Wikipedia ar ar dating Chat avenue for cam2cam

But basically, it's like seeing a TV image in a noisy signal. These (flawed) studies cite examples of "anomalous" ages from specific lava floes: Their claims: "Volcanic rocks produced by the lava flows which occured in Hawaii in the years 1800-1801 were dated by the potassium-argon method.

Each pixel is somewhat unreliable, but when you piece together the whole picture, the predictions of the hypothesis "that's Mr. Excess argon produced apparent ages ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years." (Kofahl and Segraves, 1975, p.200) These authors cite a study by Funkhouser and Naughton (1968) on xenolithic inclusions in the 1801 flow from Hualalei Volcano on the Island of Hawaii.

But not always -- contamination of both types is common.

wikipedia ar ar dating-62wikipedia ar ar dating-84

Other methods, such as Isochron dating could potentially be used to show that the data are still consistent with current geological theory. I wrote the first draft thinking the entire range of reported dates represented the error bars on one sample, implying that the perceived dating error was not statistically significant. (1) when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

I'm coming in late, but I don't understand this argument. If the sample gathered by these skeptics cannot be measured accurately (allegedly due to assumption violations), how can we trust results given on other samples?

They claim that the rocks they obtained were from a lava flow which came out of the volcano in 1945.

They sent these rocks to 2 labs and had them dated by potassium-argon dating to be between 270, 000 and 1 million years old.

Therefore this data cannot be used to falsify K-Ar dating, because it does not violate a prediction of radiometric dating.

Instead, the hypothetical contamination scenarios proposed by other answers/comments gain support.Therefore no prediction of the theory has been contradicted.Drawing inferences from radiometric dating requires at least two basic assumptions: Igneous rock often forms under conditions that favor (1).Firstly: please try not to bring creation/evolution into this.I will award the correct answer to a response which provides links to evidence and sound explanations.I can think of several possibilities in response to this question: 2 & 3 seem easily falsifiable - anyone else could simply repeat the procedure and see if their results were the same.

Tags: , ,