Gman wrote:If you are stating that a dog could morph into a wolf in less than 6 thousand years then you are giving credence to evolution.. I don't except that evolution can morph species that quickly..
The dog post was for Gman. And yes a wolf did "morph" into a dog. They are of the same kind or specie or what ever you want to call it. This is not evolution, this is natural selection. My pointedly, this is un-natural selection because man did the selecting and developed the different breeds for his wants. Evolution (macro) is when a dog becomes a non-dog. This proves that there would ample time for dogs to diversify since the flood.
What is a specie then?
Are wolves and dogs the same breed or specie?
It is true that Mendel was not trying to prove or disprove evolution but he did disprove it. So show me a mutation that added information. Show me a mutation that was not negative. What makes a gene mutate? Environment?
And response to you about reading my material. You copied a portion out of my link but missed the whole picture. Let me copy and paste the section on K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating.
"Problems and Limitations of the K/Ar dating technique
Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined. Argon loss occurs when radiogenic 40Ar (40Ar*) produced within a rock/mineral escapes sometime after its formation. Alteration and high temperature can damage a rock/mineral lattice sufficiently to allow 40Ar* to be released. This can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be younger than the "true" age of the dated material. Conversely, excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the "true" age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement. "
So they developed Ar/Ar dating to solve these problems. The problem with that is Ar/Ar is even harder to conduct. Here's another copy and paste
"Some problems with the 40Ar/39Ar technique.
Standard Intercalibration
"Note the J parameter is the amount of time that the sample is exposed to the reactor core."
In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be known. For the J to be determined, a standard of known age must be irradiated with the samples of unknown age. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique. The primary standard must be a mineral that is homogeneous, abundant and easily dated by the K/Ar and 40Ar/39Ar methods. Traditionally, this primary standard has been a hornblende from the McClure Mountains, Colorado (a.k.a. MMhb-1). Once an accurate and precise age is determined for the primary standard, other minerals can be dated relative to it by the 40Ar/39Ar method. These secondary minerals are often more convenient to date by the 40Ar/39Ar technique (e.g. sanidine).
However, while it is often easy to determine the age of the primary standard by the K/Ar method, it is difficult for different dating laboratories to agree on the final age. Likewise, because of heterogeneity problems with the MMhb-1 sample, the K/Ar ages are not always reproducible. This imprecision (and inaccuracy) is transferred to the secondary minerals used daily by the 40Ar/39Ar technique.
Fortunately, other techniques are available to re-evaluate and test the absolute ages of the standards used by the 40Ar/39Ar technique. Some of these include other isotopic dating techniques (e.g. U/Pb) and the astronomical polarity time scale (APTS).
Decay Constants
Another issue affecting the ultimate precision and accuracy of the 40Ar/39Ar technique is the uncertainty in the decay constants for 40K. This uncertainty results from 1) the branched decay scheme of 40K and 2) the long half-life of 40K (1.25 billion years). As technology advances, it is likely that the decay constants used in the 40Ar/39Ar age equation will become continually more refined allowing much more accurate and precise ages to be determined.
J Factor
Because the J value is extrapolated from a standard to an unknown, the accuracy and precision on that J value is critical. J value uncertainty can be minimized by constraining the geometry of the standard relative to the unknown, both vertically and horizontally. The NMGRL does this by irradiating samples in machined aluminum disks where standards and unknowns alternate every other position. J error can also be reduced by analyzing more flux monitor aliquots per standard location.
39Ar Recoil
The affects of irradiation on potassium-bearing rocks/minerals can sometimes result in anomalously old apparent ages. This is caused by the net loss of 39ArK from the sample by recoil (the kinetic energy imparted on a 39ArK atom by the emission of a proton during the (n,p) reaction). Recoil is likely in every potassium-bearing sample, but only becomes a significant problem with very fine grained minerals (e.g. clays) and glass. For multi-phase samples such as basaltic wholerocks, 39ArK redistribution may be more of a problem than net 39ArK loss. In this case, 39Ar may recoil out of a low-temperature, high-potassium mineral (e.g. K-feldspar) into a high-temperature, low potassium mineral (e.g. pyroxene). Such a phenomenon would great affect the shape of the age spectrum. "
It says the "J" parameter must be known, if it's not irradiated for the proper length of time then you will get faulty results. That doesn't mean as your article put it "hours", it means a
definite time. And because you can't determine that time by Ar/Ar you must us a different dating method like K/Ar. But wait that's circular there. However, while it is often easy to determine the age of the primary standard by the K/Ar method,
it is difficult for different dating laboratories to agree on the final age. Likewise, because of heterogeneity problems with the MMhb-1 sample, the K/Ar ages are not always reproducible. Fortunately, other techniques are available to re-evaluate and test the absolute ages of the standards used by the 40Ar/39Ar technique. Some of these include other isotopic dating techniques (e.g. U/Pb) and the astronomical polarity time scale (APTS).
APST I love this one. It says that the APST time scale is determined by using K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating methods.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/94GL03214.shtml Circular again. This one here will really get you
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~dvk/Time%20 ... nt1995.pdf This one says our Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale or APST is off because of a bad Ar/Ar date. We need to recalibrate it so that the KP line is at 65 mya because that's the date that has been adopted for that line.
My point is that there is no way possible to get an exact date. Now I do believe that there is value in radiometric dating but don't tell me that radiometric dating is the cats meow and that it's never wrong. What other ways do you have to prove the age of the earth? There must be more than one. What do you feel backs up radiometric dating?
