Regardless of the article's technical level, Ai G authors will make all 3 (or 4) points in their publications, so I decided this jargon-free, "short enough to read on your smoke break" commentary on New Zealand volcanoes was a great place to start.Many minerals, such Feldspar and Mica, contain significant quantities of potassium (K).This definition can be misleading, however, without some qualification.First, all radiometric dating methods are scientific models used to estimate the age of geologic events, provided a number of physical assumptions regarding the rock's history are met.Since neutrons have no charge, they don't affect the chemical behavior of an element (besides its mass).Therefore, any mineral that contains potassium (K) will contain a mixture of all its isotopes (39, 40, and 41).So now that you are better prepared, let's continue!Over the years, Answers in Genesis has committed to undermining the credibility of radiometric dating techniques.
" Although the article was not published by any member of the RATE team, it provides a simple example of Ai G's critical approach: 1) remind readers that several assumptions are inherent to radiometric dating methods; 2) provide a case-in-point where at least one of those assumptions was falsified; 3) extrapolate the proven uncertainty to the rest of geochronology without qualification; 4) (optional) advise readers that anyone defending radiometric dating methods is trying to undermine God's clear teaching of a young Earth and, consequently, the gospel itself." Now, my concern is that to the non-scientist (or even to the experienced scientist that doesn't regularly work with geochronology) this reasoning may seem plausible and end the debate without warrant.But if the failure of the K-Ar dating method is so obvious, why do scientists still spend so much money on running samples?While such geological complexities pose additional challenges to geochronologists, even "bad" dates can be very useful.My hope is to convince you this is the case through the following example, and that Ai G had prematurely discredited the K-Ar dating method. Doolan provides a convincing case against the credibility of K-Ar dating.Therefore, one can use the measured ratio of potassium to argon in a given mineral to infer the time at which the mineral crystallized and began to accumulate argon (note: 40Ca is not considered in the equation, because it is a common isotope that is already abundant in the rock).Typically, one assumes that no argon (or negligible amounts thereof) was initially present, because argon is a noble gas and can easily diffuse out of minerals that are still hot.Is there a grand conspiracy to hide the flaws, which are so simple to point out? Doolan first explains that the largest volcano is the youngest.This is true, but he does so in a way that would make you think scientists either doubted that young age, or figured they could use K-Ar dating to come up with a "final answer." (If you did not get this impression from the first paragraph, then my point here is invalid, but I'll continue nonetheless) First, Mr.I remember reading similar reports years ago, which cited numerous cases of historical lava flows (note: historical meaning humans witnessed it) that were dated radiometrically to be a few hundred thousand to millions of years old.I was originally quite convinced by the discrepancy that radiometric dating methods were fundamentally flawed: "If radiometric dating methods are so wrong when the age is known, how can we trust them when the age is unknown?