Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all

quote:

---

G. Brent Dalrymple, USGS Open Report #86-110, United States Geological Survey, 1986 :
Fourteen rock strata were aged with potassium-argon method, yielding dates from 1.3 - 64.8 million years old (each successively lower strata measured "older" than the ones above it).

​

If potassium "leaching" was a serious problem for geologists, one would think Dalrymple's results impossible.

---

Let me guess: Perhaps it is not a serious problem for geologists?

quote:

---

On the other hand...

​

John Christie (Chemistry professor, Australia) Page not found, La Trobe University

​

Christie quietly explains that radiometric dating techniques ought not be considered accurate unless measuring times within 0.5 to 3.5 half-lives of the decaying isotope. For K-Ar, that means only using the method to date rocks between 550 million - 3.5 billion years old.

---

Hmm, my old college text suggests that K-Ar dating is valid to dates under 100ky under good conditions. Does Christie specifically mention K-Ar dating methods or is he just suggesting a rule of thumb? I cannot tell from the website that you reference.

quote:

---

In other words, the geological survey referenced above (widely quoted as a source to "prove" the validity of radiometric dating), should be considered a waste of taxpayer funds.

---

Somehow, I think I'll take Dalrymple's work in peer-reviewed journals over your interpretation of an offhand comment by someone whom I cannot tell has ever done a radiometric date.

quote:

---

When are geologists going to get their collective heads out of the sand, and start practicing true science?

---

Oh, I don't know... When are YECs going to get their heads out of other dark places and actually learn something about radiometric dating from somewhere other than YEC websites?

quote:

---

This means going back and eschewing all data collected prior to, and contrary to, currently established scientific principles.

---

Okay, let us know just what those principles are and we can discuss them. As yet you have not stated why current practices in geochronology are invalid.

quote:

---

Has anyone investigated the effect on elements of the constant bombardment of the earth by cosmic rays?

---

Dino has made a good point here. But there are others. For instance, if the cosmic ray flux was so high that elements would be so affected in their nuclear reactions, life would probably not be possible on earth. You also have to remember that when we analyze a sample, we are taking a sample of thousands, if not millions of atoms. And most of these atoms have spent most of their time rocks shielded far away from the effects of cosmic rays.

quote:

---

Since this phenomenon has only recently been identified, and is hardly "understood" (including such phenomena as solar wind and how it interacts with earth's geomagnetic field) by cosmologists, I'm wondering how much true science exists in geology to address this.

---

Well, when you get a better understanding of it, let us know. We cannot discuss conjecture very productively.

quote:

---

When a cosmologist tells me that most neutrinos zip right through the entire planet, popping out the other side unaffected, my mind wonders about "particles" which impinge and do NOT make it out the other side.

---

Maybe most of them do not penetrate very far, perhaps?

quote:

---

What happens to them? Presumably they "strike" some atom and interact with it in some way. I've not read an explanation of this phenomenon on a global scale, can someone help me find one?

---

Probably not important to this discussion, but let us know if you find anything.

quote:

---

Could radioactive decay only be constant because the bombardment of the planet by cosmic rays is constant?

---

Well, show us how cosmic rays have penetrated into the crust of the earth and then we can discuss this intelligently.

quote:

---

No matter how thick or thin I make my shielding to set up a test, the variation I could achieve would be incomparably minute with that of the thickness of the earth's crust, let alone the entire planet. I doubt I could conduct a valid test in this manner.

---

Well, that is the point, isn't it? If your flimsy shield halts cosmic rays, then how about several feet of earth and rock? Besides, how do we even survive on the surface of the earth, relatively unshielded? Do you think that nuclear reactions are less resistant to cosmic ray bombardment than organic reactions?We may not have all of the data here, but certainly we can make some logical arguments against your proposed 'problems' with radiometric dating.

quote:

---

Am I forgetting something?

---

Hmmm, maybe a textbook on geochronology?

quote:

---

However, I do believe the reason behind the cutoffs has to do with the shape of the radioactive decay curves -- it's primarily due to the mathematics involved in exponential functions.

---

Yes, it probably does. However, 'optimum' ranges that Christie discusses are not the same as operational ranges. These all depend on more issues than simply the rate of decay. By the way, I note the he is a proponent of radiometric dating and certainly an anti-creationist. Why do you find him credible on this minor issue?

quote:

---

I'll accept your criticism on my lack of understanding of the science of geochronology. And while I admit I'm no scientist, I do not admit to complete ignorance of the subject.

