Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all

So basically you call the facts "dogmatic speculations" and find it easier to believe wild speculations invented to protect your dogma.But at least tell the truth, and admit that there are checks on the speed of light, we know that it has not varied significantly for over 100,0000 years (see this discussion of supernova 1987A http://www.geocities.com/...s/7755/ancientproof/SN1987A.html) and there is no evidence that it has varied significantly since the very early stages of the universe billions of years before Earth existed.At least admit that the various possible errors are accounted for in radiometric dating and there are very many consistent dates that cannot reasonably be explained away.Can you be honest enough to admit that your handwaving was not based on knowledge of the facts and that it is your handwaving that is the "dogmatic speculation" ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-23-2003]

We have observational data which confirms that the speed of light has not varied significantly for far longer than YEC views permit. Why would we need experimental data in addition ? Apparently you think that a clear disproof is insufficient to rule out Setterfield's claims.As for the rest of your post, it appears to come from fantasy land. It has no basis in what I said, nor is it clear as to what it is intended too mean.So what ARE my "biased dogmatic speculations" and why do you call them such ? Where are they in the post you were replying to ? Or is this just an excuse to keep using personal attacks rather than admit to the facts ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-30-2003]

As I pointed out in post 9 fact is that we do have observational data disproving Setterfield's claim - which states that light speed has only recently stopped changing (at the time when we were able to measure light speed accurately enough to know that it was not changing - want to think on why that might be ?).

Reading the article the range you gave is the range where the best accuracy may be obtained and suggests that +/1% in measurement accuracy converts into +/-4% dating accuracy in that range. All this means is that the measurement errors will have a greater effect on the error bars for dates outside the range. But there is absolutely no reason to assume that geologists are not aware of this issue whatsoever. I suggest you withdraw you attack on geologists on the grounds that it is completely unfounded.

quote:

---

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.

---

More importantly cladograms do not come with dates. At most you will get relative dating (ancestors must precede descendants). Kyle really has no idea what he is talking about. That is why he has no examples.