4.5-20 billion years old?

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
Sep 9, 2005
8,897
40
48
U.S.
www.ebay.com
Radio-dating in Rubble

by Keith Swenson

In August of 1993, with geologist Dr Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research, I climbed into the crater of Mount St Helens to view the lava dome. It was one of those experiences that was well worth every exhausting moment! The dome (Geology of the Grand Canyon figure, shown in More and more wrong dates) looks like a small mountain, roughly 1.1 km (¾ mile) long and 350 m (1,100 ft) high. It sits directly over the volcanic vent at the south end of the huge horseshoe-shaped crater that was blasted out of the mountain by the spectacular eruption on 18 May 1980.1 From the crater, the dome appears as a huge steaming mound of dark, block-like rubble. It is made of dacite, a fine-grained volcanic rock that contains a sprinkling of larger, visible crystals, like chopped fruit in a cake.

Actually, the present lava dome at Mount St Helens is the third dome to form since the 1980 eruption, the previous two having been blasted away by the subsequent eruptions.

The current dome started growing after the volcano’s last explosive eruption on 17 October 1980. During 17 so-called dome-building eruptions, from 18 October 1980 to 26 October 1986, thick pasty lava oozed out of the volcanic vent like toothpaste from a tube.1

Dacite lava is too thick to flow very far, so it simply piled up around the vent, forming the mountain-like dome, which now plugs the volcanic orifice.

How radioactive ‘dating’ really works

Why does the lava dome provide an opportunity to test the accuracy of radioisotope dating? There are two reasons. First, radioisotope-dating methods are used on igneous rocks—those formed from molten rock material. Dacite fits this bill. Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically. Second, and most importantly, we know exactly when the lava dome formed. This is one of the rare instances in which, to the question, ‘Were you there?’ we can answer, ’Yes, we were!’

The dating method Dr Austin used at Mount St Helens was the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in geological circles. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or ‘variety’ of the element potassium) spontaneously ‘decays’ into argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon).2 This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years.1 In other words, 1.0 g of potassium-40 would, in 1.3 billion years, theoretically decay to the point that only 0.5 g was left.

Contrary to what is generally believed, it is not just a matter of measuring the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample of unknown age, and calculating a date. Unfortunately, before that can be done, we need to know the history of the rock. For example, we need to know how much ‘daughter’ was present in the rock when it formed. In most situations we don’t know since we didn’t measure it, so we need to make an assumption—a guess. It is routinely assumed that there was no argon initially. We also need to know whether potassium-40 or argon-40 have leaked into, or out of, the rock since it formed. Again, we do not know, so we need to make an assumption. It is routinely assumed that no leakage occurred. It is only after we have made these assumptions that we can calculate an ‘age’ for the rock. And when this is done, the ‘age’ of most rocks calculated in this way is usually very great, often millions of years. The Mount St Helens lava dome gives us the opportunity to check these assumptions, because we know it formed just a handful of years ago, between 1980 and 1986.

The dating test

In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.
 

encomiast

boosted kraut
Mar 31, 2005
192
0
0
germany
Cliffnotes of Nick's post:
Some guy got a few magma samples from Mount St.Helens which were formed after the outbreak in 1980 and had a laboratory do some K-Ar (Potassium-Argon) dating on them to see how appropriate the method really is. The results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years, which is obviously way off.
I don't really see what the thread title has to do with it though :dunno:

Nick, I did some research and found this thread on another forum, pretty much about the same topic:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=59&m=1
Seems like K-Ar dating is actually rarely used as the only dating method, and is also already known to be problematic. The Argon-Argon method seems to be much more precise and to usually be used to back up K-Ar dating.
Also the average age measured in your article is 1.57 million million years, which is 12/10000ths of the half-life of Potassium. The actual age of the samples is a really really tiny fracture (7.7 * 10^-9 if I'm correct) of Potassium's half-life. So I'm not sure if that experiment is proving anything, besides the already known fact that K-Ar dating isn't 100% accurate.
Maybe you want to join the forum I linked above and continue your crusade over there ;)
 

SupraMario

I think it was the google
Mar 30, 2005
3,467
6
38
39
The Farm
The point I think hes trying to make is basicly all they dating stuff they use to say something is this many years old is flawed.

