Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all

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:

---

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.

Coragyps, consider yourself the gentleman among the thieves. You have been the only one with tact and ability thus far. Percipient, thank you for the website addresses. I was not aware that the same info was on the web, since I had to actually read it, and thus copy it by my own typing. And incase I had overlooked my own references, I did add the authors name, date, publication, page number, etc. I would suggest that you read the material that was cited yourself.[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003]

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."[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003]

Ollson and Liu, p.127, cited by Oard, 1995; Polar Dinosaurs and the Genesis Flood. Creation Research Quarterly)[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-26-2003]

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?

1. Fastovsky, D.E. and Weishampel, D.B.; 1996, The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs; Cambridge Univ. Press, London, p.391

. Cousin, R.; Breton, G.; Fournier, R.; and Watt, J.-P., 1994. Dinosaur egglaying and nesting in France. In: Dinosaur Eggs and Babies, K. Carpenter; K.F. Hirsch and J.R. Horner (eds), Cambridge Univ. Press, London, p. 57

Sahni, A.; Tandon, S.K.; Jolly, A.; Bajpai, S.; Sood, A.; and Srinivasin, S.; 1994. Upper Cretaceous dinosaur eggs and nesting sites from the Deccan volcano-sedimentary province of peninsular India. In: Dinosaur Eggs and Babies, , K. Carpenter; K.F. Hirsch and J.R. Horner (eds), Cambridge Univ. Press, London, p. 208

Alvarez, W.; Asaro, F.; Michel, H.V.; and Alvarez, L.W.; 1982. Iridium anomaly approximately synchronous with terminal Eocene extinctions. Science, 216: 888

Sloan, R.E.; Rigby, Jr., J.K.; Van Valen, L.M.; and Gabriel, D.; 1986. Gradual dinosaur extinction and simultaneous ungulate radiation in the Hell Creek Formation. Science, 232: 629-633

Rigby, Jr., J.K.; Newman, K.R.; Smit, J.; Van Der Kaars, S.; Sloan, R.E.; and Rigby, J.K.; 1987. Dinosaurs from the Palaeocene part of the Hell Creek Formation, McCone County, Montana. Palaios, 2: 296-302

J.C. Briggs, 1994. Mass Extinction: fact or fallacy? In: Glen, W., 1994; How Science Works in the Debates; In: The Mass Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, W. Glen (ed.); Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, California, p.233,234

Sloan, R.E.; Rigby, Jr., J.K.; Van Valen, L.M.; and Gabriel, D.; 1986. Gradual dinosaur extinction and simultaneous ungulate radiation in the Hell Creek Formation. Science, 232:629