Mt st helens radiometric dating

Mt st helens radiometric dating

Rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them. In fact, the very concept of strata representing long ages does not come from the rock strata themselves. That concept began with eighteenth-century French naturalist Georges Cuvier, picked up steam with Charles Lyell, and it has been in vogue ever since. This is despite the fact that it causes more problems for interpreting rock strata than it solves. And today we know through lab experiments and natural disasters such as the eruption of Mt.

30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens

Rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them. In fact, the very concept of strata representing long ages does not come from the rock strata themselves. That concept began with eighteenth-century French naturalist Georges Cuvier, picked up steam with Charles Lyell, and it has been in vogue ever since. This is despite the fact that it causes more problems for interpreting rock strata than it solves.

And today we know through lab experiments and natural disasters such as the eruption of Mt. Helens that major layering of rock strata can happen catastrophically in a short period of time. The resulting rock strata may harbor fossils from a particular habitat area or ecosystem, but do not represent a particular age or era. Why else do we find marine fossils on the tops of all the major mountain ranges? An examination of sedimentary rocks worldwide shows a striking consistency with the unimaginably massive Flood that wiped out whole environments.

It caused massive sedimentary layering and sorting and fossilizing of the creatures buried therein. Also remember that modern disasters on a smaller scale like Mount St. Yes, we all have been inundated with teaching that rocks are dated in the millions and billions of years, but are they really? What is the real science behind dating of rocks? Do they really NEED to be millions or billions of years old? The standard Geological Column became the reference point, even though it does not appear anywhere on earth except in text books.

And the ages assigned to the layers were derived from long age evolutionary assumptions — not from the scientific facts, — as the column was established long before we even had radiometric dating. Yet the column and its assumptions are used along with index fossils to assign dates to sedimentary rock layers and which in turn is used to date any fossil in that rock layer. Unfortunately, uniformitarianism has gripped geology academia and no other viewpoints are allowed.

This evolutionary assumption has become a naturalistic religion, an ideology established already before Darwin published his book in These dating methods rely on a series of assumptions about the amounts of the parent-daughter elements, and a constant rate of decay. Radioisotope dating, using the trace amounts of radioactive elements within the rock, was quickly accepted as proof the earth is millions and millions of years old.

So what does radiometric dating really do? How does it work? It has been accepted that a rock is formed when it first cools down from a molten or semi-molten state, which may include a variety of elements, including radioactive ones. The Radioactive elements decay from heavier larger atomic elements parent into smaller atomic elements daughter that are more stable. For example, Uranium U decays into Lead Pb.

This was confirmed in For the last years we have been able to measure the decay rate, and during this time it has been very steady, very consistent. This method is used only on metamorphic and igneous rocks — not sedimentary rocks which are rocks laid down by water — and is where the fossils are primarily found. The radio-dating calculations are based on a series of Assumptions:. A year sample of decay rates is inadequate when talking about millions of years.

We do not know for sure if the rate of decay was the same years ago, let alone 10, years ago, or millions of years ago. Has there been contamination into the rock of either extra amounts of parent or daughter elements? What if extra lead leached into the rock? Or U washed out? This is assumed to be immaterial, but can change the end results drastically.

What is the real initial percentages of the U parent and Pb lead daughter elements? To assume the rock starts with only U and no Pb is a big assumption. Isochron dating, which relies on multiple rock samples, is an attempt to correct this, but still has underlying assumptions based on 1 and 2 above. Sedimentary rocks make up the layers of the Grand Canyon and these are not dateable by radiometric dating.

The Cardenas Basalt bottom layer below the Cambrian explosion is usually dated with Rhobidium -Strontium and calculated to be about 1 billion years old. Much later after the Grand canyon was already formed, igneous rocks were formed from a volcano on top of the canyon, that Indians saw erupt, only about years ago. The volcano lava flows have Indian artifacts in them, and go over the canyon walls.

These rocks were dated using the same method in the lab and were assigned an age of 1. How can the very top, volcanic rock be older than the very bottom layer basalt rock? Even evolutionists admit that those Indian artifacts are not 1. This is a real and common problem with radiometric dating techniques. Consider also:.

ALL of the samples taken from volcanic eruptions of known times and dates are carefully collected and sent to the labs. NEVER do they come back from the lab, with the note: Too young to measure. It is a definite pattern. Got It? Not very scientifically consistent is it? This has been known for many decades. It is the prime reason many scientists have had doubts about radiometric dating all along. But recently, the RATE research team has conclusively demonstrated with independent lines of evidence that radioactive decay rates, widely used to bolster deep time, were dramatically accelerated in the past.

