If carbon dating wrong
Afterwards, Ngauruhoe steamed almost continuously, with many small ash eruptions8 (Figure 5).Cannon-like, highly explosive eruptions in January and March 1974 threw out large quantities of ash as a column into the atmosphere, and as avalanches flowing down the cone’s sides.However, Mt Ngauruhoe is an imposing, almost perfect cone that rises more than 1,000 metres (3,300 feet) above the surrounding landscape to an elevation of 2,291 m (7,500 feet) above sea level1 (Figure 3).Eruptions from a central 400 m (1,300 foot) wide crater have constructed the cone’s steep (33°) outer slopes.The K–Ar method works on the assumption that the “clock” begins to “tick” the moment that the rock hardens.That is, it assumes that no argon derived by radioactive decay was present initially, but after the lava cooled and solidified, the argon from radioactive decay was unable to escape and started to accumulate.
It is not as well publicized as its larger close neighbour MT Ruapehu, which has erupted briefly several times in the last five years.
Yet they yield “ages” up to 3.5 million years which are thus false.
How can we trust the use of this same “dating” on rocks whose ages we don’t know?
A very common claim of young earth creationists in trying to reject the evidence for an old earth is to loudly proclaim that radiometric dating methods “makes assumptions” and that these “assumptions” are somehow fatally flawed or not supported by evidence.
These claims generally land in three different categories: (1) radiometric dating assumes that initial conditions (concentrations of mother and daughter nuclei) are known, (2) radiometric dating assumes that rocks are closed systems and (3) radiometric dating assumes that decay rates are constant.