Terry Aka TerryCast@DPadenAkaterry
This excuse has been repeated ad nauseam and still dies on the published data.
What the Lab Actually Reported:
Geochron Laboratories analyzed the 1986 Mount St. Helens dacite (sampled 1992, ~6 years old) using standard K-Ar.
Results (Austin 1996, CEN Tech J):
Whole rock: 0.35 ± 0.05 Ma
Feldspar/glass: 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma
Amphibole etc.: 0.9 ± 0.2 Ma
Pyroxene etc.: 1.7 ± 0.3 Ma
Pyroxene concentrate: 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma
These are specific, positive model ages with error bars, not flagged as "invalid," "below detection," "instrument noise," or "return sample too young."
The lab quantified measurable ⁴⁰Ar* and calculated ages from it.
This is literally why you began this interaction by complaining about supposed "dishonesty" by submitting rocks of known age to the process that YOU claim only works for rocks of unverifiable age.
One fraction even reached 2.8 Ma, right at the "limit" critics obsess over. If it was mere machine-floor noise from insufficient argon, the numbers wouldn't vary systematically by mineral type or produce clean, consistent results across preparations.
The Real Cause: Excess Argon, Not Noise
The argon came from excess/trapped primordial ⁴⁰Ar occluded inside phenocryst minerals deep in the magma chamber under pressure before the 1986 eruption. These crystals inherited the argon and retained it during rapid surface cooling, violating the core K-Ar assumption of zero initial radiogenic ⁴⁰Ar at solidification.
Austin explicitly noted low argon was expected and tested mineral concentrates to isolate the effect.
The study directly demonstrated inherited magmatic argon, not in-situ decay or random lab artifact.
Secular responses in the literature, admit the excess argon is real in the St. Helens dacite but claim "the amounts are insufficient to produce significant errors except in the youngest rocks."
And that's the tell: they admit the mechanism inflates ages on verifiable young lava, then declare it magically negligible for "older" samples, by assuming those samples are already millions of years old.
Pure circular reasoning.
"Lab Said Too Young" or "Wrong Tool" Is just a Dodge
K-Ar is the standard method applied to volcanic rocks and ash layers claimed to be millions of years old throughout the geologic column.
Austin didn't "deliberately misuse" it, he applied it exactly as geologists do for "old" volcanics, on a rock whose age was known independently from eyewitnesses and records.
The method failed spectacularly: instead of "too low argon = undatable/near zero," it fabricated false old ages by orders of magnitude (35,000+ times too old in some cases).
If the equipment's "limit" makes young samples produce confident but bogus multi-hundred-thousand to multi-million-year dates, why trust the same process on deeper ash layers lacking any historical check?
You cannot and will not answer this question.
Also "Higher argon in older layers = real long-term decay" just bootstraps the conclusion you're trying to defend.
Similar excess argon issues appear in other historically dated young flows.
The RATE project, helium retention in zircons, residual C-14 in "ancient" materials, and frequent discordant dates all add problems for uniformitarian deep time.
The results weren't "exactly what you'd expect from the lower limit."
They were exactly what you'd expect from violated assumptions in real-world porphyritic lava.
Keep claiming "instrument noise" and "Austin knew better" while the lab reported 0.35 Ma and 2.8 Ma on 1980s rock.
The assumptions break when tested against observable history.
Again, the emperor has no clothes.
