Their age was measured to be 6.0 /- 0.3 billion years old. Those who are committed to an ancient age for the earth currently believe that it is 4.6 billion years old.Obviously, then, the error in that measurement is 1.4 billion years, not 0.3 billion years!Sr-86 diffuses more quickly than Sr-87, and that has never been taken into account when isochrons are analyzed. Perhaps, but it’s rather tricky, because the rate of diffusion depends on the specific chemical and physical environment of each individual rock.If the effects of diffusion can be taken into account, it will require an elaborate model that will most certainly require elaborate assumptions. Hayes suggests a couple of other approaches that might work, but its not clear how well. If you believe the earth is very old, then most likely, all of the radioactive dates based on isochrons are probably overestimates. I have no idea, and I don’t think anyone else does, either. Hayes’s model indicates it could add as much as 29 billion years to ages determined with rubidium and strontium, although his model is rather simplistic.If some process brought Sr-87 into the rock, it probably brought different amounts of the atom into different parts of the rock, so the ratio of Sr-87 to Sr-86 won’t stay consistent from one part of the rock to another. He says that there is one process that has been overlooked in all these isochron analyses: diffusion.
Since the data are divided by the amount of Sr-86, the initial amount of Sr-87 is cancelled out in the analysis.
However, it’s important to note that some radioactive dates (like those that come from carbon-14) don’t use the isochron method, so they aren’t affected by this particular flaw.
As a young-earth creationist, I look at this issue in a different way.
Since a neutron has no charge, it must become positively charged after emitting an electron. Of course, there are all sorts of uncertainties involved.
How much Sr-87 was in the rock when it first formed?