​

For example, our bodies contain enough radioactive potassium alone to cause us to create a false-positive test for Radon gas in one of those in-home canisters. All we need do is place it near a spot where we regularly spend a lot of time.

---

Sounds like an urban legend to me. Most of these tests involve collecting Ra gas. I did not know that radon was part of the 40K decay scheme...

quote:

---

We now know that the amount of radiation hitting the poles of our planet differs greatly in nature and quantity, compared to that which hits the equator and temperate zones. The Northern and Southern light shows attest to this fact. Is it a coincidence that the "oldest" rocks are those found at deeper levels?

---

Deeper levels of what?

quote:

---

We also know that shielding plays an important role in keeping things from "becoming radioactive". Astrophysicists can determine the effectiveness of different materials and thicknesses of those materials in order to develop the most cost-effective shielding for spacecraft.

---

And?

quote:

---

What's so bad about extrapolating the concept of shielding (known to protect things in space) to the earth's crust? In other words, what impact do the layers of rock have on the amount of radiation penetrating to deeper layers.

---

Well since the atmosphere and the magnetic field of the earth eliminate enough cosmic radiation to allow life on earth, I would imagine that a few inches of rock and soil might be even more effective. So, in fact, we have extrapolated the concept of shielding to show that it really should have little effect on carefully collected samples for K-Ar dating.

quote:

---

Is this effect not measurable? Why do geologists and geochronologists refuse to even consider this effect? Hence my comment about heads in sand...

---

How do you know that they haven't? Perhaps it has been considered and rejected.

quote:

---

For those who think I'm out on a limb, consider the following:

​

"Because the geomagnetic field provides shielding against incoming cosmic rays, its strength determines the amount of this radiation that reaches the upper atmosphere. Reactions with these cosmic rays produces radioactive isotopes of certain elements such as 10Be, 14C, 36Cl, 3He, and others that are useful for dating and correlating geologic materials. Fluctuations in magnetic field strength, however, determine the amount of nuclides produced at any given time and uncertainties in production rates are a major factor affecting the accuracy of age determinations. By accurately determining geomagnetic paleointensity through time, the production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides can be established more closely, thus enhancing the various dating methods."

​

Taken from :
USGS URL Resolution Error Page

---

Please not that all of these are effected at high altitudes in the earth's atmosphere. Could you please show us where someone has taken a K-Ar sample at 100,000 feet in elevation?

Kyle:This is really pretty silly stuff. Did your creationist sources tell you that geochronologists knew ahead of time that the KB Tuff was going to be difficult to date?Did they tell you that, because we know that sampling and analysis can be difficult, fossil remains are considered primary information on the age of a geological unit? That is how confident we are of evolutionary theory after years and years of testing.Did they define for you what 'independent' means? You seem to have a problem with this word. It means that the basic principal or clock is different in each case. In other words, 40K decays at a different rate from 14C, etc. The methods are independent even though they utilize the same basic assumptions regarding sampling, contamination and decay rates. According to your understanding, it should be impossible for the different radiometric methods to yield concordant dates. And yet, in many cases they do. Why is this?Perhaps I'll have more time later, but basically, your creationist sources have let you down again.

quote:

---

Edge: "Did they tell you that, because we know that sampling and analysis can be difficult, fossil remains are considered primary information on the age of a geological unit? That is how confident we are of evolutionary theory after years and years of testing."

​

So, in essence, radiometric numbers are not independent if, in fact, good dates are determined by a-priori numbers which are assigned to a fossil cladogram (a number which is before and independent of any sort of radiometric dating).

---

Read my post. You do not undertand what 'independent' means. Dating by fossil assemblages is independent of radiometric dating because the processes that cause change, i.e. the 'clocks', are different. It has nothing to do with the fact that we compare the dates from one method to another and judge one to be more or less accurate.

quote:

---

So again, if the INTERPRETATIONS of fossils based upon an a-priori commitment to evolution is wrong, ...

---

Another misunderstanding. Actually, one could date rocks without even an clue as to how the fossils changed. You are simply repeating the 'interpretation' mantra that has been drummed into your head by professional creationists.

quote:

---

...then any calibration by this method is subject to just as much of an error.

