A few sites and articles on radiometric dating accuracy:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Great list of sources.

http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm
A bit long and technical, but well worth it.

The creationists have really saturated the web on this one. It is extremely difficult to filter through all of it in order to find the accepted side.

Hopefully that will be a sufficient start.

Thank you. I will look at these later tonight.

Nator,

Read this article then respond.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_r01

Wouldn't any Argon present in solid rock become evaporated when the rock became molten?

Then, wouldn't this rock have to absorb Argon upon solidification?

How much Argon could be absorbed into this rock?

How fast would it be able to decay?

Could the remnant heat cause the Argon to decay faster than normal "room-temperature" conditions?

Apply the same questions but submit carbon in place of Argon.

Nator,

From the Tulane site:

Some of the problems associated with K-Ar dating are

1. Excess argon. This is only a problem when dating very young rocks or in dating whole rocks instead of mineral separates. Why? Minerals should not contain any excess Ar because Ar should not enter the crystal structure of a mineral when it crystallizes. I see this in welding. That is why Argon is used as a shielding gas for the molten puddle.Thus, it always better to date minerals that have high K contents, such as sanidine or biotite. If these are not present, Plagioclase or hornblende. If none of these are present, then the only alternative is to date whole rocks.


2. Atmospheric Argon. 40Ar is present in the atmosphere and has built up due to volcanic eruptions. Some 40Ar could be absorbed onto the sample surface. This can be corrected for. How?


3. Metamorphism or alteration. Most minerals will lose Ar on heating above 300oC - thus metamorphism can cause a loss of Ar or a partial loss of Ar which will reset the atomic clock. If only partial loss of Ar occurs then the age determined will be in between the age of crystallization and the age of metamorphism. If complete loss of Ar occurs during metamorphism, then the date is that of the metamorphic event. The problem is that there is no way of knowing whether or not partial or complete loss of Ar has occurred. How can a date be considered then?

I asked you the questions in the previous post and have tried to answer them myself but ran into these other questions.

Last question. Are these equations and formulas built upon the premise of an old earth?

How old is the earth Rerun?

Harrie,

Quote: › How old is the earth Rerun?

Inferring from Scripture, 10,000 years or less.

What do you think of dendro chronology, a dating method that uses the rings of trees? You know, the rings differ depending on the weather and other circumstances.

Would you trust such a method?

Harrie,

Quote: › Would you trust such a method?

Why not?

http://www.icr.org/article/tree-rings-biblical-chronology/

Try that. It seems to explain some things.

Dendro chronology goes back 26000 years.

Harrie,

From the wiki:

Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.[5]

Comparing faulty dating methods to one another is just like you accuse me of. Using the bible to prove the bible.

In 2004 a new calibration curve INTCAL04 was internationally ratified for calibrated dates back to 26,000 Before Present (BP) based on an agreed worldwide data set of trees and marine sediments.[6]

All I see is a computer generated model based on limited man's assumptions.

You'll have to do better than that.

More speculations, Harrie.

And besides that, the machine is only calibrated back to 26,000 years. Have they found any trees older than 10,000?

Quote: › 1. Excess argon. This is only a problem when dating very young rocks or in dating whole rocks instead of mineral separates. Why? Minerals should not contain any excess Ar because Ar should not enter the crystal structure of a mineral when it crystallizes. I see this in welding. That is why Argon is used as a shielding gas for the molten puddle.Thus, it always better to date minerals that have high K contents, such as sanidine or biotite. If these are not present, Plagioclase or hornblende. If none of these are present, then the only alternative is to date whole rocks.

The answer to this one is in your question. Keep dating of such problematic areas to a minimum.

Quote: › 2. Atmospheric Argon. 40Ar is present in the atmosphere and has built up due to volcanic eruptions. Some 40Ar could be absorbed onto the sample surface. This can be corrected for. How?

40Ar is different from mineral Ar. The simplest correction is to take deep enough samplings that 40Ar will not be present or at least will be minimally present.

Quote: › 3. Metamorphism or alteration. Most minerals will lose Ar on heating above 300oC - thus metamorphism can cause a loss of Ar or a partial loss of Ar which will reset the atomic clock. If only partial loss of Ar occurs then the age determined will be in between the age of crystallization and the age of metamorphism. If complete loss of Ar occurs during metamorphism, then the date is that of the metamorphic event. The problem is that there is no way of knowing whether or not partial or complete loss of Ar has occurred. How can a date be considered then?

