Potassium — Argon and Sandwich Dating

Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating for Fossils | Archaeological Dating Methods
Dig It With Raven | 26 Jan. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-s_B5vg0AQ

that means when everything is 4:17 cooled and igneous rock is formed the 4:20 argon levels are set to 4:22 zero all of the argon that we find in 4:24 igneous rock is then therefore the 4:26 product 4:27 of potassium 40 decay

Even if the lava cools before all the argon could peter out?

1801, the Hualalai volcano on Hawaii erupted, lava flow went to the ocean floor, 0.8 miles deep, 0 million, but two miles deep 12 million years.

I would say, the deeper the lava was in the water, the quicker it cooled and the more argon was trapped, giving a false result by the K-Ar dating.

Credits to a talk by Dr. Grady McMurtry.*

5:05 Thank you very much for noting the problem with calcium 40. I just note, argon is not immune from it under aquatic conditions.

Have you ever heard of a Global Flood?

7:02 Sandwich dating is a thing I dealt with too.**

Imagine the early stages of the Flood, when not everything is covered in water.

Volcano, tsunami cooling it, survivors getting across it and dying in the next tsunami, volcano again, and a few more times volcano again.

The earlier coolings of the volcano would have been while the water was deeper, since volcanic activity and sedimenary deposition by precipitation highten the ocean floor and also, volcanic activity heats the water, so even deeper waters (see about early stages) are less cooling.

9:17 Like you described argon-argon, it sounds nuts, sorry.

Not even remotely as reassuring as even potassium argon.

I'm not an expert, but how does this avoid potassium 40 being turned into argon 40 by a process similar to potassium 39 being turned into argon 39?

How can you even be sure potassium 39 isn't turned into argon 40 when more than one neutron bombards it?

* Uploaded on a video from 2016, not sure if the talk was same year, the volcano comes after 7 minutes in:

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 2
Arne Karlsen | 15 May 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Qr9ZZ-Y30

** On this post:

Creation vs. Evolution: Isn't There a Geological Column in Laetoli, and Aren't the Footprints Proof of Human Ancestors?
Saturday 4 Oct 2014 | Hans Georg Lundahl
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/10/isnt-there-geological-column-in-laetoli.html

Argon, Carbon, Magnetic Field

Creation vs. Evolution: Why is Carbon Dating More Important than Potassium Argon? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Argon, Carbon, Magnetic Field · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument · If Ken Wolgemuth Avoids Answering Me Directly, What Does That Say of Him? Update : he did some answering · He did some answering, though, to others ... · Ken Wolgemuth part IV

Why Science CANNOT Prove the Earth Is Billions of Years Old
Answers in Genesis | 9.II.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuJZpFYZE7w

10:23 Here is my view on the dates:

27 500 BC
42 000 BC

The more recent date would be early post-Flood:

2935 B. Chr.
0.039541 pmC/100, so dated as 29 635 B. Chr.
2912 B. Chr.
0.066161 pmC/100, so dated as 25 362 B. Chr.

(2935 + 2912) / 2 = 2923~2924 BC (with Flood in 2957)
(3.9541 + 6.6161) / 2 = 5.2851 pmC
=> 24 300 extra years => 24 300 + 2924 = 27 224 BC

The older date would be pre-Flood, and arguably due to reservoir effect of some sort. Comparable to part of an animal being dated 400 years older than now.

Dialogue:

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

11:37 Hawaii is wetter than New Zealand and New Zealand wetter than Sicily.

Do you know what exact year the weather was even wetter, globally, than 1959 Hawaii? It's described in Genesis 7.

Eunity

@Eunity286

Pardon, but what exactly do you mean by "wetter." Do you mean the humidity in the air? If so, that is in accordance to their place on the plane of latitude.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@Eunity286 I mean anything that will cool the lava quicker.

Flood waters, humidity, rains, whatever.

Eunity

@hglundahl What lava? Yes, there are active volcanoes in some of these areas, but... What lava are attempting to cool? I'm not understanding your analogy.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@Eunity286 Do you know ANYTHING about K-Ar dating?

It's not an analogy, it's physical science, and it should be obvious to anyone actually versed in the matter what it was that I was saying.

Lava always cools. The question is how quick it cools. If it cools quickly, argon will be trapped. If argon is trapped, it will skew an argon dating by being interpreted as daughter isotope.

