The Problem of Potassium-Argon Dating

Volcano image is in the public domain.

If life evolved on Earth as materialist scientists claim, the planet must be very old. In fact it must be billions of years old. Otherwise there is not enough time for life to have evolved. The current theory is that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

In order to determine how old the Earth is, these scientists use a technique called potassium-argon dating (K-AR). A particular isotope of potassium, K-40, undergoes a decay process and eventually becomes an argon isotope, Ar-40. It is reasonable to ask if the K-Ar test is accurate before we accept its results as accurate. It turns out that the test is definitely not accurate. Here are two cases.

Hawaiian Lava Flow

Researchers found similar conflict in Hawaii. A lava flow that is known to have taken place in 1800-1801 — less than 200 years ago — was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old. (3) If the real dates had not been reasonably well established by other means, who could have proved that the potassium-argon dates were so wrong?…

3. J. G. Funkhouser and J. J. Naughton, “He and Ar in ultramafic inclusions”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, 1968, pp. 4601-4607

Mount St. Helens

The newly-formed lava domes at Mount St. Helens was dated to an age of 340,000 years when it was only 10 years old.

Austin, Steven A. 1996. “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano.” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 10 (3): 335-343.

What Went Wrong?

Because of the half-life pf K-40, the test can only be done when the rock sample is tens of thousands of years old. If it is younger than that the test will fail and the results will be off. Therefore, when the sample is only 10 or 200 years old, you are going to bad results.

However, this explanation does not let those who believe in an old Earth off the hook. When they test a sample of rock and get an age in the billions of years, is it really that old or is it much younger, maybe a couple of thousand years old, and just giving a bad result like the examples above. We have no way of knowing. The K-Ar test is not trustworthy. Despite this it is still being used because it supports the preconceptions of the materialists.

Text © 2019 Gary J. Sibio. All rights reserved.

#science #origins #creationism #evolution #geology #radiometricdating


What do you think?

13 points

Written by Gary J Sibio

Wordsmith BuddySmarty PantsLoyal BuddyBookwormBuddy BossYears Of MembershipStory MakerImage MakerQuiz MakerUp/Down VoterList MakerEmoji AddictVerified UserContent Author


Leave a Reply
  1. Even carbon dating has its weakness. I read a detailed article how it is not effective in calculating the age of things.
    It’s evident by observing the world that it isn’t billions of years old. Why was it slow then and today it’s very fast?

    • In the late 1960s and early 1970s it was noticed that C-14 dating produced false results for dates older than about 2,000 years. They had to rework the formula. I believe they have had to do so a second time since then although I’m not certain.

      The problem with C-14 dating is a problem with all radiometric dating. There are a lot of assumptions being made/ Some may be valid but others are not.

      For example, the decay rate may have been different in the past than it is now. The end product of the decay may have leeched into or out of the sample. It is assumed that the amount of the original isotope was always as common as it is now. Even a minor change in any of these would throw off the results.

        • Scientists present the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old as being beyond questioning. The uncertainty of the dating methods in use indicate that it is very reasonable to question the age of the Earth and to see if there aren’t some other data that could help us sort things out.

          In the 1960s, prior to the manned moon landing, NASA sent some unmanned probes to the lunar surface. There was much concern about these probes and many scientists thought that they would rule out the possibility of a manned landing.

          You see, if the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, the moon would also be and it would, therefore, be covered with a pile of dust which would have swallowed up the probe. However, when the probe landed, the dust pile was found to amount to only a few inches indicating a much younger age.

          There are other indications that the Earth is a lot younger than 4.5 billion years. The amount of Helium in the atmosphere, the amount of sediment from rivers in the oceans.

          In addition, the field of biochemistry is beginning to reveal that evolution is quite impossible. The processes in the cell are much too complicated to have appeared at once but, unless they did, the organism would not have survived.

          For example, there are about 40 or 50 components to photosynthesis. Mathematically it could not have appeared fully functional. Yet, unless it was complete, it would do plants no good. Plants without photosynthesis would have died immediately.

          • You’ve well explained why the earth and moon are younger and the problem with the dating techniques. I’m not so good in this area but I’m glad you’ve offered a valid explanation to rule out evolution and the earth being billions old which isn’t true.
            I think people who are on the notion the earth is billions of years old and support evolution deny the fact there was an intelligent design behind all of these.
            It’s a fact dinosaurs lived with humans but scientists want us to believe they existed and were extinguished before man came into being.

Leave a Reply