There is also primordial Pb that the earth acquired when it formed, its isotopic composition determined as that of troilite in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite.Subsequently new crustal rocks formed via partial melts from the mantle.There is thus no impediment to accepting and using the Bible’s account of Creation and the Flood as a reliable framework for unravelling the history of the earth and the Pb isotopes found in its minerals and rocks.
However, even uncertainties of only 1% in the half-lives lead to very significant discrepancies in the derived radioisotope ages.
The recognition of an urgent need to improve the situation is not new (for example, Min et al. It continues to be mentioned, at one time or another, by every group active in geo- or cosmochronology (Boehnke and Harrison 2014; Schmitz 2012).
He showed that there is still some uncertainty in what the values for these measures of the Rb decay rate differ when Rb-Sr ages are calibrated against the U-Pb ages of either the same terrestrial minerals and rocks or the same meteorites and lunar rocks.
Ironically it is the slow decay rates of isotopes such as Sm used for deep time dating that makes precise measurements of their decay rates so difficult.
However, problems remain in the interpretation of the measured Pb isotopic ratios to transform them into ages.
Among them is the presence of non-radiogenic Pb of unknown composition, often referred to as common or initial Pb.All the unprovable assumptions ultimately depend on an assumed deep time history.Its rejection is recognized as fatal to the earth’s claimed age of billions of years.U-Pb radioisotope dating is now the absolute dating method of first choice among geochronologists, especially using the mineral zircon.A variety of analytical instruments have also now been developed using different micro-sampling techniques coupled with mass spectrometers, thus enabling wide usage of U-Pb radioisotope dating.One crucial area the RATE project did not touch on was the issue of how reliable are the determinations of the radioisotope decay rates, which are so crucial for calibrating these dating “clocks.” However, in a recent series of papers, Snelling (2014a, b, 2015a, b, 2016, 2017) reviewed how the half-lives of the parent radioisotopes used in long-age geological dating have been determined and collated all the determinations of them reported in the literature to discuss the accuracy of their currently accepted values.