughter ratios used in radiometric “dating” can be altered by a number of geological processes, including leaching by hydrothermal and ground waters, diffusion through minerals, and metamorphism. Uranium is especially prone to leaching, lead atoms diffuse easily, and argon, a gas, moves very readily (A. Snelling, “Geochemical Processes in Mantle and Crust”, in L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth).

 

With these three major assumptions, there are also irregularities in radiometric dating that show it’s likely faulty. The Kilauea Iki basalt in Hawaii is known to have been formed in 1959. However, radiometric dating methods dated it to 8,500,000 years ago. At Mt. Stromboli in Italy, the rock was formed in 1963 but was dated to be over 2,400,000 years old. At Mt. Saint Helens, the rock was formed in 1986 but was dated to be over 350,000 years old. Furthermore, Andrew Snelling gathered four samples of ammonites and wood from the Ono Formation in northern California. The rock layers have been dated to 112 to 120 million years of age. So, the creatures found in the rocks should also be around that age. The samples were sent to the IsoTrace Radiocarbon Laboratory at the University of Toronto, Canada, for dating analysis. While the rock layers were dated to 112 to 120 million years of age, the Ammonites were dated, using Carbon dating methods, to being around 36,400 to 48,710 years old and the wood 32,780 to 42,390 years old. There should be no presence of Carbon at all in these fossils if the rock is truly 112 to 120 million years old, but there was, which led to the dates of 32,000-48,000 years of age for the fossils (Andrew Snelling, “Radiocarbon Ages for Fossil Ammonites and Wood in Cretaceous Strata near Redding, California,” Answers Research Journal, 2008, 1: 123-144). This shows the faultiness in radiometric dating. 

 

Sources

 

  • Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationism” (Billions of Years), as Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross. Master Books, 2004.

  • Vardiman, Larry, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, editors. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2000.

  • Snelling, Andrew A. “Geochemical Processes in Mantle and Crust.” Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. Edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2000.