Blind Leading the Blind: Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists YECs are desperate to undermine the reliability of these dating methods. As part of their efforts, YECs clearly believe that they can discredit K-Ar dating if they can show that excess argon routinely enters rocks and minerals as they form.
That is, they believe that excess argon will cause rocks and minerals that are supposedly less than 10, years old to have 'deceptively' old K-Ar dates of millions or billions of years. In particular, YECs attempt to demonstrate that excess argon is a 'problem' for K-Ar dating by locating examples of historically erupted volcanics, which yield K-Ar dates that are hundreds of thousands or millions of years older than their eruption dates.
The data were miscopied from Dalrymple Brent Dalrymple is a geochronologist with 40 years experience, a pioneer in the identification of excess argon in igneous samples, and an outspoken critic of young-Earth creationism e.
As part of his seminal work on excess argon, Dalrymple dated 26 historical lava flows with K-Ar to determine whether excess argon was present. Of the 26 lava flows that were sampled and analyzed, 18 of them gave expected results.
That is, no excess 40Ar or 36Ar were present. Eight rocks yielded unrealistic dates, which were either too old because of the presence of excess 40Ar 5 of them or too young negative ages because of the presence of excess 36Ar 3 of them. The details on the 8 anomalous samples are listed in Table 2 of Dalrymple , p. Etna basalts a 'date' of , years for a sample that erupted in AD and a K-Ar 'date' of , years for the other sample, which erupted in BC , a plagioclase from Mt.
Lassen, California 'dated' at , years; erupted in AD , and a basalt from Sunset Crater, Arizona 'dated' at , and , years; erupted in AD.
Dalrymple found that they are reliable. Two-thirds of the time there is no excess argon at all. And in 25 times out of 26 tests there is no excess argon or there is so little excess argon that it will make only a tiny error, if any, in the final date for rocks millions of years old. The one case that would have produced a significant error, the Hualalai flow in Hawaii, was expected see the previous essay.
Even that significant error is only 1. If the identical rock had been formed 50 million years ago, the K-Ar would give a "false" age of a little over 51 million years. Thus this data is strongly supportive of mainstream geology. Furthermore, as discussed in Funkhouser and Naughton , p. As further discussed in Dalrymple and Lanphere , p.
In addition, excess argon is even less of a problem with Ar-Ar dating, where excess argon can often be distinguished from radiogenic argon and its effects eliminated McDougall and Harrison, , p. Etna 2 samples , Mt. Lassen, and Sunset Crater samples as their apparent K-Ar dates!! Austin and Swenson also contain the same erroneous data.
In reality, the Hualalai basalt had 1. Because Austin's essay is older, we can probably assume that these copying errors originated with him. Rather than checking the accuracy and relevancy of Austin's quotations from Dalrymple , Snelling and Swenson simply uncritically parroted and perpetuated Austin's mistakes in their later web essays. This is truly a case of the blind leading the blind!!