Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DannyTN
That's not a logical argument. You are saying that you have to know the age of the rock and be certain that it's over 100,000 years old, before you can rely on the K-Ar method. If YEC's are right, and no rock is over 100,000 years old, then every K-Ar date is bogus.

No, I'm saying that if you know the rock is 200 years old, as stated in the article, and you use a test that is known to be inaccurate on that age sample, of course you'll get bogus results.

66 posted on 07/31/2006 10:07:47 PM PDT by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: skip_intro; DannyTN

You also validate that the specific aging system is not so reliable as many scientists would like you to believe.


67 posted on 07/31/2006 10:09:49 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: skip_intro
"No, I'm saying that if you know the rock is 200 years old, as stated in the article, and you use a test that is known to be inaccurate on that age sample, of course you'll get bogus results."

That's just it. A rock 200 years old, under the K-Ar assumptions should not have had any measurable Ar in it. The test should have failed because the lab shouldn't have been able to detect Ar. But the lab detected considerable Ar. Therefore instead of the lab saying that the result was invalid because of insufficient Ar, the lab dated the rock at an old age.

If the lab can date new rocks at an old age. There is no way to know whether any of the rocks that were dated at old ages, are new or old.

And that's why scientists abandoned K-Ar dating.

71 posted on 07/31/2006 10:20:03 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson