Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all

There has been a bit of hanky panky in this area. Perhaps you could refer to the specific case?

quote:

---

has the 1/2-life of the radioactive isotopes been the same throughout all time and conditions (like fluctuations in the radiation from the sun, mineral deposits due to rain and erosion...)
Here is some areas to read up on both sides of the argument:

---

Are your sites suggesting that fluctuations in the radiation from the sun etc influences the decay rate? It doesn't. Rain and erosion (they don't)."both sides.."
These are not "both sides".All the various arguments put forward have been refuted over and over. I suggest you do a little research.

quote:

---

Of course, I speculate, only.

---

Yes, you speculate only. And it is meaningless and a useless waste of time. If you are really a YEC (with say a 10,000 year limit for the universe) then you are simply wrong.

Shall we spin off another thread for this as well?We can't measure light speed over all space and time (and there is a physicist putting forward a variable light speed hypothosis (not one of any value to you however) but we can determine that it hasn't changed significantly for more than 10 times your 6,000 years.Therefore if the universe isn't just about 14 billion years old it also isn't anywhere near 6,000 years. That's a settled issue.

I don't know any of the details at all but I understand the age is getting pinned down a bit better now and is 13.7 Gyr +- 200 Myr %
Astronomy News - Space Science - Articles and ImagesThis is a secondary source and I don't know any of the details. However, the public releases on this are much more "definite" than such things are usually stated so I think this is getting it narrowed down (finally).I've not seen any rebuttals to this yet but it is pretty new. Does anyone have a deeper insight?

At the leading edge of disciplines, especially faster moving ones, there is often some confusion for the layperson. (In fact, there may be some for the specialists in the field too) That is one reason for wanting to keep in mind that the information may be more or less tentative, keep checking on the latest results and either dig a little deeper yourself or, if you don't know enough about it, to check what others in the field say about the latest results.In any discipling the leading edge pretty well has to be conducted by specialists. It just takes too much effort and knowledge. However, there always seems to be another specialist who jumps in with good critism of any new result. That's why I'd like to hear from such specialists on this new 13.7 Gyr date.It seems pretty credible in spite of all that. It is right in the range that the universes age has been bouncing around in for decades. Those earlier ones always had pretty large error bars. This one, very interestingly, doesn't. That is encouraging.We can't be expert in all this stuff. That's a bit frustrating but history has shown that the process sorts the errors out eventually. In the meantime all we can say is that the very best estimate available is this 13.7 Gyr figure.Your frustration with some much stuff, a lot of which you don't understand, is understandable but not a very good reason for ignoring the work. The thing to do is watch for other specialists opinion of the work.

This is an interesting statement. I'm not aware of any very good cases (any in fact). Could you talk about some examples?Generally it is other specialists in the field which seem to overturn ideas. Not those outside the field.

Could you get to the point of you post?You seem to be suggesting a bunch of ways that some measurement techniques might be made less accurate. However, wild speculation isn't of much value at all. This is exactly the kind of discussions that practitioners in these areas have over coffee.When they think them through a bit more and do a few back of envelope calculations they may find an area for a bit of research.If I'm reading between the lines of your posts correctly you're suggesting that you can think of some issue that hasn't been covered. Why in the world do you think you can do that?

Thanks, I'm interested in seeing if there are any coherent answers to this.

KyleAnd how does any of that post answer the questions that were put to you about the dating? What does the nuclear winter have to do with it for example?

Edge,could you help a layman by translating a bit of that please?Does time transgressive mean there is some "blur" in the boundary? What is Walther's Law? Thanks. Hang On I'll google it.Ok, it says that different facies(types of rock) may overlap because of transgression and regression(water coming and going). But I don't see how that applies to something laid down all at once.

This thread started with a mention of the KBS tuff.Perhaps you want to take up the dating issues here? You might want to do a quick skim of the posts so far.