First dino 'blood' extracted from ancient bone (more evidence for young earth creation!)

IIRC Mt. St. Helens showed some rather large radio-isotope dates immediately thereafter.

I have heard this many times before, so I went back and looked at the original source of this internet legend. Two notes:

Potassium-argon dating has known problems that have long been recognized by the scientific community.
excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the "true" age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement.

There is especially a problem dating volcanic rocks.
No reputable scientist would use only the potassium-argon method to date a rock, especially an igneous rock. They would use other methods to cross-check. From Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.
Some young-Earth proponents recently reported that rocks were dated by the potassium-argon method to be a several million years old when they are really only a few years old. But the potassium-argon method, with its long half-life, was never intended to date rocks only 25 years old. These people have only succeeded in correctly showing that one can fool a single radiometric dating method when one uses it improperly. The false radiometric ages of several million years are due to parentless argon, as described here, and first reported in the literature some fifty years ago. Note that it would be extremely unlikely for another dating method to agree on these bogus ages. Getting agreement between more than one dating method is a recommended practice.

I hate to say it, but it boils down to this: Austin took a sample that he knew would yield an erroneous result with the potassium-argon method and sent it to a laboratory and told them to date it using the potassium argon method. Now Austin and others are wrongly claiming that the entire field of radioisotope dating cannot be trusted.
I'm sure that Austin is a fine Christian and I'm not going to question his motives. However, the fact is that if Austin had really wanted a true answer for the age of the rocks, he would have told the laboratory to use every available method to date them. The other methods would have disagreed with the potassium-argon method and the false outlying data would have been tossed out.
Now that you know the real story, do you still believe that radiometric dating cannot be trusted?

"In layman's terms", here's what he did wrong (I'll leave it to you to decide whether he did so out of dishonesty or incompetence):

I wish that I had read your post before I had written my (less strongly-worded) post.
I have read the internet legend about the wrong dating of Mt. St. Helens rocks many times. Today was the first time that I nailed down the source. When I read it I was extremely angry. I had to calm down for an hour before making a post.
I'm being charitable and won't claim to guess Austin's motives. However, I will say this: If I were a non-Christian and encountered Austin's work, I would not be inclined to become a Christian.

Now that you know the real story, do you still believe that radiometric dating cannot be trusted?

Of course not. Secular dating of rocks can never be trusted. If radiometric dating works for supposed "old" rocks, it should work for new rocks. That's simple logic, the kind that creation scientists have a much better handle on than their evolutionist nemeses.

Dr. David Plaisted demolishes 100+ years of evo fallacies on his simple-to-read but 100% technically accurate treatise of the subject:

http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp

Of course, as a creation scientist, Plaisted's great accomplishments and single-handed demolition of thousands of evo science arguments will never be recognized by the evolutionist religion.

The era of evolutionist dominance in science will soon end, though. The vibrant field of creation science and reasonable discussion fora like this will see to that.

Then you would think profit driven corporations would waste their money on medicine and oil exploration etc based on developmental biology and geophysics and everything else that has to be ignored to disbelieve evolution.

We’ll know when creation science is real science when it becomes the avenue of building companies and thus the economy.

LOL! So many fallacious evo assumptions and so little time.

Evo science has never advanced medicine a single iota. Don't cite me nonsense about antibiotic resistance - that doesn't represent an increase in thermodynamic info, a necessary precursor to evolution! It's just adaptation of the creationist-predicted kind, with the amazing ability to adapt front-loaded by the intelligent designer, obviously.

In the rare cases where natural, Creator-driven medicine is recognized for its true healing power, so-called terminal diseases "miraculously" subside.

You also run on the (false) assumption of evos that petroleum is a fossil fuel. It is no such thing - most everyone on the frontier of geological research now accepts that oil is abiotic in origin:

New data: Maybe oil isn't from dead dinos

The truth is, bad evo fossil science is what the enviros use to make us think there's an "oil shortage" or "peak oil", which, combined with global warming crap, is ruining the edge of Western Christian civiliation. If the creationist origin of oil was recognized, our dependency on Muslim terrorist states could end, and technology would truly move forward.

Of course not. Secular dating of rocks can never be trusted. If radiometric dating works for supposed "old" rocks, it should work for new rocks.

Do you understand why potassium-argon dating should not be used for new rocks? Hint: It has to do with the very long half-life of potassium 40.
Would you use a calendar to time a 100-meter footrace? Would you use a yardstick you bought at Home Depot to measure the size of a bacteria? Of course not. If you understand that "simple logic," then you will understand why it is currently impossible to acccurately date rocks less than 100,000 years old with the potassium-argon technique.
I looked at Dr. Plaisted's explanation for problems with the potassium-argon method of measurement. I'll be kind and just say that I'm not very impressed by his argument.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.