There are two possible reasons that the old dates were returned.
The first has to do with the reason Geocron's equipment was considered useful only for high concentrations of argon.
Austin to apply Geocron's potassium-argon dating to his sample of dacite known to be only six years old. If there wasn't yet enough argon in the rock to be detectable, and the equipment that was used was not sensitive enough to detect any argon, how was enough argon found that such old results were returned?This has a standard deviation, so it also contributes to the margin of error.So when my result says the sample was 2.4 billion years old, this is only correct if the sample was at least 10,000 years old to begin with, and it's only correct plus or minus a calculated margin of error, in this example about 600,000 years.If I take a sample and measure an argon to potassium ratio of 0, I know that this sample is 2.4 billion years old.
However, all of these numbers are probabilities, not absolutes.Austin's paper or at any scholarly criticism of it, your eyes will quickly glaze over from the extraordinary detail and intricacy.