It will be interpreted as if there were more original potassium and as if more of the original potassium had been decayed radioactively. Get it this time?

@Eunity286 To be even more precise, lava that has cooled and has it's content of K (potassium) and Ar (argon) tested, is the routine, not an exceptional, but the routine source for potassium argon dating.

Eunity

@hglundahl Interesting. I'm in college right now and have never heard the term "wetter" used to describe anything of the sort. Geology isn't my specialty, but I'm currently taking a class with a geology professor. I'll be sure to ask him about it.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@Eunity286 Do.

He might tell you that K-Ar dates aren't supposed to be skewed by rapid cooling of the lava induced by water, and that it's bad practise to call such a thing a potassium argon date.

And you might ask him, how does he exclude this having happened with the potassium argon dates he studies?

Eunity

@hglundahl I do know that we use the half-lives of potassium and argon to determine the age of each layer, which isn't exactly determinate of how deep and separated the layers are. We can determine that through layers around it as well.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@Eunity286 "I do know that we use the half-lives of potassium and argon to determine the age of each layer"

Yes. So, if you find 94 % potassium and 6 % argon, you routinely conclude that the halflife of potassium should be applied to finding out how ling the layer or igneous rock (a k a former lava) has been lying there.

But to do so, you assume the 6 % argon are from the 6 % potassium. That the potassium has gone down from 100 % to 94 %.

That's how you date the rock to sth like 110 million years in this case.

If you treated the potassium as 100 % of the original, and the argon as a separate entity, you wouldn't end up with that date.

That's what I do.

Btw, there is no "half-lives of potassium and argon" since argon 40 is stable. It's only the half-life of potassium 40 that you use.

Now, "layers around it" - well, if sediment and lava layers are alternating, each sediment layer is routinely dated by the lava layer above it.

However, it once was a little question for me, why do we in such cases find lava layers higher up are less old by dating than those further down. It's the case in Laetoli, for instance. My solution is, the lower lava layers were laid down earlier in the Flood and therefore trapped more argon. They were cooled by deeper and possibly cooler quantities of water.

Eunity

@hglundahl interesting. I'm not sure if this is proof of the Earth's age exactly, especially if such a discrepancy was known, surely scientists would have accounted for this. How long have you worked in the field?

Hans Georg Lundahl

@Eunity286 The problem is, scientists who deny there was a Flood will also deny this discrepancy can account for very long ages.

So, they will use them.

I have not worked IN the field, I work as a writer, and I have OBSERVED the question of argon dates probably since I did a check-up on Laetoli.

As said, I was stumped that lava layers higher up were dated younger. Obviously they were laid down later, on some level, but if all radioactive dates (except carbon 14) were just random, wouldn't one expect the dates to come in no order.

The water depths during the Flood would be the response, I concluded.

I think there was a Med Doctor who became a Young Earth Creationist who alterted me to this by speaking about a Volcano on Hawaii. Looked it up, his name is Grady Mc Murtry.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 1
Arne Karlsen | 15 mai 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJGairhrPGc

Jock Young

@jockyoung4491

@hglundahl
Wouldn't it be easier to just accept the straightfoward logic that radioisotope decay is constant and the Earth is over 4 billion years old? Why are you trying so hard to imagine a scenario where the science MIGHT be wrong? And without testing such a scenario, you would still have nothing.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@jockyoung4491 A few remarks on your remark:

1) Where did I even mention decay rates NOT being constant?
2) Where does K-Ar (which above is about) touch on 4 billion years?
3) Where did I state the scientists just MIGHT be wrong?
4) Why would it not be THEIR responsibility to check they couldn't easily be so?
5) How does modern parallel to the case, in miniature, and historic fact referred to NOT constitute an actual test?

Jock Young

Yes, scientists test their assumptions and make sure they are right. Obviously.

Hans Georg Lundahl

How do you test an assumption about the past?

I see exactly two ways:
1) written records in the past
2) examples from more recent past, with parallel outcomes.

I have exactly both of them on my side.

14:03 Our magnetic field is not at its least strong now.

The centuries after the Flood, the carbon 14 production was c. 10 times faster.

It's influenced by three magnitudes:

• directly, number of incoming particles (forget which ones, but can look it up)
• directly, energy level of each particle
• inversely, strength of magnetic field.

