Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all

http://www.megspace.com/science/simplecell/"(The experimental evidences) show that in the presence of a current, strata in a sequence are not successive. Change of orientation in stratification, or erosion surfaces between facies of the same sequence, or between superimposed sequences, may not necessarily indicate the existence of a halt in sedimentation, and can result from a variation in the velocity of an uninterrupted current. Bed plane partings separating facies or sequences can result from desication following the withdrawal of water."-Guy Berthault, "Geologic Dating Principles Questioned- Paleohydraulics: A New Approach", Fusion (May/June 2000, Editions Alcuin-Paris), translated, 7th page, ConclusionsIn other words, the physical evidence we observe in seeing stratified layers is not indicative of a time-related event (at least in terms of uniformitarian ideals). Stratification can take up to next to no time to occur (uniformitarian-wise).[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-20-2003]

Hey there. Thanks for the response. I know that radiometric dating techniques are usually referred to as being the independent check on estimations regarding age determinations. But indeed, after going over some of my old notes and discussions on the issue, with the likes of one assistant professor whom I debated some time back, it just seems more and more that the "independent" nature of the dating methods are no such thing. They invariably rely upon many assumptions within the framework of the research methodology itself, as well as the fossil interpretations ahead of time to supply a determination of "correct" dates. I have cited these examples before, and for the sake of being concise, I'll list them briefly:The KBS Tuff shows very clearly that the various dating methods used (K/Ar, Ar/Ar, fission track dating, paleomagnetism) relied upon the numbers obtained from each other as the starting point to calibrate their own research:The correlations shown in figure 4 are not fully independent, and rely partly upon K/Ar and faunal evidence as well as the basic polarity data.The starting point for the correlation is the age of 2.61 +- 0.26 Myr obtained by Fitch and Miller from selected sanidine crystals from pumice specimens from the KBS Tuff. (A. Brock and G. Ll Isaac, Paleomagnetic stratigraphy and chronology of hominid bearing sediments east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya, Nature 247 (8 Feb 1974):344-48)Not only this, but the dates determined are not by the independent method which is supposed be the "check and balance" practice exercized by the researchers themselves. The "correct" numbers are determined on the outset by the interpretations given to the fossils beforehand:The correlations shown in figure 4 are not fully independent, and rely partly upon K/Ar and FAUNAL EVIDENCE (i.e. fossil interpretations) as well as the basic polarity data. (A. Brock and G. Ll Isaac, Paleomagnetic stratigraphy and chronology of hominid bearing sediments east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya, Nature 247 (8 Feb 1974):344-48)From this, any aberrant dates are explained away as being the result of "inclusions" from either older or younger samples. The "bad" dates are simply thrown out:Plateau and regression ages are derived using all data from each step heating experiment, as well as EXCLUDING RESULTS FROM STEPS THAT GIVE DISCORDANT AGES. The criterion for exclusion of a datum was that the calculated age differed by more than twice its error (2sigma) from that of the plateau. (I McDougall, 40Ar/39Ar age spectra from the KBS Tuff, Koobi For a Formation, Nature 294(12 Nov. 1981):123)As we can see, a preconception fuels and ultimately determines the results for these methods, which are termed "independent". It does not help this particular situation much that many dates were obtained from all over the board: 0.52/2.64 Myrs, 8.43 Myrs, 17.5 Myrs, 4.11 myrs, 7.46 Myrs, 212/230 Myrs, 2.42 Myrs, 1.9 Myrs:Conventional K/Ar, 40Ar/39Ar and fission track dating of pumice clasts within this tuff have yielded a distressingly large range of ages. (McDougall, Maier, Sutherland-Hawkes, Gleadow, K/Ar age estimates for the KBS Tuff, East Turkana, Kenya, Nature 284(20 March 1980): 230-31)It is surprising to see that the primer for many a chronological clock (from phylogenetic research to calculations of observations in astronomy) is actually rooted in a-priori numbers which are estimated or guessed at for fossil remains:There is no evidence based solely on our observations, Eddy stated, that the Sun is 4.5-5x10^9 years old. ‘I suspect,’ he said, ‘that the sun is 4.5 bill yrs old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I SUSPECT THAT WE COULD LIVE WITH BISHOP USSHER’S VALUE FOR THE AGE OF THE EARTH AND SUN (6000 yrs). I DON’T THINK WE HAVE MUCH IN THE WAY OF OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE IN ASTRONOMY TO CONFLICT WITH THAT.’ Solar physics now looks to PALEONTOLOGY (estimates of ages assigned to fossil remains in an evolutionary pretext) for data on solar chronology, he concluded.
He (John Eddy) concluded that astronomy, as an observational science, can say nothing about the chronology as far back as 4.7x10^9 (4.7 billion) years.-Ralph Kazmann (Dept of Civil Engineering, LSU), It’s About Time: 4.5 billion years, Geotimes, Sept. 1978, p18This relates to the determinations in paleontology based upon the interpretation that stratigraphy/sedimentation is the result of a long-age process, with depositing of the sediments in a nil velocity setting. This is uniformitarianism; long processes depositing gradually over untold millions of years.Now, if the process they cite can happen within a matter of days or hours or minutes, is it then intellectually honest to suggest that the results of that same process MUST be interpreted as being CONCLUSIVE evidence for millions of years for the age of those same sedimentary layers? Can we then afford much confidence to fossil age determinations (which determine outside limits for radiometric numbers and models of astronomy), if in fact the method for determining those dates is to look at the layers of sediment and assign them million-year epoch demarcations?I would highly suggest looking through the site I had posted earlier:
http://www.megspace.com/science/simplecell/Ultimately, these sort of determinations are very much beyond the scope of what experimental science could tell us. These are past events, and as such, are historical. Neither you nor I were there to witness the thickness of one particular layer being laid down over so and such time, nor the other outside factors that could have contributed to many results upon it. However, given the best possible info from the lab that relates to these processes, it helps us to conclude that any sort of uniformitarian model used as an explanation of just how long and by what method those layers were laid down is tenuous at best. It shows us that we have a long way to go before we can reasonably reconstruct past events, if we ever can at all. The evidence can be explained reasonably in more way than just the current paradigm, and I think this example shows that sufficiently.Thanks for your time.[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-20-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-20-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-20-2003]

