So you agree, then, that the independent migration of Potassium and Argon out of and into samples can dramtically change the apparent age of a dated specimen?
So you agree, then, that the independent migration of Potassium and Argon out of and into samples can dramtically change the apparent age of a dated specimen?
My comment was in relation to a new article suggesting the "dinosaur blood" was possibly a biofilm of recent age rather than fossilized soft tissue 70 million years old.
That has nothing to do with potassium and argon. But here is what appears to be a good article dealing with that subject.
By the way, a google search shows that the presumed migration of potassium and argon into and out of samples is a major creationist talking point. I found a couple of dozen creationist websites all dealing with that subject.
See if the article I linked to helps explain the details. I don't know that much about this particular subject (my specialty is radiocarbon dating, not the other methods of radiometric dating).