Three geologists have reported what they called the first "successful" direct dating of dinosaur bone. Will this new radioisotope dating (or radiodating) technique solve the problems that plagued older dating methods? If history is anything to go by, then the answer is no.
The process generally used to date a fossil is circuitous and subject to differing interpretations. It has involved tracing the related sedimentary rock layer horizontally from the place where the fossil in question was found to a place where it is underlain or overlain (or both) by igneous rock. Igneous rock layers can supposedly be directly dated, so sedimentary layers sandwiched between them are interpreted to have been deposited in between the "ages" assigned to the igneous rocks.
Where igneous rocks are absent, a fossil's "age" is determined by comparing the fossils of one location to those of another, and then comparing those comparisons to charts in books with age assignments provided on the pages. But in standard studies, no age assignment is ever accepted unless it conforms to the "millions of years" doctrine of evolutionary earth history.
World Nuclear News pointed out one of the big problems with this dating approach by saying that the past "methods are far from perfect: it is difficult to gain accurate depositional ages for sedimentary rocks, and matters can be further complicated when millions of years of geologic and environmental forces cause erosion of fossil-bearing strata."1
The authors of the fossil dating paper, first published online January 5 in Geology, suggested that their new direct dating technique will alleviate some of this confusion.2 They highlighted its "success" by contrasting it with the lack of success of prior dating techniques.
It is rare that a weakness in the "millions of years" dating of earth materials is ever mentioned in standard earth science publications. But when this admission of fault occurs, it often accompanies the introduction of a new and supposedly superior dating technique. The problem is that the new technique has in the end always proven to be unreliable. This new direct fossil radiodating technique will no doubt cycle through the same "believe it while it's new until something better replaces it" sequence.
Creation researcher John Woodmorappe reviewed this historical trend, noting that each radiodating technique remains in vogue for one or two decades before its inconsistencies pile up enough to warrant its replacement.3 For example, in the 1940s the U-Th-He method was used. But these tests quickly became notoriously unreliable, as they indicated so many different "ages" for the same rock layer.
So, in the 1950s, K-Ar and Rb-Sr methods became popular among geologists. However, Woodmorappe quoted a radiodating textbook as saying, "The Rb-Sr whole-rock method was widely used as a dating tool for igneous crystallization during the 1960's and 1970's, but lost credibility during the 1980's as evidence of whole-rock open-system behaviour mounted."4 "Open-system behaviour" is a term invoked when the same technique delivers inconsistent age assignments for the same rock. It refers to results that were supposedly thrown off by isotopes added to or subtracted from a sample over time.
In the 1970s, "fission track" dating came along. But the fission tracks' microscopic scars, left in igneous rocks from decaying radioactive atoms, were eventually seen not as having formed when the rock did, but rather as having occurred through some later rock-altering event involving hot water. But again, since nobody was there to observe these events, this could just as well be another excuse used to explain away confusing dating results.
U-Pb and Sm-Nd methods waxed and then waned in popularity in the 1980s. Again, Woodmorappe quoted a field expert who said, "Each of the above dating systems had at some stage...been alleged to be immune from isotopic resetting under subsolidus conditions. Examples to the contrary have been found,"5 thereby rendering the systems unreliable, one by one.
In the study using the new dating technique, many of the individual tests…which were shown as scores of scattered points on an "age" graph…showed the dinosaur bone as clocking in much younger than had been anticipated. The Geology paper used one of the same excuses that have been used so many times when radiodated "ages" of given samples fail to line up with the accepted dates…that something tampered with the bone and thus skewed the results. But what can assure readers that the particular test results chosen by the authors as acceptable were not themselves the result of tampering?
Likewise, what is to stop this new dating technique from repeating the history of past radiodating methods? At this point, nothing. When more results are published, there will be enough "ages" to compare. And when enough of them disagree, either with each other, with older dating results, or with the "ages" set forth in geology manuals, then this new "direct dating" of bone will fade out and another method will no doubt take its place. And when that fails, another, and another.
Instead of relying on a "broken" radiodating clock,6 researchers would be better advised to interpret the geologic record using the framework of biblical history…which matches the evidence indicating that the majority of sedimentary layers, and the fossils they contain, resulted from a global deluge just thousands of years ago.
- Uranium technique raises dinosaur question. World Nuclear News. Posted on world-nuclar-news.org February 2, 2011, accessed February 7, 2011.
- Fassett, J. E., L. M. Heaman and A. Simonetti. 2011. Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Geology. 39 (2): 159-162.
- Woodmorappe, J. 1999. The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research.
- Dickin, A. P. 1997. Radiogenic Isotope Geology. U. K., New York: Cambridge University Press. Quoted in Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, 35.
- Black, L. P. 1986. Isotopic resetting of the systems Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd total rock and U-Pb zircon in Antarctica â€“ the cold facts. Terra Cognita. (6) 2: 155-156. Quoted in Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, 35.