WJ: Notice how the Eddy reference mentions that it is not unambiguous, observed data from astronomy that determines the acceptable outside ranges for numbers from the outset, but instead fossil interpretations? Seems to me there really is no way around it; the model chosen ahead of time determines the dates. And, as we have seen, if the experimental evidence in stratigraphy (which relates back to fossil interpretations) tells us that these processes can happen in next to no time, is it intellectually honest to assign long ages to these layers, thus setting the "clock" for what will later be used as a cosmological primer?And, how is it any more reasonable that you use, as a foundation, a treatise that was written well over one hundred and fifty to two hundred years ago for your interpretational foundation (Darwin, Lyell)? If recency of the material in question is all the rage, then why not throw out the old interpretational ring you seem to prefer?Percipient: You seem to think that an interpretation of millions of years does me in as far as these dating methods go. Essentially, the way it works for K/Ar dating is this: Geochronologists take the amount of argon in any sample to mean that the argon present was due solely to potassium decaying into argon. And since argon is supposed to take so and such years to be produced by potassium decay, it is taken that the argon present had to have taken "x" amount of years to be produced. However, it would seem that this was not necessarily the case. Argon can still be present in a sample, even when there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the sample was recently "closed":The divergence between the historical and radiometric age resulted from the assumption that the lava had been entirely degassed when the eruption occurred. In consequence, it was assumed that the argon gas measured arose from decomposition of the potassium subsequent to the lava having crystalised into dacite, and therefore after the eruption. These incorrect assumptions accounted for the aberrant dates. The radioactive age given for the dacite proves that argon still remained in the lava. Even more surprising were the differences in age of the constituent parts, whose crystallisation would have been virtually simultaneous. (Guy Berthault, Geologic Dating Principles Questioned: Paleohydraulics: a new approach, Fusion (May-June 2000) addendum, 4th para.)Indeed, the Berthault article had MUCH to say about K/Ar and other such dating methods in relation to interpretations from stratigraphy. It is there in the article, and I am surprised to hear some such comment as, "Your linked article by creationist Berthault is irrelevent to radiometric dating." That is not so, and the fact of the matter is that many an assumption goes into just what the amount of parent to daughter isotope actually means. It is usually interpreted as an accurate decay/age indicator. However, there seem to be some problems if this proposal is the ONLY explanation one will allow for the amount of parent/daughter isotope content. the above illustrates this.And, Percipient, if I am misrepresenting anything, it would seem that since you leveled this charge in my direction, the burden of proof is upon you to prove as such, with careful research and cited articles, along with the appropriate quotes (not simply web site addresses) to rebut or refute what I have presented thus far. If you are not willing to debate reasonably and responsibly, nor willing to back the charges you assert, then you should check yourself more carefully before accusing anyone else of dishonesty or sloppy research.Edge: "Did they tell you that, because we know that sampling and analysis can be difficult, fossil remains are considered primary information on the age of a geological unit? That is how confident we are of evolutionary theory after years and years of testing."So, in essence, radiometric numbers are not independent if, in fact, good dates are determined by a-priori numbers which are assigned to a fossil cladogram (a number which is before and independent of any sort of radiometric dating).So again, if the INTERPRETATIONS of fossils based upon an a-priori commitment to evolution is wrong, then any calibration by this method is subject to just as much of an error. And the same with using others' research as a starting point: If theirs was as subjective of a starting point as the fossil numbers assigned ahead of time, then the same error will translate over into the other research results. Pretty basic.In fact, edge's comment shows the amount of implicit assumption and faith assigned to the concept and interpretation of fossils form the very get-go, before any radiometric dating is done. This in turn translates into primers for both phylogenetic research, as well as astronomy (remember that Eddy quote?: "Solar physics now looks to PALEONTOLOGY (estimates of ages assigned to fossil remains in an evolutionary pretext) for data on solar chronology, he concluded. -Ralph Kazmann (Dept of Civil Engineering, LSU), It’s About Time: 4.5 billion years, Geotimes, Sept. 1978, p18)So, if the starting point was not independent, then how honest is it to keep calling the results of this methodology "independent"? It's garbage in, garbage out. the researcher gets what is expected, or what is preferred rather. If the date doesn't conform to the a-priori model evolution assigns those fossils, then it must be a "bad" date. How independent or confirmatory is that?Mark Austin: The dates obtained from the KBS Tuff incident were, again, 0.52/2.64 Myrs, 8.43 Myrs, 17.5 Myrs, 4.11 myrs, 7.46 Myrs, 212/230 Myrs, 2.42 Myrs, 1.9 Myrs. Which one was unambiguously the correct date? Without appeal to the fossils and the arbitrary assumptions which surround such assigned numbers, there would be no way that radiometric dating on its own could tell us anything meaningful. Edge had once commented that, "I would expect each mineral to show a different date..... Every date means something, and sometimes it is not the age of the rock." So which one undoubtedly is the correct date?The example of the KBS Tuff shows that without any preconceptions ahead of time to secure a date, the radiometric methods would give us numbers that would be all over the board. We could just as honestly accept the 230 myr date, or the 17.5 myr date, or the 1.9 myr date. Without the preconception of what we construct cladogram-wise with the fossils, we would never be able to say just which date was correct. Without the precommitment to evolution, we could just as well say that the million year dates that geochronologists assign to the amount of potassium to argon in a sample is not indicative of any sort of million year age determination (and as I had stated earlier, the amount of argon contained within a sample seems to not conform to any sort of age idea once the actual date of the cause of sample degassing is reasonably known, i.e., the apparent "closing" of the sample in question).As edge had commented earlier, it is the pre-assigned dates to the fossils which act as the "check" for the radiometric methods. If the radiometric dating methods were somehow independent enough on their own so as to relinquish their date, then why do we need to appeal to cladograms which are conceived within the minds of men? This does not seem to be as clean cut of a methodology as some would like to believe.'Edge' seemed to have had some problems with this proposal. As far as the discussion between he and I went, he seemed to equate an amount of accuracy to the dating methods, and proceeded to instead call into question the reliability of the researchers in question who had contributed to the above statement being published (which has transpired here with no lesser of a degree of hostility). As for supplying any technical info regarding the research itself, he did not clarify upon the specifics or technicalities himself (no numbers, no published research on the subject), but seemed to disagree with the results none the less.He is welcome to his opinion on the matter, but I would ask him, and anyone else who may disagree with the above, that if they desire to be taken seriously by any one so minded so as to search for the truth of the matter, that they should display a careful, tactful, and thorough response and explanation, with cited published material on the subject, and follow with their own clear explanations and conclusions as to why they would disagree with any of the above.[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003]

