Evolution Cruncher Chapter 6
the non-historical dating techniques are not reliable
This chapter is based on
pp. 183-221 of Origin of the Universe (Volume One of our three-volume
Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least
62 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the
3 Volume Encyclopedia on this site.
Several methods for dating
ancient materials have been developed. This is an important topic, for
evolutionists want the history of earth to span long ages in the hopes
that this will make the origin and evolution of life more likely.
Therefore we shall devote
an entire chapter to a discussion of every significant method, used by
scientists today, to date ancient substances.
1 - RADIODATING
types of dating methods are used today.
among them are:
dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and thorium into
radium, helium, etc., and finally into lead.
dating, based on the decay of rubidium into strontium.
dating, based on potassium into argon and calcium.
In this chapter, we shall
discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these dating methods.
There is a basic pattern
that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these
disintegration systems, the parent or original radioactive
substance gradually decays into daughter substances. This may
involve long decay chains, with each daughter product decaying
into other daughter substances, until finally only an inert element remains
that has no radioactivity. In some instances, the parent substance may
decay directly into the end product. Sometimes, the radioactive chain
may begin with an element partway down the decay chain.
A somewhat different type
of radioactive dating method is called carbon 14-dating or radiocarbon
dating. It is based on the formation of radioactive elements of
carbon, in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation, and their subsequent
decay to the stable carbon isotope. We will also discuss radiocarbon
dating in this chapter.
the very beginning of this analysis, we need to clearly understand a
basic fact: Each of these special dating methods can only have
(if!) certain assumptions ALWAYS
(always!) apply to EACH
specimen that is tested.
are seven of these fragile assumptions:
system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any
of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through
their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally,
in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a
jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly
millions of years!
But in actual field
conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock
cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as
from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.
(2) Each system must
initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece
of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter
products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.
But this assumption can in
no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a
given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular
radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter
products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they
can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the
consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary
(3) The process rate
must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed.
Yet we have no way of going
back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct.
Every process in nature
operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These
factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates
are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants.
The most fundamental of the
initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14,
have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external
influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact
among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur.
Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen
clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have
indeed varied in the past.
The decay rate of any
radioactive mineral can be altered
if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space
(such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.);  if there
is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation;
 if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the
radioactive mineral; or  if certain chemicals are
brought in contact with it.
(4) One researcher, *John
Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos
emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence
that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in
suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various
geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age
calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik,
"Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and
Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June
1931, p. 107.
(5) If any change
occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our
planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive
Cosmic rays, high-energy
mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and
photons enter our atmosphere continually. These are atomic
particles traveling at speeds close to that of the speed of light. Some
of these rays go several hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1530
yards] into the ocean depths. The blanket of air covering our world is
equivalent to 34 feet [104 dm] of water, or 1 meter [1.093 yd] thickness
of lead. If at some earlier time this blanket of air was more heavily
water-saturated, it would produce a major change—from the present
rate,—in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals. Prior to
the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the
(6) The Van Allen radiation
belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles [724 km] above us and is
intensely radioactive. According to *Van Allen, high-altitude tests
revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic
rays that continually bombard the earth.
Any change in the Van Allen
belt would powerfully affect
the transformation time of radioactive minerals.
we know next to nothing about this belt—what it is, why it is there,
or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only
discovered in 1959. Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van
Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances.
(7) A basic assumption
of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at
the beginning, that is, no daughter products were present, only
those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence.
For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206
in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either
Creation—or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood)
occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call,
an "appearance of age."
By this we mean
"appearance of maturity." The world would be seen as mature
the moment after Creation. Spread before us would be a scene of
fully grown plants and flowers. Most trees would have their full height.
We would not, instead, see a barren landscape of seeds littering the
ground. We would see full-grown chickens, not unhatched eggs. Radioactive
minerals would be partially through their cycle of half-lives on the
very first day. This factor of initial apparent age would
strongly affect our present reading of the radioactive clocks in
uranium, thorium, etc.