Take multiple samples from multiple locations.

By the way, this last one would lead to an older age of earth as it contains a resetting of the atomic clock.

Quote: › Last question. Are these equations and formulas built upon the premise of an old earth?

Yes, and the premise of an old earth is based on the observation of an old earth. The first scientists to claim an old earth were actually setting out to prove through geology the premise of a young earth.

There are simply too many problems with that premise for it to hold water. We have discussed them ad nauseum in various other posts.

I asked: “Would you trust such a method? (dendro chronology)”

Quote: › “Why not?”

Then I showed you that dendro chronology goes back to 26000 years.

Quote: › “Comparing faulty dating methods to one another is just like you accuse me of. Using the bible to prove the bible.”

And now this method is faulty, while you first were using it to prove a few truths about the Bible?
What we have here, are two DIFFERENT methods that come to the same conclusion. That is not the same at all, on the contrary even, as using a Bible quote to prove that the Bible is right, as you than use ONE single method as a reference to its own truth.


From the wiki you quoted:

Quote: › “Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.”

That means that two independent dating methods are consistent with each other. You could compare that to having two independent witnesses stating the same story. That does make the story a bit more plausible than just one witness account, doesn’t it?

Quote: › “All I see is a computer generated model based on limited man's assumptions.”

Dendro chronology is pretty straight forward: it’s about counting the rings in a piece of wood.

Quote: › “You'll have to do better than that.”

I have to do better than that for what? To turn you into a non-believer? Don’t worry about that Rerun, your faith is very solid, I would never be able to shake that.
If God really exist He would surely be proud of you.

What I do find interesting is that you first accepted this method, but as soon as you see that dendro chronology goes back 26000 years, way beyond the Biblical age of the earth, you reject it as faulty. And you indeed must do so, or else the Bible would not be correct and that is completely impossible.

But what happened here, did Satan bury lots of pieces of wood to confuse us?

Quote: › “And besides that, the machine is only calibrated back to 26,000 years. Have they found any trees older than 10,000?”

I’m not sure if I understand you correctly, so I might give the wrong answer here.
A warm summer gives a different kind of ring than a cold summer, so you get a certain sequence: for example: thick ring, thick ring, thin ring, thick, thick, thick, thick, thin, thin, thick, etc... An trees often live for quite a while, so you will have decent sequences.
If you match the outer part of such a sequence of a certain tree, with the inner part of a younger tree, you can go way beyond the age of a single tree. On top of that you can use several trees to verify what you are doing.
Did that answer your question?

Harrie,

Quote: › Then I showed you that dendro chronology goes back to 26000 years.

The machine does but not the trees. They only go back around 10,000. And that is slightly speculated.

It is like using a torque wrench that goes to 400 pounds. If you only need 100 pounds of torque, the remainder is irrelevant. Right?

I am not disagreeing with you on this. I think DC is reliable to an extent. Quite reliable actually. But, you got some dates confused here, Harrie.

Quote: › That does make the story a bit more plausible than just one witness account, doesn’t it?

OK. So when I use Josephus and Tacitus to reconcile that Jesus was a real person, you dismiss them. Why?

Quote: › If God really exist He would surely be proud of you.

I'm picking up your sarcasm, Harrie.

Me: “Then I showed you that dendro chronology goes back to 26000 years.’

Quote: › “The machine does but not the trees. They only go back around 10,000. And that is slightly speculated.”

26000 years when they combine it globally, but that can’t be possible as that would be before God created the plants.

Quote: › “OK. So when I use Josephus and Tacitus to reconcile that Jesus was a real person, you dismiss them. Why?”

I do not dismiss that Jesus might have been a real person, I simply do not belief that He was God in the flesh. Perhaps Jesus Himself thought so, like many healers and such today sometimes think. But where is the evidence that Jesus really was divine?


Me: “If God really exist He would surely be proud of you.”

Quote: › “I'm picking up your sarcasm, Harrie.”

It is not really sarcasm, I’m afraid. Sort of a melancholy feeling that expressed itself a bit messy.

Dear Harrie,

I am amazed at how fast people can seemingly either forget or totally divert their attention from the OP topic.

If I recall correctly the OP subject was related to the age of the earth.

I do not know the precise age.

Do you mean as presently organized?

Or do you mean the age of the materials which form the earth?

If your question refers to the age of the elements, then I think you can answer that for your self if you can correctly answer the following questions.

Are the elements eternal?

Can you destroy matter or only change it?

Regards,
RT