RATE found 3 indicators that strongly indicate decay rates changed in the past, all pointing to a young age for the rocks and the earth. This He is released into the crystal and rock. Helium atoms are pretty thin and can seep through solid rock. But even for He, this takes some time. The speed of Helium diffusion through solid rock has been measured.

If long -age evolutionary guesses of the original amount of U are correct, then we can calculate how much Helium should have been produced and then seeped out of the crystal. If the granite is billions of years old, only the most recent Helium would still be trying to work its way out of the rock. So there would be very little Helium left in the rock. BUT, if the rock is only thousands of years old not billions , there should still be plenty of He still trapped in the solid granite rock.

What do we actually find? What does the data basis of true science show? There is enough Helium left in the rocks, to account for an age for Earth of only you guessed it! The standard age of the rock is said to be 1. Plenty of time for the process to reach steady state by uniformitarian standards. All this time as Helium a very light element is given off, it slips around the other atoms and leaves the crystal lattice. The hotter the crystal, the faster the He escapes into the surrounding rock.

As the Zircon crystals were studied, it was apparent there was a lot of He still in the crystal — in fact much too much — if this was going on for a billion years. Measurements in a blind experiment were taken that showed how much Helium should be left after certain amounts of time, at various heat levels of the rock and the diffusion rate of He leaving the crystal.

Predictions were made for the diffusion rates based on two different relationships — one for an evolutionary time frame of billions of years, and one for a Creationist time frame of thousands of years. The results from an independent lab showed the diffusion rate to be practically the same as the predicted creationist rate. Extremely close — excellent results for the young-earth creationist time frame, and not at all what the evolutionary time frame predicted.

This is proof that those deep earth rocks with large amounts helium still in the zircon crystals were only thousands of years old. They cannot be a billion years old , or close to that figure. If you believe in predictive, quantifiable science, then you cannot believe in 1. In order to get the level of helium found in the rocks, there had to have been a lot of radioactive decay. But the results show also that there was not only very a rapid decay episode, but the helium still in the crystal, shows it happened in the recent past.

Recent as in thousands of years ago, not millions let alone billions. Polonium halos in granite and metamorphic rocks formed in the catastrophic world-wide flood indicate a young age as well. Samples came from several granites. Halos are a microscopic spherical pattern of damage in the crystalline structure of the granite.

The damage is caused by high energy alpha particles that are emitted by radiometric decay of the Uranium in the rock. Particles like tiny bullets pierce the rock and leave a spherical pattern, outward from the U atoms. Polonium is very unstable, and decays quickly. Some can decay in 3 minutes, some a few days. Po halos are also found in all rocks and in large numbers. How can they be there in large numbers? This conundrum can only be explained if there were one or more rapid changes in U decay rates.

The large numbers of these Po halo finds do indicate very quick changes in decay rates and that the rocks cannot be millions and millions of years old. Again, the observable science fits the Creation model and not the uniformitarian model. Carbon 14 or radiocarbon is an entirely different method of dating materials in the earth. It is only used on material that was once alive. Bones, flesh, plants, and any remains that are not entirely fossilized into rock, is what C can be used on.

The Lava Dome at Mount St Helens Debunks Dating Methods . How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age?. Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, Although Swenson accompanied Austin on a trip to Mt. St. Helens, there is no indication.

Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life. Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds for example, Arndts and Overn ; Gill but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws see Dalrymple ; York and Dalrymple Other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems to yield incorrect results. In most instances, these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze for example, Woodmorappe ; Morris HM ; Morris JD

Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. Helens Dacite:

On May 18, , a tremendous landslide on the northern side of Mount St. Helens in Washington state uncapped a violent volcanic eruption, completely altering the surrounding landscape.

The stirring on the mount

Terms of Use Agreement. What's New? Results 1 to 4 of 4. Radiometric Dating. May 9th, ,

How Old Is the Mount St. Helens Lava Dome?

Members Portal. Young Earthers point to an infamous dating error as evidence that the Earth is only as old as the Bible says. Skeptoid Podcast March 24, Podcast transcript Subscribe. Today we're going to point our skeptical eye at one of the key players in the debate between geologists and Young Earthers over the age of the Earth. In June of , Dr. Steven Austin took a sample of dacite from the new lava dome inside Mount St. Helens, the volcano in Washington state. The dacite sample was known to have been formed from a magma flow, and so its actual age was an established fact. Austin submitted the sample for radiometric dating to an independent laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

You can see the mountain!








Microbiologist. Loses Faith In Evolution. Mt St Helen's Eruption
Related publications