---

Not sure what this has to do with 'independent' dating methods. Please amplify.

quote:

---

And the same with using others' research as a starting point: If theirs was as subjective of a starting point as the fossil numbers assigned ahead of time, then the same error will translate over into the other research results. Pretty basic.

---

Pretty silly. Every time we use a previous assumption, we are not only taking a short cut, but we end up testing that assumption.

quote:

---

In fact, edge's comment shows the amount of implicit assumption and faith assigned to the concept and interpretation of fossils form the very get-go, before any radiometric dating is done.

---

Incorrect. The fossil record has fewer basic assumptions involved and is not as sensitive to sampling, preparation and analytical error so it is the primary dating method. It sometime is not as precise as radiometric dating however, so often we use both. Also, there are not always fossils to deal with.

quote:

---

This in turn translates into primers for both phylogenetic research, as well as astronomy (remember that Eddy quote?: "Solar physics now looks to PALEONTOLOGY (estimates of ages assigned to fossil remains in an evolutionary pretext) for data on solar chronology, he concluded. -Ralph Kazmann (Dept of Civil Engineering, LSU), It’s About Time: 4.5 billion years, Geotimes, Sept. 1978, p18)

---

Not sure what your point is.

quote:

---

So, if the starting point was not independent, then how honest is it to keep calling the results of this methodology "independent"?

---

Again, you failed to read my previous post. 'Independent' does not mean that we don't compare results and use more solid results to evaluate others.

quote:

---

It's garbage in, garbage out. the researcher gets what is expected, or what is preferred rather.

---

Wrong. Sometimes the researcher gets discordant results which must be explained. These explanations make geological sense.

quote:

---

If the date doesn't conform to the a-priori model evolution assigns those fossils, then it must be a "bad" date. How independent or confirmatory is that?

---

The methods are independent and yet often they DO agree. Creationists have no explanation for this.

quote:

---

The example of the KBS Tuff shows that without any preconceptions ahead of time to secure a date, the radiometric methods would give us numbers that would be all over the board. We could just as honestly accept the 230 myr date, or the 17.5 myr date, or the 1.9 myr date.

---

Wrong. Again, you failed to read my post. Geochronologists KNEW that the tuff would be difficult to date because of the explosive and fragmental nature of the rock. Why do you intentionally avoid this fact?Because of this fact, they believed any one of the dates could be wrong and used the fossil evidence as a guide. This was, in fact, more of an experiment in how to date this particular tuff than any effort to 'prove' evolution. Your whole analysis is rather silly.

quote:

---

Without the preconception of what we construct cladogram-wise with the fossils, we would never be able to say just which date was correct.

---

This is probably true, but so what? Do you not check your own data when it is generated? What if you find a discrepancy? Do you pick one measurement at random and deem it to be the correct one, or do you run you analysis again? Or do you just throw up your hands and say it's impossible to get a precise date? Does it mean that your method is wrong or was there an analytical error? Or was your method miapplied? These are the questions that scientists ask. And they are compelled to make a best judgement. Why is this invalid?

quote:

---

Without the precommitment to evolution, we could just as well say that the million year dates that geochronologists assign to the amount of potassium to argon in a sample is not indicative of any sort of million year age determination (and as I had stated earlier, the amount of argon contained within a sample seems to not conform to any sort of age idea once the actual date of the cause of sample degassing is reasonably known, i.e., the apparent "closing" of the sample in question).

---

This statement makes no sense at all. Actually, there is no 'precommitment' to evolution. There is a correlation to a known section somewhere else that suggests a certain relative age of the rock. Evolution is not even necessary in this case.

quote:

---

As edge had commented earlier, it is the pre-assigned dates to the fossils which act as the "check" for the radiometric methods. If the radiometric dating methods were somehow independent enough on their own so as to relinquish their date, then why do we need to appeal to cladograms which are conceived within the minds of men?

---

Not an accurate statement. You make it sound as though it is illegitimate to compare results of a measurement. Where would you like the cladograms to be conceived?

quote:

---

This does not seem to be as clean cut of a methodology as some would like to believe.

---

Well, when you don't understand the methodology then it may seem entirely incomprensible.

quote:

---

'Edge' seemed to have had some problems with this proposal. As far as the discussion between he and I went, he seemed to equate an amount of accuracy to the dating methods, and proceeded to instead call into question the reliability of the researchers in question who had contributed to the above statement being published (which has transpired here with no lesser of a degree of hostility). As for supplying any technical info regarding the research itself, he did not clarify upon the specifics or technicalities himself (no numbers, no published research on the subject), but seemed to disagree with the results none the less.

