Talk:Mount St. Helens

On evowiki they say that the reason for why the rocks on Mt. St. Helens were aged to be millions of years old was because they used K-Ar dating techniques, which are agreed to be false. Is this true?

-- User:RichardT 15:39 4 December 2006


 * I think you over simplified their statement. If the age obviously does not fit, they would of course "agree" it is false. This has little to do with the chosen dating system. Creationists are glad to use the inconsistancy to illustrate that any of the dating systems is unreliable. While evolutionists said the rock is simply too young to be dated accurately. Everyone can see the big discrepancy on age. The problem is how do you use it for the argument. --Juvenis Sun 23:26, 4 December 2006 (EST)

Is Mt. St. Helens the only reason why they stopped using K-Ar dating?

-- User:RichardT 16:20 5 December 2006


 * Again, some confusions. Evolutionists did not stop using K-Ar dating, It is a good method and they love to use it. The problem both evolutionists and creastionists pointed out is not limited to the case of Mt. St. Helens either. Almost all historical volcanic rocks would have chance to give the same problem. Due to the small decay constant used and the possibly serious contamination problem, the error bar ended up larger than the age of eruption.  --Juvenis Sun 17:53, 5 December 2006 (EST)

____________________________________________

Why is there no mention of Spirit Lake and the polystrate trees? Notodivorce 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)