Dating quest 1 0

30-Mar-2019 16:19

U decay in those rocks added daughter Pb isotopes to the common or initial Pb isotopes in them, inherited from the rock’s sources.So the Pb isotope ratios measured in these rocks today must be interpreted before their U-Pb ages can be calculated.These new rocks rapidly accumulated more Pb isotopes due to the concurrent accelerated radioactive decay of U and Th in them during the Flood.Thus, without being able to unequivocally distinguish the daughter Pb atoms produced by in situ U and Th decay from the initial Pb atoms in a mineral or rock, it is impossible to determine their absolute U-Pb ages.The decay of Pb, respectively, forms the basis for one of the oldest methods of geochronology (Dickin 2005; Faure and Mensing 2005).While the earliest studies focused on uraninite (an uncommon mineral in igneous rocks), there has been intensive and continuous effort over the past five decades in U-Pb dating of more-commonly occurring trace minerals.However, from a biblical perspective the earth was created by God on Day 1 of the Creation Week before the sun and the rest of the solar system were created on Day 4, all only about 6000 or so years ago.Yet the earth would still have had an initial (created) Pb isotopic endowment.

Ironically it is the slow decay rates of isotopes such as Sm used for deep time dating that makes precise measurements of their decay rates so difficult.

Once radioactive decay of U and Th started after creation, daughter Pb isotopes were added inside the earth.

Then catastrophic plate tectonics during the Flood stirred the mantle and via partial melting added new rocks to the crust.

Zircon (Zr Si O) in particular has been the focus of thousands of geochronological studies, because of its ubiquity in felsic igneous rocks and its claimed extreme resistance to isotopic resetting (Begemann et al. However, accurate radioisotopic age determinations require that the decay constants or half-lives of the respective parent radionuclides be accurately known and constant in time.

Ideally, the uncertainty of the decay constants should be negligible compared to, or at least be commensurate with, the analytical uncertainties of the mass spectrometer measurements entering the radioisotope age calculations (Begemann et al. Clearly, based on the ongoing discussion in the conventional literature this is still not the case at present.

Ironically it is the slow decay rates of isotopes such as Sm used for deep time dating that makes precise measurements of their decay rates so difficult.

Once radioactive decay of U and Th started after creation, daughter Pb isotopes were added inside the earth.

Then catastrophic plate tectonics during the Flood stirred the mantle and via partial melting added new rocks to the crust.

Zircon (Zr Si O) in particular has been the focus of thousands of geochronological studies, because of its ubiquity in felsic igneous rocks and its claimed extreme resistance to isotopic resetting (Begemann et al. However, accurate radioisotopic age determinations require that the decay constants or half-lives of the respective parent radionuclides be accurately known and constant in time.

Ideally, the uncertainty of the decay constants should be negligible compared to, or at least be commensurate with, the analytical uncertainties of the mass spectrometer measurements entering the radioisotope age calculations (Begemann et al. Clearly, based on the ongoing discussion in the conventional literature this is still not the case at present.

One crucial area the RATE project did not touch on was the issue of how reliable are the determinations of the radioisotope decay rates, which are so crucial for calibrating these dating “clocks.” However, in a recent series of papers, Snelling (2014a, b, 2015a, b, 2016, 2017) reviewed how the half-lives of the parent radioisotopes used in long-age geological dating have been determined and collated all the determinations of them reported in the literature to discuss the accuracy of their currently accepted values.