However, without resorting to unproven miracles to speed up the decay rate of 40K, YECs still have the problem of explaining how all of that 40Ar could form in only 6,000 years.
Currently, the YEC 'RATE Committee' is attempting to 'solve' this problem (see , hypothesis #3) were removed from the samples before analysis.
As mentioned above, we already know that Austin's application of the K-Ar method to this dacite sample was flawed from the beginning.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.Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old.Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al.That is, rather than rejecting Austin's bogus 'message,' YECs unfairly attack the K-Ar 'messenger.'Considering that the dacite probably erupted in 1986 AD, Austin should have known that at least some of the samples would have given dates that were younger than 2 million years old and that Geochron Laboratories could not have provided reliable answers.Therefore, it's not surprising that some of Austin's dates, such as the result for the amphiboles, etc., 'fraction,' have large /- uncertainties.Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reality of these methods. Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research' (ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. Helens, Washington State, USA, which probably erupted in 1986 AD. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method.Austin's conclusions on this project are summarized at the ICR website.