Lava dating com north dakota dating laws
Specifically, Austin admits that most of his fractions are impure when he includes the term 'etc.' after most of the mineral 'fractions' in his table (see above).'Although NOT a complete separation of non-mafic minerals, this concentrate included plagioclase phenocrysts (andesine composition with a density of about 2.7 g/cc) and the major quantity of glass (density assumed to be about 2.4 g/cc).
NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO SEPARATE PLAGIOCLASE FROM GLASS, but further use of heavy liquids should be considered.' [my emphasis]Because Austin did NOT separate the plagioclase from the glass, we would expect this sample to contain a mixture of young glass, plagioclases with relatively old calcium-rich cores and moderately old sodium-rich rims.
Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research' (ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. Helens, Washington State, USA, which probably erupted in 1986 AD. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method.
Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, Mc Dougall and Harrison, 1999, p.
The microscopic examination of the 'heavy-magnetic concentrate' also revealed a trace quantity of iron fragments, obviously the magnetic contaminant unavoidably introduced from the milling of the dacite in the iron mortar. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples. Furthermore, many studies (for example, the Haulalai basalt; Funkhouser and Naughton, 1968) demonstrate that Swenson and other YECs cannot automatically assume that modern volcanic glass contains excess argon. Although hypothesis #1 is plausible, until the argon isotope concentrations of the PURE glass are accurately measured for Austin's dacite (if this is even possible) we cannot properly evaluate this hypothesis.'The origin of the excess 40Ar is not entirely clear, but the discovery of excess 40Ar in Holocene quenched basalt glass [Dalrymple and Moore, 1968] indicates that radiogenic argon, released when older rocks are heated or melted, is dissolved in the melt and may be occluded by minerals as they crystallize.''Up to 2.6 x 10 to the -11 mole/gram of excess radiogenic 40Ar has been found in SUBMARINE basalts of Holocene age from Kilauea [Dalrymple and Moore, 1968; plus another reference], BUT IT'S OCCURRENCE THERE IS NOT SURPRISING IN VIEW OF THE HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE IN THE OCEAN DEPTHS and the rapidity with which SUBAQUEOUS flows are quenched.' [my emphasis]Although high-pressure ocean water may prevent argon gas from escaping from the rims of a lava flow on the ocean floor, the centers of modern submarine flows typically provide K-Ar dates of 'zero years' (Young, 1982, p. While YECs explain geology by invoking talking snakes, magical fruit, and a mythical 'Flood', Dalrymple (1969) discusses legitimate chemistry and fluid physics, which is hardly relying on flimsy 'rationalizations' or implausible excuses.'With the exception of the Hualalai flow [which contains noticeable ultramafic xenoliths, Dalrymple, 1969, p.