Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all

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.

i looked a bit, but i didn't see a very important point covered. i've heard a couple distinct criticisms of k-ar dating yielding results much, much older than the observed date for lava flows and eruptions, or their context in the fossil record.it should be noted that these studies, oft quoted by creationists, are the dates of INCLUSIONS in said lava flows. of course they're going to reveal dates much older, becuase they're dating the rock that has remained unchanged.a much different date can usually be found several centimeters in any direction. these inconsistencies say nothing about the validity of the test.has this been mentioned at all?

Perhaps not directly. What YECs, and many others not involved with dating, don't understand that there are a number of things that a date can mean. The first is that a date may be simply wrong. This happens in a number of ways, but the most common for YEC related literature is misapplication of technique. In other words, using K/Ar technique for a recent lava flow, or K/Ar techniques on a pyroxene separate. These don't make a lot of sense to a mainstream geochronologist, but I have heard of them being used by the mainstream as a last resort; in other words as a shot in the dark. In such a case, the results are viewed very skeptically and they probably are not often published. And for good reasons that even the YECs should agree upon, but instead they cry foul: the spurious results are witheld!This is one of my pet peeves: YECs complain about the assumptions regarding radiometric dates that might invalidate data, and yet when we find that a sample violates these assumptions and reject the data they screech about a conspiracy to omit data. It's as if they are the only ones who understand the methodology. Oh, well.A second reason for misunderstanding is that a date may mean something other than the actual formation of the rock. For instance, secondary alunite will yield a younger date than primary biotite. Is either number wrong? No, they simply date differenct events in the history of the rock.A third and very important (but usually dismissed by YECs) issue is contamination. However, they think only of contamination in the sense that foreign material is introduced or some material is preferentiall lost in the preparation and analysis processes. They often take it as criticism of the laboratory which then means that the labs are undependable. Ah, don't we wish it was that easy! However, the real problem is that, often, rocks are composites of old and young rocks. An example with which you are familiar is the zenolith. Clearly a basement zenolith in a Tertiary granite will have a different date than the pure formm of the granite. This is why we are so careful in collecting samples and YECs are (intentionally?) more careless.Then there is the contamination due to sampling and transmittal procedures. I remember reading about the Jurassic tree branch(?) that sat on someones shelf for a couple of years before dating the sample... NOT good procedure. And yet, there it is in the YEC literature.Don't know if this stream of consciousness helps or not, but hopefully it raises the level of awareness of some of these issues. The point here being that, despite what YECs may think, a lot of thought and effort has gone into the development of radiometric dating techniques.

"..The real problem is that, often, rocks are composites of old and young rocks.""Clearly a basement zenolith in a Tertiary granite will have a different date than the pure formm of the granite."You know, i may not be an expert in this field, and having read through some of the material, it is overwhelming at first. But, I must admit, one thing that is largely showing out of all of this: the assumption that certian rocks are "older" or "younger" than other of the rocks.One way out of the problem is to say that they're composite, and that mixed dates are to be expected. But, isn't this all assuming that content or context of a rock (or rocks) is the age that -we- as human beings say it is? We don't know much of anything about past events that we never saw for ourselves; how then can we say one result is bad while another is good? Good or bad as in relation to who or what?And, let us face this, if an entire establishment has a personal or professional of interest in saying that the earth's rocks are so many of millions of years old (and much of their grants and funding come from defending this paradigm), are they really going to admit (especially to those who say that the earth is of nowhere near millions of years old) that they have built their practice around faulty reasons for a very long time? or that they've had philosophic reasons for wanting the earth to be millions of years old?You accuse "YEC's" (?) of being careless, of intentional falsifying of their works. "Careless" can be a double-edged sword. so can the term "cherry picking" or "fudging". i saw enough of this on state sponsored projects of all varieties many years back, where numbers and charts were fudged a little or alot just to make something appear better than what it really was. sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot, but always with a lie, and always in areas where the normal person had a hard time seeing what was going on.I wonder how much of house cleaning is needed in your own area, since you are all holding supreme in this area, and are making accusations that your critics are themselves liars?how many of the data are thrown out, or are contrary to what the paper reports in bold letters, because they are bad, not what you expect? Let us be honest here; from what I read earlier, observed geologic events don't give dates that match with the actual event. How are we supposed to trust these dates when they are connected to events we never saw, either at the event, or the events leading to or after the isotopes were said to be closed in rock?I live in the real world, have been around and seen how this sort of thing does its work in two opposite cultures. As you say here: Money makes the world go round. And it's no different in science than it is in politics, no different for geologists or geochemists than it is for lawyers and laymen. Especially when personal or academic politics are mixed. If rocks are supposed to be "old" because books, groups, and your friends say so, then it is "old". most people in areas like this don't even question their reasons, because it is so accepted in their circles. Maybe this is why you accuse critics of being liars?I will say for my part that I'd rather err on the side of being cautious regarding -any- interpretation of past events that we never saw for our own selves. Just because someone has a labcoat does not make them immune to the paradigms, peer pressures, or want of the numbers to "come out right" for own personal beliefs. Like I said, i've seen this all too many times in areas much more founded in real-world applied science -medicine, for instance. People are not robots; everyone believes in some kind of thing. and those who believe that a rock is "this" old or "that" old are no different.and personally, my time hearing millions of years from many people have not sounded being very graceful. It reminds me of how engineers were treated when they said to others that things would not work for what the state was wanting, that the numbers weren;t coming out right, and that the reason for wanting big numbers in industry [geology included] was unrealistic and short of sight. They, the state, simply called them liars and wreckers and threw away their critics. Of course, the engineers and their criticisms turned out to be right in the end....Edited by Oleg, : No reason given.