Evolutionary theorists tell
us that originally there was only uranium, and all of its daughter
products (radioactive isotopes farther down its decay chain) developed
later. But "appearance of maturity" at the Creation would mean
that, much of the elements, now classified by evolutionists as
"daughter products," were actually original—not
daughter—products and were already in the ground along with uranium
instead of being produced by it. We already know, from Robert
Gentry’s studies, that original (primordial) polonium 218 was
in the granite when that granite initially came into existence suddenly
and in solid form; yet polonium is thought by evolutionists to only
occur as an eventual daughter product of uranium disintegration.
have looked at the basic assumptions relied on by the radiodating
experts; now let us examine the primary dating methods.
Here are nineteen of them::
(1) Uranium-lead dating
(2) Thorium-lead dating
(3) Lead 210 dating
(4) Helium dating
(8) Strata and fossil
dating, as it relates to radiodating, will be briefly considered,
although we will discuss rock strata dating in much more detail in
chapters 12 and 14 (Fossils and Strata and Effects of the
In addition, there are
three dating methods used to date ancient plant and animal remains:
(9) Radiocarbon (carbon
(10) Amino acid
(11) Racemization dating
Lastly, we will briefly
overview several other supposed "dating methods" which,
although not expected to provide much accuracy in dating, are still used
in an attempt to postulate long ages for earth’s history:
(12) Astronomical dating
dating has gained prominence in the past few decades. Because this
present chapter is already quite long, we planned to deal with
paleomagnetic dating in a later chapter (chapter 20); but, for lack of
space in this paperback, that material will be found in chapter 26 on
(14) Varve dating
(15) Tree ring dating
(16) Buried forest
(17) Peat dating
(18) Reef dating
(20) Stalactite dating
In the remainder of this
chapter, we will consider each of these 20 dating methods:
similarities in method and problems with uranium and thorium dating, we
will frequently refer to both under the category of uranium dating.
Three main types of
uranium/thorium dating are
included here: are included here:
(1) Uranium 238 decays
to lead 206, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
(2) Uranium 235 decays
to lead 207, with a half-life of 0.7 billion years.
(3) Thorium 232 decays
to lead 208, with a half-life of 14.1 billion years.
These three are generally
found together in mixtures, and each one decays into several daughter
products (such as radium) before becoming lead.
URANIUM/THORIUM DATING INACCURACIES—Here
are some of the reasons why we cannot rely on radioactive dating of
uranium and thorium:
(1) Lead could
originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This
is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that
integral or adjacent lead could only be an end product.
In addition, common
lead (lead 204), which has no radioactive parent, could easily be
mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of
that sample. *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (*Scientific
Monthly, November 1957). *Faul, a leading authority in the field,
recognized it also (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, 1954, p. 297).
When a uranium sample is
tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of
lead in it is "daughter-product lead" (that is, the
end-product of the decayed uranium). The specimen is not carefully and
thoroughly checked for possible common lead content, because it
is such a time-consuming task. Yet it is that very uranium-lead ratio
which is used to date the sample! The same problem applies to thorium
(2) Leaching is another
problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could
previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the
dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak
(3) There can be
inaccurate lead ratio comparisons, due to different types of lead within
the sample. Correlations of various kinds of lead (lead 206,
207, etc.) in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But
errors can and do occur here also.
Thus, we have here
astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating
techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously
dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a
14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques
continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence.
A chimpanzee typing numbers at random could do as well.
Sample datings from a
single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error
spread of 700 million years.
(4) Yet a fourth problem
concerns that of neutron capture. *Melvin Cooke
suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 (normally
thought to have been formed only by the decay of uranium 235) could
actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free
neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208
(normally theorized as formed only by thorium 232 decay) could have been
formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out
this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizeable
quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead
in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way instead of
by uranium or thorium decay! This point alone totally
invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods!
(5) A fifth problem
deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive
minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally
molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation
in clock settings in radioactive materials.
"Why do the
radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each
other, differ by millions of years?"—*Glen R. Morton,
Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age.
It is a well-known fact, by
nuclear researchers, that intense heat damages radiodating clock
settings; yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of
rocks indicating long ages of time when, in fact, the evolutionary
theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.
of the flaws discussed under uranium-lead dating, above, apply equally
to thorium-lead dating.
The half-lives of uranium
238, 235, and thorium 232 are supposedly known, having been theorized.
But whenever dates are computed using thorium,—they always
widely disagree with uranium dates! No one can point to a single
reason for this. We probably have here a cluster of several major
contamination factors; and all of these contamination factors are beyond
our ability to identify, much less calculate. To make matters
worse, contaminating factors common to both may cause different
reactions in the thorium than in the uranium! (*Henry Faul, Nuclear
Geology, p. 295).
