Potassium Argon Sensitivity Analysis

K-Ar dating is not reliable at all, and evolutionists that have done their homework know this, but steer clear of the topic because this is one of their "proofs" for their 4.6 billion year earth age.

This 10 minute video [click on this text] will explain it in detail. (I won't embed it because I'm not sure that's allowed on this forum)

After watching the video, you can see the evolutionists that have studied this out know it doesn't work. [all the documentation is in the annotations on the video, and you can look it up for yourself] But you see, they don't base their theory on the evidence... they reshape the evidence until it matches their theory. That's not science.

In your own words, please, in accordance with the forum rules.

creationliberty writes: This 10 minute video [click on this text] will explain it in detail. (I won't embed it because I'm not sure that's allowed on this forum)

Embedding videos is fine, but...

After watching the video, you can see the evolutionists that have studied this out know it doesn't work. [all the documentation is in the annotations on the video, and you can look it up for yourself] But you see, they don't base their theory on the evidence... they reshape the evidence until it matches their theory. That's not science.

But letting others do your talking for you isn't. These rules are from the Forum Guidelines:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

--Percy

quote:

---

But letting others do your talking for you isn't.
In your own words, please, in accordance with the forum rules.

---

That's me. I am doing the talking. Those are my own words. I apologize for not making that clear. I just don't feel like writing a novel for everyone else when I've already recorded it once.

Edited by creationliberty, : No reason given.

there are lots of diferent dating methods that do not work on the priciple of atom decay and they still point to the same timescale thus supporting the dating methods you do not like

to name a few

Stratigraphy
Seriation
faunal dating
amino acid racimization
Cation-ratio dating
Thermoluminescence dating

and i guess they are also all wrong cause they support other dating methods like radiocarbon dating and that is a no no cause the erth cannot be older than 6000 years that would go against the bible and the word of your god.

Correct, there are lots of different dating methods. And ALL are based on the same ASSUMPTIONS. Listing the names of a bunch of dating methods does NOT provide evidence that they are accurate. After as many posts as you seem to have, I would have figured you'd know better than to try something like that.

I discuss the basic flaws in dating methods in "The Carbon Dating Game" at creationliberty.org.

Repeating from the Forum Guidelines:

4. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Also, cutting and pasting your own words from articles you've written, which is what you're doing in other threads, is not discussion.

--Percy

so what is the assumption in Thermoluminescence dating or Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)

creationliberty writes: Correct, there are lots of different dating methods. And ALL are based on the same ASSUMPTIONS. Listing the names of a bunch of dating methods does NOT provide evidence that they are accurate. After as many posts as you seem to have, I would have figured you'd know better than to try something like that.

But Frako isn't doing anything to violate the Forum Guidelines, while you are.

I discuss the basic flaws in dating methods in "The Carbon Dating Game" at creationliberty.org.

We do not debate by link here. If you have an on-topic argument to make in this thread then post the argument here.

--Percy

il give you a bit of help so you will know how the dating methods work so you wont google your time away.

Thermoluminescence dating is very useful for determining the age of pottery. Electrons from quartz and other minerals in the pottery clay are bumped out of their normal positions (ground state) when the clay is exposed to radiation. This radiation may come from radioactive substances such as uranium, present in the clay or burial medium, or from cosmic radiation. When the ceramic is heated to a very high temperature (over 932°F [500°C]), these electrons fall back to the ground state, emitting light in the process and resetting the "clock" to zero. The longer the radiation exposure, the more electrons get bumped into an excited state. With more electrons in an excited state, more light is emitted upon heating. The process of displacing electrons begins again after the object cools. Scientists can determine how many years have passed since a ceramic was fired by heating it in the laboratory and measuring how much light is given off. Thermoluminescence dating has the advantage of covering the time interval between radiocarbon and potassium-argon dating, or 40,000–200,000 years. In addition, it can be used to date materials that cannot be dated with these other two methods.

from http://www.enotes.com/earth-science/dating-methods

and

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) has only been used since 1984. It is very similar to thermoluminescence dating, both of which are considered "clock setting" techniques. Minerals found in sediments are sensitive to light. Electrons found in the sediment grains leave the ground state when exposed to light, called recombination. To determine the age of sediment, scientists expose grains to a known amount of light and compare these grains with the unknown sediment. This technique can be used to determine the age of unheated sediments less than 500,000 years old. A disadvantage to this technique is that in order to get accurate results, the sediment to be tested cannot be exposed to light (which would reset the "clock"), making sampling difficult.

from the same site

these quotes give a detailed description of how the 2 dating methods work so tell me where lies the unproven assumption

So what assumptions does Stratigraphy make? What assumptions does tree-ring dating make? It's obvious you are just trying to get some views for your website, thus making you no better than a spammer, but if you would like to debate the material presented, do so HERE.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

I discuss the basic flaws in dating methods in "The Carbon Dating Game" at creationliberty.org.

Good for you.

But can you bring your arguments here where you might face some folks knowledgeable in the subject?

We have several threads on C14 dating, and I'd love to see you bring your arguments here.

By the way, I do a lot of C14 dating in my work and am pretty familiar with the method and its potential problems. Are you? Or are you one of the "assumptions automatically = wrong" creationists?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

i can anwser the tree ring dating one the problem lies that trees sometimes make rings more often than in one year though it is not known why some speculate it has to do whit humidity and temperature so as an exsact dating method it fails though as an aproximate dating method it is ok so if you get 3000 rings in a tree it could be that the tree is only 2500 years old it dosent give an exsact age but sets the ballpark

Right, but he said, and I quote,

Message 51

christianliberty writes: ...And ALL are based on the same ASSUMPTIONS....

so C14 dating hardly makes the mistake of tress sometimes having too many rings in one year.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

There are a number of species that do not do more than one ring a year. That's why those are chosen for tree-ring dating. Bristlecone pines are a good example.