[__ Science __ ] Intelligent Design....what shows it?

[reddogs]

Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design which he adopted and developed after he saw Darwinian evolution came up short, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. Johnson taught law for over 30 years at the University of California at Berkeley and is the author of the book 'Darwin on Trial', in which he argues that empirical evidence in support of Darwin's theory is lacking.

Now here is a definition from https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

"The Definition of Intelligent Design
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."

So it should be pretty straight forward that these are scientist and others who have found issues with evolution or feels it fails to explain how the universe came to be. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Scientist tend to be weary of it, as it cannot be quantified and probed in the manner they are used to.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. One of the most basic elements is our DNA, and its complexity is raising many questions:

"In 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions — the information — for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.

Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous “sequence hypothesis” according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins. The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of “sequence specificity” that characterizes codes and language.

Moreover, DNA sequences do not just possess “information” in the strictly mathematical sense described by pioneering information theorist Claude Shannon. Shannon related the amount of information in a sequence of symbols to the improbability of the sequence (and the reduction of uncertainty associated with it). But DNA base sequences do not just exhibit a mathematically measurable degree of improbability. Instead, DNA contains information in the richer and more ordinary dictionary sense of “alternative sequences or arrangements of characters that produce a specific effect.” DNA base sequences convey instructions. They perform functions and produce specific effects. Thus, they not only possess “Shannon information,” but also what has been called “specified” or “functional information.”

Like the precisely arranged zeros and ones in a computer program, the chemical bases in DNA convey instructions by virtue of their specific arrangement — and in accord with an independent symbol convention known as the “genetic code.” Thus, biologist Richard Dawkins notes that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.”4 Similarly, Bill Gates observes that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”5 Similarly, biotechnologist Leroy Hood describes the information in DNA as “digital code.”....https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/yes-intelligent-design-is-detectable-by-science/

Intelligent design is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, as it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to the theory of evolution and its ideas of natural selection, and that rankles some advocates of evolution. But are they purposely ignoring what plainly shows the universe is not random....

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Intelligent Design is based on being observant and asking relevant to questions about the world we live in. However I would classify it more as a philosophy then I would a science. That it has merit is not because it's a good method of discovery or it's models are better at predicting information in the universe, but instead on how much of the information studied and found so far, fits the already obvious conclusion of an intelligent design. Making it a philosophy with merit (because it's foundation is the conclusion), instead of a science with faulty conclusions.

On that note though, I'd wager that evolution has become less about science and more about philosophy because it's founded on it's own conclusions more then it is on discovery or making a predictive model for the information in the world around us. Unfortunately evolution has become a bandwagon philosophy moonlighting as a science, because many other fields of science (outside of biology, which is the scope of the subject of evolution), will say their theories and conclusions have evolution as a factor in them.

 

[Clizby]

Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design which he adopted and developed after he saw Darwinian evolution came up short, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. Johnson taught law for over 30 years at the University of California at Berkeley and is the author of the book 'Darwin on Trial', in which he argues that empirical evidence in support of Darwin's theory is lacking.

Now here is a definition from https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

"The Definition of Intelligent Design
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."

So it should be pretty straight forward that these are scientist and others who have found issues with evolution or feels it fails to explain how the universe came to be. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Scientist tend to be weary of it, as it cannot be quantified and probed in the manner they are used to.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. One of the most basic elements is our DNA, and its complexity is raising many questions:

"In 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions — the information — for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.

Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous “sequence hypothesis” according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins. The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of “sequence specificity” that characterizes codes and language.

Moreover, DNA sequences do not just possess “information” in the strictly mathematical sense described by pioneering information theorist Claude Shannon. Shannon related the amount of information in a sequence of symbols to the improbability of the sequence (and the reduction of uncertainty associated with it). But DNA base sequences do not just exhibit a mathematically measurable degree of improbability. Instead, DNA contains information in the richer and more ordinary dictionary sense of “alternative sequences or arrangements of characters that produce a specific effect.” DNA base sequences convey instructions. They perform functions and produce specific effects. Thus, they not only possess “Shannon information,” but also what has been called “specified” or “functional information.”

Like the precisely arranged zeros and ones in a computer program, the chemical bases in DNA convey instructions by virtue of their specific arrangement — and in accord with an independent symbol convention known as the “genetic code.” Thus, biologist Richard Dawkins notes that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.”4 Similarly, Bill Gates observes that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”5 Similarly, biotechnologist Leroy Hood describes the information in DNA as “digital code.”....https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/yes-intelligent-design-is-detectable-by-science/

Intelligent design is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, as it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to the theory of evolution and its ideas of natural selection, and that rankles some advocates of evolution. But are they purposely ignoring what plainly shows the universe is not random....

How can ID be falsified? If a hypothesis cannot be potentially falsified it cannot be used as evidence for a conclusion.

 

[Who Me]

How can ID be falsified? If a hypothesis cannot be potentially falsified it cannot be used as evidence for a conclusion.

Very true and one that applies even more to the theory of evolution.
What ever challenge is thrown at evolution is said to be evidence for it.
Creatures have changed over time evidence for evolution.
Creatures haven't changed over time, evidence for evolution.
New facts challenge exsisting ideas, evidence for evolution even when it is a 180 degree turn around.
Francis Crick flask and making amino acids evidence for.
Fact that there was oxygen in the atmosphere and the experiment would not work evidence for evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

ery true and one that applies even more to the theory of evolution.
What ever challenge is thrown at evolution is said to be evidence for it.
Creatures have changed over time evidence for evolution.

Actually, that is evolution. Remember what "evolution" means in biology. Change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

Creatures haven't changed over time, evidence for evolution.

No, although it is evidence for natural selection. As Darwin pointed out, a well-fitted population in a constant environment will evolve very little or not at all. When a population is nicely fitted to the environment, natural selection will prevent evolution

New facts challenge exsisting ideas, evidence for evolution even when it is a 180 degree turn around.

Never saw one like that. After all, Darwin's four points remain solid as ever. Can you show otherwise?

Francis Crick flask and making amino acids evidence for.

I think you've gotten this mixed up a bit. Crick wasn't about making amino acids. We already knew that abiotic amino acids form without life. Crick was one of the people who figured out the DNA cod.

Fact that there was oxygen in the atmosphere and the experiment would not work evidence for evolution.

Now, you're confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which is not about the origin of life. Darwin, for example, just assumed that God created the first living things.

 

[Who Me]

No, although it is evidence for natural selection.

That is not the arguement. Natural selection permits change within the genetic range of possibilities, it does not generate new possibilities.

Crick wasn't about making amino acids.

got the name wrong theree.

We already knew that abiotic amino acids form without lif

Only in extremely specialised circumstances.

 

[Barbarian]

That is not the arguement. Natural selection permits change within the genetic range of possibilities, it does not generate new possibilities.

No, that's wrong. For example a certain group of fish developed fins useful for moving along the bottom of ponds. That generated the possibility of moving out onto land.

Barbarian observes:
We already knew that abiotic amino acids form without life.

Only in extremely specialised circumstances.

Nope. One common place is at mid-oceanic ridges:

Nature. 2018 Dec;564(7734):59-63.
Abiotic synthesis of amino acids in the recesses of the oceanic lithosphere.
Ménez B1, Pisapia C2,3, Andreani M4, Jamme F3, Vanbellingen QP5, Brunelle A5, Richard L6, Dumas P3, Réfrégiers M3.

Abstract
Abiotic hydrocarbons and carboxylic acids are known to be formed on Earth, notably during the hydrothermal alteration of mantle rocks. Although the abiotic formation of amino acids has been predicted both from experimental studies and thermodynamic calculations, its occurrence has not been demonstrated in terrestrial settings. Here, using a multimodal approach that combines high-resolution imaging techniques, we obtain evidence for the occurrence of aromatic amino acids formed abiotically and subsequently preserved at depth beneath the Atlantis Massif (Mid-Atlantic Ridge). These aromatic amino acids may have been formed through Friedel-Crafts reactions catalysed by an iron-rich saponite clay during a late alteration stage of the massif serpentinites. Demonstrating the potential of fluid-rock interactions in the oceanic lithosphere to generate amino acids abiotically gives credence to the hydrothermal theory for the origin of life, and may shed light on ancient metabolisms and the functioning of the present-day deep biosphere.