The reason for showing the addendum to the Berthault article was to show that the amount of potassium to argon may not mean much of anything other than the amount of potassium to argon. The point is that the time calibrations assigned to so and such an amount may not be accurate at all. What researchers usually would see as indicative of age may have nothing to do with age. This is more than likely the case with the corroborating dates that result from such finds as the iridium spike (K-T boundary, which I will address later). The actual content may not be in debate. The question is whether the content itself is indicative of any sort of uniformitarian decay from parent to daughter isotope, or any general marker that would be considered as a result of a uniform process.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.If this geochronological ruler is made of rubber, then how accurate can it possibly be? If the fossil interpretations that are devised within the minds of the researchers have to fuel the correct results for such a method, then how is the method on its own worthy or independent enough to be considered accurate or reliable? It seems to me that the amount of parent/daughter product (and the accompanying process which creates as such) is independent of any time calibration we may hope to assign it. And calling a particular dating case as difficult doesn’t alleviate the fact that the inherent problems associated with the methodology and material involved lead to no unambiguous or independent age confirmation.In fact, it seems to be a rather regular practice to throw out the aberrant dates. I remember that ‘edge’ once commented: Until I have all of the geological data, no determination can be made. Yet, how much material does this comprise? If an area (such as the KBS Tuff and the rest of the immediate area of Lake Turkana) gives a distressingly large range of ages, then how is any date obtained on its own? Simply put, if a concordant age is looked for and desired, one can find it amongst the samplings if one looks long enough, irrespective of how many other dates one had to throw out. So in other words, concordance is reached by finding enough of a particular sample reading amongst the plethora of other dates, over an untold expanse of area. And again, how much material is there to date? How much geological data is there in any instance or site of sample collecting? Immense, and vast. How reasonable is it then to only focus in on what one set of samples tells us, while throwing out the rest? This seems to follow that, along with ‘edge’s comment on not determining anything until ALL of the evidence is in, that there really is no way to reasonably know the apparent age of any particular sample area. It has to be guessed at, or preferentially separated from the other aberrant dates.And, as has been shown, the dating methods are interrelated in using the results of one another to "calibrate" their own method, so as to obtain a "good" date. The idea that distal dating techniques can somehow "converge" onto a common number independently of one another (and thus placing a sort of check on one anothers results) is commonly thought to be true, but is nonsense all the same. If they start with eachother's findings as a starting point, and in turn use the same starting point of non confirmable evolutionary interpretations upon fossil assemblages, then this really eliminates the "independent" status of the corroborating results, yes?And, granted that, if a site yields numbers in accord with some fairly consistent result among the other differential results, the above quotation from the Berthault article seriously questions the deduction of a date from as such. The amount of parent to daughter isotope may mean, again, the amount of parent to daughter isotope.with nothing indicative of a long age decay rate: The divergence between the historical and radiometric age resulted from the assumption that the lava had been entirely degassed when the eruption occurred. In consequence, it was assumed that the argon gas measured arose from decomposition of the potassium subsequent to the lava having crystalised into dacite, and therefore after the eruption. These incorrect assumptions accounted for the aberrant dates. The radioactive age given for the dacite proves that argon still remained in the lava. (Guy Berthault, Geologic Dating Principles Questioned: Paleohydraulics: a new approach, Fusion (May-June 2000) addendum, 4th para.)And, as ‘edge’ has pointed out, if the resting upon evolutionary interpretations 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? 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. 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?If this independent method or radiometric dating is as reliant upon an assumptive and improvable methodology as its base point for calibration, doesn’t this raise questions as to the infallibility of the dates obtained through both routes of methodology? Whatever the researcher wants, the researcher gets, irrespective of the possibility that parent/daughter content is quite possibly devoid of any signpost of age. This also applies to interpretations of stratigraphy, and thus the fossil relationships contained therein (which determine the cladogram of dates, which are the starting point for geochronologists to work by).[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003]