​

He is welcome to his opinion on the matter, but I would ask him, and anyone else who may disagree with the above, that if they desire to be taken seriously by any one so minded so as to search for the truth of the matter, that they should display a careful, tactful, and thorough response and explanation, with cited published material on the subject, and follow with their own clear explanations and conclusions as to why they would disagree with any of the above.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I'm not even sure what I'm disagreeing on. I am pointing out that you have no clear understanding of the issue. I have given you information readily available in any credible reference and have explained the reasons that I disagree with your interpretation. First, and mainly, your understanding of the 'independent' issue is convoluted. Second, there is nothing wrong with developing a method for dating an ash flow tuff by comparison with a relatively well documented age. If you don't understand the rest of my points, I will explain them later.Basically, you have been tricked into believing things about dating the KBS Tuff that are not true. The material constituting a pyroclastic rock such as this is not easy. The real question you have to answer here is why do ANY dates concur with the fossil age?

quote:

---

The reason for showing the addendum to the Berthault article was to show that the amount of potassium to argon may not mean much of anything other than the amount of potassium to argon.

---

Then you have to explain a lot of concordant dates as you have been challenged to do elsewhere.

quote:

---

The point is that the time calibrations assigned to so and such an amount may not be accurate at all.

---

Calibrating what?

quote:

---

What researchers usually would see as indicative of age may have nothing to do with age.

---

Maybe, but then why are there concordant dates for any rock unit?

quote:

---

This is more than likely the case with the corroborating dates that result from such finds as the iridium spike (K-T boundary, which I will address later).

---

Yeah, you'd better address this. It makes no sense whatever. What does an iridium spike have to do with a radiometric date?

quote:

---

The actual content may not be in debate. The question is whether the content itself is indicative of any sort of uniformitarian decay from parent to daughter isotope, or any general marker that would be considered as a result of a uniform process.

---

Why would the process of radioactive decay not be uniform? Under what conditions? And where do you find these conditions in the earth's crust?

quote:

---

In fact, that is what the Mt. St. Helens example shows us: a recent event that should have degassed all of the samples in question failed to do so.

---

Nonsense. This study is a complete misapplication of the method. Of course I am assuming that you refer to the Austin 'study' that dated recent rocks using a method appropriate for rocks at least 350,000 years old. This is a silly waste of time.

quote:

---

The amount of daughter isotope had nothing to do with the assigned ages researchers received when calibrating with what geochronologists normally use. Ages of 350k to 2.8 myr were obtained from samples that realistically were closed or assumed to be entirely degassed only several years before.

---

I get the distinct impression that you have never worked with radiometric methods or taken a course on them. This statement is a bunch of randomly regurgitated material from creationist websites.More later, maybe.

quote:

---

In fact, that is what the Mt. St. Helens example shows us: a recent event that should have degassed all of the samples in question failed to do so. The amount of daughter isotope had nothing to do with the assigned ages researchers received when calibrating with what geochronologists normally use. Ages of 350k to 2.8 myr were obtained from samples that realistically were closed or assumed to be entirely degassed only several years before. In fact, as the article pointed out; Even more surprising were the differences in age of the constituent parts, whose crystallisation would have been virtually simultaneous.

---

Since you do not document this work, I assume that you are talking about one of the 'studies' by Steve Austin in which he used K-Ar methods to date historic flows.I direct your attention to the following website at Geochron Laboratories:http://www.geochronlabs.com/kar.htmlYou should notice the advisory at the bottom of the page. It clearly states:"Samples less than 5 M.Y. old, or containing less than 0.1%K will incur a 50% surcharge, reflecting the special care and additional analyses required. We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."The reasons for this warning are very simple. You need to have sufficient potassium in the sample to make the potassium-argon method work, and you have to have had enough time for measureable amounts of argon to have been produced by the slow decay of 40K.Now, I have a few questions for you.Do Steve Austin and other professional YECs have a reading problem?Do they not understand basic chemistry or analytical limitations?If not, then what do you suppose are their motives in dating recent lava flows by K-Ar methods?I am not asking these questions rhetorically. I expect an answer.

quote:

---

And, as ‘edge’ has pointed out, if the resting upon evolutionary interpretations ...

