It has been known for several decades that the lighter elements (notably carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and sulphur) undergo isotopic fractionation under the influence of their physical and chemical environment, and much research has been conducted to understand this behaviour.
‘Actually, the question of whether Sr isotopes can be fractionated by nature or not is irrelevant, because all Sr isotope analysis are routinely corrected for all isotopic fractionation effects, be they natural or laboratory-induced.
The slope of the line is related to the age of the samples.
The simplest way to think of it is this: Some rock materials (isotopes) decay, and we can determine the age of a rock in today’s laboratories by determining how much of a specific isotope contained in the rock has decayed.
Editor’s note: We’ve received a wide range of responses to Dr.
Vernon Cupps’ recent radioactive dating Impact articles.
In order to give an initial response, we might confine our attention to dating of lava flows, the most easily dated rocks, and limit our discussion to the Grand Canyon, which contains thoroughly studied lava flows profoundly relevant to the creation/evolution question.
Furthermore, we might begin by focusing our investigation to "wholerock" potassium-argon (K-Ar) and rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) techniques, the two most popular methods for dating rocks.
If Scripture is inaccurate in this, then how can it be trusted in anything else?
Do analyses of the radioactive isotopes of rocks give reliable estimates of their ages?
That is a good question, which ordinarily requires a lengthy and technical answer.
Evolutionists appeal to radioactive dating because it appears to confirm the deep time their models demand, but the actual data don’t match the evolutionary model.
Part 2: The Iconic Isochron The isochron dating method gives erroneous ages for rock formations of known age.