The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ekancone

Albeit Muslim ones, but i think it is relevant to this debate for a bit of humour!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wppjYDj9JUc

sdep

daithifleming wrote: »

I found some flat earthers!

If the flat earthers are thin on the ground, that's because geocentrism is where it's at:

http://www.geocentricity.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism

robindch

gerthewanker wrote: »

In what way have the evolutionists ways moved on since the twenties?

Our "evolutionist" "ways" have moved on since the 1920's through, for example, the discovery of DNA to pick one example that you must have heard of.

gerthewanker wrote: »

Are there more conclusive forms of evidence than mere speculation? No.

Of course there are. What do you think that people who work in biology do all day long? Here's a simple example for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

gerthewanker wrote: »

If we have evolved from apes shouldnt some of their traits exist as recessive genes in our makeup?

We haven't evolved from apes, we are apes. You can find huge tracts of other primate DNA in human DNA, just as you can find tracts of lichen DNA in human DNA. And the traits are not recessive either. Ever seen a primate skeleton and human skeleton next to each other:

J C

robindch wrote: »

What do you think that people who work in biology do all day long? Here's a simple example for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

......Ring species are an example of Isolation, Natural Selection and Speciation in action......using PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity ........which are key Theories of Creation Science!!!:)

robindch wrote: »

We haven't evolved from apes, we are apes.

......OK, so you consider yourself and your fellow Evolutionists to be Apes.......fair enough, I suppose!!!!:eek::pac::):D

robindch wrote: »

You can find huge tracts of other primate DNA in human DNA, just as you can find tracts of lichen DNA in human DNA. And the traits are not recessive either.

Even 'Evolutionists-Who-Think-They-Are-Apes' don't believe that Lichens were ancestral to Humans......
.........and common DNA tracts between Evolutionally UNRELATED organisms (like Lichen and Humans) is PROOF of a Common DESIGNER.......and a devasting disproof of 'molecules to Man' Evolution!!!!:eek:

robindch wrote: »

Ever seen a primate skeleton and human skeleton next to each other:

.....ever seen a Car and a Tractor next to each other.......they have many common DESIGN features.......indicative of common DESIGNERS!!!!:eek::cool::D

Eschatologist

Cars and tractors aren't alive. How many times does this have to be said?!

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

......Ring species are an example of Isolation, Natural Selection and Speciation in action......using PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity ........which are key hypotheses of Creation Science!!!:)

There it is again...that kind of itchy sensation that we are "advancing" Creation Science rather faster than "Creation Scientists" are.

J C wrote: »

......OK, so you consider yourself and your fellow Evolutionists to be [/iu]Apes.......and do you know what......I'm inclined to agree with you on this one!!!!:eek::pac::):D

I may have mentioned this before, but I believe we're touching on core programming here.

J C wrote: »

Even 'Ape-like Evolutionists' don't believe that Lichens were ancestral to Humans......
.........and common DNA tracts between Evolutionally UNRELATED organisms (like Lichen and Humans) is PROOF of a Common DESIGNER.......and a devasting disproof of 'molecules to Man' Evolution!!!!:eek:

One shares DNA with one's cousins, although they are going off down a separate lineage (outside Cavan and the Ozarks, anyway). Lichens and humans have common ancestors.

J C wrote: »

.....ever seen a Car and a Tractor next to each other.......they have many common DESIGN features.......indicative of common DESIGNERS!!!!:eek::cool::D

Hmm. Cars and tractors share design features because they are designed for quite similar jobs. Cars and mattresses, on the other hand, share very little 'common design', because they are designed to do different jobs.

If one is going to claim that humans and lichen are intended to do 'similar jobs' (an interesting claim in itself), the simultaneous claim that we are inherently special seems rather meaningless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

There it is again...that kind of itchy sensation that we are "advancing" Creation Science rather faster than "Creation Scientists" are.

.......every little helps........I suppose!!!:)

wrote:

Originally Posted by daithifleming
........everytime i see the suggestion that we are apes made to creationists i witness a reaction of what could only be described as a bilious grimace.

Originally Posted by robindch
We haven't evolved from apes, we are apes.

Scofflaw
I may have mentioned this before, but I believe we're touching on core programming here.

......the (repeatedly expressed) belief of Evolutionists on this thread that they are Apes does indeed appear to be 'core programming' to use your own phrase Scofflaw!!:D

.....and BTW could I say that I believe that Evolutionists are amazing Human Beings fearfully and wonderfully made in the image and likeness of God.....and with little in common with Apes!!!!

Scofflaw wrote: »

One shares DNA with one's cousins, although they are going off down a separate lineage (outside Cavan and the Ozarks, anyway). Lichens and humans have common ancestors.