The same higher income of radioactivity back then also contributed to both lowering of human life spans (that nice curve studied by Dr. Robert Carter), and the ice age.

Jock Young

@jockyoung4491

giggle

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@jockyoung4491 Enjoy the laugh.

You may chuckle, smile etc as well.

When you are done, you tell me what you find strange?

TravisBickle Popsicle

@travisbicklepopsicle

@hglundahl

Well, there really isn't any evidence demonstrating a global flood occurred, and there's much evidence demonstrating one most definitely did not, so there is that to consider. A global flood would have left geological evidence, biological/ genetic evidence, etc., but there simply isn't any.

Jewonastick

@Jewonastick

@hglundahl I laughed as well.... As I find it absolutely hilarious to see that people actually believe in bronze age mythology.

Ray Gsbrelcik

@raygsbrelcik5578

@Jewonastick And you belief that LIFE not only existed in the Dark Vacuum of Dead Space....WITHOUT Oxygen, but actually Began to ASSEMBLE itself into Mathematically Complex, Thinking, breathing creatures!

Now THAT'S Fantasy!

You didn't even Watch this video, DID you?

@Jewonastick "HILARIOUS," my friend.....Hilarious!

@Jewonastick Did you even Watch his refutation of Current "DATING" Methods? Are you even paying ATTENTION here?

Jewonastick

@raygsbrelcik5578 yeah, and I keep seeing these claims without any evidence… Like zero peer reviewed research for instance. Where did I wrote that life existed in space? Oh wait….. I didn’t.

Ray Gsbrelcik

@Jewonastick AND——About 90% of atheists I talk to say, or Think, that the STUFF of life Pre-existed, however....You say, No!

Okay——So then....just HOW did it begin to CREATE itself, then??

@Jewonastick You guys can't even Get your Stories Correct!!

@Jewonastick Furthermore; Until, or, unless, you can DISPROVE BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY, you have NO Platform whatsoever, in Defense of your, "Theory!"

AND;
Until, or, unless, you can DISPROVE....Conclusively, BIBLE PROPHECY——You have NO leg to Stand on, my friend!


Respectfully.

@Jewonastick By the way——The evidence ( so called) that you Think You've provided, could barely cover the head of a Stick pen!

Jewonastick

@raygsbrelcik5578 I don’t know what the origin of life is. I just don’t believe that it was a magical immaterial man that supposedly lives outside of our universe. Atheists don’t have any story to “get correct”. Atheism is the disbelief in a god and that’s it.

Biblical archaeology doesn’t prove anything other than that some places in the Bible actually existed. Biblical prophecy? You mean those stories that are either so vague, open to interpretation, bound to happen or only confirmed within the bible itself?

Ray Gsbrelcik

@Jewonastick By your own admission....You don't know what the Origin of life is, however, you're bound and determined to Blindly REJECT the One and Only Model of Origins that FITS all Criteria for the evidence of Flesh, Soul, and, Spirit.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@raygsbrelcik5578 Did you note the subject was the magnetic field?

Hans Georg Lundahl

@Jewonastick Did you note the subject was the magnetic field?

Hans Georg Lundahl

@travisbicklepopsicle Did you note the subject was the magnetic field?

TravisBickle Popsicle

@hglundahl yeah, I noted you mentioned the magnetic field. Among other things.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@travisbicklepopsicle Three things that all contribute to the production of C14.

Carbon Dates, Armitage and a Volcano of Hawaii

Continuing a series of comments from back here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Potholer defends Carbon dates
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/01/potholer-defends-carbon-dates.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5:36 The problem with your reasoning here is, you are presuming everything dino or sth like that is completely permineralised.

Not true if you saw up dino bones like Armitage did.

6:54 And Armitage has done this to freshly found dino bones, with no shellac on them.

7:24 And since back then, Armitage has found dino collagen in bones.

Leafsdude

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "And Armitage has done this to freshly found dino bones, with no shellac on them."

[Citation Needed]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Leafsdude here (even if intro is a bit corny):

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Discovered by Mark Armitage Micro Specialist
Dave Flang | 11.XII.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fjjeyRxP9Q

Leafsdude

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No video could be an adequate citation for your claim. Do you have anything else to provide?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Leafsdude "No video could be an adequate citation for your claim."

