Genesis and Radiometric Dating

H. Flemings

Genesis 1:1 proclaims: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” How long ago that
occurred is not expressed. It may have been millions of years ago. While the Bible does not tell us
when the universe was created it does provide chronological data indicating when humans first
appeared on the earth. That chronology places the creation of man in a period under 7 thousand years.
In modern times, scientists have devised various methods of dating the earth and its constituent parts.
What are these methods and, in simple terms, how do they work?

Potassium-Argon Dating
Potassium is one of the earth’s most abundant elements. One article reports: “ One out of every 10,000
Potassium atoms is radioactive Potassium-40 (K-40). These each have 19 protons and 21 neutrons in
their nucleus. If one of these protons is hit by a beta particle, it can be converted into a neutron. With
18 protons and 22 neutrons, the atom has become Argon-40 (Ar-40), an inert gas. For every 100 K-40
atoms that decay, 11 become Ar-40. When rocks are heated to the melting point, any Ar-40 contained in
them is released into the atmosphere. When the rock recrystallizes it become impermeable to gasses
again. As the K-40 in the rock decays into Ar-40, the gas is trapped in the rock…The ratio of K-40 to Ar-
40 is plotted. ..time is expressed in millions of years” a Since Potassium-40 decays into Argon-40 at a
certain rate, the investigator assesses how much of the Potassium-40 has decayed to Argon-40 and in
this way the investigator calculates the age of the rock.

This dating method is used in dating igneous or volcanic rock. If the rock being dated has undergone
another heating-recrystallization process or several such episodes, the dating will be incorrect by many
magnitudes. Also, the assumption is that nearly all the Ar-40 detected is derived from the Potassium-40
in the sample. It is assumed that when the original molten material was beginning to crystallize that
there was no Argon left in the cooling masses, since Argon is an inert gas and easily escapes. That would
mean that any Argon that was formed after crystallization came from the Potassium embedded in the
harden rock. It is clear if the rock contained argon-40 when it was solidified, then it could produce
a

http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/courses/anth/fagan/anth3Courseware/Chronology09_Potassium_Argon_D
ating.html
 ages that could be millions of years in error. Indeed, nowadays, when the dating seems incorrect to the
scientist doing the investigation, he or she will often relate that his rock contains “excess argon” or has
“parentless argon.” The record shows that some dates are rejected, some dates are accepted and some
dates are modified. According to one authority, “ Potassium-40, for example, decays into Argon-40 with
a half-life of 1.25 billion years, so that after 1.25 billion years half of the Potassium-40 in a rock will have
become Argon-40. “ b Below we have listed some known dated flows and then the dates rendered by
using the Potassium—Argon dating method:

PLACE WHEN IT HAPPENED POTASSIUM-ARGON DATE

Mt. Etna (basalt) 122 BC 0.23 plus/minus 0.08 million years ago

Mt. Etna (basalt) 1972 CE 0.35 plus/minus 0.14 million years ago

Sunset Crater (basalt) 1064-1065 CE 0.27 plus/minus 0.09 million years ago

Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (basalt) 1959 CE 8.5 plus/minus 6.8 million years ago

Recent studies shows that excess Argon-40 is found in nearly all volcanic rock. This would clearly affect
the dates obtained. What if the fossil remains of dog like animal were found in the Kilauea Iki flow of
1959? Would you be surprised to read a science article dating the remains at about 7 million years old?

“I died seven million years ago….which was back in 1959!!”