.......any hypothetical common ancestor would be so far up the putative 'Evolutionary Tree' that it would have practically NO common genetics with EITHER Lichens or Men!!!!!:D

......and the fact that they DO share common genetic sequences is indicative of a Common Designer (acting recently)!!!!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Cars and tractors share design features because they are designed for quite similar jobs. Cars and mattresses, on the other hand, share very little 'common design', because they are designed to do different jobs.

Car seats DO have common design features with mattresses.....because both car seats and mattresses are designed by upholsterers......to do similar jobs!!!!!:eek::D

Scofflaw wrote: »

If one is going to claim that humans and lichen are intended to do 'similar jobs' (an interesting claim in itself), the simultaneous claim that we are inherently special seems rather meaningless.

The Human is 'special'.......like a Rolls Royce is 'special'......and the Lichen is 'basic'......like a mattress is 'basic'........
.......but both the stitching on the seats of a Rolls Royce and the stitching on a mattress have a common design because the sewing machines used....... had an ulitimate common designer!!!!:D:eek:

Scofflaw

Thanks, JC - always raises a smile.

cheerfully,
Scofflaw

AtomicHorror

gerthewanker wrote: »

Mendels theory proves evolutuon wrong.If we have evolved from apes shouldnt some of their traits exist as recessive genes in our makeup?

Mendel's experiments were amongst the first to support evolutionary theory. They illustrated a plausible mechanism by which inheritance could occur. The disproving of Darwin's ideas on pangenesis do not undermine evolutionary theory itself and are on the contrary an example of the scientific method in progress. Elements of Darwin's hypothesis on inheritence that were not addressed by Mendel's work (and also Galton's) have since been explained in the context of stem cells and genetic mutation.

As to the recessive genes question... I think it displays a misunderstanding of the term. A recessive gene is not a "less evolved" or "more primitive" gene- it is simply a gene (which could in fact be a brand new mutation perhaps with an evolutionary advantage) that is expressed less relative to a dominant gene within a given organism. Further, dominance and recessiveness are not absolutes- the two alleles (or versions) of a gene that we each possess will express themselves to varying degrees relative to each other. A and B rhesus antigens for example, are co-dominant and will both be expressed more or less equally on the surface of red blood cells if a person carries one of each allele.

Humans do possess a huge number of genes inherited from progenitor ape species- but their dominance or recessiveness is irrelevant.

J C wrote: »

.......any hypothetical common ancestor would be so far up the putative 'Evolutionary Tree' that it would have practically NO common genetics with EITHER Lichens or Men!!!!!:D

It would have exactly the extent of common genetics that has been measured quantitatively between the two descendant species.

J C wrote: »

......and the fact that they DO share common genetic sequences is indicative of a Common Designer (acting recently)!!!!

Scientifically (and ID claims to be a science) it would suggest a common designer if:

1) Scientific proof existed of an intelligent being that was present on earth several hundred million years ago (or 6000 if you prefer) that was capable of creating DNA from organic compounds AND arranging such genetic code into sequences interpretable by some sort of transcription mechanism.

2) It were proven that this process could not occur spontaneously given the timescale provided.

J C wrote: »

Car seats DO have common design features with mattresses.....because both car seats and mattresses are designed by upholsterers......to do similar jobs!!!!!:eek::D

Car seats require a designer and a builder as they are unlikely to arise spontaneously over the course of hundreds of millions of years. Whilst the existence of a creator being is impossible to disprove, there are no grey areas in our understanding of genetics or evolution that actually require the existence of a creator or designer. Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is generally the truth.

J C wrote: »

The Human is 'special'.......like a Rolls Royce is 'special'......and the Lichen is 'basic'......like a mattress is 'basic'........
.......but both the stitching on the seats of a Rolls Royce and the stitching on a mattress have a common design because the sewing machines used....... had an ulitimate common designer!!!!:D:eek:

Technological development has many similarities to evolution. A possible single-origin technology (stone tools). Selective pressures (demand and practicality). Mass extinction events (bye bye steam train). But as I stated before- technology requires a designer due to a lack of any other mechanism by which it could conceivably exist or evolve. Not to mention the clear existence of such designers (so long as we make the leap of faith and trust our eyes). Biology requires no such designer- so why invoke one? One might as well state that, since we can't find the patent application that proves a human designer, God created stone tools. It is an unnecessary leap.

robindch

J C wrote: »

..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... .....
..... ..... ..... .....
..... .

206 full stops in two posts.

