Article #8 on Noah's Flood & Science
(Author: Preethi Morris, PhD Researcher)
Credit: Stevica Mrdja
Introduction: Radiometric Dating employs scientific theory rather than scientific fact
Abstract: For decades, radiometric dating has been used as primary evidence for determining the age of the earth, and its organic and inorganic material. Through much controversy, the greater part of the scientific community of geologists, astronomers, and other fields insist that the earth is billions of years old. However, this field of science needs to be addressed with caution, as the past is neither observable nor can the theory of the age of the earth be ascertained based on radiometric dating. According to the laws of empirical science, what is considered as scientific knowledge (i.e. fact) can only be determined by direct observation or experimentation within time based on evidence gathered from the real known world rather than upon mere theory or speculation. A scientific theory is often an inference derived by related observable processes, whereby a conjecture can be made, while the process pertaining to the theory is left unobserved or not directly tested. The endeavor of determining the age of the earth inherently fails the necessary conditions for empirical science. While radiometric dating can be utilized and its accuracy tested with regard to modern day organisms and geological matter with known ages, its accuracy has no absolute reference point, derived from empirical science, with regard to organisms and geological structures older than what may be confirmed through other means of empirical science. The use of modern day radiometric dating to determine the age of the earth and old entities is at best a scientific theory. Something that is observable in the modern age, namely, rates of radioactive decay of isotopes, is used to make broad and unobservable conjectures with no scientific “control” or known standard. This cannot be denied, regardless of the staunchness of scientists and geologists who insist upon an old earth. In what follows, the theory, methodology, assumptions, and flaws of radiometric dating will be discussed.
Theory
The basis for radiometric dating is the theory that the decay rates of radioactive isotopes may be used to determine the age of various samples. Organisms acquire radioactive isotopes from the earth’s upper atmosphere during their lifetime. Once the organism dies, this acquisition stops, and the radioactive isotope steadily decays over time. Some elements have unstable (radioactive) isotopes that spontaneously transform into other stable isotopes by emitting particles/energy. Scientists assume that there is a predictable rate of the decay of these radioactive isotopes into more stable isotopes. In some cases, in the absence of a true scientific control or standard, meteorites or extraterrestrial samples, the ages of which are also determined by radiometric dating, are employed as a standard.
Methodology
The radioactive elements used for radiometric dating are known as “parent isotopes”. Parent isotopes decay into more stable isotopes at a rate that is observable with modern scientific technology. The more stable isotope is referred to as the “daughter isotope”. The ratio of parent to daughter isotope content is used to estimate the age of the sample. The content of isotopes can be determined with mass spectrometry and other scientific instruments. The half-life is the time it takes for half of the parent isotope in a sample to decay into the daughter isotope. According to modern day scientific research, this rate is assumed to be consistent and distinct for each radioactive isotope. The ratio of parent to daughter isotope and the known (based on modern-science) half-life of the parent isotope is used to calculate the approximate age of the sample.
Isochron
As a recent advancement of the past decades, IsoChron is used in which ratios of parent and daughter isotopes to a stable element from the daughter element from numerous samples are plotted and fitted to a straight line. The slope of this line is used for age calculation. Isochron dating may not require information of the amount of initial daughter isotope present, yet is still subject to strict criteria. Isochron requires a closed system environment and a relatively uniform presence of the daughter isotope in the initial sample.
Types
There are 4 major types of radiometric dating.
Assumptions
While many scientists utilize radiometric dating as if it is based upon an unchangeable scientific premise, it is readily and intuitively understood, even reflected in the most modern scientific literature which takes recent advancements in methodology into some account, that radiometric dating relies on several broad assumptions:
Assumption: The decay rate of the parent isotype throughout history has remained constant.