- Thomas, B. Can Scientists Now Directly Date Fossils? ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 11, 2011, accessed February 15, 2011.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on February 16, 2011.
Wataalamu watatu wa jiolojia wameripoti kile walichokiita tarehe ya kwanza ya moja kwa moja ya mfupa wa dinosaur "iliyofanikiwa". Je, mbinu hii mpya ya kupima umri kwa kutumia radioisotopu (au radiodating) itatatua matatizo yaliyokuwa yakisumbua mbinu za zamani za kupima umri? Kama historia ni kitu chochote kwenda kwa, basi jibu ni hapana. Kwa kawaida utaratibu unaotumiwa kupima umri wa visukuku ni wa mzunguko na unaweza kutafsiriwa kwa njia tofauti-tofauti. Utafiti huo ulihusisha kufuatilia safu ya miamba ya sedimentary inayohusiana na eneo hilo kutoka mahali ambapo visukuku vilipatikana hadi mahali ambapo vimepigwa au kupigwa (au vyote viwili) na miamba ya magma. Kwa hiyo, tabaka za miamba ya magma zinaweza kuashiria tarehe moja kwa moja, kwa hiyo tabaka za mchanga zilizo kati yao hufafanuliwa kuwa zimewekwa kati ya "miaka" iliyowekwa kwa miamba ya magma. Katika maeneo ambayo hakuna miamba ya magma, "umri" wa visukuku huamuliwa kwa kulinganisha visukuku vya mahali fulani na vya mahali pengine, kisha kulinganisha makadirio hayo na chati za vitabu vyenye vipimo vya umri vilivyoandikwa kwenye kurasa. Lakini katika masomo ya kawaida, hakuna mgawo wa umri unaokubaliwa isipokuwa unalingana na fundisho la "milioni za miaka" ya historia ya dunia ya mageuzi. "Wiki ya hivi karibuni ya ""Nuclear News"" ilionyesha moja ya matatizo makubwa ya mbinu hii ya tarehe kwa kusema kwamba ""mbinu za zamani hazikuwa kamili: ni vigumu kupata umri sahihi wa kuweka kwa miamba ya sedimentary, na mambo yanaweza kuwa ngumu zaidi wakati mamilioni ya miaka ya nguvu za kijiolojia na mazingira husababisha mmomonyoko wa tabaka za mafuta.""" "Wanahabari wa jarida la ""Fossil Dating"" walichapisha makala yao ya kwanza kwenye gazeti la Geology, Januari 5, mwaka huu, na kusema kwamba mbinu yao mpya ya kuchunguza tarehe za viumbe hai itaondoa baadhi ya mambo haya ya kutatanisha, na kuelezea mafanikio ya mbinu hiyo kwa kuilinganisha na ukosefu wa mafanikio ya mbinu za kuchunguza tarehe za viumbe hai." Ni nadra kwamba udhaifu katika tarehe ya "milioni za miaka" ya vifaa vya dunia umetajwa katika machapisho ya kawaida ya sayansi ya dunia. Lakini wakati kukiri kosa hilo kunapotokea, mara nyingi kunahusisha kuanzishwa kwa mbinu mpya na inayoonekana kuwa bora zaidi ya kuchumbiana. Tatizo ni kwamba mbinu hiyo mpya hatimaye imethibitika kuwa isiyoaminika. "Utaratibu huu mpya wa moja kwa moja wa radiation ya visukuku bila shaka utazunguka kupitia mfululizo uleule wa ""uamini wakati ni mpya hadi kitu bora kiingie mahali pake.""" "Mtaalamu wa uumbaji John Woodmorphe alisema: ""Kila mbinu ya radiodating inabaki kuwa ya kawaida kwa miongo moja au miwili kabla ya kutoelewana kwake kukusanya kutosha kuhalalisha kubadilishwa kwake.""" Lakini upesi vipimo hivyo vikawa visivyoaminika, kwa kuwa vilionyesha "miaka" mingi tofauti-tofauti kwa tabaka moja la mwamba. Katika miaka ya 1950, mbinu za K-Ar na Rb-Sr zilipendwa sana na wataalamu wa jiolojia. "Woodmorphe alitoa taarifa katika kitabu cha radiodating kwamba ""Rb-Sr nzima mwamba mbinu ilikuwa sana kutumika kama chombo dating kwa ajili ya igneous crystallization wakati wa miaka ya 1960 na 1970, lakini walipoteza uaminifu wakati wa miaka ya 1980 kama ushahidi wa mwamba wote wazi mfumo tabia imewekwa." "4 ""Mwenendo wa mfumo wa wazi"" ni neno linaloitwa wakati mbinu hiyo hiyo inatoa mgawo wa umri usio sawa kwa mwamba huo huo." Inarejelea matokeo ambayo yanadhaniwa kuwa yalitupwa na isotopu zilizoongezwa au kuondolewa kutoka kwa sampuli kwa muda. Katika miaka ya 1970, "fission track" dating alikuja pamoja. Lakini