And, as far as the K-T boundary is concerned, there are quite a few questions still surrounding the issue (especially that now many researchers may feel less encumbered to actually ask some questions that may be counter to Alvarez’s hypothesis. Perhaps McLean can rest easy now, knowing that Alvarez won’t drop a rock on his head this time around?) In any case, the same corollary is here. There is no doubt that a catastrophic event happened in earth’s past. And no doubt, there is an iridium spike in various locations around the world. But the fact of the matter is that the age determinations from such evidence (as has been presented) is begging the question. From a radiometric standpoint, content tells us content, that is all. It cannot say whether or not this closed system was effected by any sort of outside influence, either in inclusion or decay rate. Content alone cannot determine the actual time (or processes) which brought forth the current parent/daughter concentration of the sample at present.After all, would it be prudent to observe just what the other sample numbers might have been in these numerous instances of K/T iridium determinations? No numbers were presented there in as to the actual research in question, nor sampling procedure, nor anything else technical (the number crunching by Mr. Mark24 aside). And, it would seem that the K-T boundary tidiness is running a bit thin, now that researchers can dissent from the nuclear winter hype that surrounded the Alvarez idea back during the Cold War (1980’s):In the case of the of the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, many people- even professionals- are very surprised to discover that there are only about 20 localities, most of which are in North America, that preserve the last days of the dinosaurs. (Fastovsky, D.E. and Weishampel, D.B.; 1996, The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs; Cambridge Univ. Press, London, p.391)Even given the entire fund of techniques, methods, and principles of correlation extant, there was still, in the past decade, widespread uncertainty about correlating marine rocks of K-T boundary age with their continental contemporaries, even where both sections were richly fossiliferous, because the two sections were almost always mutually exclusive in time diagnostic fossils. (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. 78)[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003]

