Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all

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.

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?

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

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.).

I'll accept your criticism on my lack of understanding of the science of geochronology. And while I admit I'm no scientist, I do not admit to complete ignorance of the subject.For example, our bodies contain enough radioactive potassium alone to cause us to create a false-positive test for Radon gas in one of those in-home canisters. All we need do is place it near a spot where we regularly spend a lot of time.We now know that the amount of radiation hitting the poles of our planet differs greatly in nature and quantity, compared to that which hits the equator and temperate zones. The Northern and Southern light shows attest to this fact. Is it a coincidence that the "oldest" rocks are those found at deeper levels?We also know that shielding plays an important role in keeping things from "becoming radioactive". Astrophysicists can determine the effectiveness of different materials and thicknesses of those materials in order to develop the most cost-effective shielding for spacecraft.What's so bad about extrapolating the concept of shielding (known to protect things in space) to the earth's crust? In other words, what impact do the layers of rock have on the amount of radiation penetrating to deeper layers. Is this effect not measurable? Why do geologists and geochronologists refuse to even consider this effect? Hence my comment about heads in sand...For those who think I'm out on a limb, consider the following:"Because the geomagnetic field provides shielding against incoming cosmic rays, its strength determines the amount of this radiation that reaches the upper atmosphere. Reactions with these cosmic rays produces radioactive isotopes of certain elements such as 10Be, 14C, 36Cl, 3He, and others that are useful for dating and correlating geologic materials. Fluctuations in magnetic field strength, however, determine the amount of nuclides produced at any given time and uncertainties in production rates are a major factor affecting the accuracy of age determinations. By accurately determining geomagnetic paleointensity through time, the production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides can be established more closely, thus enhancing the various dating methods."Taken from :
USGS URL Resolution Error Page

Thanks, Percy. This is definitely something I need to begin doing. (Cross-check information from multiple sources on the web)Also, thanks for the analysis on appropriate ranges for dating techniques.

Good read. Unfortunately, I get the same feeling whenever I listen to people claim that we're zeroing in on the actual age of the universe.There was a time when scientists started claiming that we'd learned all there was to know, and the rest was "unknowable". Then along came the 20th century...Personally, I'm in favor of taking a step back in just about every scientific discipline and look at what the other disciplines are able to assert as fact. In truth, this desire led me to this website, where I'd hope to find some good starting points to look at what all of the different disciplines within science now assert as fact.Am I the only one who feels frustrated, thinking that we have too many "specialists"? They seem to be taking us down extremely deep ratholes, due to the fact that their work is based on assumptions that have, in the meantime, been overturned by other scientists outside their sphere of knowledge.This phenomenon (of specialism) was not a problem just 50 years ago. But with the advent of the computer and the Internet, it's just too easy to spot the incongruities between different scientific communities.Maybe it's always been like this... and the Internet is simply making it more visible to the non-scientists (like me)?

Thanks, this is exactly the type of info I've been looking for. It will take me some time to read through the sites that came up.