Why not? It shows the process of extraction, with the precautions to avoid contamination.

"Do you have anything else to provide?"

For the moment, no.

Leafsdude

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Why not?"

Because it's far too complex a process to adequately perform in a video. He would need to perform numerous dating techniques, chemical analysis tests and so on before he could adequately demonstrate a) that there is material that is "premineralized" and/or b) that there is any C14 to perform accurate, useful carbon dating on.

"It shows the process of extraction, with the precautions to avoid contamination."

Well, that's not what I asked for, anyway. As per above, if your claim is that there is material in the bones that are "premineralized" and/or that there is C14 in the bones, showing the extraction process is not adequate to show that.

[I take it "premineralised" is the very opposite of permineralised. He brought the word up here, and that is what it means : not yet mineralised.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Leafsdude "He would need to perform numerous dating techniques, chemical analysis tests and so on before he could adequately demonstrate a) that there is material that is "premineralized" and/or b) that there is any C14 to perform accurate, useful carbon dating on."

Not really.

Material from inside the bone is if not mineralised then pre-mineralised.

And absence of C14 would not yield erratic carbon dates, but a result like "your specimen is beyond dating possibilities of at present 70.000 years BP" or similar.

Plus the "numerous dating techniques" are most of them less reliable than C14.

If your point were that he could have done sth fraudulent, showing a full paper would change nothing to your scepticism.

If your point is, he could have been bungling sth due to incompetence, he's an accredited scientist and got fired over this affair.

Leafsdude

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Not really."

Yes, really.

"Material from inside the bone is if not mineralised then pre-mineralised. "

Sure. Simplistic, but sure. How do you think mineralization is shown, exactly?

"And absence of C14 would not yield erratic carbon dates, but a result like "your specimen is beyond dating possibilities of at present 70.000 years BP" or similar."

Agreed, because there would be no carbon dates to come to because the whole point of carbon dating is to measure C14 and compare it to C12 & C13 levels. If there's no C14, there's nothing to compare the C12 and C13 to, thereby completely defeating the purpose of carbon dating. If there is no C14, then the answer to "what carbon date will this sample return" would be "none".

And if he wants to show there is C14 in the sample, a youtube video will not do that. Again, C14 measurements are far too complex to ever be able to show in a youtube video, unless the video is literally days, weeks, or even months long. Like, literally, thousands of hours long. Because you're not measuring C14 in a couple hours, let alone 10 minutes.

"Plus the "numerous dating techniques" are most of them less reliable than C14."

[Citation Needed]

"If your point were that he could have done sth fraudulent, showing a full paper would change nothing to your scepticism."

Highly disagree, because if he publishes a peer-reviewed paper, with his full setup stated in detail, then his experiments can be replicated and the results can be compared. If it's fraudulent, then those results will practically all be different. If it's not, then they will practically all be the same. This is why peer-review works and youtube videos do not.

"If your point is, he could have been bungling sth due to a) incompetence, b) he's an accredited scientist and c) got fired over this affair."

And you point is? b) and c) do not preclude a) .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Leafsdude "How do you think mineralization is shown, exactly?"

By what should be bone or soft tissue being instead some mineral, I suppose?

"Agreed, because there would be no carbon dates to come to because the whole point of carbon dating is to measure C14 and compare it to C12 & C13 levels."

Normally simply to Carbon 12 since it is the normal isotope.

"And if he wants to show there is C14 in the sample, a youtube video will not do that."

The point is, he showed extraction process was not risking contamination.

The other point is, he has showed documents from institutions that did carbon dating in the methods prescribed.

"Like, literally, thousands of hours long. Because you're not measuring C14 in a couple hours, let alone 10 minutes."
That sounds like BS to me, it takes:

• extracting carbon from non-carbon (for instance like burning to charcoal and then burning that in pure oxygen to get all the carbon in gas form)
• having a devise which can in gas detect the difference of carbon 14 from carbon 12.

I look up the apparatus used:

Accelerator Mass Spectrometer = seems to be the devise I was thinking of.

Gas proportional counting is a conventional radiometric dating technique that counts the beta particles emitted by a given sample. Beta particles are products of radiocarbon decay. In this method, the carbon sample is first converted to carbon dioxide gas before measurement in gas proportional counters takes place.

Liquid scintillation counting is another radiocarbon dating technique that was popular in the 1960s. In this method, the sample is in liquid form and a scintillator is added. This scintillator produces a flash of light when it interacts with a beta particle. A vial with a sample is passed between two photomultipliers, and only when both devices register the flash of light that a count is made.

Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) is a modern radiocarbon dating method that is considered to be the more efficient way to measure radiocarbon content of a sample. In this method, the carbon 14 content is directly measured relative to the carbon 12 and carbon 13 present. The method does not count beta particles but the number of carbon atoms present in the sample and the proportion of the isotopes.

Beta Analytic : How Does Carbon Dating Work
https://www.radiocarbon.com/about-carbon-dating.htm

"[Citation Needed]"

The volcanic eruption on Hawaii in 19th C, lava which solidified in the air has a ballpark where "recent" is an option, but lava that solidified in sea water, therefore faster, trapping more extra argon, has a definitely older measure. If you have a potassium argon date which says 400,000 years and another says 2,000,000 years, safest conclusion is waters of the Flood were cooler and cooling the lava quicker at the latter point, and lava solidified so quickly presumably is from the time of Noah.

Mungo man was carbon dated to c. 20,000 BP but the retained date of 40,000 is a non-carbon method.

"Highly disagree, because if he publishes a peer-reviewed paper, with his full setup stated in detail, then his experiments can be replicated and the results can be compared."

I'm sorry, but what needs to be replicated is simply sending dino non-permineralised materials for carbon dating. Simple as that. Since he didn't do the carbon dating himself, he sent to conventional labs, the point is that these are now blocking any replication by asking someone to fill in "expected date".

Being an accredited scientist does not preclude incompetence in evolution believing scientists either. Especially not if they confirm each other in that.

Leafsdude

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "By what should be bone or soft tissue being instead some mineral, I suppose?"

I was going more for the technical answer: how do you detect bone or soft tissue and differentiate it from minerals. I mean, you agree you can't just look at the samples and base it on that alone, correct?

"Normally simply to Carbon 12 since it is the normal isotope."

C12 is the more abundant isotope, but since C12 and C13 are both stable (as in, they don't decay), both are measured in carbon dating.

"The point is, he showed extraction process was not risking contamination."

Sure. That only proves there's no contamination. And, not being an expert, I can't even say that for sure based on a video.

My point is, even if that's proven, it doesn't prove his conclusions are based on any factual data. He hasn't done the carbon dating, he hasn't shown any C14 measurements, he hasn't shown that there's any premineralized soft tissues. Until he has, that video is entirely irrelevant.

"That sounds like BS to me"

Why?

"it takes:
extracting carbon from non-carbon (for instance like burning to charcoal and then burning that in pure oxygen to get all the carbon in gas form)

having a devise which can in gas detect the difference of carbon 14 from carbon 12. "

And how long do you think those processes, done correctly, take, keeping in mind a) the need for a significant amount of carbon extract, and b) the need to run multiple measurements to rule out statistical anomalies and errors?

"The volcanic eruption on Hawaii in 19th C, lava which solidified in the air has a ballpark where "recent" is an option"

[Citation Needed]

"If you have a potassium argon date which says 400,000 years and another says 2,000,000 years, safest conclusion is waters of the Flood were cooler and cooling the lava quicker at the latter point"

Wait, what? Why is that the safest conclusion?

"Mungo man was carbon dated to c. 20,000 BP but the retained date of 40,000 is a non-carbon method."

[Citation Needed]

"I'm sorry, but what needs to be replicated is simply sending dino non-permineralised materials for carbon dating. Simple as that."

Sure. Has he done that? Keep in mind that to do that he has to a) prove it's "non-permineralised [sic]" and b) actually carbon date it.

"Since he didn't do the carbon dating himself, he sent to conventional labs"

Did he? Do you have a source for this claim?

"he point is that these are now blocking any replication by asking someone to fill in "expected date"."

How's that? On both ends. How is being blocked, and how is anyone filling in "expected date", whatever that is.

"Being an accredited scientist does not preclude incompetence in evolution believing scientists either."

Sure. I've never argued otherwise. Science is about replication, the process of which is to remove "incompetence" because experiments can only be replicated if the process is sound.

"Especially not if they confirm each other in that."

