"Why does radiometric dating repeatedly result in very old dates (such as billions of years)? While one explanation is that these dates show the specimensâ true age, another is that one or more of these large assumptions associated with this method of dating is wrong.<quoted text>You know I think that 'problem' with the age of rocks top and bottom was resolved pretty quickly, by geologists, after creationists brought it up
Scientists have dated lava rock samples from various active volcanoes with the radiometric method. Because the formation of these rocks has recently been observed, radiometric dating should not give them an age of millions of years. Yet there are many such examples. Consider the following:
Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 Â± 0.05 million years old.
Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years â but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.
Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92â147 million years, 140â680 million years, 930â1,580 million years, 1,230â1,960 million years, 1,290â2,050 million years, and 1,360â1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.
How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?
One explanation given by scientists for some of these incorrect dates is that excess argon was retained in the rocks when they solidified from a molten state. According to the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences,âIt is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.... The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.â
But if excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should this dating method be trusted for rocks of unknown age? "