@Krok In this case, the method is K-Ar. The object is biotite crystal. Starting quantity (at time of rock formation) of “daughter element” Argon, is zero, as you said. But this is just an assumption. No one verified it at the time of rock formation.
Luckily basic chemistry verifies it for us.
But is this assumption correct?
Are you trying to deny the whole natural science of chemistry here?
It's been said that there was no Argon at time of rock formation (solidified rock).
No it hasn't. Please stop lying about it. What has been said was that Ar can't be incorporated in the crystal lattice of biotite when biotite crystallises. Argon is a noble gas.
It's been said that Argon formed after that,....
No, basic chemistry demonstrates that all Ar in the crystal lattice of biotite is formed by radiometric decay of K.
.. and Argon couldn't escape from the crystal lattice....
The only way for Ar to "escape" from the crystal lattices would be if the crystal itself decays. It forms other minerals, with different chemical formulas, then.
.. for the spaces among molecules were smaller than Argon atoms, so no Argon atoms escaped and we can consider K-Ar methods as absolute, at least for biotite.
This doesn't make sense. The Ar is bound in the crystal lattice of the biotite and can't just "escape". For it to escape another crystal has to form. One which is not biotite.
Correct. If all is working like this, in all cases of biotite.
This also doesn't make sense.
But we can observe that it has been experimented that Argon presents great solubility in minerals and lava flows.
Not in crystal lattices.
In starting concentrations that can date 500 million years , just at rock formation.
Nonsense. At crystallisation the Ar in the crystal lattices will be zero. You keeping on repeating lies won't turn your lies into the truth.
Why say there is a starting concentration of “zero Argon”, if experiments as shown it's possible that starting concentration be more than zero?
Unfortunately for you, chemistry demonstartes that the starting concentration of argon in the biotite crystal lattice at crystallisation is zero. Please don't lie about "experiments" showing the opposite.
So, we can't be sure that all pre-existing Argon flew out from lava.
But we can be sure that there's absolutely no Ar in the crystal lattices of biotite at formation.
It's just an assumption, not an absolute.
It certainly is an absolute. Basic chemistry. Your lies won't turn your wishful thinking into reality.
Just a matter of faith in the model.
Please don't reflect your way of doings thing on other people. People like you thrive on wishful thinking, other people, like me, thrive on obtaining knowledge.
Argon particles should have been “captured” during rock formation.
Again, Ar is not "captured" in the crystal lattices of biotite crystals ar crystallisation. Your wishful thinking and lies about it won't turn it into the truth.
If the starting condition was this (and it's possible), we can't be sure of the date result, for we can't be sure of the starting quantity of mother element. The same for dating methods.
Again, yes we can. Your lies will never turn into reality. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat them.
For not speaking about problems on constancy of decay rates... but this is another story.
Why, are you going to lie about that as well?
So, the problem of excess argon and “recalibration” of results is still standing up.
The only thing that is consistent is that you consistently lie.
Again. C14 isotopes were found inside fossil dinosaur bones. No contamination. Age about 20-30 thousands of years. You know that if C14 is found inside a fossil, that fossil shouldn't be alive more than 100 thousands of years ago. It was found. Say one thing or another thing doesn't change this.
Again, I you are lying about this, too. And I know about Dr. Mary Schweizer and her work on the "soft tissue" found in the dinosaur fossils. Creationists tend to lie about everything in connection with that, too!
C14 was also found in measurable quantities in coal and diamonds. We know what this means.
Yes, I know about those lies from creationists, too!
Returning on circular reasoning. “You can't use C14 method on dinosaurs [diamonds] [coal].” “Why?” “Because it has millions of years”. It has millions years just for evolutionary model. That model is not an absolute. “Millions of years” is just an assumption. It has to be tested.
Recent lava flows were tested with K-Ar method. Result was greater of 4 zeroes, as we know. Not small error. The problem was the lava flows were young? The date of those lava flows was known. But, while measuring with K-Ar method other lava flows, with unknown date of origin, obtaining the same results? How can we be sure that those lava flows were recent or old? Just by deciding it by ourselves?
It's a matter of assumption, not an absolute, to say that young objects cannot be dated. If we don't know if the object is young or old, how can we decide if use the K-Ar method (or other methods)? Simply, there is no answer. If one wants to rely on radiometric dating methods as they were absolute... that's ok. But they are not. It's a matter of faith. If being a creationist means being stupid, I can just say: “of course”.
You just keep on repeating the same lies you wrote down and I have answered earlier here. It seems like you can't do anything but lie. It really is all you have.
May the FSM touch you with one of His Holy Appendages and may you lie less after that.
This reminds me so much of a quote by John Derbyshire, because it's so true:
"It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down.
So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring."