Christian scientist dating
That’s just over half a percent error in something that is supposedly multiple billions of years old.Of course, that error estimate is complete nonsense.The ratio of Sr-87 to Sr-86 is graphed versus the ratio of Rb-87 to Sr-86 for several different parts of the rock. Sr-86 is another stable form of strontium, but it isn’t produced by radioactive decay.Thus, it provides an independent analysis of the rock that does not depend on the radioactive decay that is being studied.A helium balloon, for example, will deflate over time, because the helium atoms diffuse through the balloon and into the surrounding air.Well, diffusion depends on the mass of the thing that is diffusing. Hayes has brought it up, we can take it into account, right?
You can also browse through historical archives dating back to the 1800’s.Sr-86 diffuses more quickly than Sr-87, and that has never been taken into account when isochrons are analyzed. Perhaps, but it’s rather tricky, because the rate of diffusion depends on the specific chemical and physical environment of each individual rock.If the effects of diffusion can be taken into account, it will require an elaborate model that will most certainly require elaborate assumptions. Hayes suggests a couple of other approaches that might work, but its not clear how well. If you believe the earth is very old, then most likely, all of the radioactive dates based on isochrons are probably overestimates. I have no idea, and I don’t think anyone else does, either. Hayes’s model indicates it could add as much as 29 billion years to ages determined with rubidium and strontium, although his model is rather simplistic.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.