It happens elsewhere in the solar system, too, they were found in the Murchison Meteorite, including some that are not used by living systems on Earth:

Murchison contains common amino acids such as glycine, alanine and glutamic acid as well as unusual ones like isovaline and pseudoleucine.[6] A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well, similar to that found in the Miller–Urey experiment. Serine and threonine, usually considered to be earthly contaminants, were conspicuously absent in the samples. A specific family of amino acids called diamino acids was identified in the Murchison meteorite as well.[7]
The initial report stated that the amino acids were racemic and therefore formed in an abiotic manner because amino acids of terrestrial proteins are all of the L-configuration. Later the amino acid alanine, which is also a protein amino acid, was found to have an excess of the L-configuration,[8] which led several to suspect terrestrial contamination according to the argument that it would be "unusual for an abiotic stereoselective decomposition or synthesis of amino acids to occur with protein amino acids but not with non-protein amino acids."[9] In 1997, L-excesses were also found in a non-protein amino acid, isovaline,[10] suggesting an extraterrestrial source for molecular asymmetry in the Solar System. At the same time, L-excesses of alanine were again found in Murchison but now with enrichment in the isotope 15N,[11] however, the isotopic pairing was later contested on analytical grounds.[12] The list of organic materials identified in the meteorite was extended to polyols by 2001.

Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And the excess of L-forms (which are used by living things on Earth) suggests why those were used by living things.

 

[tdidymas]

Intelligent Design is based on being observant and asking relevant to questions about the world we live in. However I would classify it more as a philosophy then I would a science. That it has merit is not because it's a good method of discovery or it's models are better at predicting information in the universe, but instead on how much of the information studied and found so far, fits the already obvious conclusion of an intelligent design. Making it a philosophy with merit (because it's foundation is the conclusion), instead of a science with faulty conclusions.

On that note though, I'd wager that evolution has become less about science and more about philosophy because it's founded on it's own conclusions more then it is on discovery or making a predictive model for the information in the world around us. Unfortunately evolution has become a bandwagon philosophy moonlighting as a science, because many other fields of science (outside of biology, which is the scope of the subject of evolution), will say their theories and conclusions have evolution as a factor in them.

I recently read a book by a nuclear physicist https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-R...iometric+dating&qid=1576091086&s=books&sr=1-1

I recommend it as a good read. It exposes the presumptions behind radiometric dating.
TD

 

[Barbarian]

I recommend it as a good read. It exposes the presumptions behind radiometric dating.

Since argon/argon testing precisely dated flow that buried Pompeii, there are no "assumptions." We know it works, because it's been tested and confirmed.

There are many ways to mess it up, but physicists are well aware of those, and know how to avoid them.

 

[tdidymas]

Since argon/argon testing precisely dated flow that buried Pompeii, there are no "assumptions." We know it works, because it's been tested and confirmed.

There are many ways to mess it up, but physicists are well aware of those, and know how to avoid them.

If my memory serves me correctly, the book mentions the argon/argon method, and the same assumptions apply as the other methods. Do you have a link to explain exactly how that method was used to "precisely" date those rocks, and exactly what assumptions were made for it?

It seems to me that if you think there aren't any assumptions involved, I'd say you're deluded. Every experiment has assumptions, and it is a matter of determining whether those assumptions are reasonable or not.

How do you know if the results of the test weren't arranged to meet the known date of the volcanic activity? No one is saying those people are purposeful liars; but the human mind is very crafty to self-deception when there are agendas involved. I'm just asking for the details.
TD

 

[Barbarian]

If my memory serves me correctly, the book mentions the argon/argon method, and the same assumptions apply as the other methods.

Perhaps you don't know what "assumptions" means in this context. All the necessary conditions for the analysis can be checked and verified.

Do you have a link to explain exactly how that method was used to "precisely" date those rocks, and exactly what assumptions were made for it?

Of course, the method requires that the decay rate of the nuclide is constant regardless of physical state. Turns out it is, for argon, absent temperatures and pressures that are not found on Earth.

Corrections are made for any non-radiogenic argon. This is pretty simple for samples here on Earth,and meterorites can be calibrated by using isochrons.

Isochron dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The sample must have been a closed system since the event to be dated. For example, if the rock that covered Pompeii had been again melted, the date would not hold. But that's easy to check, since the ruins would have been melted with it.

And so a very accurate date was obtained for this flow. It's interesting that the system works for such a short time span.

It seems to me that if you think there aren't any assumptions involved, I'd say you're deluded.

This wasn't an experiment. It was a dating procedure. And all the necessary conditions were easy to verify, because the rocks were very young.

How do you know if the results of the test weren't arranged to meet the known date of the volcanic activity?

Because the lab was not told from where the samples came.

 

[tdidymas]

Perhaps you don't know what "assumptions" means in this context. All the necessary conditions for the analysis can be checked and verified.



