“Geologist Steve Austin sampled new rock from atop the mountain that formed in 1986. If the K-Ar radioisotope method really works, then it should have revealed the rock’s true age of only ten years.”
Because Austin admits that his separations were impure, how can he, Swenson and other YECs justify their claims that these dacite samples were a fair test of the validity of the K-Ar method? Why did Austin waste precious time and money analyzing samples that were known to contain mineral and glass impurities? As a geologist, Austin should have known that minerals, especially zoned minerals, take more time to crystallize than quenched disorder glass. How could he expect the relatively large and sometimes zoned minerals to be as young as the glass?!!
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
I did, however, come away with this;
"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. "
Which seems to say ... "Well of COURSE we couldn't give you a correct answer ... you didn't tell us anythiong about it" ...
Which is, I think, the point of an anonymous sample
Again ... I won't take the time to read so much technical material