By any chance, do you have Parkinson's disease?

bonkey

gerthewanker wrote: »

If we have evolved from apes shouldnt some of their traits exist as recessive genes in our makeup?

If we and modern apes have evolved from a common ancestor, then one would expect to find a wealth of similarity in our genetic makeup.

Unsurprisingly, thats exactly what we find.

The comparison of human chromosone 2 to its analogs in chimp, gorilla and orangutan is especially interesting : http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

J C

robindch wrote: »

206 full stops in two posts.

By any chance, do you have Parkinson's disease?

.....I never counted them.....do you have some psychological aberration that 'drives' you to closely examine such trifling details???:pac::)

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Thanks, JC - always raises a smile.

A smile is always good.....in this Fallen Dying World!!!!:):D

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's simply you applying your specific take on it, and I have to point out that the majority of Christians don't share your views, but mine. Of course, you don't regard them as proper Christians.



Neither of those examples require Jesus to be quoting Genesis as historical truth...he is simply quoting them as authoritative.

Of course, you cannot imagine that they can be authoritative unless they are historical, but that is only your opinion, in the light of which you assume Jesus must mean historical, because authoritative. You should attach the cart behind the horse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, you understand my point, though you disagree with it.

The idea an non-historical incident can be used as an authoritative model is indeed beyond me. I suspect many/most of those calling themselves Christians who agree Genesis is not historical also hold it is not authoritative. They may be theological liberals, but they do have some common sense.

Perhaps you know different - I do live in a theologically conservative church circle. It just seems incredible to me that any sensible person would hold Genesis to be non-historical but use the incidents it contains as a basis of their morality.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, you understand my point, though you disagree with it.

The idea an non-historical incident can be used as an authoritative model is indeed beyond me. I suspect many/most of those calling themselves Christians who agree Genesis is not historical also hold it is not authoritative. They may be theological liberals, but they do have some common sense.

Perhaps you know different - I do live in a theologically conservative church circle. It just seems incredible to me that any sensible person would hold Genesis to be non-historical but use the incidents it contains as a basis of their morality.

Really? I would have no trouble using even a clearly fictional story as the basis for moral lessons - Shakespeare and Aesop spring immediately to mind. Certainly the historicity of the Rubaiyat is non-existent, but I would undoubtedly consider it an inspiring text.

After all, in the absence of a time-machine, whether events like Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon actually happened is effectively irrelevant to me - the consequences are the same whether the incident is historical or a piece of PR.

Similarly, the influence, and inspiration, of Jesus does not depend, at this stage, on whether he existed, or whether the Gospels are a factually accurate account of his doings.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

A scientist, actively engaged in research science concerning creation (if, indeed, that is even possible) - simple really! :pac: Journalists don't count, btw.

Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3574
Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1521

Andrew A. Snelling, B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3491/
ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING"
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_r01

wolfsbane

iUseVi said:

...And you know this how? Why is God insulted just because a part of the bible is not historical accuracy? Who are you to say what God feels on a particular topic. Just because it makes sense to you. Plenty of christians would say that it is insulting to God that you limit him. (eg. Kenneth Miller and other sophisticated people)

You think it is honest to tell people your word is always true, always dependable - and yet it be mistaken in parts?
Psalm 119:160 The entirety of Your word is truth,
And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

1 John 5:10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son.

I checked Miller's site, but did not see anything about his Christian beliefs. He sure is sophisticated, but what that to do with truth?

You have no problem with God using evolution? and yet you are bound by some ink on a page. Have you ever thought even once that the "truth" to found in Genesis might be more than page deep. After all when Jesus said he was the rock, that was clearly not literal.

He is allowed to speak figuratively, just like the rest of us. But it is not honest to treat His or anyone else's statements as figurative when they are presented as history. Genesis is presented as history not only in its own context, but by the New Testament authors as they refer back to it.

Is not this perfect utopia you are talking about the very definition of you heaven? Tell me, in an ecosystem where there is no death, there must have been a serious population problem. And I suppose all the viruses that can only survive by destroying hosts must have been a separate creation, after the fall? Or perhaps the evolved! And yes all those sharp teeth and claws are for eating fruit......

Yes, Eden was something like the New Earth will be.
No population problem if new births ended when the earth was filled. Heaven will have a static population.
Viruses may have had only good purposes in Eden, their maligant nature developing after the Fall.
Sharp teeth are indeed good to have for fruit-eating - but their size may well have adapted by selection when killing for food entered after the Fall/Flood.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3574
Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1521

Not sure one non-research paper in 10 years counts as "actively engaged" :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Really? I would have no trouble using even a clearly fictional story as the basis for moral lessons - Shakespeare and Aesop spring immediately to mind. Certainly the historicity of the Rubaiyat is non-existent, but I would undoubtedly consider it an inspiring text.