Welcome to the fray Olegsome help on posting quotes:type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:you can also type [quote]quote lines are easy[/quote] and it becomes:I like to use the first for quoting people I am responding to and the second for quoting text from outside sources. Actually it is based on observations made even before radiometric dating. You can visually see where volcanic rock flows around and picks up and transports existing rock in its path. These inclusions then get bedded in the new flows, but they are easy to see as being different.You can see this happening in any active volcanic flow, and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that the old rocks picked up with the new lava are of a different age. False. They have a professional interest in being as correct as possible. The fact that the rock ARE old - and CONSISTENTLY dated old - is not a problem for the scientists that follow where the data goes, only for people that want to believe a fantasy. "YEC" means young earth creationist. A person committed to the concept that the earth is less that 12,000 years tops. Not careless or intentionally falsifying, but intentionally misrepresenting the results and the reality behind the results.This has been demonstrated. Scientists are the most cautious of people. People who rush into the news are usually the fanatics - Pat Robertson comes to mind - responding to new evidence before evaluating it critically.If you think there is a problem with dating then please review Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) and see if you can derive some mechanism that can make all those different annual systems wrong in just the right way.Denial of the evidence of an old earth is not faith.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle, some added commentsEdited by RAZD, : oypt

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Except in science there is bedrock of empiricism.In science there maybe prevailing thought, but hero status awaits for anyone to challenge the paradigm and back it up with evidence. This is where science is superior to religion. Science allows for a change in the navigational course while religion burns its heretics on the stake and remain in error. Consider this. In the business of oil exploration dating of rock is used to aid in finding oil deposits. The same is true for mineral exploration companies and paleontologist in their hunt for their quarry. One test of the validity of a theory is how useful and how well it predicts outcomes. If radiometric dating was completely subjective and just a product of group think then these field would abandon the tool and pull out Genesis instead.

Ah, let me guess: this won't stop you from critiquing the methods, right? Yep, right out of the professional YEC talking points. Which website did you use to become so knowledgable about radiometric dating?And what makes you think we can't tell which rocks are 'younger' or 'older'? This is some of the most basic stuff one learns in Geology. Ooops, you left out a critical step. After making such an hypothesis we look for evidence that it is so. Are you saying that anything we have not witnessed is uknowable? Are you saying that past events have left no mark in the geological record? In relation to other data. No radiometric date lives in a complete information vacuum. We do know certain things about the rock or can infer it from previous work. US?? Sorry, you're going to have to face this one yourself. So, you're saying it's a conspiracy? You're saying that virtually
ALL geoscientists are deceivers? You really believe this? If so, we have no grounds for future discussion. Well, it has been documented. How is that? And you never did anything about it? And you expect us to take your word here? As an admitted co-conspirator? As I said, let the facts speak for themselves. Want an example? And just how do you know they have been thrown out? Which one of your favorite websites has told you this? Please document. What did you read and where did you read it? Please be honest now. Examples please. We cannot address vague accusations. What dates? You have not given us any. Clearly, you know more about the dark side of science than I do. Where did you learn this? No. This is not always the case. You are talking about a cover-up of stupendous proportions. How long do you think something like that would last? I'm glad you are so knowledgable about scientists. Are you a psychologist? No, it is because we can document the occasions. Or we could just avoid doint it at all. Or maybe next week, I'll tell my boss that I can't answer his question for another century or so. That'll work. Sorry, but I live in the real world, too. Again, you don't think there is one honest scientist out there do you? Thanks for the vote of confidence. Well, goodness, we wouldn't want that now, would we? I thought you said there were all these conspiracies to cover up the truth.Also, please document. You give us a little anecdote without any specifics and how are we supposed to address it? Escpecially when it isn't about scientist covering anything up???