The radiometric dating theory assumes that the established half-life of the transformation of the parent to the daughter isotope based on scientific observation in modern circumstances has remained the same throughout history. However, it is well-established that certain factors can alter the half-life of a radioactive substance. For example, seasonal and diurnal variation and distance to the sun have been observed in lab simulations to alter the radioactive decay of isotopes such as radioactive radon-222 (Steinitz, 2011). Bombarding radioactive isotopes with high-energy radiation, as well as changing the chemical or electronic environment of the isotope can change the half-life (Weeks (1998), Wang (2006)). There is also a highly controversial debate among the physical science community as to whether solar neutrinos affect the rate of radioactive isotope decay (Sturrock, 2022). Though teams of scientists claim these findings are dogmatically refutable due to statistical significance criteria, the controversy remains unsolved due to the inevitable inability of modern science to occlude the proposed possibilities in unobservable historical scenarios. (Pommé, 2022) While many scientists assume the half-lives of radioactive substances are unchanged, others on another end of the spectrum of theory challenge this theory by internal evidence which suggests a need for greater precision in these estimates (Villa, 2022). It would be a leap off the cliff of scientific reason to believe that throughout history there were no regional and/or world-wide differences in high-energy radiation or environmental features. It cannot be concluded that there were no worldwide ancient cataclysmic events that, for example, released high energy radiation from the deeper zones of the earth, or that radically changed the chemical and electronic environment of affected organisms and geological structures. There is no means of occluding the possibility of fluctuations in cosmic activity and atypical cosmic interference with the earth. Furthermore, it cannot be made certain that the conditions of the earth thousands of years ago were not more and less favorable to all manner of physical and natural processes including the rates of radioactive decay.
Assumption: There is no contamination of the sample.
Contamination in a sample, depending on the type, amount, and the ages of the sample and contaminant, can significantly affect the accuracy of the results by introducing older or younger substances with isotopes that alter the parent to daughter isotope ratio. This results in younger or older apparent ages. Geologists and other scientists who regularly work with radiometric dating face an immense battle seeking to prevent and offset the effects of contamination. The discussion in the field research community concerning contamination is vast, and the literature is extensive concerning this challenge. Below are several examples from modern cutting-edge revealing the difficulty of radiometric dating due to contamination:
Historic Mortar Samples: “Over the last decades, important advancements have been made in the application of the 14C dating methods to lime mortar samples, including the use of lime lumps instead of generic pieces of mortar. However, a relevant number of results in disagreement with the chronological framework of the related archaeological cases are published every year without a clear understanding of the reasons for such results. This suggests that further developments to the methodology are needed. The commentary argues that to further develop this particular application of the 14C dating method, a new, more holistic approach is needed that moves away from the very “applied” approach that dominated the last decades and focuses more on the causes of contamination and the mechanism of the reactions involved. ” (Pesce, 2023)
Quaternary Volcanic Rocks: “The 40Ar/39Ar age of 54 ± 7 ka is distinctly different from the zircon crystallization and eruption ages, and is considered to be inaccurate due to a possible issue with sample contamination or excess argon.” (Lee, 2024)
Phytoplankton: “For phytoplankton resting stages, longevity of thousands to millions of years has recently been reported. However, contamination during sediment sampling could distort these estimates, and this risk has not been systematically evaluated. ”
Old Carbon: “Our results suggest that old carbon contamination is possible over a wide area, potentially leading to over-estimation of eruption ages by years, decades or more, cautioning against over-reliance on wiggle-match ages that are not corroborated by other lines of evidence.” (Holdaway, 2021)
Assumption: The Daughter isotope was absent at the origination of the sample.
Radiometric dating often assumes that the sample originally contained 100% parent isotope and 0% daughter isotope. However, if the sample originally contained some amount of the daughter isotope at the time of its formation, the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes will be higher than expected resulting in an overestimation of the sample’s age. Isochron, a more recent advancement in radiometric dating, is used by scientists to account for the initial presence of daughter isotope by looking at the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes in numerous samples from the same material. However, isochron requires strict conditions for results to be meaningful just as other more conventional means of radiometric dating (Inglis, 2025). This is commonly understood by many scientists who use modern isochron methodology (Inglis, 2025).
Flaws
There are a number of FLAWS which have been identified in using radiometric dating for determining the age of samples.
Flaw: The deep water cycle, migration of magma, and crustal migration of isotopes can introduce new isotopes into samples.
A trademark challenge throughout the past decades for radiometric dating is the acquisition of excess isotopes from crustal migration and through mantle source areas of magma (Li, 2025). Rocks can assimilate elements from mingling with magma (Iles, 2023). The transition zone, crust, and migrating magma are known to contain potassium, argon, rubidium, strontium, uranium, and lead. According to the deep water cycle and systemic flow of magma to the earth’s crust, it is expected and observed that under high temperature conditions, rocks can assimilate daughter isotopes resulting in erroneously old ages when radiometric dating is employed. Furthermore, under high temperature conditions, isotopes can readily leach out of rocks (de Melo, 2021). The high temperatures of magma can cause both parent and daughter isotopes to move within a rock or result in isotopic exchange. Under various geochemical environments, there can be what scientists called a “resetting of the radiometric clock”. There are various means that geologists use to seek to account for or correct this including separating out various components of rock or magma when there are different ages derived and using multiple dating methods. However, certain possibilities present remaining complications. Namely, if the whole region underwent a cataclysmic historical event that reset the radiometric clock and/or resulted in a broad incorporation of isotopic atoms into the rocks, this often cannot be deciphered by modern methods of observation. For example, if a regional or global cataclysmic event released large amount of water and magma from the mantle and/or transition zone, this would create an environment of high pressure, temperature, and a vast influx of many kinds of isotopes (both parent and daughter) that would be incorporated into all affected rocks and fossils. In this case, rocks, magma, and fossils can be as geologists say, “lying about their age”.
Flaw: Under the Closed-System requirement for radiometric dating, it is assumed that no parent or daughter isotope was lost or gained during or since the formation of the material.
Under the closed-system requirement for radiometric dating, it is assumed that no parent or daughter isotope was lost or gained in the course of events leading up to the present. However, scientists agree that it is rare that a fossil experiences a truly closed-system environment throughout and since its formation. Particularly, if organisms are exposed to high pressure and heat conditions, or are surrounded by other organisms or sediment, a truly closed environment can only be considered an ideal and not reality. That were was no permeation of neighboring elements and organic material during permineralization is implausible. Mineral rich water that fills the cavities of organisms during permineralization inevitably may contain elements and organic contaminants of any proximal organisms and inorganic material. Furthermore, in a realistic situation, parent or daughter isotopes can be lost through diffusion at high temperatures, weathering, leaching, metamorphisms, interaction with hydrothermal fluids, or through natural radioactive decay (Chiaradia, 2023).
Open System Behavior: “Estimation of the accuracy can be done through measurement of standards with known, certified ages and evaluating how far our measure is from the certified value. However, such measurements do not guarantee that sample ages are accurate, if, for instance, unknown samples are affected by open system behavior. Several parameters may affect the accuracy of an age determination as it will be discussed below. Precision indicates the uncertainty that we can attach to an age that we have measured and usually depends on limitations of the analytical tools used.” (Chiaradia, 2023)
Temperature Diffusion Effect: “All the points above bear on the fundamental question of what exactly are we dating when we apply a radiometric clock to a mineral? In ideal cases, where the mineral has remained a closed system since its formation, the answer is that we are dating the time elapsed since the mineral crystallised. In other cases, the radiometric age may reflect the time since the mineral cooled to a temperature below which diffusion of the parent and daughter isotopes becomes so slow that the mineral acts as a closed system. This temperature is known as closure temperature (Dodson 1973). Because the closure temperature depends on crystal structure, grain size of the crystal, and atomic size of the diffusing isotope, there is a wide range of closure temperatures (from > 900 to < 100 ℃) for the different radiometric dating systems applied to different minerals (Fig. 2).” (Chiaradia, 2023)
Chronological Uncertainty: “Individual radiocarbon-date densities do not represent duration or through-time variation in a process that produces radiocarbon samples – they represent chronological uncertainty. It follows, then, that sums or aggregates of individual date densities also reflect chronological uncertainty in some way. Currently, to our knowledge, no attempts have been made to derive accurate point-wise interpretations for the established proxies, which leaves open crucial questions about how chronological uncertainty affects point-wise comparisons.” (Carleton, 2021)
Additionally, certain rocks can inherit parent or daughter isotopes from their source, which obscures the dating process. Some rocks can inherit the parent or daughter isotopes from their sources resulting in inaccurate dating—again, resulting in the failure to meet the necessary closed-system requirement. This is because the source-acquired isotopes can be assumed to have been produced by radioactive decay within the rock, when, in actuality, they were present before any decay over time took place.
