Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Print Friendly and PDF
F. Corfu, a geologist at the University of Oslo

Uranium-Lead Dating Fraught With Discordance

Posted on

By David Coppedge

F. Corfu, a geologist at the University of Oslo

F. Corfu, a geologist at the University of Oslo

Behind the confidence of uranium-lead dates hides worry about numbers that don’t match up.

Uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating is a staple of the billions-of-years claims about igneous and metamorphic rocks and meteorites – giving rise to the consensus age of the solar system at 4.55 billion years.  The technique has been refined over the last century, but “discordances” (mismatches) remain.  That’s because there are two “isotopically distinct yet chemically identical” decay chains, F. Corfu described in the Geological Society of America Bulletin this month: the 235U to 207Pb pathway, and the 238U to 206Pb pathway.  (The ratios of the products,207Pb/206Pb, can also be measured.)  “These twin decay systems, running at different speeds, allow an immediate verification of the validity of their ages, which must be concordant to be considered valid, although under favorable circumstances, discordant data can be extrapolated to the correct age.”  Since uranium is often locked in tightly-bound minerals called zircons, from which parent and daughter product are locked in, the method is thought by modern geologists to provide a reliable clock.

In “A century of U-Pb geochronology: The long quest towards concordance,” Corfu, a geologist at the University of Oslo, described geologists’ frustration at persistent discordance between the two methods.  The discordances are small; around 1% or less.  Still, he finds it troubling that there should be any discordance if the same physical processes are operating for the same amount of time.  At the beginning of the article, he quoted T. E. Krogh: “Only one answer is the right one, and only that one is good enough.

The progress in developments of the U-Pb method is both a history of technical discoveries and advances, as well as a history of a long struggle toward concordance, toward an understanding of the causes of discordance, and toward ways to eliminate it. Despite the enormous progress achieved in this field, the problems of U-Pb discordance have not yet been completely resolved and will be one of the main hurdles to overcome in the future….

Continue Reading on crev.info

Print Friendly and PDF
 

This entry was posted in Age of the Earth, Age of the Universe, Creation Worldviews, Dating Methods, Evolution, Geology, History, Origins, Worldviews and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Jack Flackett

    This is an example of your “science”? What you have is someone saying that a small discrepancy (1%) that is repeatable and understood by known processes, somehow warrants a headline of “Uranium-Lead Dating Fraught With Discordance!” The error between the two decay streams represents an uncertainty of half a million years in a sample that is dated to be 100 million years old, as an example. How this somehow overturns all of radio-chemistry and is a lead-pipe cinch (sorry) for your account of Noah’s Flood is not science. It’s not even bad science. It’s rubbish.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Jack, reasonable and scientifically based explanations are frowned upon here. FYI.

      • Esther

        Methinks you doth protedt too much. I had Greg K. Beale in mind when I recommended a scholar you should challenge. Of course I know you do not think I am one. I am no religious scholar. I have never claimed to be. I am a chemistry scholar which you have made clear you do not respect in any way. Of couse I think your ideas on the universe is tripe, so of course you will not recognize my responses, however correct they are.

ABOUT US | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY COPYRIGHT © 2014. CREATIONREVOLUTION.COM IS A MEMBER OF Liberty Alliance. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.