Now I know that Alfred Wegener`s theory is wrong!

There have been a few studies in which supposedly young materials were dated by the K-Ar method as millions of years old. It turns out that these materials were actually a mix of young material and much older material, so the conclusions are obviously invalid.The Grand Canyon study was not done on rocks from the top of the canyon and from the bottom. It was on samples from four separate lava flows on top of the canyon, and on one phenocryst from one of the flows. The theory of isochrons predicts that such a study will not produce the age of any of the lava flows… and it didn't. So the theory is supported rather than undermined by this result. But, in fact, the determined age is almost certainly correct!! The isochron method measures the age at which the samples were isotopically homogeneneous, which for the samples from separate flows was not when they erupted (at differnt times) but was when they were all together in the mantle under the GC. 1.34 billion years ago, as determined by Austin's "study".In at least some of these cases the investigator knew (and in all of them he should have known) that the claimed errors were not errors at all, but were instead the product of deliberate and fraudulent sample selection and misrepresentation.Finally, all tests are subject to an error rate. None of the problems you cited are valid. Even if they were, a few bad results, even a few hundred bad results, are a minuscule fraction of the many results consilient with each other and with non-radiometric methods. A few failures means nothing.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This argument doesn't impress me much. Any chunk of rock can be put into the equipment, analyzed, and a result will be produced. Of course, if the material is indeed orders of magnitude younger than the half-life of the isotope(s) involved, the results will be wildly inaccurate. But there's no inherent error involved in submitting a young sample to test the method, if you're willing to pay for the analysis. The error lies in claiming that the result is relevant to the validity of all dating methods.Of course, in all of the creationist "studies" of this type that I'm aware of, the "young" material was in fact a mixture of old and young material. The results clearly show that when you date a mixture of old and young material, the result is not the age of the young material. Duh.

You may be familiar with these, but FWIW.Young lava flows producing old ages: Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano
discussed at:
Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient MineralsRadioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years
The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon "Ages" for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon "Dating"
discussed briefly at:
DR. SNELLING'S "RADIOACTIVE 'DATING' FAILURE"
From the second Snelling article:

quote:

---

All samples were sent first for sectioning one thin section from each sample for petrographic analysis. A set of representative pieces from each sample (approximately 100 g) was then despatched to the AMDEL Laboratory in Adelaide, South Australia, for whole-rock major, minor and trace element analyses. A second representative set (50—100 g from each sample) was sent progressively to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge (Boston), Massachusetts, for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating first a split from one sample from each flow, then a split from the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, the split from the third sample from the June 30, 1954 flow. ...

​

Because the sample pieces were submitted as whole rocks, the K-Ar laboratory undertook the crushing and pulverizing preparatory work. The concentrations of K2O (weight %) were then measured by the flame photometry method (Dalrymple & Lanphere, 1969), the reported values being the averages of two readings for each sample. The 40K concentrations (ppm) were calculated from the terrestrial isotopic abundance using the measured concentrations of K2O. The concentrations in ppm of 40Ar*, the supposed radiogenic 40Ar, were derived using the conventional formula from isotope dilution measurements on a mass spectrometer by correcting for the presence of atmospheric argon whose isotopic composition is known (Dalrymple & Lanphere). The reported concentrations of 40Ar* are the averages of two values for each sample. The ratios 40Ar*/Total Ar and 40Ar/36Ar are also derived from measurements on the mass spectrometer and are also the averages of two values for each sample. ...

​

Steiner (1958) stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lava, but also noted that Battey (1949) reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material. However, many of these aggregates are more accurately described as glomerocrysts and mafic (gabbro, websterite) nodules (Graham et al., 1995). They are 3—5 mm across, generally have hypidiomorphic-granular textures, and consist of plagioclase, orthopyroxene, and clinopyroxene in varying proportions, and very occasionally olivine. The true xenoliths are often rounded and invariably consist of fine quartzose material. Steiner also described much larger xenoliths of quartzo-feldspathic composition and relic gneissic structure.

---

{emphasis added}AKA "smoking gun".GC lava isochron:
Excessively Old "Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows
discussed at:
A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.