Talk:Potassium-argon dating
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Potassium-argon dating is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Many religious folk are opposed to the use of this kind of dating. Do they have a argument. How acurate is this kind of dating and how do we know this happens over the time frames suggested?
Personally I think that as we have had many technological advancements using theoretical science, that it is true and accurate. Anybody else have ideas/suggestions.
there are still assumptions which we must assume to be true for potassium-argon dating to work. We must assume that there was no argon already trapped in these lattices, none escaped or was added until we found the rock and that decay rates have always been constant. No one was there to observe these things, so can we really trust their dates? Alisyd 17:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Standard creationist boilerplate is not appreciated and not helpful. Of course there are ::assumptions involved in K/Ar dating. Every radiometric dating technique relies upon similar ::assumptions--the point is that they're justified assumptions. A few seconds of googling will ::show you various sites that confirm that decay rates are constant and remain so. That is not an ::issue here.
- But for completeness's sake, read here for K/Ar basics:
- http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/time_5.htm
- and here for an example of the technique used appropriately:
- http://www.ajsonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/262/2/145
- and here for an acknowledgment that yes, there are problems with the technique, but that by no ::means undermines the whole process:
- http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/hs/journal/issues/2005/jul/clicSubscriber/V82N06/p1094.pdf
- Finally, can we please stop using the "you weren't there!" argument? I wasn't there for your ::mother's birth, either, but I can infer that she was indeed born from the fact of your existence. ::Oh, and yeah, unless a particular religious objection to radiometric dating techniques is notable, ::there is no reason to include it in an article. This same discussion has gone on ad nauseum ::over at Radiocarbon dating.
[edit] Lower limits of K-Ar method?
Hi all. I don't have my copy of Harrison and McDougall handy and I don't work on young rocks, so the lower limit to K-Ar dates that I inserted (>100 000a) might be wrong.Rickert 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