Carbon-14 Dating
One of the most popular dating methods is Carbon-14 dating. How does it work? Obviously, it involves
the element we call Carbon. There are three forms of Carbon—Carbon-12 , Carbon-13 and Carbon-14.
You may remember from your science courses that Carbon has 6 protons in its nucleus. The number of
neutrons in the nucleus differentiates the three forms of Carbon. It is of interest how Carbon-14 is
produced. Cosmic rays, which are mainly high-energy protons, constantly bombard the earth. In the
upper atmosphere cosmic rays interact with atmospheric Nitrogen and produce Carbon-14 which is an
unstable form of Carbon. Because it is unstable, Carbon-14 overtime decays back into Nitrogen. That
decay rate has been determined and figures into our brief study.

b
See http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating3.html

-1-
It is no secret that plants utilize Carbon Dioxide in photosynthesis. All three forms of Carbon are found
in the Carbon Dioxide participating in photosynthesis which means that all three forms of Carbon are
found in plants. This tells us that a given plant builds a supply of Carbon-14 during its life but when it
dies its supply of Carbon-14 stops. It has been determined that the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years.
For that reason in 5730 years only half of the original Carbon-14 in a deceased plant will be present; the
other half will have decayed into Nitrogen. Even so, what will be constant in the plant is the stable
Carbon-12 and Carbon-13. There is typically a ratio of stable Carbon to Carbon-14. If the ratio at the
time of the plant’s demise is determined, the change of that ratio between stable Carbon and Carbon-14
allows the investigator to determine how long ago it existed. The animal or human eating plants will
also be building Carbon-14 in their bones until death. One scientist working in this area reports:

Radioactive decay can be used as a “clock” because it is unaffected by physical (e.g. temperature)
and chemical (e.g. water content) conditions. In 5,730 years half of the 14C in a sample will decay.

Therefore, if we know the 14C; 12C ratio at the time of death and the ratio today, we can calculate
how much time has passed. Unfortunately, neither are straightforward to determine.

The amount of 14C in the atmosphere, and therefore in plants and animals, has not always been
constant. For instance, the amount varies according to how many cosmic rays reach Earth. This is
affected by solar activity and the earth’s magnetic field. c

c
Rachel Wood, Research Officer, EXPLAINER: WHAT IS RADIOCARBON DATING AND HOW DOES IT
WORK? See: http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-radiocarbon-dating-and-how-does-it-work-
9690

-2-
Just a few years ago in 2008, calibrating the ratio of stable Carbon to Carbon-14 could be done back to
26,000 years; that has been refined now such that the calibration can be done back to 50,000years—
some would say to 80,000 years.d

The question of how accurate is the dating Carbon-14 stands or falls on a number of assumptions. Years
ago scientists believed that the ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 was the same across time. Indeed early
dated samples, were based on that credo. We now have evidence that there have been significant
differences One paper on this problem related: “ This variation is due to changes in the intensity of the
cosmic radiation bombardment of the Earth, and changes in the effectiveness of the Van Allen belts and
the upper atmosphere to deflect that bombardment. For example, because of the recent depletion of the
ozone layer in the stratosphere, we can expect there to be more C-14 in the atmosphere today than
there was 20-30 years ago.” . This same paper adds: “ [G]reat care must be taken in collecting and
packing samples to avoid contamination by more recent carbon. For each sample, clean trowels should
be used, to avoid cross contamination between samples. The samples should be packaged in chemically
neutral materials to avoid picking up new C-14 from the packaging, The packaging should also be
airtight to avoid contact with atmospheric C-14 … Finally, although radiocarbon dating is the most
common and widely used chronometric technique in archaeology today, it is not infallible. In general,
single dates should not be trusted.” e Cautious scientists have added that the Industrial Revolution and
volcanic eruptions have made massive contributions of Carbon 12 and that atomic bomb testing have
increased the presence of Carbon 14. These phenomena have affected the ratio significantly. Not
infrequently Carbon-14 samples have been detected in rocks dated by other radiometric clocks to be
tens of millions of years ago. Bear in mind, Carbon-14 should not be found in rocks tens of millions of
years old since Carbon 14 dating is limited to about 50,000 years. f It would mean that those rocks are
NOT tens of millions of years old. Interestingly, diamond, which some scientists say are billions of years
old have been found with Carbon-14. Some scientists have argued that this discordance is because of
contamination of the sample either in situ or during the process of the testing by scientists. But, it
happens frequently enough –and despite valiant attempts to reduce contamination—to challenge that
answer. Moreover, as one scientist noted “diamond is extremely resistant to ‘natural’ contamination.”
d
A machine called the Acceleration Mass Spectrometer (AMS) is used to count the Carbon-14 atoms
within a sample but it has its limits on its ability to count every atom, especially if the sample is very old.
Few countries have AMS machine due to their cost. At the time of this writing, one AMS unit costs
about $500,000. Australia has two.
e
See CHRONOLOGICAL METHODS 8- RADIOCARBON DATING at
http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/courses/anth/fagan/anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon)Dati
ng.html
f
One Creationist scientist made this observation: “Animals and plants that died in The Flood of Noah