There seems to be a cap on how long any poster may submit at one time. The rest of the K/T info will be for another day. Cheers.
[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003]

Researcher gets what he wants, pure and simple. When the fossil estimations change, so do the "acceptable" numbers for radiometric dating results. The facts are subservient to the hypothesis, which is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen in scientific research. This essentially keeps the idea of millions of years (and radiometric accuracy) protected from falsification.As far as the K/T boundary is concerned, perhaps you would like to handle some of the material pertaining to it. That will be for a later date apparently. Enjoy what is there for you already.[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003]

With conformity to a prevailing paradigm, the researcher feels a need to "tidy up the mess", so to speak. He more than likely does this in all sincerity, hence, the allocating of the radiometric methods to the fossil interpretations. But the subjectivity as it relates to the "independent" status of the techniques described earlier is all too apparent then. And, as far as I have seen, there has been absolutely nothing posted as far as carefully presented material (published material, not material that was easily cut and paste from websites) with references and such from those of you who have been less than tactful. No numbers, no careful case studies, no methodology, just assertion and avoidance of the sedimentology and radiometric material presented in front of you to the contrary of uniformitarian assumptions (do you speak to individuals in the real world like that, Mark, when you are confronted with a challenge? very rude)The K/T boundary material will be forth coming as soon as the server allows me to post past the current word limit.[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003][This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003]

Thank you. The K/T boundary citations and material will be up tomorrow. Thank you for citations as well. Although I don't think that this negates the previous things that I had brought up in regards to the assumtive framework that goes into date correlation concerning radiometric methods, I do appreciate the tact in your response as well as willingness to put a little more to the tee here than just website addresses. Perhaps some comments by you concerning how the "present is the key to the past" correlates with what we know experimentally, that sedimentation takes next to no time to occur (and is not an isolated nor rare occurance).[This message has been edited by Kyle Shockley, 05-25-2003]

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]

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