Radiometric Dating of Fossils and Rocks: The Failure and Inaccuracy of Radiodating and Radiocarbon Dating Methods

We are already accustomed to such statements made in the media: scientists have discovered 65 million year old dinosaur bones in this or that location; scientists concluded that a certain rock is 4.5 billion years old. We don’t even consider questioning the age of these findings. Scientists cannot be wrong—so we say.

We have heard about some of the dating methods, like radiocarbon dating, or uranium radiodating, but very few of us know much about how inaccurate these methods are, and yet they are presented as infallible scientific tools.

In the following, we will take a closer look at these and other methods, and we will make an assessment of their accuracy. At the end we shall conclude that these dating methods are so unreliable that ultimately rocks and fossils cannot be dated by these, thus evolutionists must rely solely on theory.

We have seen on the previous pages, that evolution cannot happen, regardless of how much time is available; one thousand or one billion years. Long time does not make possible the impossible. A tornado could rumble through a junkyard for billions of years, and still would not be able to assemble a Rolls Royce, let alone a whole Rolls Royce factory!

Since evolution has not been observed in our time and it has not been observed in the past either, the only hope remaining for evolutionists is the availability of unimaginably long periods of time. Their utmost desire is to demonstrate the existence and scientific validity of these long periods of times.

The following chief dating methods are currently in use:
1. Radiodating

There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these disintegration systems, the “parent” or original radioactive substance, gradually decays into “daughter” substances and this process is irreversible. The theory asserts that by measuring the amount of parent and daughter elements in a given sample and knowing the decay rate, one might be able to calculate the time elapsed from its formation.

Several types of radiodating methods are used today, but when applied to the same sample, they give different dates. A very good example of how scientists interpret the results of their radiodating method is presented in reference. They select only the “most reasonable” dates, the ones that agree with the evolutionary theory of long ages and discard the ones that do not fit in. Well, this method is far from an objective and precise scientific approach!

These special dating methods are seriously flawed: too many assumptions are made without any factual evidence. We can easily show the problems arising from the disregard of the following:

  1. The parent and daughter products could easily have been contaminated during their long decay process underground. For the results to be accurate, the systems had to be closed during the decay process, but this doesn’t happen in nature.
  2. Nobody was there at the beginning to make sure that no daughter products were present in a certain rock, whereas the radiodating method assumes exactly this. It is impossible to know what had initially been in a given piece of radioactive mineral.
  3. The decay rate is not constant. Many environmental factors, such as pressure, changes in cosmic radiation level, nearby radioactive materials, high temperatures influence it. In one of their studies, Westinghouse Laboratories have been able to change the decay rates simply by placing inactive iron next to radioactive lead.
  4. Part of the radioactive substances could have been leached out. Experiments show that even distilled water and weak acids can do this.
  5. Rocks could have been altered by sediment displacements.

A few examples of the accuracy of this method:

  • Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than two centuries old have been dated at up to 3 BILLION years old!
  • Laboratories that “date” rocks insist on knowing in advance the “evolutionary age” of the strata from which the samples were taken—this way, they know which dates to accept as “reasonable” and which to ignore.

2. Radiocarbon Dating

Wollard F. Libby discovered the carbon 14 method in 1946, while working at the University of Chicago. This was considered to be a great breakthrough in the dating of plant and animal remains of earlier times. It is the special method used by scientists to date organic materials not older than a few thousand years.

The radioactive carbon isotope (C-14) called radiocarbon is generated in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. Living organisms accumulate radioactive carbon from the atmosphere via carbon dioxide (CO2) during their lifetime. This accumulation ceases at the death of the organism and the radiocarbon starts decaying into inert carbon. By measuring the ratio of radioactive and stable carbon in an organic material, and ASSUMING what the original ratio was, one can calculate the time of death of that organism.

Let’s hear from those people, who actually use this method, how its results are interpreted:

Pensee, 3 (Spring), p.44.:

If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it.

The accuracy of this method is just catastrophic. Just consider the following ridiculous findings:

  • mortar from the 785 year old Oxford Castle in England was dated at 7,370 years old
  • freshly killed seals were dated at 1,300 years and seals dead for 30 years at 4,600 years
  • living snails being dated at 2,300 years old
  • new wood cut from growing trees after few days was dated at 10,000 years
  • muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk was dated to 24,000 years, while the the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb was established to be 17,200 years—a rather long living animal as it appears!

We cannot just assume that the C-14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle has always been constant, that the cosmic ray flux has always been the same and that no contamination of the sample occurred. These assumptions are obviously erroneous, otherwise how can one explain that hair from a mammoth has been dated at 26,000 years while the peat right above the carcass at only 5,610 years?

Because of the short half-life of C-14, this method is only suitable for dating relatively young samples. Practically, any organic material would be left with an undetectable amount of radioactive carbon after 10 half-lives of C-14. This means that most of the fossils claimed to be millions of years old, would have to show an “infinite” age. It is not so. Radiocarbon dating of coal deposits gave ages less than 50,000 years, when the evolutionary theory claimed them to be millions of years old.


After the discovery of the radiocarbon dating method, scientists tried to correlate their results with the dates “established” a century before. But they have not been able to do so. Of thousands of measurements, they have been able to correlate only three. These three successes were enough to make the original century old fossil/strata dating “scientific”. It is on this basis that evolutionists claim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals!



1.  L.T. Aldrich, “Measurement of Radioactive Ages of Rocks”, Science, May 18, 1956, p. 872:
“The two uranium-lead ages often differ from each other markedly, and the thorium-lead age on the same mineral is almost always drastically lower than either of the others.”

2.  L.R. Stieff, T.W. Stern and R.N. Eichler, “Algebraic and Graphic Methods for Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages”, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, No. 414-E (1963):
“The most reasonable age [from among the many conflicting “dates” offered] can be selected only after careful consideration of independent geochronologic data as well as field, stratigraphic and paleontologic evidence, and the petrographic and paragenetic relations.”

3.  J. Anderson and G. Spangler, “Radiometric Dating: Is the ‘Decay Constant’ Constant?”, Pensee, Fall 1974, p. 34:
“The deviations [in decay rate] are a function of the environment.. we are each convinced that the thesis of ‘decay independence’ and the thesis of ‘decay constancy’ needs considerable revision and reexamination… at a minimum, an unreliability factor must be incorporated into the age dating calculations.”

4.  L.A. Rancitelli and D.E. Fisher, “Potassium-Argon Ages of Iron Meteorites”, Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (1967), p. 167É
“As much as 80 percent of the potassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours.”

5.  J.F. Evernden, et. al., “K/A Dates and Cenozoic Mannalian Chronology of North America”, American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 154:
“Processes of rock alteration may render a volcanic rock useless for potassium-argon dating… we have analyzed several devitrified glasses of known age, and all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave virtually zero ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that devitrification took place shortly after the formation of a deposit.”

6.  J. Ogden III, “The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon”, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173:
“It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable’ by investigators.”

7.  Vance Ferrell, Evolution Disproved Series, p.202.

8.  F.B. Jueneman, article in Industrial Research, 14 (1972), p. 15:
“An earlier increase in neutrino levels must have had the peculiar characteristic of resetting all our atomic clocks. This would knock our C-14, potassium-argon, and uranium-lead dating measurements into a cocked hat! The age of prehistoric artifacts, the age of the earth, and that of the universe would be thrown into doubt.”


Dating of Time in Evolution, from Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia by Creation Science Facts.

The Dating Game, by Dr. David N. Menton.