We have a saying; "If you speak well for one that is a wolf, you should speak against him too."Past events leave evidence, true; and we can interpret that evidence based on paradigm we chose, correct.... But, simple fact is that we construct paradigms to interpret evidence; the evidence does not speak for itself. If amount of much argon in sample is interpreted as result of decay, then I will read it as being millions of years old; if inclusion is what I see, then it will read something else. We can interpret something as inclusion, and we can make best guesses as to when and where things happen; but the bottom line is that we have man-made constructed ideas which to frame this together.You say:
"'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,..”Sufficient is fine; but potassium is not question, it is argon content in example given.“ . and you have to have had enough time for measureable amounts of argon to have been produced by the slow decay of 40K.”Here is assumption and problem. How does one know that measurable amounts of argon (which there was in Austin example) are due to “slow decay” that you state? There isn’t any way to know, you assume it by super powers of magic eyesight, apparently. you have to yell about how inclusion from old rock was made in sample (even though you assume this, you were not there), and call researcher a liar. What I find strange: You are angry at me for saying that your side does so, even when evidence given here seems to agree with that in this example. So, example given shows that sample had argon when content was supposed to be nothing. All you can do is call research a lie. Sounds very much of faithful want from you, agreed?And yes I do have to be a psychologist in your case, since you are avoiding some evidence which calls into question your “profession”.. which is funny; if you are geologist, then why so much time on internet? I posted for first time, to see if intelligent conversation can be had; but you make full time career of this! Are you still in schooling? Because if you speak like this in workplace, I cannot imagine you keeping your job for very long time. ;To other commentators-
Geologists interpret oil deposits and such things based on association of certain strata, of certain features (same as how fossil hunting is looked for by certain markers or features); interpreted age has nothing to do with it. If ecological zones were buried over a years time, with later geologic processes occurring, certain associations of strata or features will be made, same as how uniform ideas would expect. Problem is that we were not there to see it, either forming, moving, or how quickly or slowly it happened. But, we have circumstantial evidence, both of us. It is a case of some evidence potential in leaning both ways at times; you choose however to interpret it in your own way, without any thought to other possibilities. I can at least say; “Yes, uniform erosion happens -now- in certain instances But not in every case (such as sedimentation being ”gradual’; it is not always)”.Americans speak about open minds and freedom of speech. When dealing with the past, we should be open minded about how uniform processes might or might not have played a part in any of it; same as with catastrophes. And, we should have ability to speak openly about this, and not be shouted down when the question is asked, and carefully documented examples, experiments, and results are given. None of this would be a problem I believe if you weren’t all, along with establishment, so much of the zealots in defending millions of years and Darwin. But then again, all of your words here tell me that you have a deep love and faith for what you call “science”, even when it isn’t strictly science. (again you believe that rocks or isotope content means millions of years; you did not observe it forming or decaying, yes?)If earth was covered today, and oil was produced in rich vegetated environments, would we expect to find oil in areas in what was (at time of burial) not vegetated? We would look for geologic markers that may clue us in to oil deposit, areas that may have been vegetated once; and we would make notes of it, and look for same things again. Sometimes it works, sometimes no. Catastrophes aren’t always uniform..
I recall cases in Russia where oil deposits, mineral veins, and so on, were expected, but strata did not line up. call this thing an anomaly, or as missing strata, or as unconformity, but it happens, and more often than normally; enough so to call in question the uniform idea you are advocating. (as a footnote, geologists in this case could not cover up by simply saying the age of a rock was less or more, or that unconformity was real; they came up empty handed with the ore they were expected to find. They were punished by state for not meeting their deadline . . in other words, they went to prison. Remember, Russia was once ruled by Marxism, which if I am not mistaken, advocates the idea that earth is an accidental millions of year old thing, with no God . )So, the main question is still there: if age is assumed (older or younger), then isn't one begging question in assuming that certain isotope numbers mean only age? And, how does one determine if argon content is due to decay or inclusion? In the end, one cannot You are having to assume it.Reading through previous thread, there is the example of Austin pulling different ages from sample that was made -several years- previous: same parts of rock had different features that would be expected otherwise to be similar when closed. Argon content showed that degassing did not happen fully at time of making. So, if we can time surely the making of a geologic feature or sample, and it is telling us something very wrong, why is it trustworthy in cases we cannot have seen?
. I have heard similar things regarding zircon crystal samples having too much helium; which over time, should have degassed if it were so old. But it looks as if they are younger than you would want. The fact that the zircon is not degassed causes you all to state; “Well, anomaly. It means that the normal method of physical chemistry did not happen, but something external happened to have zircons with so much helium..” Exactly what your opponents have said! Yet, when it suits you, you call into question normal expected chemistry, and say that something strange, unobserved, happened. Why is it ok for you to say so, but not your opponents? You cannot have it both ways.Your attitude speaks quite clearly to me, as do rest of you. You call idea of catastrophe on global scale, which produced many signposts of geologic featuring, a "fantasy". Could it be that, despite all evidence for catastrophe, an old lawyer has given you your own fantasy of these millions of years? You can yell all you like, but these questions and realities will remain. The same as Marxism and Bolshevism, your model and protection of it will not last. It never will; no lie does.Edited by Oleg, : No reason given.

