guess I can't get away here's another long one
Here's one of (probably) many things that bothers me with evolution. Dating the fossils:
So is this statement true?: "Fossil dating is accurate since the method follows strict scientific guidelines.."
The actual measuring of the elements is accurate, but the calculations are based on assumptions.
It is true that the deeper rocks often tend to give older ages?', but the questionable science is to give the rocks an age in millions of years.
Wrong dates for a known age:
Let's look at the Potassium to argon dating method on five recent andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand.
One lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, but the date results (which would indicate when the larva solidified) ranged from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma (Mega annum, million years)
The true answer was no more than 50 years ago!
But the researchers would argue that "excess" argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained when it solidified!
The problem is, if a massively magnified date can be given to rocks of known age, then how many times is it happening to samples of unknown age?
Why should we trust this method for dating rocks of an unknown age?
Here's a good look at dating the earth:
http://www.naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html
and a short excerpt from this very long technical article:
At the time that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was "scientifically" determined to be 100 million years old. By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years old. In 1947, science firmly established that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Finally in 1976, it was discovered that the earth is "really" 4.6 billion years oldÂ… What happened?
The study of geology grew out of field studies associated with mining and engineering during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. In these early studies the order of sedimentary rocks and structures were used to date geologic time periods and events in a relative way. At first, the use of "key" diagnostic fossils was used to compare different areas of the geologic column. Although there were attempts to make relative age estimates, no direct dating method was available until the twentieth century.
Following the discovery of radioactivity by Becquerel (1896), the possibility of using this phenomenon as a means for determining the age of uranium-bearing minerals was demonstrated by Rutherford (1906). In his study Rutherford measured the U and He (He is an intermediate decay product of U) contents of uranium-bearing minerals to calculate an age. One year later Boltwood (1907) developed the chemical U-Pb method. These first "geochronology studies" yielded the first "absolute ages" from geologic material, which seemed to indicate that parts of the Earth's crust were hundreds of millions of years old. (Boltwood's ages have since been revised).
During this same period of time Thomson (1905), Campbell and Wood (1906) demonstrated that potassium was radioactive and emitted beta-particles. The first isotopes of potassium (39K and 41K) were reported by Aston (1921). Kohlhorster (1930) reported that potassium also emitted gamma radiation. Following theoretical arguments by Klemperer, Newman and Walke (1935) on the existence of 40K, which radioactively decayed to 40Ca by beta-emission, Nier (1935) discovered 40K and reported a value of 8600 for the 39K/40K ratio. Newman and Walke also suggested the possibility that 40K could decay to 40Ar. However, it was Von Weizsacker's (1937) argument, based on the abundance of argon in the Earth's atmosphere relative to the other noble gases (He, Ne, Kr, and Xe), that 40K also decayed to 40Ar by electron capture. As a test, Von Weizsacker suggested looking for excess 40Ar in older K-bearing rocks. By combining Von Weizsacker's argon abundance arguments with Kohlhorster's observation that potassium emitted gamma-radiation, Bramley (1937) presented strong evidence that potassium underwent dual decay. Thompson and Rowlands (1943), using a cloud chamber, confirmed that 40Ar was the decay product of 40K undergoing electron capture. The absolute confirmation that 40Ar was the decay product of 40K came when Aldrich and Nier (1948) measured significantly increased 40Ar/36Ar ratios on argon extracted from potassium-rich minerals relative to the atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar ratio. The rapid development of the K-Ar dating method soon followed.
The 40Ar/39Ar variation of K-Ar dating grew out of iodine-xenon dating studies of meteorites by Jeffery and Reynolds (1961). In these studies the isotopic ratios of all the noble gases (He, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe) of neutron-irradiated meteorites were measured. This led to the discovery of 39Ar, which is derived from 39K by Merrihue (1965). The first 40Ar/39Ar dating results were presented in a paper by Merrihue and Turner (1966). Further development of the 40Ar/39Ar method by Mitchell, (1968), Brereton, (1970), and Turner, (1971) evaluated the interfering argon isotopes derived from potassium and calcium (36ArCa, 39ArCa, and 40ArK) and determination of the respective correction factors [ (36Ar/37Ar)Ca, (39Ar/37Ar)Ca, and (40Ar/39Ar)K]. The first applications of the 40Ar/39Ar dating method of terrestrial rocks compared total fusion 40Ar/39Ar ages with conventional K-Ar ages (Mitchell, 1968; Dunham et al., 1968; York and Berger, 1970; Dalrymple and Lanphere, 1971).
It is felt that the 40Ar/39Ar dating method offers a significant advantage over the conventional 40K/40Ar dating technique for several reasons. However, the most significant advantage of the 40Ar/39Ar dating method over the conventional 40K/40Ar method is the ability to step-heat samples to higher and higher temperatures until the sample is fused, and calculate and ages for each step. The 40Ar/39Ar step-heating method provides information on the internal distribution of potassium relative to argon. The first 40Ar/39Ar step-heating studies of terrestrial samples were by Fitch (1969), Miller (1970), York (1971), Lanphere and Dalrymple (1971), and Brereton (1972).1
Assumptions
Dating rocks by radioactive timekeepers is simple in theory, but almost all of the different methods (except for the isochron methods - see below) rely on these few basic assumptions:
Beginning Conditions Known
Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem)
Constant Decay Rate
No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes
Just a random thought.