Generic Sampling and Taphonomic Bias: “We review Australian studies, focussing on sampling bias and taphonomic bias, finding that (i) time-averaged radiometric data cannot simply be correlated across regions, and (ii) sedimentology imposes genuine constraints upon what can be known. Internationally, flaws in SPD use occur in all main research phases, and most importantly, at the initial phase of defining research questions, logic and general approach. Major problems stem from not planning to obtain a sound understanding of the variability of past sedimentary environments, potential occupation sites and site formation processes. Thus, cultural inferences are too often made from archaeological data without due consideration of the natural processes that may explain the data. ” (Ward, 2021)
Flaw: There is inconsistency in results when using different methods of radiometric dating.
Different radiometric dating systems have resulted in vastly different ages rendered for given samples. This indicates error in one or more dating methodology. Contrary to the opinion of many geologists, science daily notes that even relatively small observable offsets can shift calendar dates enough to greatly alter the general consensus.
“The authors measured a series of carbon-14 ages in southern Jordan tree rings, with established calendar dates between 1610 and 1940 A.D. They found that contemporary plant material growing in the southern Levant shows an average offset in radiocarbon age of about 19 years compared the current Northern Hemisphere standard calibration curve…..Applying their results to previously published chronologies, the researchers show how even the relatively small offsets they observe can shift calendar dates by enough to alter ongoing archaeological, historical and paleoclimate debates.” (Cornell University, 2018)
A little goes a long way when it comes to radiometric dating. Namely, small changes in isotopic concentrations as well as changes in the rate (half-life), or the slowing or accelerating of radioactive decay due to geological events can result in a highly skewed date. For example, even a small change in the isotopic concentration can radically alter the determined age of a sample. For example, a 2% step change in concentration of the daughter isotope can change the age of a sample up to over a hundred million years (David, 2025). Furthermore, a cataclysmic event which altered the radioactive decay of the parent isotope could also lead to dramatic changes in estimated age (David, 2025) .
Flaw: Radiocarbon dating (C-14) is prone to error in dating old objects due to the limited half-life of 5,730 years.
The short-half life of C-14 makes it unusable for dating objects older than about 50,000 years (while other erroneous assumptions and flaws are not considered). Because C-14 decays exponentially, after several half-lives, the amount of C-14 remaining is too small to provide an accurate estimation of age (again, other erroneous assumptions and flaws not considered). Scientists agree that radiocarbon dating is an erroneous means of estimating very old organisms and rocks, and is a totally flawed means for determining the age of the earth and the events of ancient history (Hajadas (2021), Ramsey (2024)).
The Extensively Proven Unreliability of C-14 Dating: “It is apparent that if 14C measurements were perfect for both (i) the calibration curve and (ii) for the dendro-sequenced time-series dated, and if (iii) the relationship between the calendar and 14C timescales was monotonic, then there should be 0-error because (ii) should perfectly match (i) at the correct temporal placement and there is no possibility for ambiguity (given iii). However, none of these conditions applies in reality. Instead, variable precision is obtained depending on a combination of the structure (shape) of the 14C calibration curve versus the quality, density and length of the dated time-series. While the identification of several solar energetic particle (Miyake) events (e.g. 660 BCE; 774, 993 CE) (Miyake et al., 2012, 2013; Park et al., 2017) has allowed wiggle-matching to an annual, or even sub-annual, precision (Kuitems et al., 2020, 2021; Oppenheimer et al., 2017; Philippsen et al., 2021; Wacker et al., 2014), these exist for only some restricted time periods (for all currently recognized events see Brehm et al., 2022, 2021) and in most cases cannot be relied on to provide high-resolution dates.” (McDonald, 2023)
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be considered that though radiometric dating is a means of theorizing the ages of organisms, elementary structures, and the earth itself, it inherently fails the criteria of empirical science and thus cannot be used to add to the body of what is considered scientific fact or knowledge. This is due to the absence of an absolute control, and an inability for modern science to observe historic and supposedly pre-historic chemical events of radiometric decay in relevant scenarios of interest. The broad assumption that there has been no change in the half-lives of relevant isotope decay systems is implausible based on alterations in decay rates in various solar, chemical, and radiative environments. Furthermore, the dating system has rigid requirements. Namely, a closed- system environment, the absence of contamination, and no presence of daughter isotope initially. The difference in results between different dating methods presents further cause for concern. Thus, it is advised that an alternative means based on an absolute standard is used to determine the age of the earth and its materials.