"The two uranium-lead
ages often differ from each other markedly, and the thorium-lead age on
the same mineral is almost always drastically lower than either of the
others."—*L.T. Aldrich, "Measurement of Radioactive Ages
of Rocks," in Science, May 18, 1956, p. 872.
210 AND HELIUM DATING—Two
other methods of dating uranium and thorium specimens should be
First, there is uranium-lead
210 dating. Lead 210 is frequently used to date uranium.
Second is the uranium-helium
method. Helium produced by uranium decay is also used for the
same dating purpose.
But the lead 210
method is subject to the very same entry or leaching problems mentioned
earlier. Helium leakage is so notorious as to render it unfit
for dating purposes.
Uranium and thorium are
only rarely found in fossil-bearing rocks; so recent attention has
been given to rubidium dating and two types of potassium dating, all of
which are radioactive isotopes of alkali metals and are found in fossil
rocks. Let us now consider both of these:
gradually decays into strontium 87.
All aside from leaching and other contamination, the experts have
so far been unable to agree on the length of a rubidium half-life.
This renders it useless for dating purposes. This is because the
samples vary so widely. *Abrams compiled a list of rubidium half-lives
suggested by various research specialists. Estimates, by the experts,
of the half-life of rubidium varied between 48 and 120 billion years!
That is a variation spread of 72 billion years: a number so
inconceivably large as to render Rb-Sr dating worthless.
addition, only a very small amount of strontium results from the decay;
and much of the strontium may be non-radiogenic, that is, not
caused by the decay process. This is due to the fact that strontium
87 is easily leached from one mineral to another, thus producing
highly contaminated dating test results.
Granite from the Black
Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various lead system dates varying from
1.16 to 2.55 billion years.
potassium decays into calcium and argon gas. Great hopes were initially
pinned on this, for potassium occurs widely in fossil-bearing
strata! But they were greatly disappointed to discover: (1) Because
of such wide dating variations, they could not agree on potassium
half-life. (2) The rare gas, argon, quickly left the
mineral and escaped into other rocks and into the atmosphere (*G.W.
Wetherill, "Radioactivity of Potassium and Geologic
Time," Science, September 20, 1957, p. 545).
Since it is a gas, argon 40
can easily migrate in and out of potassium rocks (*J.F. Evernden, et.
al., "K/A Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North
America," American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 154).
Not only is argon an
unstable gas, but potassium itself can easily be leached out of the
rock. *Rancitelli and *Fisher explain that 60 percent of the potassium
can be leached out of an iron meteorite by distilled water in 4.5 hours (*Planetary
Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical
Union, 1967, p. 167).
Rainwater is distilled
water. In heavy downpours, fairly pure rainwater can occasionally
trickle down into deeper rock areas. When it does, rainwater
transfers potassium from one location to another.
Another problem is that potassium-argon
dating must be calculated by uranium-lead dating methods! This greatly
adds to the problem, for we have already seen that uranium dating is
itself extremely unreliable! This is something like the blind
leading the blind.
In view of such
information, it is a seemingly unbelievable—but true—fact that
K/A (potassium-argon) dating is, at the present time, a key dating
method used in developing and verifying advanced evolutionary theories.
(See Paleomagnetism, on our website.) The long ages
applied to the major new theory of "seafloor spreading" is
based entirely on potassium-argon dates in basalts (lava) taken from the
ocean bottom. You will frequently read articles about
potassium-argon dating projects.
Submerged volcanic rocks,
produced by lava flows off the coast of Hawaii near Hualalai, in the
years 1800-1801, were dated using potassium-argon. The lava forming
those rocks is clearly known to be less than 200 years old; yet the
potassium-argon dating of the rocks yielded great ages, ranging from
1.60 million to 2.96 billion years! (See *Science, October 11,
1968; *Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968).
Potassium is found in most
igneous (lava), and some sedimentary (fossil-bearing), rocks.
In spite of its notorious inaccuracy, to this day potassium-argon dating
continues to be the most common method of radioactive dating of
fossil-bearing rock strata.
Only those radioactive
dates are retained, which agree with the 19th-century geologic column
dating theories. Research
workers are told just that! (*L.R. Stieff, *T.W. Stern and *R.N.