This topic has been dormant for nearly two years, but the new posts have much potential for drawing this thread off-topic, so I want to caution participants early to stay on topic. New members should give the Forum Guidelines a careful read.The topic of this thread is the validity of K/Ar dating.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Actually, due to the gaseous nature of argon it's virtually certain that 99% of the time the argon in appropriately selected and properly prepared samples is due to great age and radioactive decay of potassium. Argon tends to bubble out of liquids ...But that notwithstanding, there are ways to know that the measureable amounts of argon are due to slow decay, one ofwhich is the argon-argon method.I suggest you learn something of how radiometric dating actually works. Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective is a classic and accurate resource.Maybe a few of our dates are wrong because of the potential problem you cite. The vast majority of them aren't wrong.

Joe has also addressed the issue a argon dating and the misapplication of it by the RATE group:More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research

quote:

---

This rock (from Madagascar) would give a K-Ar age of 1997 +/- 4 Ma. The problem is that it contains excess argon (note the extremely old ages at either end of the 'saddle'. Ar-Ar analyses clearly shows the presence of excess argon and the presence of excess argon makes dating of this sample difficult. Austin KNOWS that olivine is not suitable for precision K-Ar dating and he KNOWS that Ar-Ar dating would reveal the excess argon, but he will only perform K-Ar because it is guaranteed to give a spurious result. There is no science in this proposal and the results are guaranteed before conducting the experiments. I argue that $50,000 could be more wisely spent feeding hungry children in third world countries rather than perpetrating scientific fraud!

---

That kind of puts it in a nutshell eh?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And the problem is? Are you saying that all pardigms are wrong? Are you saying that YECs do not use paradigms? I don't get your point. HOwever, I see this as a very simple solution for you. Show that the paradigms in use are incorrect. Why has this not been done? Incorrect. If there is little potassium to generate argon, then the result is difficulty in separating the signal from the background. So, low [K]rocks are not ideal samples for K/Ar dating. It is all very simple. See the quote from Joe Meert in RAZD's post below. This data is not generated in a vacuum. We know certain things about the rocks beforehand. For instance, I know that a tholeitic basalt has pyroxene which is a known bad-actor because of argon retention. On the other hand microcline or adularia are better because there is no track record of them being significantly argon retaining; and at the same time they have high [K], so that the signal to noise ration is much higher. No, we have experience. Who's yelling? Well, don't know about any particular case, but in some cases it has been documented and in one case, I believe Austin has admitted to the presence of zenoliths. He also provides rock descriptions that are a bit sketchy, suggesting poor technique. Who's angry? I'm beginning to think you are projecting here... And who said that it was supposed to be nothing? A YEC? No entiendo. What are you saying? Yes some research is flawed and when it is to the advantage of the researched for it to be flawed, you should be skeptical.