If anyone who is even remotely interested in this type of stuff and thinks the first date scientist throw out there is factual needs to relearn what a THEORY is.
Carbon 14 dating is flawed as much as any other dating type is. Its just a little bit more accurate.
 

cwapface

Supernerd
Mar 30, 2005
464
0
0
43
Eugene, OR
www.dylanwiggins.com
I guess the real question is why does this matter? It's like getting upset that the pictures of food in advertisements aren't really the food you get if you go to the restaurant, in fact, the food pictured sometimes ISN'T EVEN REAL FOOD AT ALL. But it doesn't change anything...
 

SupraMario

I think it was the google
Mar 30, 2005
3,467
6
38
39
The Farm
cwapface said:
I guess the real question is why does this matter? It's like getting upset that the pictures of food in advertisements aren't really the food you get if you go to the restaurant, in fact, the food pictured sometimes ISN'T EVEN REAL FOOD AT ALL. But it doesn't change anything...

whos mad?
Its just something to think and ponder over.
 

Brewster

So it goes.
Apr 15, 2005
1,156
0
0
39
Morgantown, WV
cwapface said:
I guess the real question is why does this matter? It's like getting upset that the pictures of food in advertisements aren't really the food you get if you go to the restaurant, in fact, the food pictured sometimes ISN'T EVEN REAL FOOD AT ALL. But it doesn't change anything...

He's just trying to prove that science is flawed and that god exists. It's not working...
 

SupraMario

I think it was the google
Mar 30, 2005
3,467
6
38
39
The Farm
Brewster said:
He's just trying to prove that science is flawed and that god exists. It's not working...

huh?
This is talkin about how the dating process is flawed to a degree, who the hell says god or the bible is the truth.
you cant, no one can.
 

Wills7MGTE

( . )( . )'s RULE!!!!
May 12, 2006
1,077
0
0
38
Jackson, MO
www.myspace.com
Who honestly cares how old the earth is, why the sky is blew, whether god exists, this is NOT important, if you need a meaning to life then you will NEVER be happy, let it be, you can find all your answers when you die, if you wake up in heaven you know god was real, if nothing happens you're screwed. WHO REALLY CARES?
 

SupraMario

I think it was the google
Mar 30, 2005
3,467
6
38
39
The Farm
Wills7MGTE said:
Who honestly cares how old the earth is, why the sky is blew, whether god exists, this is NOT important, if you need a meaning to life then you will NEVER be happy, let it be, you can find all your answers when you die, if you wake up in heaven you know god was real, if nothing happens you're screwed. WHO REALLY CARES?

Some people enjoy digging now. Instead of waiting for a later.
and like you said if nothing happens the we are screwwed, why not find out now that nothing happens in the end.
Cause I dont plan on dieing.
AT all.
 

SupraMario

I think it was the google
Mar 30, 2005
3,467
6
38
39
The Farm
Wills7MGTE said:
well good luck with not dying

Head in a Jar mofo.
:biglaugh:
Technology is continuing to get better every day.
We have learned 10fold what we new in the 50s in under 10years after 1990.
I'm 50 years, its going to be even farther more advanced.
If we dont nuke each other, then we should be ok.
 

Brewster

So it goes.
Apr 15, 2005
1,156
0
0
39
Morgantown, WV
D34DC311 said:
huh?
This is talkin about how the dating process is flawed to a degree, who the hell says god or the bible is the truth.
you cant, no one can.

i think you missed something.

this thread has underlying religous tones, just like his other threads.

Nick M said:
geologist Dr Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research

he's trying to prove god > science
 

SupraMario

I think it was the google
Mar 30, 2005
3,467
6
38
39
The Farm
Old and young earth creationist.
All they are is the same scientist just with religion stirred into the pot.
big deal.
let them try to prove god is real.
If gods not real then well they really will feel like crap when they find out the truth.
 

Yellow 13

Lurker
Apr 4, 2006
2,308
0
36
Fairfield, California
dianetics-book.jpg
>ALL

















jk

Thats the gay scientology book for those that dont know.
 

wingman

sucka got blammed!
Sep 11, 2005
427
0
0
36
Phoenix, AZ
"when you realize just how trivial everything really is, you will look up at the sky and laugh" -anonymous

makes sense to me...hell if I know where i came from, why i'm here, and where i'm going, so instead of wasting my time babbling over inconclusive arguments i think i'll go work on my car :icon_bigg