Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all

We have observational data which confirms that the speed of light has not varied significantly for far longer than YEC views permit. Why would we need experimental data in addition ? Apparently you think that a clear disproof is insufficient to rule out Setterfield's claims.As for the rest of your post, it appears to come from fantasy land. It has no basis in what I said, nor is it clear as to what it is intended too mean.So what ARE my "biased dogmatic speculations" and why do you call them such ? Where are they in the post you were replying to ? Or is this just an excuse to keep using personal attacks rather than admit to the facts ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-30-2003]

quote:

---

The higher elements and/or their isotopes seem (to me) to have to be there first

---

Why?But more importantly, it doesn't matter anyway because the clocks are reset by such things as heat. It is for this reason that people date lava flows, for example. The heat of the eruption resets the clock.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

As with any other means of aging, light decay (or progression) isn't accurately known whether it stays the same throughout all space and time. If I walked outside to the highway, and see a car heading east toward Chicago at a constant speed and direction, that would not PROVE that the car started in Oregon four days ago. Similarly, it is too difficult to tell how fast light traveled 4 million light years from earth, 6 thousand years ago.

As I pointed out in post 9 fact is that we do have observational data disproving Setterfield's claim - which states that light speed has only recently stopped changing (at the time when we were able to measure light speed accurately enough to know that it was not changing - want to think on why that might be ?).

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.

G. Brent Dalrymple, USGS Open Report #86-110, United States Geological Survey, 1986 :Fourteen rock strata were aged with potassium-argon method, yielding dates from 1.3 - 64.8 million years old (each successively lower strata measured "older" than the ones above it).If potassium "leaching" was a serious problem for geologists, one would think Dalrymple's results impossible.On the other hand...John Christie (Chemistry professor, Australia) Page not found, La Trobe UniversityChristie quietly explains that radiometric dating techniques ought not be considered accurate unless measuring times within 0.5 to 3.5 half-lives of the decaying isotope. For K-Ar, that means only using the method to date rocks between 550 million - 3.5 billion years old.In other words, the geological survey referenced above (widely quoted as a source to "prove" the validity of radiometric dating), should be considered a waste of taxpayer funds.When are geologists going to get their collective heads out of the sand, and start practicing true science? This means going back and eschewing all data collected prior to, and contrary to, currently established scientific principles. And stop dating paleontologists with great bones.

I'm no physicist, but that seems like an arbitrary cutoff to me. I mean, how accurate radiodating will be would seem to rely on sensitivity of detecting equipment, as well as the original composition and amount of radioisotope (rocks that started with greater amounts of radioisotope will allow for more accurate dating over longer periods of time), not arbitrary cutoffs based on half-life multiples.Maybe that's why it's a "quiet suggestion", cuz it's wrong? That's a pretty bold claim - what "true science" have you been doing these days?

Has anyone investigated the effect on elements of the constant bombardment of the earth by cosmic rays?Since this phenomenon has only recently been identified, and is hardly "understood" (including such phenomena as solar wind and how it interacts with earth's geomagnetic field) by cosmologists, I'm wondering how much true science exists in geology to address this.When a cosmologist tells me that most neutrinos zip right through the entire planet, popping out the other side unaffected, my mind wonders about "particles" which impinge and do NOT make it out the other side. What happens to them? Presumably they "strike" some atom and interact with it in some way. I've not read an explanation of this phenomenon on a global scale, can someone help me find one?Could radioactive decay only be constant because the bombardment of the planet by cosmic rays is constant? No matter how thick or thin I make my shielding to set up a test, the variation I could achieve would be incomparably minute with that of the thickness of the earth's crust, let alone the entire planet. I doubt I could conduct a valid test in this manner.Am I forgetting something?

Different dating methods use different elements with differnt decay mechanisms. I would say that the fact that different dating methodes are all able to date a given sample with the same age argues strongly for a constant decay rate. I think it would be highly unlikely that your bombardment of particles would have the same effect on all 3(4?) differnt decay mechanisms.On the otherhand there are far more qualified persons on this board to answer this, so if I were u I would have more faith in their answers. This is just my guess [This message has been edited by dinoflagulates, 05-10-2003]

quote:

---

G. Brent Dalrymple, USGS Open Report #86-110, United States Geological Survey, 1986 :
Fourteen rock strata were aged with potassium-argon method, yielding dates from 1.3 - 64.8 million years old (each successively lower strata measured "older" than the ones above it).

​

If potassium "leaching" was a serious problem for geologists, one would think Dalrymple's results impossible.

---

Let me guess: Perhaps it is not a serious problem for geologists?

quote:

---

On the other hand...

​

John Christie (Chemistry professor, Australia) Page not found, La Trobe University

​

Christie quietly explains that radiometric dating techniques ought not be considered accurate unless measuring times within 0.5 to 3.5 half-lives of the decaying isotope. For K-Ar, that means only using the method to date rocks between 550 million - 3.5 billion years old.