-3-
A careful search of the scientific literature will uncover some major concerns about the accuracy of C-14
dating. Consider the following:

We now know the assumption that the biospheric inventory of Carbon-14 has remained constant
over the past 50,000 years or so is not true. – Elizabeth K. Ralph and Henry M. Michael,
“Twenty-five Years of Radiocarbon Dating.” American Scientist , page 62 (September/October
1974.

Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 2,300 years old ---Science, Vol. 141, 1984, pages
58-61

A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago.
Antarctic Journal, vol. 6; September-October, 1971, page 211

The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 years while its skin
and flesh were dated at 21,300 years old.”--- Harold E. Anthony, “Natures Deep Freeze”, Natural
History, September 1949, page 300.

Inside twelve diamonds found in Botswana South Africa and Guinea, West Africa were found substantial
amounts of Carbon-14. The average age of the radiocarbon was 55,700 years old. The problem
presented was that the diamonds were deemed to be 1 to 3 billion years old! It is no wonder scientist
Dr. Robert E. Lee registered this concern: “No matter how ‘useful’ it is, though, the radiocarbon method
is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology
is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is
nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.” g

Those who hold to the chronology presented In the Bible are confronted from time to time by “experts”
who appeal to the dates extrapolated from the radiometric clocks they examine. A critical examination
of the scientific literature unequivocally shows that the critics are not standing on solid scientific
evidence in many cases but are simply leveraged by the credentials that adorn their names.

continued
would have lower initial Carbon-14 content than would be found in animals and plants today. The
water canopy that existed from Creation to The Flood would have inhibited Carbon-14 production in the
atmosphere. This would have reduced the amount of Carbon-14 incorporated into the bodies of plants
and animals prior to The Flood and the effect would be that the remains from prior to The Flood would
appears to be much older than they really were.” From CARBON -14 DATING TECHNIQUE DOES NOT
WORK! At https://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=6
g
Dr. Robert E. Lee, “RADIOCARBON: AGES IN ERROR” Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19(3),
1981, pp.9, 29.

-4-
Should C-14 dates that disagree with Bible Chronology cause concern for the Bible believer? What do
you think?

Uranium-Lead Dating
Uranium-Lead dating is another radiometric clock. It focuses on the decay of radioactive uranium to
lead. What are the details? One source responds:

Uranium-lead dating uses four different isotopes to find the age of the rock. The four isotopes are
uranium-235, uranium -238, lead-207, and lead-206. The process of dating finds the ratio between
uranium-235 and lead-207, and uranium-238 and lead-206. The radiometric dater then uses the
half-life of all four isotopes to find an age range the rock should be in. The half-lives of the cascade
from uranium-235 to lead-207 has been extrapolated to about 704 million years and the cascade
from uranium-238 to lead-206 has been calculated to about 4.47 billion years. The data is compared
to a curve called the Concordia diagram. The diagram has been made by using the ratio of uranium to
lead of all the rocks dated with this method and their assumed age…The part of the rock a dater will
use to date the rock is normally the zircon in the rock. It is assumed that when the rock cools to the
point that it makes zircon, all of the lead is excluded from the zircon. If this is true, it makes the
dating simple because if the half-lives are correct, the dater only has to find the ratio of the amount
of lead and uranium in the sample. ----URANIUM-LEAD DATING
at: http://creationwiki.org/Uranium-Lead_dating

“I have been born again…I was uranium and now I am lead!!

