Process of uranium dating


Since the lead in meteorites can no longer be ascribed to uranium/thorium decay, it may also be taken to represent primordial lead.

Therefore, since the lead isotope ratios for the majority of meteorites are the same as present day common lead ratios and may also be assumed to represent primordial lead, the billion year age chronology disappears.

It might be argued that although radiometric dating has a few problems, the large body of concordant data using different isotopes shows that the dates are of the right order.

In fact, there is no large body of concordant data.

In case the significance of these results is ignored, a few sentences from the Gale β€œ …

process of uranium dating-56process of uranium dating-35

However, it is even more surprising to learn that the lead isotope ratios chosen by Patterson Most meteorites have lead isotope ratios similar to those of present day common lead.Some evidence is also presented to show that radiometric results that are in agreement with the accepted geological time scale are selectively published in preference to those results that are not in agreement.The geological time scale and an age for the Earth of 4.5 b.y.It is probably because of this type of evidence for extensive mixing in the alteration zone that Patterson β€œIn view of the evidence for extensive mixing, it would seem contrary to the facts to postulate differing frozen lead/uranium ratios that have existed for billions of years.The requirements of the assumptions in the lead ore method are so extreme it is unlikely that it should give a correct age.” So they took a different approach.These ratios for many lead ores are plotted in Fig. The lowest ratios are taken to be the most ancient ores, formed at the beginning, billions of years ago and separated from further radiogenic enrichment. They show that widespread contamination and differentiation from various sources of lead have occurred during the more than one thousandfold concentration into the present lead ore deposits. There is no discontinuity whatever between results lying in the time clock zone and those lying in the alteration zone. Since there is no reason why the alteration zone should not extend into what is classified as the time clock zone (apart from a belief in 4.5 b.y.), the majority of the data can be explained as indicating a history of geochemical alteration.

You must have an account to comment. Please register or login here!