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.
For now, I wanted to consider an older article, only a page long, entitled "How do you date a New Zealand volcano?
" 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.
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).
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.
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.
" 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.