After all, in the absence of a time-machine, whether events like Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon actually happened is effectively irrelevant to me - the consequences are the same whether the incident is historical or a piece of PR.

Similarly, the influence, and inspiration, of Jesus does not depend, at this stage, on whether he existed, or whether the Gospels are a factually accurate account of his doings.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We are not talking about moral lessons, but moral imperatives. My actions constrained by the example of His will God gave in history: one man/one woman joined in marriage by God in the beginning = I'm not free to break the join I have made with my wife. But if in fact there was no such joining of Adam & Eve, how can it mandate anything for my life? It is just a 'blessed thought'.

Where would Jesus' credibility be, since He said it was so at the beginning?

If Jesus wanted to use a parable, He would have said something like, "Marriage is like the story of Adam & Eve being joined as one, so don't separate what God has joined." Instead, He appealed to it as history.

As to Jesus' influence, and inspiration, if the Gospel accounts of Christ are non-historical all we have are a few 'blessed thoughts' to add to our philosophy. If He is historical, as the Gospels profess, then we are all faced with life and death decisions of eternal consequence.

wolfsbane

gerthewanker wrote: »

I don't understand this, why would God create a universe for us if we will never see the vast majority of it? The universe is enormous.?




To keep all of us thinking about a question that no one will ever be able to answer:D

To display His power, not only to man but to angels.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Mendel's experiments were amongst the first to support evolutionary theory. They illustrated a plausible mechanism by which inheritance could occur. The disproving of Darwin's ideas on pangenesis do not undermine evolutionary theory itself and are on the contrary an example of the scientific method in progress. Elements of Darwin's hypothesis on inheritence that were not addressed by Mendel's work (and also Galton's) have since been explained in the context of stem cells and genetic mutation.

Darwin knew nothing of modern genetics or DNA.......and had he known.....he probably would have become a CREATIONIST!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As to the recessive genes question... I think it displays a misunderstanding of the term. A recessive gene is not a "less evolved" or "more primitive" gene- it is simply a gene (which could in fact be a brand new mutation perhaps with an evolutionary advantage) that is expressed less relative to a dominant gene within a given organism. Further, dominance and recessiveness are not absolutes- the two alleles (or versions) of a gene that we each possess will express themselves to varying degrees relative to each other. A and B rhesus antigens for example, are co-dominant and will both be expressed more or less equally on the surface of red blood cells if a person carries one of each allele.

The vast majority of recessive genes are deleterious......and they are the result of deleterious mutagenesis of the originally perfect genetic information!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Scientifically (and ID claims to be a science) it would suggest a common designer if:

1) Scientific proof existed of an intelligent being that was present on earth several hundred million years ago (or 6000 if you prefer) that was capable of creating DNA from organic compounds AND arranging such genetic code into sequences interpretable by some sort of transcription mechanism.

2) It were proven that this process could not occur spontaneously given the timescale provided.

1) Objective proof DOES exist for an Intelligent Creator in the enormous levels of specified complexity observed in living creatures.

2) Muck has never been observed to spontaneously turn into anything......other than more muck......so forget about muck spontaneously turning into Man!!:eek::)

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Car seats require a designer and a builder as they are unlikely to arise spontaneously over the course of hundreds of millions of years.

......livng cells are much more complex and tightly specified than car seats......and they therefore ALSO require a designer and a builder .....and they are even less likely to arise spontaneously than car seats over hundreds of millions of years !!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is generally the truth.

In the beginning God Created is the simplest and the most likely explanation.....and therefore Occam's Razor favours the Creationist explanation over the spontaneous Evolution one!!:)

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Technological development has many similarities to evolution. A possible single-origin technology (stone tools). Selective pressures (demand and practicality). Mass extinction events (bye bye steam train). But as I stated before- technology requires a designer due to a lack of any other mechanism by which it could conceivably exist or evolve. Not to mention the clear existence of such designers (so long as we make the leap of faith and trust our eyes). Biology requires no such designer- so why invoke one? One might as well state that, since we can't find the patent application that proves a human designer, God created stone tools. It is an unnecessary leap.

The Evolving and the Creating that is inherent to technological development are BOTH the direct result of applied (Human) INTELLIGENCE!!!!

......and the Creation and subsequent 'Speciation' of life are ALSO the result of an original application of (Divine) INTELLIGENCE!!!!:eek::pac::)

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Similarly, the influence, and inspiration, of Jesus does not depend, at this stage, on whether he existed, or whether the Gospels are a factually accurate account of his doings.