Eichler, "Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages," U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Papers, 1963, No. 414-E).
DATING—If possible, the
situation is even worse for dating with this method. Radioactive
potassium decays to both argon and calcium (calcium 40). But the
problem here is that researchers cannot distinguish between calcium
40 and other calciums because the two are so commonly and thoroughly
intermixed. The argon is of little help, since it so rapidly leaches out.
WITH ALL RADIODATING METHODS —The
rocks brought back from the moon provided an outstanding test for the
various dating methods—because all those techniques were used on them.
The results were a disaster.
The age spread of certain
moon rocks varied from 2 million to 28 billion years!
Now scientists are arguing over the results.
Some say the moon is 2 million years old while others say it is 28
billion years old. We have here a weighty scientific problem. (For more
on this, see *Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar
Conferences; Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17.)
Yet there is clear-cut non-radiogenic
evidence that the moon is less than 10,000 years old. (See chapter 4, Age
of the Earth). In contrast with these inaccurate dating methods, scientific
facts, such as the almost total lack of moon dust, lunar soil
mixing, presence of short half-life U-236 and Th-230 in moon rocks, low
level of inert gases, and lunar recession,—provide strong evidence
that the moon is less than 10,000 years old. (See chapter 4, Age of
RESEARCH—In order for a
radioactive clock to be usable, it has to run without variation.
But *G.T. Emery has done
careful research on radiohalos (pleochroic halos) and found that they do
not show constant decay rates. When the long half-life
radiohalos (made by uranium, thorium, etc.) are examined, the time spans
involved show inaccuracies in the decay rates.
explains so well, just one major catastrophe—such as a worldwide
Flood—would have ruined the usefulness of all our radiodating clocks.
Why would a single
worldwide catastrophe reset all the atomic clocks? First, there
would be massive contamination problems, as fluids, chemicals,
and radioactive substances flowed or were carried from one place to
another. Second, there would be major radioactive
rate-changing activities (atmospheric, radioative, and magnetic
changes) which would tend to reset the clocks directly. Third,
a major shifting and redistribution of rock pressure occurring
above radiogenic rocks would reset their clocks. Fourth, there
would be reversals of earth’s magnetic core, which was
caused by the shock-wave vibrations through that fluid core from what
was happening closer to the surface (volcanoes, earthquakes, gigantic
geysers, seafloor sinking, and massive mountain building—see chapter
14 (Effects of the Flood), and chapter 20 (Tectonics and
TO CHANGE THE RATES—Careful
laboratory tests by *H.C. Dudley revealed that external
influences can very definitely affect decay rates. He
CHANGED (!) the decay rates
of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature,
electric and magnetic fields, stress in monomolecular layers, etc. The
implications of this are momentous, even astounding! (see *H.C.
Dudley, "Radioactivity Re-Examined," Chemical and Engineering
News, April 7, 1975, p. 2). The sedimentary rock strata were laid
down under massive pressure. This involved great stress. (See chapter
12, Fossils and Strata, for more on both points.) Dramatic
temperature changes occurred shortly after the strata were laid down;
and Earth’s iron core was disturbed to such an extent, that
magnetic reversals occurred at the poles (see Paleomagnetism, on
our website). Yet *Dudley showed that each of these forces would have
dramatically affected the clocks within radioactive rocks.
Immense forces were at
work, during and just after the Flood, that could and did affect the
constancy of radioactive half-lives—which, in turn, are the only basis
for radiodating methods!
The consequence is
inaccurate dating results which are not reliable and which cannot be
reset—since their earlier settings are not now known.
(June 19, 1964) reported an intriguing item which was overlooked
by much of the scientific community. Although scientists generally
consider that no known force can change the rate of atomic
disintegration of radioactive elements,—researchers at Westinghouse
laboratories have actually done it. How did they do it? Simply
by placing inactive "dead" iron next to radioactive iron. The
result was that the disintegration rate was altered!
Radioactive iron will give
off particles for a time and then lapse into an inactive state. When the
researchers placed radioactive iron next to inactive iron, the inactive
iron gradually became active. In this way the apparent age of the
radioactive iron was changed by about 3 percent while the clock of the
previously inactive iron was returned to its original radioactive mass.
Its clock was set back to zero!
