For whatever - your insult, and radioisotope dating

JonF, I kind of hear you, however the fossils of the pleistocene extinction show the massive extinction happened only 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, supporting the biblical flood happened, suddenly, etc... Atlantisquest.com
however, hear where your coming from, can see now why you believe what you believe, etc...
P.S. With all the coal, oil fossils also exhibit C-14, making them unsuitable for use of neutrino testing sites, is water percolation able to contaminate, or is the fossils actually young, seems a lot of unanswered questions, whatever, its interesting the massive world wide pleistocene extinction is believed to of happened only 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, the entire fossil record is an extension of the pleistocene extinction, the biblical flood explaining the fossil record in the sediments, there is no way the fossils happen without burial, and the massive petrified or mineralized fossils, fossil imprints, are evidences in support of the biblical world flood, the only way to preserve a fossil is to bury it, and we have a massive fossil record, massive burial, massive evidence in support of the flood, a fossil that is not buried will not be in the fossil record, unless it found frozen in the glaciers, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-07-2004]

Whatever,Please respond to this post, please.Your explanation of the facts of the K-T boundary is insuffient. We have rocks dating 65 million years old containing shocked quartz at the Chixculub crater, a global Iridium spike also dating to 65 million years ago, & tektites associated with the aforementioned crater that themselves date to 65 mya.How do such different phenomena get deposited in such a narrow stratigraphic range when they 1/ Aren't associated with volcanism or tectonic activity; 2/ Have different hydrodynamic properties; 3; Still manage to have been sorted in such a way that each independently dates 65 million years old?Basically I'm asking you to explain how a flood manages to sort differently sized particles with radiometric age being the sole criteria.I put it to you that such an explanation has obvious & glaring contradictions, & that a far more sensible & empirically supported explanation is that 65 million years ago a bolide impacted the earth causing shocked quartz, a spread of tektites, & a global deposition of dust containing a high level of Iridium. This coincided with a mass extinction. At no stage is there any reason to believe that there was a global flood given the obvious impossibilities of achieving such a goosd correlation.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Still wating for your apology for libeling honest scientists by claiming that dating is "rigged"The Pleistocene extinctions are evidence that extinctions occurred. They are not evidence for a global flood unless other evidence supports a global flood. There are many pieces of evidence that a global flood would leave and nobody's found a one ... there was no global flood.The Pleistocene extinctions cannot be a part of the supposed flood described in the Bible, because the extinction of land animals directly contradicts what the Biblical text says.There are unanswered questions in science. There are also many answered questions, such as the age of the Earth, the age of the Sun, and the age of life on the Earth. The existence of unanswered questions does not invalidate the answers we have.The vast majority of the fossil record predates the Pleistocene. The fossil record that we have is only a tiny fraction of what a global flood would leave. The fossil record we have was laid down over billions of years, not in a year or so.We are not interested in your fantasies of how you would like the world to be. We are interested in EVIDENCE of how the world IS. STOP POSTING SPECULATIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE

According to your post 45 (this thread) Noah's Flood was 5000 years ago. Based on that post, the Pleistocene extinction would have occupied the second to fourth thousand-year "days" of Creation.How then does the dating of the Pleistocene extinctions help your case in any way ?