Of course, the method requires that the decay rate of the nuclide is constant regardless of physical state. Turns out it is, for argon, absent temperatures and pressures that are not found on Earth.

Corrections are made for any non-radiogenic argon. This is pretty simple for samples here on Earth,and meterorites can be calibrated by using isochrons.

Isochron dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The sample must have been a closed system since the event to be dated. For example, if the rock that covered Pompeii had been again melted, the date would not hold. But that's easy to check, since the ruins would have been melted with it.

And so a very accurate date was obtained for this flow. It's interesting that the system works for such a short time span.



This wasn't an experiment. It was a dating procedure. And all the necessary conditions were easy to verify, because the rocks were very young.



Because the lab was not told from where the samples came.

Well, I'm no expert, and since I'm uneducated in these matters, I can't answer to those links you gave or what actions you are requiring. However, I think I know when I'm being hoodwinked when you claim there are no assumptions. So the method dates accurately (within 1%) of when the rock formed 2k years ago. But can you assume that there were no cataclysmic events that changed the decay rate in the past million years, seeing that change of decay rates has been duplicated in laboratories? Again, for dating rocks tens of thousands or millions of years old, it is an assumption that all conditions were the same as it was the past 2k years. Is such a reliable assumption?
TD

 

[Barbarian]

Well, I'm no expert, and since I'm uneducated in these matters, I can't answer to those links you gave or what actions you are requiring. However, I think I know when I'm being hoodwinked when you claim there are no assumptions. So the method dates accurately (within 1%) of when the rock formed 2k years ago.

All of the rock tested was deposited about 2000 years ago. Rather surprising that it works on such a short period of time.

But can you assume that there were no cataclysmic events that changed the decay rate in the past million years, seeing that change of decay rates has been duplicated in laboratories?

You have a link for argon/argon decay changing at anything like temperatures found on Earth? A bigger issue is closing temp, below which the mineral no longer off-gases argon. That can be as low as 300 degrees C, which means surface rock must be checked for any subsequent heating. In Pompeii, I believe only buried rock was used.

Again, for dating rocks tens of thousands or millions of years old, it is an assumption that all conditions were the same as it was the past 2k years. Is such a reliable assumption?

It's a checkable condition. So one doesn't have to assume. Heating produces changes in crystals that are readily determined. A much greater potential source of error are xenocrysts, unmelted mineral within the lava flow. This is what caused Gentry such problems at Mt. St. Helens, when he failed to separate them from the melt. Being much older than the lava flow, they gave a very ancient result.

 

[stovebolts]

A much greater potential source of error are xenocrysts, unmelted mineral within the lava flow. This is what caused Gentry such problems at Mt. St. Helens, when he failed to separate them from the melt. Being much older than the lava flow, they gave a very ancient result.

There are other issues as well. Assumptions Science is still discovering.

Argon In Mineral Concentrates from Mount St Helens Volcano

The study of this Mount St Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar ‘ages’ from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?

answersingenesis.org

From the article
Laboratory experiments have been conducted on the solubility of argon in synthetic basaltic melts and their associated minerals.31, 32 Minerals and melts were held near 1300°C at one atmosphere pressure in a gas stream containing argon. After the material was quenched, the researchers measured up to 0.34 ppm 40Ar within synthetic olivine. They noted, ‘The solubility of Ar in the minerals is surprisingly high’.33 Their conclusion is that argon is held primarily in lattice vacancy defects within the minerals

Argon occlusion within mineral assemblages is supported by the data from the dacite at Mount St Helens. Table 3 indicates that although the mineral concentrates (rich in feldspar, amphibole or pyroxene) have about the same ‘Total Ar’ concentrations, the ‘pyroxene concentrate’ possesses the highest concentration of 40Ar* (over three times that of the ‘feldspar-glass concentrate’) and the highest proportion of 40Ar* (40Ar*/Total Ar is over three times that of the ‘feldspar-glass concentrate’). These data suggest that whereas the orthopyroxene mineral structure has about the same or slightly less gas retention sites as does the associated plagioclase, orthopyroxene has a tighter structure and is able to retain more of the magmatic 40Ar. Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase. According to this interpretation, the concentration of 40Ar* of a mineral assemblage is a measure of its argon occlusion and retention characteristics. Therefore, the 2.8 Ma ‘age’ of the ‘pyroxene concentrate’ has nothing to do with the time of crystallization.