If so much variation can be
accomplished in small lab samples, think what has been taking place out
in the field. All that, in this case, would be required would be for
radioactive lead solutions to flow by and coat inactive lead.
2 - ROCK
AND FOSSIL DATING—In
two later chapters (Fossils and Strata and Effects of the
Flood), we will discuss the strata dating method in detail. We will
here discuss only its relationship to radioactive dating methods—and
learn that there are no relationships!
There are only two primary
methods of long-ages dating: (1) fossil-bearing rock strata, (2) radioactive
dating, plus carbon-14 dating.
In the chapter on Fossils,
we will discover that dating rocks by their fossils is based
on circular reasoning: (1) Each strata is a certain age
because of certain key fossils in it; (2) the fossils in the
strata are a certain age because evolutionary theory says they should be
that certain age, and also because they are in rock strata said
to be that age. Thus, fossil/strata-dating methods are hopelessly
Yet fossil/strata dating is
crucial to the evolutionary theory! Without it, the whole thing
collapses! (1) None of the other
dating methods (the twelve methods discussed in this present chapter)
are reliable either, but instead are in continual conflict with one
another and with fossil/strata dating conclusions. (2) The
19th-century dating theory was applied to the fossils and strata, and
evolutionists in later decades are required to bring their dates into
alignment with those dates theorized over a century ago! Yet it
cannot be done. This is a most serious problem.
In chapter 12 (Fossils
and Strata), we shall discuss in detail the problems associated with
fossil and strata dating. But let us right now put to rest a
frequently stated misconception: that radiodating methods have
successfully dated and positively established as reliable the dating
system conjectures in the so-called "geologic column" of rock
strata. That is not true!
USEABLE TEST RESULTS—In
reality, it is impossible to date sedimentary rock strata and the
fossils within it by radioactive mineral dating. In fact, radiodating is
so conflicting in its results, that, out of hundreds of thousands of
test results have agreed sufficiently with evolutionary theory to be
used as "norms." Each of these, of course, could only apply to
a single stratumtest results have agreed sufficiently with evolutionary theory to be
used as "norms." Each of these, of course, could only apply to
a single stratum.
Out of tens of thousands of
tests only three radioactive samples have been found to be near enough
to rock strata age theories to be usable,—and
two of them are just interpolated guesses based on "strata
thickness." Evolutionists use but three undiscarded radiodatings
to vindicate the reliability of the hundred-year-old strata and fossil
historical review will help explain the situation:
(1) Early in the 19th
century, evolutionists decided that fossils in certain rock strata
should be such-and-such an age.
(2) So they gave the strata
containing those fossils dates which would match their fossil age
(3) Then they announced
that they had thought up the dates by peering at so-called "index
(4) They declared that they
could now prove the ages of the fossils in the rocks—by the rock
strata they were in. Thus, they started out by dating the strata
by imagined dates for fossils, and they ended up dating the fossils by
applying those imagined dates to the strata!
This circular reasoning
pattern has continued on down to the present day
regard to the dating of fossils and strata.
But then as the 20th
century began, radioactive mineral dating began to be discovered. Repeatedly,
scientists have tried to correlate radioactive dating with the dates
they applied to fossils and strata a century before radiodating was
known. But they have not been able to do so. Out of literally thousands
of tests, they have been able to correlate only three of them (the
Colorado, Bohemian, and Swedish dates given in the *Knopf quotation [a
lengthy statement we did not have room to include in this paperback]. The
evolutionists decided that three successes out of hundreds of thousands
of test failures were enough to make their fossil/strata theory
"scientific," by matching radiodating. It is on this
basis that evolutionary scientists now grandly proclaim that the
fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals! See
chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, for much, much more on this.
conclude this section on radiodating problems, here are a few dating
samples. Many, many, many more could have been cited!
"Sunset Crater, an
Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years
old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years [*G.B.
Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth
and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55].
"For the volcanic
island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows
as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical
Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence
unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the
last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been
carbon-dated as less than 350 years old [*Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach,
and *J.J. Stipp, "Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial
Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand," Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499].
"Even the  lava
dome of Mount St. Helens has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million
years [H.M Morris, Radiometric Dating," Back to Genesis, 1997]."—James
Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146.
You have just completed
Chapter 6 INACCURATE
DATING METHODS part 1
to Chapter 6 INACCURATE
DATING METHODS part 2