Of course the influence, and inspiration, of Jesus DOES VERY MUCH depend on whether he existed, and whether the Gospels are a factually accurate account of his doings.

......IF Jesus Christ didn't exist or wasn't God or didn't Resurrect then the Christian Faith is in vain.......and it is invalid!!!!

.....your metaphorical position on the existence Jesus however, is a logical follow through from a position that holds that Genesis History is metaphorical !!!

.....it is wrong.....but it is logically consistent to conclude that Jesus is a myth or an allegory .....once you accept that ANY historical account in the Bible is allegorical and not literal truth!!!:eek::D

Tim_Murphy

In the beginning God Created is the simplest and the most likely explanation

Except of course for the inconvient fact that saying 'God did it' doesn't actually explain anything, in a scientific sense at least.

Scofflaw

Somewhere the Creationists might like!

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3574
Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1521

One, single, 12 year old article in the the Journal of Creation that points out a problem in a certain type of radiometric dating. I'm sure someone else is better equipped than I to assess its scientific merit. What I can see, plainly, is that it supports the creation story only by not directly contradicting it, which is not really support at all. And a practicing scientists he is not, unless you also consider me a professional football player based on my exploits in the mid-nineties. :pac:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Andrew A. Snelling, B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3491/
ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING"
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_r01

Hmm, another critique on a type of radiometric dating that does not directly contradict creation. Published as non peer-reviewed conference proceedings - impressive. 10 years old, you say? Dr. Snelling is obviously too busy being a journalist to waste time with science these days. :pac:

And is there a reason they are so careful to avoid the scientific peer-review process?? And please don't cry censorship unless you've managed to find evidence of it in the last few days. :pac:

J C

wrote:

J C
In the beginning God Created is the simplest and the most likely explanation.


Tim_Murphy
Except of course for the inconvient fact that saying 'God did it' doesn't actually explain anything, in a scientific sense at least.

Saying that life spontanously generated and then spontanously evolved doesn't actually explain anything EITHER, in a scientific sense ......and it is both logically and mathematically much less likely to have occurred!!!!!:eek::pac::)

......and Occam's Razor ALSO philosophically favours the Creationist explanation over the spontaneous Evolutionist one!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

1) Objective proof does exist for an Intelligent Creator in the enormous levels of specified complexity observed in living creatures.

That is not objective proof for an intelligent designer - not even in the philosophical sense. :pac:

Tim_Murphy

Saying that life just spontanously generated and then spontanously evolved doesn't actually explain anything EITHER, in a scientific sense ......and it is both logically and mathematically much less likely to have occurred!!!!!

I was talking about the explanation you put forward, I didn't mention evolution. Whether that is true or not doesn’t actually make any difference to the fact your explanation doesn’t actually explain anything. Showing one theory to be false does not make a rival theory any more true.

*what the hell am I doing on this thread?! :eek: *

J C

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

I was talking about the explanation you put forward, I didn't mention evolution. Whether that is true or not doesn’t actually make any difference to the fact your explanation doesn’t actually explain anything. Showing one theory to be false does not make a rival theory any more true.

There are ONLY two basic hypotheses for the origin of life.....

EITHER life was created/evolved/designed by an 'Intelligence'

OR life was created/evolved/designed 'spontanously' by exclusively materialistic means

.....so showing one basic hypothesis (materialism) to be false DOES prove the alternative ('Intelligence') hypothesis to be true!!!!

.......we can still argue over the details/nature of this 'Intelligence' and whether it created, evolved or designed life.........as well as the timeframe over which it acted.......but the purely materialistic hypothesis has been scientifically invalidated!!!!!!!!!!!:D

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

*what the hell am I doing on this thread?! :eek: *

......looking for GOD......perhaps?????:)

.......or the answer to the 'Origins Question'!!!

Eschatologist

wolfsbane wrote: »

Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3574
Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1521

Andrew A. Snelling, B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3491/
ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING"
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_r01

Dr Austin is quite right with regards to the excess argon giving spurious ages. However, I have already discussed this three times now and referred to a peer-reviewed paper which discusses this very point. You see, geologists already knew since the 60s that excess argon in phenocrysts gives wrong ages in some lava flows because they crystallised in the magma chamber many years before the juvenile magma was erupted. These early-formed crystals then become entrained in the melt as it erupts from the conduit.

It is also a given that a geologist should use more than one dating method to verify the results and we are well aware not to use Ar-Ar or K-Ar on its own.

Showing some results to give wrong ages does not disprove radiomatric dating nor confirm a young Earth, it merely exposes that one must be careful what mineralogical component one chooses for dating. Austin's paper does not advance the creationist argument, and this research has already been done before.