---

Hmm, my old college text suggests that K-Ar dating is valid to dates under 100ky under good conditions. Does Christie specifically mention K-Ar dating methods or is he just suggesting a rule of thumb? I cannot tell from the website that you reference.

quote:

---

In other words, the geological survey referenced above (widely quoted as a source to "prove" the validity of radiometric dating), should be considered a waste of taxpayer funds.

---

Somehow, I think I'll take Dalrymple's work in peer-reviewed journals over your interpretation of an offhand comment by someone whom I cannot tell has ever done a radiometric date.

quote:

---

When are geologists going to get their collective heads out of the sand, and start practicing true science?

---

Oh, I don't know... When are YECs going to get their heads out of other dark places and actually learn something about radiometric dating from somewhere other than YEC websites?

quote:

---

This means going back and eschewing all data collected prior to, and contrary to, currently established scientific principles.

---

Okay, let us know just what those principles are and we can discuss them. As yet you have not stated why current practices in geochronology are invalid.

Thanks for putting me in my place -- I'm no scientist at all!However, I do believe the reason behind the cutoffs has to do with the shape of the radioactive decay curves -- it's primarily due to the mathematics involved in exponential functions.Even you and I are aware that it is nonsense to consider the "half-life" of a single atom. Technology has advanced to where microcircuit manufacturers can reliably deposit materials just a few atoms thick, and it's amazing the kinds of wierd things that start to happen with such materials. Metallic atoms can be "blown away" by "electron wind" caused by a small voltage differential -- even when presumably sandwiched between two layers of glass. (I've seen videotapes of this presented at the IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium as early as 1987)It's also nonsense to extrapolate radioactive decay phenomena to 100% pure samples of any substance. No such sample can be achieved in reality... and we can't say for certain what happens if you were to somehow obtain such a sample. But you're right, I can't comment on whether or not Christie is correct, because he is well beyond me in his knowledge of chemistry.Perhaps there are articles taking issue with the 0.5 - 3.5 half-life limits? If so, I'd like to read them.

OOPS! Sorry, I directed to the wrong site. The discussion on radioactive decay by Christie is found at the address below:http://madsci.wustl.edu/...rchives/dec96/851508824.Ch.r.html

quote:

---

Has anyone investigated the effect on elements of the constant bombardment of the earth by cosmic rays?

---

Dino has made a good point here. But there are others. For instance, if the cosmic ray flux was so high that elements would be so affected in their nuclear reactions, life would probably not be possible on earth. You also have to remember that when we analyze a sample, we are taking a sample of thousands, if not millions of atoms. And most of these atoms have spent most of their time rocks shielded far away from the effects of cosmic rays.

quote:

---

Since this phenomenon has only recently been identified, and is hardly "understood" (including such phenomena as solar wind and how it interacts with earth's geomagnetic field) by cosmologists, I'm wondering how much true science exists in geology to address this.

---

Well, when you get a better understanding of it, let us know. We cannot discuss conjecture very productively.

quote:

---

When a cosmologist tells me that most neutrinos zip right through the entire planet, popping out the other side unaffected, my mind wonders about "particles" which impinge and do NOT make it out the other side.

---

Maybe most of them do not penetrate very far, perhaps?

quote:

---

What happens to them? Presumably they "strike" some atom and interact with it in some way. I've not read an explanation of this phenomenon on a global scale, can someone help me find one?

---

Probably not important to this discussion, but let us know if you find anything.

quote:

---

Could radioactive decay only be constant because the bombardment of the planet by cosmic rays is constant?

---

Well, show us how cosmic rays have penetrated into the crust of the earth and then we can discuss this intelligently.

quote:

---

No matter how thick or thin I make my shielding to set up a test, the variation I could achieve would be incomparably minute with that of the thickness of the earth's crust, let alone the entire planet. I doubt I could conduct a valid test in this manner.

---

Well, that is the point, isn't it? If your flimsy shield halts cosmic rays, then how about several feet of earth and rock? Besides, how do we even survive on the surface of the earth, relatively unshielded? Do you think that nuclear reactions are less resistant to cosmic ray bombardment than organic reactions?We may not have all of the data here, but certainly we can make some logical arguments against your proposed 'problems' with radiometric dating.

quote:

---

Am I forgetting something?

---

Hmmm, maybe a textbook on geochronology?

See my reply to Crashfrog and accept my apology for the confusion.However, for the record, I do not consider myself a YEC. I assume that has something to do with young earth creationism?Rather, I have believed in an age around 4 billion years for the earth and 15 - 20 billion for the universe, though I'd tend to lean on a longer time period for the universe, partly because of new cosmological developments (structure found in the placement of galaxies within the universe, etc.).

quote:

---

However, I do believe the reason behind the cutoffs has to do with the shape of the radioactive decay curves -- it's primarily due to the mathematics involved in exponential functions.

---

Yes, it probably does. However, 'optimum' ranges that Christie discusses are not the same as operational ranges. These all depend on more issues than simply the rate of decay. By the way, I note the he is a proponent of radiometric dating and certainly an anti-creationist. Why do you find him credible on this minor issue?