 

[Barbarian]

Therefore, the 2.8 Ma ‘age’ of the ‘pyroxene concentrate’ has nothing to do with the time of crystallization.

This is the error he made by not removing unmelted material from his sample.

Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals​

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.​

CONCLUSIONS

Figure 4 in Austin's report, by itself, indicates that ancient zoned grains (phenocrysts and perhaps some xenocrysts) were common in Austin's dacite from Mt. St. Helens. It's also obvious from Austin's text that he was unsuccessful in adequately separating the volcanic glass from the much older minerals. Austin should have known that if he wanted to date the 1986 AD eruption the phenocrysts needed to be entirely removed from his 'fractions' and that another method besides K-Ar dating would have been required. Furthermore, when Austin submitted his samples to Geochron Laboratories, he failed to heed warnings from the laboratory about the limitations of their equipment. Both Austin and Swenson ignored the implications of zoned minerals and Bowen's Reaction Series on the age of the dacite. Obviously, it's Austin's improper use of the K-Ar method and not the method itself that is flawed. Rather than recognizing the flaws in Austin's essay, Swenson simply parrots Austin's erroneous claims without really understanding the chemistry and mineralogy of dacites.

 

[stovebolts]

This is the error he made by not removing unmelted material from his sample.

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.​

CONCLUSIONS

Figure 4 in Austin's report, by itself, indicates that ancient zoned grains (phenocrysts and perhaps some xenocrysts) were common in Austin's dacite from Mt. St. Helens. It's also obvious from Austin's text that he was unsuccessful in adequately separating the volcanic glass from the much older minerals. Austin should have known that if he wanted to date the 1986 AD eruption the phenocrysts needed to be entirely removed from his 'fractions' and that another method besides K-Ar dating would have been required. Furthermore, when Austin submitted his samples to Geochron Laboratories, he failed to heed warnings from the laboratory about the limitations of their equipment. Both Austin and Swenson ignored the implications of zoned minerals and Bowen's Reaction Series on the age of the dacite. Obviously, it's Austin's improper use of the K-Ar method and not the method itself that is flawed. Rather than recognizing the flaws in Austin's essay, Swenson simply parrots Austin's erroneous claims without really understanding the chemistry and mineralogy of dacites.

Hi Barbarian , could you provide a link for your sources please?

As a side note, you are well aware that Keven Henke is an active antagonist against YEC, so we should expect no less a response from him. Can you cite any other rebuttals from the scientific community that are not antagonistic toward YEC?

 

[Barbarian]

As a side note, you are well aware that Keven Henke is an active antagonist against YEC, so we should expect no less a response from him. Can you cite any other rebuttals from the scientific community that are not antagonistic toward YEC?

Actually, the report is from a creationist website:

Creation Science Rebuttals, Dacite Dating

A rebuttal to the claims made by young earth creationists. Young Earth Creationist Dating of a Mt Saint Helens Dacite

www.oldearth.org

And of course, Austin is an active antagonist against OEC so we should expect him to ignore the evidence for xenocrysts in his sample, although he inadvertently includes them.

And even argon/argon testing could not give an accurate age for the recent eruption at Mt. St. Helens. Scientists were somewhat surprised it could give an accurate age for something as recent as the 2,000 YO eruption that buried Pompeii.

The lab that did the analysis warned Austin about this, but he wanted to do it, knowing the results would be erroneous. As expected, the number he got was close to the age one would get, if there were some xenocrysts in the sample, as his photographs of the sample indicate.

 

[Barbarian]

potassium—argon dating (K—Ar method) Geologic dating technique based on the radioactive decay of potassium (40K) to argon (40Ar). This potassium isotope has a half-life (see DECAY CONSTANT) of 1.3 billion (109) years, making this a valuable dating method. The minimum age limit for this dating method is about 250 000 years.

 

[stovebolts]

Actually, the report is from a creationist website:

ummm.... how do you come to that conclusion?
Hate to spoil it for ya...

Spoiler: OEM

Welcome to Old Earth Ministries (OEM - formerly Answers In Creation). OEM exists to examine the claims made by young earth creation ministries, and provide answers to their claims, using sound science and reasoning. The misleading claims of YEC's has led many people to reject Christianity. However, a proper understanding of the Bible and science shows that you can be a Christian and believe in an old earth.

 

[Barbarian]

Old Earth creationists, most of them. But creationists.