References:
Steinitz, G., O. Piatibratova, and P. Kotlarsky. "Possible effect of solar tides on radon signals." Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 102.8 (2011): 749-765.
Weeks, K. J., and P. G. O'Shea. "Production of radioisotopes by direct electron activation." Medical Physics 25.4 (1998): 488-492.
Wang, B., et al. "Change of the 7 Be electron capture half-life in metallic environments." The European Physical Journal A-Hadrons and Nuclei 28 (2006): 375-377.
Sturrock, Peter A. "Neutrino-flux variability, nuclear-decay variability, and their apparent relationship." Space Science Reviews 218.4 (2022): 23.
Pommé, Stefaan, and Krzysztof Pelczar. "Neutrino-induced decay: a critical review of the arguments." Space Science Reviews 218.8 (2022): 64.
Villa, Igor M., et al. "IUGS–IUPAC recommendations and status reports on the half-lives of 87Rb, 146Sm, 147Sm, 234U, 235U, and 238U (IUPAC Technical Report)." Pure and applied chemistry 94.9 (2022): 1085-1092.
Pesce, Giovanni. "The need for a new approach to the radiocarbon dating of historic mortars." Radiocarbon 65.5 (2023): 1017-1021.
Lee, Tae-Ho, et al. A comparative study of different radiometric dating techniques applied to Quaternary volcanic rocks from Jeju Island, South Korea." Geosciences Journal 28.5 (2024): 733-746.
Andersson, Björn, et al. "Cross‐contamination risks in sediment‐based resurrection studies of phytoplankton." Limnology and Oceanography Letters 8.2 (2023): 376-384.
Holdaway, Richard N., et al. "Evidence for old carbon contamination in 14 C wiggle-match age series
for the 946 CE eruption of Changbaishan volcano." Geochronology Discussions 2021 (2021): 1-27.
Inglis, Jeremy D., et al. "Using U–Th isochrons to assess 230Th–234U model age data from uranium metals." Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (2025): 1-11.
Li, Xiaohui, et al. "Assimilation of upper plate rocks at convergent margins contributes to the low δ18O isotopic signature of erupted magma." Communications Earth & Environment 6.1 (2025): 515.
Iles, Kieran A., Janet M. Hergt, and Jon D. Woodhead. "Multi-scale isotopic heterogeneity reveals a complex magmatic evolution: An example from the wallundry suite granitoids of the lachlan fold belt, Australia." Frontiers in Earth Science 11 (2023): 1101331.
de Melo, Gustavo Henrique Coelho, et al. "Magmatic-hydrothermal fluids leaching older seafloor exhalative rocks to form the IOCG deposits of the Carajás Province, Brazil: evidence from boron isotopes." Precambrian Research 365 (2021): 106412.
Chiaradia, Massimo. "Radiometric dating applied to ore deposits: theory and methods." Isotopes in Economic Geology, Metallogenesis and Exploration. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023. 15-35.
Carleton, W. Christopher, and Huw S. Groucutt. "Sum things are not what they seem: Problems with point-wise interpretations and quantitative analyses of proxies based on aggregated radiocarbon dates." The Holocene 31.4 (2021): 630-643.
McDonald, Liam, and Sturt W. Manning. "A simulation approach to quantify the parameters and limitations of the radiocarbon wiggle-match dating technique." Quaternary Geochronology 75 (2023): 101423.
Ward, Ingrid, and Piers Larcombe. "Sedimentary unknowns constrain the current use of frequency analysis of radiocarbon data sets in forming regional models of demographic change." Geoarchaeology 36.3 (2021): 546-570.
Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating. Cornell University (2018)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180605112057.htm#google_vignette
David, Moses. Personal Interview. 11 July 2025
Hajdas, Irka, et al. "Radiocarbon dating." Nature Reviews Methods Primers 1.1 (2021): 62.
Ramsey, Christopher Bronk. "Radiocarbon calibration: from bane to blessing." Radiocarbon 66.6 (2024): 2036-2046.
Weeks, K. J., and P. G. O'Shea. "Production of radioisotopes by direct electron activation." Medical Physics 25.4 (1998): 488-492.
Wang, B., et al. "Change of the 7 Be electron capture half-life in metallic environments." The European Physical Journal A-Hadrons and Nuclei 28 (2006): 375-377.
Sturrock, Peter A. "Neutrino-flux variability, nuclear-decay variability, and their apparent relationship." Space Science Reviews 218.4 (2022): 23.
Pommé, Stefaan, and Krzysztof Pelczar. "Neutrino-induced decay: a critical review of the arguments." Space Science Reviews 218.8 (2022): 64.
Villa, Igor M., et al. "IUGS–IUPAC recommendations and status reports on the half-lives of 87Rb, 146Sm, 147Sm, 234U, 235U, and 238U (IUPAC Technical Report)." Pure and applied chemistry 94.9 (2022): 1085-1092.
Pesce, Giovanni. "The need for a new approach to the radiocarbon dating of historic mortars." Radiocarbon 65.5 (2023): 1017-1021.
Lee, Tae-Ho, et al. A comparative study of different radiometric dating techniques applied to Quaternary volcanic rocks from Jeju Island, South Korea." Geosciences Journal 28.5 (2024): 733-746.
Andersson, Björn, et al. "Cross‐contamination risks in sediment‐based resurrection studies of phytoplankton." Limnology and Oceanography Letters 8.2 (2023): 376-384.
Holdaway, Richard N., et al. "Evidence for old carbon contamination in 14 C wiggle-match age series
for the 946 CE eruption of Changbaishan volcano." Geochronology Discussions 2021 (2021): 1-27.
Inglis, Jeremy D., et al. "Using U–Th isochrons to assess 230Th–234U model age data from uranium metals." Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry (2025): 1-11.
Li, Xiaohui, et al. "Assimilation of upper plate rocks at convergent margins contributes to the low δ18O isotopic signature of erupted magma." Communications Earth & Environment 6.1 (2025): 515.
Iles, Kieran A., Janet M. Hergt, and Jon D. Woodhead. "Multi-scale isotopic heterogeneity reveals a complex magmatic evolution: An example from the wallundry suite granitoids of the lachlan fold belt, Australia." Frontiers in Earth Science 11 (2023): 1101331.
de Melo, Gustavo Henrique Coelho, et al. "Magmatic-hydrothermal fluids leaching older seafloor exhalative rocks to form the IOCG deposits of the Carajás Province, Brazil: evidence from boron isotopes." Precambrian Research 365 (2021): 106412.
Chiaradia, Massimo. "Radiometric dating applied to ore deposits: theory and methods." Isotopes in Economic Geology, Metallogenesis and Exploration. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023. 15-35.
Carleton, W. Christopher, and Huw S. Groucutt. "Sum things are not what they seem: Problems with point-wise interpretations and quantitative analyses of proxies based on aggregated radiocarbon dates." The Holocene 31.4 (2021): 630-643.
McDonald, Liam, and Sturt W. Manning. "A simulation approach to quantify the parameters and limitations of the radiocarbon wiggle-match dating technique." Quaternary Geochronology 75 (2023): 101423.
Ward, Ingrid, and Piers Larcombe. "Sedimentary unknowns constrain the current use of frequency analysis of radiocarbon data sets in forming regional models of demographic change." Geoarchaeology 36.3 (2021): 546-570.
Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating. Cornell University (2018)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180605112057.htm#google_vignette
David, Moses. Personal Interview. 11 July 2025
Hajdas, Irka, et al. "Radiocarbon dating." Nature Reviews Methods Primers 1.1 (2021): 62.
Ramsey, Christopher Bronk. "Radiocarbon calibration: from bane to blessing." Radiocarbon 66.6 (2024): 2036-2046.
0 Comments
RSS Feed