Re os dating arsenopyrite
We need to explore just how accurate these determinations are, whether there really is consensus on standard values for the half-lives and decay constants, and just how independent and objective the standard values are from one another between the different methods.
Of course, it is to be expected that every long-lived radioactive isotope is likely to show similar variation and uncertainty in half-life measurements because these are difficult measurements to make.
One crucial area the RATE project did not touch on was the issue of how reliable have been the determinations of the radioisotope decay rates, which are so crucial for calibrating these dating “clocks.” Indeed, before this present series of papers (Snelling 2014a, b) there have not been any attempts in the creationist literature to review how the half-lives of the parent radioisotopes used in long-age geological dating have been determined and to collate their determinations to discuss the accuracy of their currently accepted values.
After all, accurate radioisotope age determinations depend on accurate determinations of the decay constants or half-lives of the respective parent isotopes.
These values are based on determinations recalibrating Re-Os model ages of molybdenites by forcing them (essentially by circular reasoning) to agree with the U-Pb concordia-Pb-Pb intercept ages of zircons from the same 11 magmatic-hydrothermal systems dating from ca. It is also within the ± uncertainty range of the half-life values obtained by the best of the physical direct counting and in-growth experiments.
Yet, in spite of such experiments directly measuring Os respectively, preference has been given to the half-life value determined by forcing the Re-Os data to agree with U-Pb dates.
Many in both the scientific community and the general public around the world thus remain convinced of the earth’s claimed great antiquity.
2001; Steiger and Jäger 1977), in spite of ongoing attempts (Miller 2012).
The uncertainties associated with direct half-life determinations are, in most cases, still at the 1% level, which is still significantly better than any radioisotope method for determining the ages of rock formations.
Data points that do not fit on the isochron are simply ignored because their values are regarded as due to contamination.
That this is common practice is illustrated with numerous examples from the literature by Faure and Mensing (2005) and Dickin (2005).