Tuesday, May 21, 2013
December 10, 2009 by admin Filed under Q&A
i.e. that the dates that they get from Pot Arg dating are incorrect with respect to the age of the earth.
Tags: Argon, Claim, Could, Creationists, Dating, Explain, Potassium, Someone, System, This
Smooth Kitty Ay Ae gave an accurate answer regarding what Potassium Argon dating is.
The problem with the system is that when scientists measure the amounts of Potassium Argon in a rock they cannot determine how much Potassium or Argon were in the rock when the rock was made or whether it was contaminated by natural forces as it lay. They assume that the levels in the rock were 0 and any previous amounts or contamination can give wild dates.
Potassium-argon dating or K-Ar dating is a radiometric dating method used in geochronology and archeology. It is based on measurement of the product of the radioactive decay of an isotope of potassium (K), which is a common element found in many materials, such as micas, clay minerals, tephra, and evaporites, into argon. In these materials, the decay product 40Ar is not trapped by the rock while it is liquid (molten), but starts to accumulate when the rock solidifies (recrystallises). Time since recrystallization is calculated by measuring the ratio of the amount of 40Ar accumulated to the amount of 40K remaining. The long half-life of 40K allows the method to be used to calculate the absolute age of samples older than a few thousand years.
The quickly cooled lavas that make nearly ideal samples for K-Ar dating also preserve a record of the direction and intensity of the local magnetic field as the sample cooled past the Curie temperature of iron. The geomagnetic polarity time scale was calibrated largely using K-Ar dating
The problem with all of the radioactive dating systems is that they make at least two unproveable assumptions. One, that the amounts of both potassium and argon have not be leeched out or somehow added to the sample to be tested. Two, that the sample began with 100% of the originating element….like a sample would have to begin with 100% Uranium 235 with no lead present in order for the dating to be correct.
The percentages of every major trace element in the oceans (there are at least 12 trace elements) indicates an age for the oceans of less than 200,000 years. This implies an earth that is not much older.
It’s based on radioactive decay. Basically a measurement of the ratio between the isotopes and the regular atoms.
When creationists question these methods simply ask them to show their math. They can’t.
We do similar things to measure how long a material like plutonium will remain radioactive. Funny how they never question that math.
EDIT “One, that the amounts of both potassium and argon have not be leeched out or somehow added to the sample to be tested.”
Please explain how elements leech out of samples, why they would leech out of every sample we’ve tested and why we can get such consistent data no matter where we take the sample.
“Two, that the sample began with 100% of the originating element”
That’s simply a blatant lie or an extremely poor understanding of the procedure itself. Since we’re measuring a ratio between isotopes and non-isotopes, it doesn’t matter how much was there to begin with.
Elements are elements.
Potassium has a half life of over a billion years, so if you can measure how much potassium in a rock has decayed into argon you can get an estimate of the age of the rock. The idea is simple, the details are rather complicated!
Creationists will claim anything is in error which contradicts their infallible book. If they didn’t they would have to admit that the book is fallible, and since God wrote it, it cannot be fallible, can it? Personally, as a Christian, I think it is ridiculous to take scientific information from the Bible. It isn’t that kind of book.
Potassium-40 decays by beta-emission to Argon-40. This, being an inert gas, is trapped inside solid rock but can bubble out of molten rock. So by measuring how much argon-40 is present in a rock sample, we can work out how much potassium-40 was there when it first solidified.
Unless the Ancients were secretly enriching potassium for nuclear reactors, the proportions of 40K to 39K are pretty constant the world over. And the decay rates of radioisotopes are constant enough to set the world’s clocks by (surely everybody has built a 60kHz receiver for the atomic clock that used to be at Rugby but was recently moved to Cumbria, haven’t they?)
Creationists claim it is in error because it conflicts with the Iron Age mythology that they would rather believe.
potassium-argon dating works on the same principle that all radiometric dating does. some isotopes (like this isotope of potassium) decay into stable elements, in this case inert gas argon. this rate of decay is constant and known, this is called a half life. so if you can measure the ratio of parent products to daughter products, you can work out how old your sample is.
there are quite a few different isotopes you can use but they all work on basically the same principle.
the problem for creationists is that the results (along with all the other evidence from other fields) points to an Earth in the billions of years old, not 6-10 thousand. they just cannot handle that as far as they are concerned, the bible says the Earth is 6000 years old therefore the science must be wrong. then they go out of their way to make up nonsensical reasons, and outright lies, as to why radiometric dating is wrong.
the most laughable one i have heard is that the decay rates can be accelerated by a factor of billions in a lab, this is completely false the decay rates remain constant, it doesn’t matter what you do to them, if you could speed it up you would win the Nobel prize because you would solve the problem of nuclear waste.
Well put it this way, if the radioactive decay that indicates that the Earth is about 3.4 billion years old had occurred in just 6000 years the Earth would be a glowing nuclear furnace that made Chernobyl look like a campfire. Unless of course Satan has control over the basic natural physical processes of the universe or whatever particular creator god you believe in pre aged the rocks to deceive people.
The age of the earth isn’t just done by one method of dating. There are several forms of dating that are used, even Lead. From different disciplines, sources and methods, they all say the same thing.
If a theory and method turns up that disproves the current claim, the new theory takes their place.
Its the quest for truth not to prop up a falling doctrine.
That’s the beauty of science.
Check Smooth Kitty AY AE, she is spot on!
The loss of an ion off this compound are SO regular, geologist set their clock by them.
Creationist say this type of dating is wrong because no one has observed the decay over millions/billions of years. Actually, all of their arguments against science are on those lines. As nothing has been observed, therefore it cannot be right.
Well, the only website which has refuted the Theory of Evolution without telling anything about the dating system is an error:http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.ph…
Don’t Judge Before You Read!
May Allah guide all of us through the right path.http://www.islamawareness.net/http://www.ilovezakirnaik.com/http://miraclesofthequran.com/index.phphttp://www.answering-christianity.com/ac…
Creationists claim *every* dating system is “in error,” simply because it goes against their dogma.
They don’t have any valid scientific reasons to claim it is “in error.”
try looking at talk origins on the Internet.you can find a detailed explanation of most of the questions that you may have about potassium argon dating
It measures radioactive decay, like carbon dating. They claim anything that is scientific is in error.
You need to check out: “Signature In The Cell”, by Steven Meyer for starters, dude.
Earth has been around for 154 years! FACT!
Mail (will not be published) (required)
I want to date: