Ken Wolgemuth Understood the Argument

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

James Young

Admin

20 January 05:26 AM

No matter how many words the OEC world throws at this, it will remain an embarrassment for them.

These test that were done have successfully debunked the claim that radiometer dated is accurate .

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributor

James Young,
You seem to think that these types of results discredit all radiometric dating. These methods of age dating igneous rocks have been around for 70 years, with increasing accuracy in successive decades. For several decades, young earth creationists have compiled tables of results that are false, because the criteria necessary to obtain credible ages are violated. Since you lack an education in geology and geochemistry, you don't know the method has not been applied properly. IMO, you want to hear of false results, because you've already joined the religious/science sect of YECism. As a geochemist, I see through the smoke and mirrors in a few minutes.

The sad issue is that unbelieving scientists observe this dishonesty, and Christianity is discredited. In this case, the YECs are a stumbling block, not because of Jesus, but because of your brazen abuse of his profession.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ken Wolgemuth "These methods of age dating igneous rocks" .... seem to be sensitive to cold water.

Like a volcano on Hawaii, part of which went down into the water, nearby "1 million years old" and further out (in deeper and colder water) "2 million years old".

According to the Bible, a specific year in the life of Noah was very wet.

Ken Wolgemuth

Principal contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl, Those are evidence that for this lava that chilled so quickly and it retained non-radiogenic Ar-40. The timer had never been set to zero, so no radiometric dating age is possible. Reporting one as an age is fake science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The point is, this happened during the Deluge too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The guys who did the dates were not claiming the lava was 2 million years old out in the sea.

They gave the date it would have in order to show this sometimes happens.

That's not fake science even if it's non-standard procedure.