JonF, Did you even read the post of the Paleontologist Testimony, this is massive evidence that the biblical flood indeed happened, you have your evidence, you have the Grand Canyon, Carved out of the earth, you have the badlands, you have the Amazon Canyon, the Hudson Canyon, you have the redwood trees testifying they are alive, yet the fossil coal grave yards through out the world testify they once grew all over the earth,fossils can not be preserved if particles are laid down a particle t a time over millions of years, the fossils would quickly decompose, millions of years to lay down the sediments, and more millions of years to lay another layer, etc... is not even viable, the reason they are all layered is that there was a flood, and the biblical flood has been the answer until the paleontolgists came up with rock dating, the particles stratified, local catastrophies like mt st helens also contributed to local burials, however the pleistocene extinction shows a massive extinction of life all over the earth,the glaciers could of happened suddenly, explaining the lack of sediments in polar regions, the massive fossils islands found frozen in the Siberian seas, the massive coal grave yards in the rocky mountains more evidence they floated and were covered by the sediments of a world flood, the evidence is overwhelming,I've already explained your dating method is based on assumptions, and then you say that in some cases you need to change the methodology to burn off excess argon, you also know that argon was found absorbed by diamonds placing diamonds older than 4.6 billion years (think it was shown by Dr. Snelling)(hope it was documented), but you don't want to hear that your dating methods are not without problems, leaching, argon rising up from the earth itself, yet you all say argon can not be absorbed by the sediments, perhaps, but too many questions, about your dating methodologies, think your insulted because you know the evidence shows sediments could not of been laid down preserving the massive fossil record unless there was a massive flood,some here seem to believe this flood was formed by a meterite answering some questions in the sediments, perhaps a meterorite set off the world flood, starting the earth to crack and open up, releasing the fountains of the deep, we all know that sediments stratify in flood waters, much like the geological stratified layers found all over the world, yet you say no, every layer was laid down separately, separated by millions of years of time, even though you know that trees have been found laying upside down within layer's you believe are separated by 100's of millions of years, think the proof is in the pudding, but then you seem to have a problem with the evidence, it's not really your fault, its human nature, to be biased to the evidence, for if the sediment layers were laid down suddenly then toe had not the time to be a viable theory, perhaps there is a conspiracy not necessarily by the scientist but to only allow you to present evidence contrary to the evidence, etc...If you questioned the viability of the evidence you would be branded a creationists, etc...Now I'm not a young earther, nor a scientist, but think what you need to do is question the assumptions of the dating methods, you say you do, yet you age the sediment layers to be millions of years old, it seems the only way you can date things accurately is if someone tells you how old the sediments are, then you throw out the bad test results and say its been proven, the argon potassium dating is believed to be only accurate when testing basalt rock, that melted and cooled solid without any impurities, what if it was cooled in ocean water, trapping excess argon in the lavas, what if the pressures in the earth itself contributes to argon recapture as the argon rises, as carbonated waters percolate back through the sediments, if a diamond which is carbon based, can absorb argon, what makes you believe it can not be absorbed in the basalt,you believe C-14 can contaminate underground fossils by water percolating throught the sediments, why couldn't carbonated waters, in conjunction with argon gas rising up from the earth, as its released be reabsorbed in the sediments above the fossil, is not the carbon the reason given for the diamond absorbing excess argon, etc...The paleontologists are using you they rely on your faith that the sediments can be used to date the age of the fossil imprints, etc...they don't want you to look at the evidences staring you in the face, trees growing through the sediments, the pleistocene extinction, the grand canyon, the bad lands, the hudson canyon, the age of the redwood tree, and why they are not found anywhere but here, yet lived once all over the earth, that fossils need to be buried to preserve the fossil record, that this requires a flood, mudslide, a catastrophy, and well you all been duped if you believe that there were multiple floods explaining the sediment layers you believed happened 100's of millions of years apart, or a metorite hitting the earth every so often, etc... The biblical flood explains the sediment fossil record and the dating methods are not viable, likely caused by argon rising up from the earth and being recaptured, creating this illusion, that the fossils are old,if someone gives you a rock thats young and doesn't tell you its young it will date old, if you can not date a young rock accurately how can we believe you can date any rock accurately, or that over your believed millions of years that he rock has not been contaminated by argon recapture, leaching and traslocation of potassium, argon, C-14, etc... attempted to place some paragraph breaks to facilitate reading. This was hampered by the fact that this post seems to be the longest sentence on record. I suggest, for future reference, that you use periods. - The Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-07-2004]

Bzzzt, incorrect. Thanks for playing. The 10-12 kya megafaunal extinctions occurred only in North and South America. Extinctions in Australia occurred roughly twice as long ago, and lasted four times as long at a minimum, and the smaller scale extinctions in Eurasia occurred even before that and were spread out over a rather lengthy time period. Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions didn't occur in Africa at all. (Wrong thread - if you'd like to discuss this topic in more detail, please open a new thread in Evolution).

