Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all

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]

Kyle,I hope so, you have not explained why the dates of other techniques agree with K/Ar dates so closely, re. post 59, other than to maintain than such dating techniques are somehow flawed. It seems churlish to maintain that such techniques are flawed when they are in such agreement with other methods. Surely the other methods are flawed too? If so, how? If so, why such an agreement of dates? Bizarre, isn't it? It will require more than a hand waving dismissal, I think you will agree.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

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]

Kyle,

quote:

---

Researcher gets what he wants, pure and simple. When the fossil estimations change, so do the "acceptable" numbers for radiometric dating results.

---

Oh, right, they are all lying. My mistake. Just as I, & Nosyned suspected, there would be no substantial response to the conclusion that corroborative data decreases uncertainty, & when it embarrasingly does so by such a degree, it's easier to call the integrity of the individuals involved into question, rather than accept the writing on the wall, right?I predict you will not respond to the VASTNESS of the corroborative data provided, but will attempt to muddy the waters with fallacies of equivocation, where you attempt to provide data that you expect to be accepted, at the expense of the vast wealth of data that points to a different conclusion. Am I wrong?We'll see.[Since you altered your post as I was writing mine, I feel it necessary to point out that no fossils were dated radiometrically, nor used as index fossils in the post I made, making most of you objection irrelevant]Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-25-2003]

KyleAnd how does any of that post answer the questions that were put to you about the dating? What does the nuclear winter have to do with it for example?

KyleYour response at message #55 seems to bear no relationship to my message #51 which it is supposedly responding to. Perhaps you could read me message again and address at least some of the questions I raised.BTW, your link now seems to be dead.

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]

Let us start with
Kitigawa and van der Plicht, Science, 279, pp 1187-1190, (1998), which correlates 250 14C dates with their corresponding annual varves in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. (free read with registration at Science | AAAS )Reichow, et al, ibid., 296, pp 1846-1849, (2002) with about 25 Ar-Ar dates on basalts from the Siberian Traps and their underground eastward extensions - some of these dates are indeed "off" by as much as two million years, but that's out of 250 million. (maybe not free online till its one-year anniversary?)and
Genty, et al., Nature 421. pp 833-837, (2003) with a twenty-page supplement of U-Th dates on stalagmites back to 83,000 years ago, each date ordered in the same sequence in which its rock sample occurred in the stalagmite. (abstract free at Nature , but the paper means a trip to the college library)[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 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]

KyleAgain you have apparently responded to me but there seems to be no logical connection between my questions and your "answers". Are you having problems with how this board works?Try rereading my message #51 and giving a coherent response.If you followed the links in my message you would have an abundance of references which the article authors have used.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then you have to explain a lot of concordant dates as you have been challenged to do elsewhere.

quote:

---

The point is that the time calibrations assigned to so and such an amount may not be accurate at all.

---

Calibrating what?

quote:

---

What researchers usually would see as indicative of age may have nothing to do with age.

---

Maybe, but then why are there concordant dates for any rock unit?

quote:

---

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).

---

Yeah, you'd better address this. It makes no sense whatever. What does an iridium spike have to do with a radiometric date?

quote:

---

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.

---

Why would the process of radioactive decay not be uniform? Under what conditions? And where do you find these conditions in the earth's crust?

quote:

---

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.

---

Nonsense. This study is a complete misapplication of the method. Of course I am assuming that you refer to the Austin 'study' that dated recent rocks using a method appropriate for rocks at least 350,000 years old. This is a silly waste of time.

quote:

---

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.

---

I get the distinct impression that you have never worked with radiometric methods or taken a course on them. This statement is a bunch of randomly regurgitated material from creationist websites.More later, maybe.

There is a length limit for messages, but it is imposed by the standards of the World Wide Web. When you click "Submit Reply" your message becomes an argument to a CGI program, and the limit is imposed on all CGI arguments. I do not remember the limit, it might be 65,000 characters.Once a message passes 10,000 characters the author should instead consider posting it on a webpage and linking to it from his message.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

In message Message 50 you copied from this webpage without attribution: Now you're copying from this webpage without attribution: You might want to take another look at rule 6 of the Forum Guidelines: No one except Creationists question the date of the K-T boundary. McLean, Alvarez and the scientific community in general agree on the K-T date. The K-T debate is actually about the degree to which the impact event, if it actually occurred, contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs. There is no controversy concerning the K-T date within scientific circles. You keep repeating this while ignoring the explanations for how the accuracy of K/Ar dating has been repeatedly confirmed. There are many dating techniques that do not rely on knowing the original daughter content, in particular the isochron methods such as Rb/Sr. Isochron methods will not converge to a solution if there has been contamination and so are completely independent of original daughter material. These and other methods have provided strong confirmation that the ways of estimating original daughter content for approaches like U/Pb and K/Ar are largely correct and accurate.It is true that the biases and assumptions of any particular researcher can influence his results, and that's why the scientific method requires replicability. One researcher's date is not considered confirmed until other researchers obtain the same date. Since other researchers carry with them differing sets of biases and assumptions, successful replication increases our confidence that the date obtained has some objective value. Failure to replicate means that something is wrong, and it could be anything, from flawed methodology to biases and assumptions.To give you an idea of the degree to which radiometric dates are confirmed experimentally by multiple researchers using a variety of methods, here are a couple tables from Brent Dalrymple's book, The Age of the Earth. This one is for dating rocks in Greenland: And these are for moon rocks: --Percy