Why not?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Leafsdude "I was going more for the technical answer: how do you detect bone or soft tissue and differentiate it from minerals. I mean, you agree you can't just look at the samples and base it on that alone, correct?"

No, I don't.

• 1) Bone as such looks different from fossilised bone.
• 2) Soft tissue (like marrow) looks very different from it. And I mean of course, not soft tissue formerly such which has permineralised, but soft tissue preserved as soft tissue.

"C12 is the more abundant isotope, but since C12 and C13 are both stable (as in, they don't decay), both are measured in carbon dating."

While that is so, the pmC value is the value of the ratio C14 to C12 expressed in percent of the ratio in the modern atmosphere.

C13 is, as far as I can see, used as a checkup.

"My point is, even if that's proven, it doesn't prove his conclusions are based on any factual data. He hasn't done the carbon dating, he hasn't shown any C14 measurements, he hasn't shown that there's any premineralized soft tissues. Until he has, that video is entirely irrelevant."

Look up other videos on his channel.

[My bad, the channel wasn't his]

He has that, unless some of them have been forced to be taken down.

It's 9:53 in the morning, I was awake between 4:30 and 5:30 about and woke again a bit after 7, so, I am not in a mood to search out each of these points in the separate videos.

"a) the need for a significant amount of carbon extract,"

Come on, historical objects are dated without doing too much damage and there is accelerater mass spectrometry to get precise values from small extracts.

And taking a sufficient amount is not done by taking one micrometer cubed at a time with significant time lapse between.

"b) the need to run multiple measurements to rule out statistical anomalies and errors?"

By now, on dinosaurs, the criterium has been fulfilled, we uniformly when carbon dating have not found a dino bone lacking carbon 14.

For Hawaii eruption, one of the four parts on this video series, probably 1 or 2:

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 1
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJGairhrPGc

"Wait, what? Why is that the safest conclusion?"

Because the other explanation, that there was a different amount of time, is not only contrary to Scriptures, but based on a theorem never proven and even disproved at Mt St Helens, that excess argon is not captured when lava cools.

"The first major find, in 1969, was of crushed and burnt skeletal fragments, interpreted to be of a female called Lake Mungo 1, or more affectionately Mungo Woman.2,3 What made the find significant was the assigned date. Carbon-14 dating (see Dating methods) on bone apatite (the hard bone material) yielded an age of 19,000 years and on collagen (soft tissue) gave 24,700 years.3 This excited the archaeologists, because that date made their find the oldest human burial in Australia."

"But carbon-14 dating on nearby charcoal produced an ‘age’ up to 26,500 years."

In my view of a rising carbon level, the charcoal is older simply because it's from trees that are in average a few decades older than the human tissue.

Now, the source goes on:

"The situation became even more exciting when a different dating method (thermoluminescence, see Dating methods) was used. In 1998, Bowler reported that sand from the Mungo 3 site gave an age of some 42,000 years."

Now, the source I cited happens to be both a Geologist and an Australian. His name is Tas Walker, and here is his work:
The dating game
by Tas Walker | This article is from
Creation 26(1):36–39, December 2003
https://creation.com/the-dating-game

"Did he? Do you have a source for this claim?"

Look up the video where he is claiming conventional labs have made it impossible for him to repeat, since they now routinely ask "what is the expected age".

As he is a Young Earth Creationist, he cannot in good conscience claim he expects anything to be either millions or several ten thousands years old.

I proposed as a solution he check with the lab where they ask what carbon date he expects, and fill in 20 - 40 000 BP. That's a ball park fairly recurrent in carbon dated dinosaurs, and we can anyway consider "carbon date" as a short hand for the C14 ratio, and therefore as not in conflict with an actual date being considerably younger, due to a rising carbon 14 level.

"Science is about replication, the process of which is to remove "incompetence" because experiments can only be replicated if the process is sound."

No, they can also be replicated if the process is unsound on a level that will not show in the tests they chose to make or take into account (as you mentioned "anomaly" they have an alibi when not taking sth into account).

@Leafsdude Found the video, it's part 2, and at 7:15 he's discussing the volcano, check in at 7:00 and you'll see it.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 2 [à 7:13]
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Qr9ZZ-Y30&t=433s

Dr Grady McMurtry on Age of Earth - with comments, part one

On his videos (mirrored?), parts 1 to beginning of 3.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 1
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJGairhrPGc

5:29 stars - an economic way of responding is, stars are not millions of light years away.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 2
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Qr9ZZ-Y30

I

0:52 "none of them work"

Actually false.