Whatever,Are you avoiding me? Please deal with this post. So you accept evidence of floods where it occurs, all you need to do is show GLOBAL evidence that there was a single flood that occurred all over the earth at one time. I'll give you a big hint, there isn't any. None at all. Lot's of local stuff at different times, but not a single evidence of one flood that covered the entire earth.Secondly, catastrophisms aren't required for fossilisation, sterile conditions are. This is why we have dessicated dinosaurs with their skins on, & fish, plesiosaurs etc. occurring in highly sulphurous, &/or anoxic rock (high H2S & low O2).There are multiple extinction events, the pleistocene isn't even one of the "big five", so why you hang your hat on an extinction that took place at different times on different continents is beyond me. It would be interesting to see you try & explain the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic & Cretaceous mass extinctions via a flood model, all of which occur tens to hundreds of millions of years before the Pleistocene, & devastate the flora & fauna by orders of magnitude greater than the piffling Pleistocene goosebump events.Your claim that "pleistocene extinction shows a massive extinction of life all over the earth" pales into insignificance when compared to the big five & mainly affects the megafauna anyway, & as such is completely unwarranted. Interesting that you simply focussed on the last extinction event, however minor. But out of interest, where are the frozen Acanthostega gunnari you see in my avatar? Where are all of the other Cenozoic & earlier frozen life forms? No Trilobites? No basal tetrapods? Strange, they are all found in the same latitudes as the frozen mammoths. Why do you think they are absent? Could it be that they became extinct millions of years earlier than the mammoths, & were never contemporaries in the first place?Given that you accept the evidence for a set of events that occur at different times at different places that is collectively known as the "Pleistocene extinction", please explain how the other big five, let alone all of the other minor events fit into your flood model. As you may have guessed, I am particularly interested as to how your flood manages to sort rocks radiometrically whilst the fountains of the deep ejaculate with such abandon upon the earth. I am interested in how dinosaurs aren't found in rocks that post-date 65 my. I am also interested in how you worm your way out of the 65 my date of the K-T boundary when four different methods concur to the tune of over 70,000,000 : 1 of such an occurrence happening by chance. So how do explain the incredible concordance between different methods that have different assumptions? Oh, my mistake, you don't. You just repeat your objections in the face of incredible statistical evidence that radiometric dating is reliable to within a couple of percent. Your bad, not ours. Oh please, please, please go for it! Explain the appearances & disappearances of plants, animal, fungi, monera, & protists & the sub-clades found within them.Here's a few problems for you to juggle with. Explain the stratigraphic pattern of plant clades that bear trees. Explain why nothosaurs & plesiosaurs are found exclusive of cetacea without exception. Explain the gross ordering of the fossil record based on size & why it is exactly the opposite of what is expected by hydrodyamic sorting. A fossil record sorted hydrodynamically should have the large organisms at the bottom & the small at the top, but the fossil record for the first 5/6th sees little more than single celled life, wierd, eh? Explain why the earliest terrestrial vertebrates are distintcly "fishy". Explain why the rock particles in the geological column aren't ordered by particle size (& hydrodynamic sorting); the GC should have breccia at the bottom, followed by gravels, sands, muds, & clays. Does it not strike you odd that this is not the case at all? And so on, so on, ad infinitum.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-07-2004][This message has been edited by mark24, 01-07-2004]

Please focus on radiometric dating, and take the other stuff somewhere else, where it belongs.Adminnemoooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

quote:

---

The biblical flood explains the sediment fossil record and the dating methods are not viable, likely caused by argon rising up from the earth and being recaptured, creating this illusion, that the fossils are old, if someone gives you a rock thats young and doesn't tell you its young it will date old, if you can not date a young rock accurately how can we believe you can date any rock accurately, or that over your believed millions of years that he rock has not been contaminated by argon recapture, leaching and traslocation of potassium, argon, C-14, etc...

---

K/Ar dating has been used on lunar rocks and on meteorites, both of which were subjected to the vacuum of space. If there was leaching going on or argon reuptake then these rocks should date very young according to your model. Unfortunately, lunar rocks date to about 3 billion years old and meteorites to about 4 billion years old. Sorry, your theory is shot.

