As I have stated previously, we just don’t know a lot about radioactive decay.Certainly not enough to justify the incredibly unscientific extrapolation necessary in an old-earth framework.One way this is done in many radioactive dating techniques is to use an isochron. To understand the problem, let’s start with an example of how radioactive dating works. Sr-87 is not radioactive, so the change is permanent.
This newly-pointed-out flaw in the isochron method is a stark reminder of that.
A good isochron was supposed to be rock-solid evidence (pun intended) that the radioactive date is reliable. I suspect that this flaw is not the last one that will be uncovered.
Most likely, the effect will be dependent on the age.
I would think that the older the sample, the larger the overestimate.
It refers to one specific source of error – the uncertainty in the measurement of the amounts of various atoms used in the analysis.
Most likely, that is the least important source of error.Their age was measured to be 6.0 /- 0.3 billion years old. Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4.6 billion years old.Obviously, then, the error in that measurement is 1.4 billion years, not 0.3 billion years!If some process brought Sr-87 into the rock, it probably brought different amounts of the atom into different parts of the rock, so the ratio of Sr-87 to Sr-86 won’t stay consistent from one part of the rock to another. He says that there is one process that has been overlooked in all these isochron analyses: diffusion.If a consistent isochron is generated, however, we can be “certain” that no process interfered with the relative amounts of Rb-87 and Sr-87, so the radioactive date is a good one. Atoms and molecules naturally move around, and they do so in such as way as to even out their concentrations.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.