Unexpected Dates.

quote:

---

Lastly. The dating techniques I still not sure one way or the other. It is based of the deteriation cicles of certain elements in the bones, but how can you be sure what the element ratio was in the beginning? A living Mollusk was carbon dated, and found to have been dead for 3000 year. This must be because there were already of the deteriated material in the Mollusk.(Science, Vol 141 (1963) pg 634)
Lava rocks were dated by the more reliable Potassium Argon Method to be 3 billion years old, yet the volcano errupted in 1801. (Journal of Geophysical research Vol 73 July 15, 1968, Pg 4601)

---

Joe Meert and others have already made substantial replys to this topic, but I'll add a few comments.Both of the above originated in peer reviewed journals. Apparently, both articles are about studies of situations where the respective radiometric methods gave erronious results. I must presume that there was also substantial discussion (in the original articles), on why the methods gave the results. I must also presume that the creationist(s) have chosen to focus in on the bad results, and ignore the discussion on the whys of the bad results.Joe has covered the K/Ar question. My only comment is the question: Is that 3 billion year date a typo, the real number being 3 million years? Not that it really matters in the scope this discussion.As for the carbon dating of mollusk shells. I have posted on this before, at one of the radiometric dating topics. I pulled the info from my isotope geology text.For radiocarbon dating to be accurate, the carbon in question must have been in equilibrium with the atmosphere at the time of the life forms death. Or in the above case, while the mollusk is living. But the carbon content of seawater is often not in equilibrium with the atmosphere of the time. Rather, the carbon ratios perhaps reflects an atmosphere contact of the past. Or perhaps the carbon ratios of the sea floor sediment. There are also other potential problems.Reference:
Principles of Isotope Geology, Gunter Faure, 1977, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.The dating of shells is discussed on pages 315-317.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-10-2002][This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-10-2002]

Mammuthus:There is no easy way to clean things up, when a topic migrates into an area not reflected by the topic title.Since the "dating" part of this topic seems to be rather minimal, and has been left behind, the best I can do is to close the topic.I suggest you start a new topic in the "Evolution" forum, with a reference back to this topic. Anyone wanting to do such for the dating portion of the thread, can also start a new "Dates and Dating" forum topic (or is there a suitable existing topic?).If the above is done, I can reopen this topic, to add link(s) to the new topics.As such housekeeping is getting quite involved at this site, individuals may wish to contact me by e-mail, to help in this organization. I'm at mnmoose@lakenet.com . This address is also available in my profile.By the way, Percy (aka Admin) has informed me that he continues to be very busy in doing his other functions in life.After I post this, I will close the thread.Best regards to all,
Adminnemooseus (Moose in admin mode)Added by edit:
I wish to stress that the closing of this topic is purely a housekeeping function. It is in no way a reaction to the behavior of any of the participants, or the quality of the messages. In specific, I wish to stress that it is not in any way a condemnation of any actions by Hanno[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-11-2002]