And it could not have been carved by a world-wide flood. The rest of your claims are even sillier. You have claimed that, but your feeble attempts at explanations have only shown that you don't understand what dating methods are based on. Please explain how all concordia-discordia and isochron resutls could possible be wrong. And don't even mention argon; argon is not involved in any concordia-discordia methods and argon is involved in only one isochron method. Yes, that was Snelling. Yes, it was documented. The errors that he made were also documented and referenced earlier in this thread. Another creationist fraud. No, I'm insulted because your claim that dating is "rigged" is an insult, and you have made no attempt to support your claim or apologize.The evidence shows that the sediments were not laid down by a world-wide flood at one time. I obviously know a lot more about creationist claims about the flood than you do, and I know how wrong they are. If you want to discuss them, open a thread in the correct forum, make a claim or two, and we'll demolish them with essentially no effort .. because all of them have been demolished over and over again in the last 300 years. Absolutely not. The great Christian geologists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries tried to prove this and had to give up on the idea because observations of the rocks themselves, even before radioactive dating was invented, cannot be explained by a world-wide floodMeaningless babble. The majority of dating methods used today do not involve potassium or argon, and most of those that do are isochron methods which "argon rising up from the earth and being recaptured" cannot confuse. Until you confront the reality of uranium-lead-thorium methods (especially concordia-discrodia) and isochron methods involving many different elements all giving the same answers you have not addressed anything. We know that your claim (that all measurements involving potassium and argon are incorrect) is ridiculous, but even if we discarded every such measurement ever made we would still have literally thousands, maybe even tens or hundreds of thousands, of direct measurements proving the age of the Earth and life. Give up on your argon claims; they are irrelevant.

Having read the earlier posts, I'm beginning to suspect that Whatever is just trying to wind us all up. In any case, no one seems to be having any kind of effect on his ramblings.I could be wrong. Whatever, if you have any interest at all in debating a biblical flood and how it could have produced the sediments we see today, I'd be happy to start another topic. As I said before, I will not refer to the radiometric methods you seem so set against, if you like.The Rock Hound

quote:

---

you have your evidence, you have the Grand Canyon, Carved out of the earth,

---

Unfortunately, there is a kind of massive overland flood, and it doesn't care canyons - it smooths out regions. It *flattens* land, leaving a rippled terrain somewhat similar to glaciation. The same thing has happened many places on earth, including here in North America (the Missoula floods, which flattened parts of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon). Canyons are caused by water moving in a *small* area, not a large area. Furthermore, if you think that the Grand Canyon was carved by the flood, you have to think that it was both deposited *and* carved by the flood, since it contains fossils - even fossilized *footprints* that I suppose were somehow layed down in tact by your flood.

quote:

---

you have the redwood trees testifying they are alive, yet the fossil coal grave yards through out the world testify they once grew all over the earth

---

And...? We see species distributions changing *in our own lifetimes*. What's your explanation for them only growing here now?

quote:

---

fossils can not be preserved if particles are laid down a particle t a time over millions of years, the fossils would quickly decompose

---

That statement is just false. There are two things required to form a fossil: Preservation, and fossilization. Preservation can occur in numerous different ways, from ice to being buried in mud to living in a relatively non-corrosive environment. If an organism is suitably preserved, fossilization is quite likely.

quote:

---

millions of years to lay down the sediments

---

Not in landslides, mudslides, glaciation, volcanism, and a host of other events, both local and regional. You really haven't thought this through, have you?

quote:

---

reason they are all layered is that there was a flood

---

Floods leave utterly different layers. Floods do not lay down strata and rapidly alter their content. They do not sort fossils based on radioisotope content and lineages. They do not lay down water-soluable minerals. They do not preserve footprints. They are very distinct, and we've seen many types of floods (from huge overland flooding to seasonal river flooding and more); they're not even remotely close.

quote:

---

and the biblical flood has been the answer until the paleontolgists came up with rock dating

---

No, the biblical flood was the answer until scientists started looking at the rocks and the fossils, and were unable to explain it. However, they *still* refused to give up the creation-concept, and instead had to switch to the "multiple creations" theory, which was that God created and destroyed the world several times. They had to keep adding more and more "creation/destruction" pairs in, until they finally gave up on it. It just doesn't work out; the fossil layers are too consistantly sorted.

quote:

---

the particles stratified

---

Floods do not alter mineral content every couple milliseconds, nor are they good for laying down sheets of basalt. [quote]local catastrophies like mt st helens also contributed to local burials,

quote:

---

... which are not fossilized, but are preserved - exactly what I was telling you about earlier, how things can be preserved long before fozziliation.