-5-
The accuracy of Uranium-Lead dating sits on at least three assumptions and they are:

(1) Over time the rate of decay has remained constant

(2) The original amount of both “mother” [uranium] and daughter [lead] elements is known.
(3) The material examined has remained in a closed system.

In the early years of Uranium-Lead dating these assumptions were considered dependable. That has
changed.

What about the oft heard claim that the rates of decay are constant? Note the reflections of this
research scientist:

There is evidence to show…that (the) half-lives (of uranium-thorium-lead) are not constant but
vary with time. This…comes from the study of pleochroic haloes which form in a rock in the following
way. When a rock crystallizes, the crystals of the minerals in the rock often enclose minute grains of
other minerals which contain uranium and thorium. Now when the uranium or thorium
disintegrates, the alpha particles which are emitted are slowed down by the crystals in which the
grains of the uranium- or thorium—bearing minerals are embedded. Where these alpha particles
finally stop, crystal deformation occurs (and) shows up as a discolouration or a darkening of the
crystals. When the crystal is looked at under a microscope, these discolourations appear as dark
rings---hence the name “pleochroic halo”. Now the magnitude of the radius of a pleochroic halo
in a particular mineral depends on the amount of energy that the alpha particle has…(which)…
depends on the half-life of the particular decay responsible for this alpha particle emission. In
other words, the magnitude of the radius of a pleochroic halo in a particular crystal depends on the
half-life of the decay responsible ro the alpha particle emission. Now if…the radii of pleochroic
haloes corresponding to a definite decay in a particular mineral are…(the same) size, then it can
be safely assumed that the half-life of that decay is a constant. If, on the other hand, it is found
that the radii vary, then this is proof that the half-life of that decay is not constant…It has been
found that radii of pleochroic haloes due to the uranium and thorium radioactive decays do in
fact vary in size in the same minerals. This was first shown by Joly and Henderson who conducted
most of the early studies on pleochroic haloes. This proves that the half-lives of the uranium and
thorium radioactive decays vary…(and thus)…any age determination using this method of dating
will be inaccurate because it is based on an invalid assumption.” -- See URANIUM-THORIUM
DATIN G METHOD, at http://bishoprobert.org/Origin5d.htm.

The second assumption is based on the guess of the researcher. What guess? He or she must guess
how much of the daughter element was already present when the rock was solidified. There is no way,
at present, of determining that information for sure.

-6-
The third assumption is that the sample studied was in a closed system, that is, not influence by heat ,
ground water and any other such factors. If ground water could access the sample, it could leach out
the uranium and create the impression that the sample was very old when, in fact, it was not. Heat also
has the ability to affect the sample. To illustrate, back in 1973 in the town of Grand Prairie in Alberta,
Canada a high voltage line fell and caused some nearby tree roots to fossilize. Scientists with the
University of Regina subsequently dated the tree roots using the Potassium-Argon dating method and
the roots were dated in millions of years. Obviously, this was magnitudes off the correct date. In the
scientific literature is found reports of other such miscalculations using radiometric dating methods
where the cause was the result of what is called “heat contamination.”

It is important to mention that the same material is often given different dates depending on the
radioactive clock being used. For example, the Uinkaret Plateau at the top of the Grand Canyon was
dated at 0.01-117 million years using the Potassium-Argon dating method but dated at 1.30 billion years
using the Rubidium-Strontium dating method.

Why are these problems not more visible to the public?

When one listens to reports on these matters in the popular media the message invariably puts a more
positive spin on the dating of items discussed. Those holding to Biblical Chronology where it conflicts
with the educated “guesses” of some scientists are considered narrow-minded, blind to the “evidence”
and deluded. But, wisdom has taught the open minded person to consider both sides objectively
before adopting a viewpoint. Name calling and insults may persuade some people to side with the ones
engaged in these practices but, in the end, they do not determine truth.

Hal Flemings