---

No. This is not an evolutionary interpretation. It is a simple correlation of fossil to a known relative time scale. With many fossils it is quite reliable and precise. With other fossils it may not be so reliable and precise due to lack of information or an uncertain time range of a given fossil assemblage. Knowledge of evolution is not even necessary to make this correlation. I think we have been over this before and I hope that if you don't understand, you will ask some more questions.

quote:

---

... of the fossils is as secure of a resting bed for radiometric deductions, then what would happen if the acceptable dates for the fossils changed?

---

Then we would reevaluate the absolute dating method used. Very simple, once again.

quote:

---

This is what happened with the KBS Tuff incident. When the acceptable date of the fossil in question changed, no sooner did the older dates all become obsolete. Newer dates, which used the same techniques and methodology, obtained more dates which were acceptable.

---

Please document this. I never understood that the methodology was identical. For instance, fission track dating is very different from K-Ar and there are several different K-Ar techniques.

quote:

---

It doesn’t help the current situation any that new cladograms (and thus new dates) are being constructed throughout the evolutionary community even as we speak. Will the new consensus (no matter if accurate or not) determine the acceptable outside limits for what radiometric dating would hint at?

---

In most cases, no. But of course you do not document any such cases, so we cannot answer your question. I would guess that most newly constructed lineages do not directly affect absolute dating since those lineages themselves are not used to date the rocks.

quote:

---

Coragyps, consider yourself the gentleman among the thieves.

---

(Don't worry C, we'll keep this confidential.)

quote:

---

You have been the only one with tact and ability thus far.

---

Well, if you would answer some of our questions, it would enhance our ability. As far as tact, well let's just say that we tend to match our counterparts on the other side. I mean, here's a guy calling evolutionists 'thieves' and telling us we have no tact. Hmmmmmmmm...

quote:

---

Percipient, thank you for the website addresses. I was not aware that the same info was on the web, since I had to read it, and thus copy it by my own typing. I would suggest that you read the material yourself.

---

Does this mean you won't answer my questions?

quote:

---

Examination of recently reported K/P [K/T] boundary sections indicates that the placement of the K/P boundary is based on unequivocal criteria and that the boundary as placed is not synchronous."

---

Correct. The rock units at the K/T boundary are stratigraphic. The iridium-enriched layer is a time/stratigraphic horizon. It has always been traditional to designate one unit as Cretaceous and the next as Tertiary, but in reality the units are time-transgressive as per Walther's Law. This is well-understood by geologists but often not quite grasped by laymen. Not a criticism, mind you, just a commentary.

quote:

---

"For instance, dinosaur remains from France and India were discovered in what were considered ‘Tertiary’ strata. The strata were subsequently redefined as ‘Cretaceous’." (ref.2,3)

---

This often happens before there is any definitive evidence for the age of a certain rock unit. It may be classified in the field with a best estimate of the age and even published as such. However, often there is a disclaimer saying that the actual age is uncertain. THis would, of course, be omitted from your creationist sources.For instance I may see a sandstone cut by Dry Creek that LOOKS like a Cretaceous sand and I may map it as such. But since many units are time-transgressive, it could actually be Tertiary where I view it or it could be that I am simply wrong in my guess based on its appearance and thickness. Later, when I find some fossils, I can say with some certainty what the age is based on comparison with other stratigraphic sections all over the world.Now what radiometric dates were altered or replaced in your example?

quote:

---

"Defining the K/T boundary based on the last dinosaur is also a circular definition, since scientists claim that the dinosaurs only lived in the Mesozoic when the presence of a dinosaur AUTOMATICALLY DEFINES the strata as Mesozoic."

---

Not really. What is really happening is that the fossil assemblage is being compared to a section of known relative age. That section has dinosaur fossils in the Cretaceous but not in the Teriary.

quote:

---

Edge, I apologize for the Lysenko remark.

---

Not necessary. I've been called a lot worse.

quote:

---

"Argue the point, not the person". I think we both could learn a bit from that statement, for the future's sake. Although I think you are in error in your beginning framework, we can both agree to disagree, at least on this point. The material is there for you to examine, and I feel that, for the limits of this page, I presented the case as thoroughly as possible. Take care.

---

The thing that you don't have is several decades of learning geology. I have examined numerous YEC tracts looking for something that makes sense. Once in a while I see something new and say "Ah! This sounds interesting!" But, in every case, I have found the reasoning to be inadequate and sometimes deceptive. The Austin dating of recent lavas by K-Ar methods is a prime example.