​

quote:

---

the glaciers could of happened suddenly, explaining the lack of sediments in polar regions

---

​

Huh? We've got ice cores (whose layers match up with dendrochronology concerning carbon 14 content) which show that to be flat-out false. Multiple independent radioisotopes dating methods done thousands of times in the world all show the range of dates for glaciation, and how long the period lasted. What are you talking about?

​

quote:

---

the massive fossils islands found frozen in the Siberian seas

---

​

What are you referring to?

​

quote:

---

the massive coal grave yards in the rocky mountains more evidence they floated and were covered by the sediments of a world flood

---

​

Floods do not make coal. What sort of "evidence" is this?

​

quote:

---

the evidence is overwhelming

---

​

So overwhelming that the almost exclusively creationist scientific community was forced to very reluctantly give it up when they began analyzing the fossil record.

​

quote:

---

I've already explained your dating method is based on assumptions

---

​

Which you've refused to name. You've yet to address how isochron and concordia/discordia methods are based on assumptions, or even to point out a weakness in carbon dating itself that could make fossils that date as old actually be notably younger.

​

quote:

---

and then you say that in some cases you need to change the methodology to burn off excess argon

---

​

What are you talking about?

​

quote:

---

you also know that argon was found absorbed by diamonds placing diamonds older than 4.6 billion years (think it was shown by Dr. Snelling)(hope it was documented)

---

​

Yes. The dates from the Nature article were 6 billion years, or an error of 30%. While this is a very high error by scientific standards (probably the highest I've ever heard of), it is low by practical standards, and nowhere anywhere even remotely near the level of error needed produce a young earth.

​

Now, once again, we're asking you to explain:

​

Why Do Completely Different Methods Keep Getting Results That Are Very Close To Each Other When Done Properly, From Extraterrestrial to Earth Samples Of All Kinds?

​

Why can we date the average rock with multiple methods and get results that are *very* close to each other? Why is a 30% error the worst that we can find in a situation where the method should work (I mean, you can always use a method incorrectly, but what's the use of that?)? Can you explain *any* of this?

​

quote:

---

leaching

---

​

You clearly still have not read up on concordia/discordia or isochron dating methods.

​

quote:

---

we all know that sediments stratify in flood waters

---

​

Actually, sediments stratify in *calm* waters. Sediments mix in turbulent waters. In no waters do layers of sediment being deposited rapidly alternate back and forth every few milliseconds. Nowhere do they rapidly deposit layers of water soluable minerals.

​

quote:

---

yet you say no, every layer was laid down separately, separated by millions of years of time, even though you know that trees have been found laying upside down within layer's you believe are separated by 100's of millions of years

---

​

Your time scale is completely wrong, I can't think of a single case where you'll find a polystriate fossil over 100s of millions of years. Name such a case, and I'll bake you a dozen cookies.

​

We've witnessed polystriate organisms being layed down in real time, generally in places of rapid soil buildup and from volcanic eruptions. Now, can *you* explain the multiple soil horizons?

​

quote:

---

but then you seem to have a problem with the evidence

---

​

The "problem" is that you're refusing to learn about how things actually are dated, and ignoring the questions about the incredible consistancy of multiple dating methods, including the studies designed specifically to test for consistancy (such as the K/T tektites and meteorite dating studies). And questions about radioisotope sorting, and morphometry sorting, and everything else we've asked.

​

Why won't you answer these things???

​

quote:

---

If you questioned the viability of the evidence you would be branded a creationists, etc...

---

​

If you could back it up, you'd win a nobel prize. Look, who do you think published the article in Nature about the cubic diamonds with excess argon - a creationist?? Nope. Who initially threw aside the great flood theory, evolutionists? Nope, creationists (who *still* clung to creationism, but were forced to make there be multiple great creation/destruction events, and steadily increase the number). Scientists *live* to point out weaknesses in each other's theories - that's how they make a name for themselves. But they only do it with *evidence*; if they dodge questions (as you've been doing), they utterly fail. If they refuse to provide confirmation such as Snelling has done (refusing to let other people look at his sample), they utterly fail. Do you understand?

