Errors in radiocarbon dating

If those rocks really have been sitting around on the moon for billions of years, I suspect that the the wide range of physical and chemical processes which occurred over that time period had a much more profound effect on the uncertainty of the age determination.

Their age was measured to be 6.0 /- 0.3 billion years old. Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4.6 billion years old.

Obviously, then, the error in that measurement is 1.4 billion years, not 0.3 billion years!

However, it’s important to note that some radioactive dates (like those that come from carbon-14) don’t use the isochron method, so they aren’t affected by this particular flaw.

As a young-earth creationist, I look at this issue in a different way.

In this report, for example, we are told that using one radioactive dating technique, a lunar rock sample is 4,283 million years old, plus or minus 23 million years old.

In other words, there is a 95% certainty that the age is somewhere between 4,283 23 million years and 4,283 – 23 million years.

The amount of Sr-87 that was already in the rock when it formed, for example, should be proportional to the amount of Sr-86 that is currently there.

Since the data are divided by the amount of Sr-86, the initial amount of Sr-87 is cancelled out in the analysis.

The isochron is supposed to take care of such issues.

Essentially, rather than looking at the amounts of Rb-87 and Sr-87, we look at their compared to Sr-86.

Was Rb-87 or Sr-87 added to the rock by some unknown process?

Tags: , ,