'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'This is the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam.Obviously, this suggestion has absolutely no scientific support or merit.Such ideas are flights of fantasy and not scientific hypotheses.The 'research' efforts of Austin and his colleagues and their 'expertise' in radiometric dating have been widely criticized, including by Joe Meert (also here), Karen Bartelt and company and myself at Austin rarely responds to his critics. and at the Answers in Genesis' website, have attempted to defend Austin's work.
Of course, some YECs might argue that God, for whatever reason, simply zapped some 40Ar into the various minerals during the 'Creation Week' about 6,000 years ago.Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples.However, rather than dealing with this issue and critically evaluating Austin's other procedures (including the unacceptable mineral and glass impurities in his 'fractions'), YECs loudly proclaim that the results are discrepant with the 1986 AD eruption.They then proceed to assault the validity of the K-Ar method.