​

but think what you need to do is question the assumptions of the dating methods

---

Coming from one who hasn't even read about isochron and concordia discordia, and thus doesn't know what their assumptions are, this line is quite amusing.

quote:

---

it seems the only way you can date things accurately is if someone tells you how old the sediments are, then you throw out the bad test results and say its been proven

---

Ah. That's why the Nature article just threw away their error, right?Get a mit and catch a clue: Science Never Throws Away Figures That Don't Fit. Got it? I know that you, in your conspiratorial way probably don't believe it, but you're free to ignore reality all you want. When there's figures that don't fit, science's response is to *debate over them* and try and figure out what's wrong. When the results still don't fit, it leads to the revolutionizing of theories; this has happened many times, such as when Newton's laws were found to fail on the fringes and relativity was forced to enter the scene. You think people *wanted* to believe that there was an absolute speed in the universe, for example?

quote:

---

the argon potassium dating is believed to be only accurate when testing basalt rock, that melted and cooled solid without any impurities, what if it was cooled in ocean water

---

It would pillow. See the related thread about basalt and pillowing.

quote:

---

what if the pressures in the earth itself contributes to argon recapture as the argon rises

---

In what manner?

quote:

---

if a diamond which is carbon based, can absorb argon, what makes you believe it can not be absorbed in the basalt

---

Few believe that the diamonds *absorbed* argon. Such a thing has never been shown to be even close to possible - and we've subjected diamonds to all sorts of bizarre conditions, as synthesizing them is a very important industry. Consequently, the diamonds had to have been formed either with the small error producing, rare exceptional case compared to all diamonds in existance that have been studied, where the rest match up, amount of argon, or of an imbalance of an isotope which decays to argon.

quote:

---

you believe C-14 can contaminate underground fossils by water percolating throught the sediments,

---

We can tell when water has reached an area - since his fossil was hematite, that *requires* water. Likewise, in most cases, we can tell that there *wasn't* water there, by what water hasn't damaged or formed. You're talking about some sort of water that can sneak in and out without changing anything except carbon isotope levels, which is a ridiculous proposition. How would you suggest that happen?

quote:

---

The paleontologists are using you they rely on your faith that the sediments can be used to date the age of the fossil imprints, etc...

---

No. They rely on the fact that multiple independent methods of dating continue to keep producing incredibly close ages for everything that they test, and with the incredibly rare exceptions (which warrant their own articles in Nature, as you noticed, out of all of the dating done every year which is usually just listed as part of another study), something that you have *yet* to explain.Please, Please, Please, for the love of God, answer all of the questions you've been posed!

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Please focus on radiometric dating, and take the other stuff somewhere else, where it belongs.

---

This topic is getting very close to getting closed.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Adminmoose, Why? The topic has expanded from dating to include the flood/stratigraphy, all of which are related considering whatever's assertions. If the tpoic has wandered it has done so in a way that seems controlled & relevant.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-07-2004]{Noted - I'll leave things alone, and see where it goes, in it's muddled sort of way - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-07-2004]

I think I figured out the problem with argon potassium dating, why its flawed though I'm sure you will all tell me I'm full of it, but here it goes, its obvious to me that argon compounds are being generated, but how is this possible with argon being an inert nobel gas, its supposed to be impossible, but from what I've heard argon potassium dating is used to date basalts that have no impurity, no other rock melded into it, that its not fractured thus preserved from water leaching, so what is the nature of the basalt that would give a bogus inflated argon date, making the rocks appear millions of year old, this appears to be all your questioning, given you put so much faith in the inert noble gas argon and the circular game the sediments can be dated by a nucleur clock, here's the link's proving argon can be captured and by the very basalts your dating, etc...Did a google search, and your answer lies in that basalt contain thorium an uranium energy enriched compound, its been proven that argon gas can be captured by uranium so what I believe is happening, is given thorium is part of the basalt, that you place such faith in dating, its responsible for your inflated ages, and argon capture, etc...Hanford Site.http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/...ws/archive/noblegaspics.htm[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-07-2004]