alama hizo ndogo za fission, zilizobaki katika miamba ya magma kutokana na kuharibika kwa atomu za mnururisho, hatimaye zilionekana kuwa hazikufanyizwa wakati mwamba ulipoumbwa, bali zilionekana kuwa zilitokea kupitia tukio fulani la baadaye la kubadilisha mwamba linalohusisha maji moto. Lakini tena, kwa kuwa hakuna mtu aliyekuwapo ili kuchunguza matukio haya, hii inaweza kuwa tu kama bahati nyingine kutumika kueleza mbali matokeo ya kuchanganyikiwa dating. U-Pb na Sm-Nd mbinu waxed na kisha waned katika umaarufu katika miaka ya 1980. "Woodmorappe alitoa taarifa ya kipekee ya ""mfano wa kwanza wa mfumo wa tarehe"" ambao ulidaiwa kuwa na kinga dhidi ya ""kuweka upya isotopic"" chini ya hali ya sub-solid." Mifano ya kinyume imepatikana, "5, na hivyo kufanya mifumo isiyoaminika, moja kwa moja. Katika utafiti huo uliotumia mbinu mpya ya kuchunguza umri, vipimo vingi vya mtu mmoja-mmoja, ambavyo vilionyeshwa kama alama nyingi zilizotawanyika kwenye grafu ya "umri", vilionyesha mfupa wa dinosaur kuwa mdogo zaidi kuliko ilivyotarajiwa. "Hata hivyo, makala ya ""Geology"" ilitumia mojawapo ya udhuru uleule ambao umetumiwa mara nyingi sana wakati ""umri"" wa sampuli zilizotolewa na radiodiodi haukubaliani na tarehe zilizokubaliwa... kwamba kitu fulani kilibadilisha mfupa na hivyo kuharibu matokeo." Lakini ni nini kinachoweza kuwahakikishia wasomaji kwamba matokeo hususa ya mtihani yaliyochaguliwa na waandishi kuwa yanakubaliwa hayakuwa matokeo ya udanganyifu? Kwa hiyo, ni nini kinachomzuia mbinu hii mpya ya kuchunguza tarehe isirudie historia ya mbinu za kuchunguza tarehe za redio za zamani? Kwa sasa, hakuna chochote. Matokeo zaidi yatakapochapishwa, kutakuwa na "miaka" ya kutosha ya kulinganisha. Na wakati wengi wao wanapokosa kukubaliana, ama kwa kila mmoja wao, na matokeo ya zamani ya tarehe, au na "umri" uliowekwa katika vitabu vya jiolojia, basi hii mpya "muda wa moja kwa moja" wa mifupa itapotea na mbinu nyingine bila shaka itachukua nafasi yake. Na hiyo ikishindwa, nyingine, na nyingine. Badala ya kutegemea saa ya radiodating iliyovunjika, watafiti wangependekezwa zaidi kutafsiri rekodi ya kijiolojia kwa kutumia mfumo wa historia ya Kibiblia, ambayo inalingana na ushahidi unaoonyesha kuwa safu nyingi za sedimentary na visukuku vinavyojumuisha zilitokana na mafuriko ya dunia maelfu ya miaka iliyopita. - Mbinu ya urani huinua swali la dinosaur. Habari za Nyuklia Duniani. "Kutoka kwa ""World Nuclear News"" Februari 2, 2011 hadi ""World Nuclear News"" Februari 7, 2011" - Fassett, J. E., L. M. Heaman na A. Simonetti. Mwaka 2011 U-Pb moja kwa moja dating ya Cretaceous na Paleocene dinosaur mifupa, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Jiolojia. 39 (2): 159-162. - Woodmorappe, J. 1999 - Mwezi wa kwanza wa mwaka Hadithi za Mbinu za Kisasa za Kufanya Uchumbiana. Santee, CA: Taasisi ya Utafiti wa Uumbaji. - Dickin, A. P. 1997. Radiogenic Isotope Jiolojia U. K., New York: Cambridge University Press. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kitabu cha Woodmorphe, ""The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods"" (Mitholojia ya Mbinu za Kisasa za Kupata Tarehe), 35." - Black, L. P. 1986. Isotopic resetting ya mifumo Rb-Sr na Sm-Nd jumla mwamba na U-Pb zircon katika Antarctica â € < < ukweli baridi. Eneo la Kisayansi. 6 2 Wakorintho 2: 155, 156. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kitabu cha Woodmorphe, ""The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods"" (Mitholojia ya Mbinu za Kisasa za Kupata Tarehe), 35." - Thomas, B. Je, Sasa Wanasayansi Wanaweza Kuamua Tarehe ya Mabaki ya Kale? Habari za ICR. IRC.org, Februari 11, 2011, na kupatikana Februari 15, 2011. Thomas ni mwandishi wa sayansi katika Taasisi ya Utafiti wa Uumbaji. Makala hii ilichapishwa Februari 16, 2011.