Igneous rocks dating grannt dating
Why should anyone believe radioisotope dates provided by secular scientists if dates from recently solidified rocks indicate vast ages? Why do "recent" lavas indicate millions or billions of years?
First of all, daughter isotopes are present at the start—contrary to assumption 3.
However, these methods make the following assumptions: a constant rate of decay, a closed geologic system, and known amount of isotopes at the beginning. An isotope of uranium-238 can decay into an isotope of another element at a certain rate.
The initial isotope is called the “parent” and the final isotope is called the “daughter.” involves the breakdown of the atom on a subatomic scale by emitting radiation (alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays)—thus, the original atom becomes an entirely different kind of atom or element.
This would erroneously provide results in the millions or billions of years—and would thereby invalidate radioisotope dating techniques.
It is the same reason described in the last section, Why Do People Believe So Strongly in Evolution?Although the subject of radioisotope dating may seem a bit complicated, the dating method is rather straightforward.Igneous and metamorphic rocks, which were once extremely hot and have cooled into solid rock, are dated using the following methods: uranium-238 to lead-206, uranium-235 to lead-207, potassium-40 to argon-40, and rubidium-87 to strontium-87, and are viewed as capable of providing an “absolute” age since solidification.If the rate of decay from uranium to lead is constant (with a half-life of 4,470 million years), and if we know the amount of daughter isotopes in the rock at the beginning, and if we can measure how much parent and daughter isotopes are present in a given rock sample, we can supposedly calculate the age of the rock.The isochron method, based on least squares regression, does not address rate of decay, and attempts to address assumptions 2 and 3, but results have been found to be discordant, “commonly fail at some level,” and are essentially meaningless.
It assumes radioactive decay has never been interrupted by worldwide cataclysmic events.