Carbon 14 has a fair working outside usually detectable cases of reservoir effect for back since the carbon 14 level, the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12, is the same in the atmosphere.

0.9892⁶⁴ = 0.4990946242600414
0.98925⁶⁴ = 0.500711737438632

This means, 64th root of 0.5 is between 0.9892 and 0.98925.

Now, 0.5 is "ratio remaining after a halflife" and it is also known as 50%.

1/64 of 5730 (halflife of carbon 14) is 89 and a half years.

And you DO get sth like 98.92 to 98.925 % modern carbon when you date objects of wood or leather from 90 years ago (a bit of a leeway for wood if tree was significiantly old when felled).*

32:nd root of 0.5 is 0.97858 - and for objects from 179 years ago, you tend to get 97.858 pmC.

You can check it over here:

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

So, carbon 14 relatively speaking does work.

You have exceptions like reservoir effect (bones of people who ate much fish or shellfish tend to look a few centuries older than they are, sea living creatures, creatures living near ice allround the year and so on). And like during the buildup period before the modern level was reached.

This means, dates like 9600 BC and 8600 BC (beginning and end of Göbekli Tepe) don't mean they are necessarily that old (they could well be from Biblical years of Babel), nor the distance is necessarily that long (if older date is significantly more inflated than younger one, 40 years can look like 1000), but they DO come in that order.

0:58 If Libby "admitted it didn't work" I'd like a reference.

It certainly did not work for his halflife, done by lab tests on decay, I presume, since the Libby halflife is abandoned, I just gave the Cambridge halflife which replaced it. Somewhat longer.

3:30 That Potassium Argon doesn't work seems fairly obvious, even before looking at your example.

How many hundreds of thousands or millions years is the lava dated to which covered 900 year old artefacts?

And that should be enough for refuting old age, since it is the most used radiometric method except carbon 14 and since the latter can be squeezed.

If Flood was 5000 years ago, we expect 54.616 % of what level there was at the time.

But if level was a very low one, 54.616 % of it can well be 0.792 pmC.

With Potassium Argon, you don't even need to account for relative accuracy.

45 000 years old charcoal? That would mean the charcoal is a bit older than 5000 years, a bit older than the Flood. Lava surrounding it 37.000.000 years? No accounting for Potassium Argon ...

*

98.929 / 98.917 pmC according to the carbon date calculator - for 89 / 90 years. Meaning 89.5 years should be between that ...

II

dialogued

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7:11 Can you be sure all three samples are from same lava flow?

If you can, well, we may see why lava flows vary in correct height sequence, for instance at Laetoli.

There could be a question of how deep down it was in the water during the Flood, however that may influence argon capture or argon retention.

George Baxter

Radiometric dating is not really applicable to fresh lava. One of the key requirements for dating is that sample must not have changed. A lava is a liquid and argon is a noble gas, it will rapidly diffuse out of the sample. That will inevitably lead to a very low argon reading. If that is used to "date" the sample then it would be erroneously old. So it is wrong and misleading to use fresh lava samples as a "proof" that the technique is flawed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but it is not a low argon reading, but a high one which translates as very old.

If fresh lava is flawed for the technique, how can you prove from it that the lavas you date (for instance in Laetoli) are not too fresh for it?

George Baxter

Yes. My error about the low value. The logic is still true though. The lava is not from a closed environment. The argon could have been from outgassing of the rocks/magma during the disturbance. You cannot reliably date lava via radiometric methods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I agree, lava cannot be reliably dated, but my point is, more argon gets caught lower down in the water.

This explains the APPEARANCE of reliability of the lava of Laetoli.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 3
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc-qInfV174

1:38 On this video, I only have your word for speed of light not being a constant.

Sounds at least as good an explanation that stellar distances are not true, because the .76 arc seconds back and forth each year, measured for alpha Centauri against comparison of stars in the background are not parallax but proper movement.

In other words, most basic stellar distances closest to pure trigonometry are not known, and one therefore cannot deduce stellar distances by other methods based on this one either.

Your website, I'll have to ask you over FB.

Next time : rest of part 3, 4.