Evidence for macro evolution

Theist_1998, I examined this story with the help of other sources and have come to the conclusion that Dr. Austin made some severe scientific blunders in this particular experiment but there is a clear way to the truth. According to www.noanswersingenesis.org, a scientific examination of cases like these, Dr. Austin made mistakes that made this experiment invalid. They state in an article found in the web address written that, " AUSTIN FAILED TO PROPERLY USE THE K-Ar METHOD Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples. Austin's results on the Mt. St. Helens dacite, which are also listed by Swenson, are shown in the following table: Whole Rock and Mineral/Glass 'Fractions' from the Dacite K-Ar 'Date' in millions of years Whole Rock0.35 +/- 0.05 Pyroxenes2.8 +/- 0.6 Pyroxenes, etc.1.7 +/- 0.3 Amphiboles, etc.0.9 +/- 0.2 Feldspars, glass, etc. ('Tedder' sample)0.34 +/- 0.06" I might also clarify that k-Ar method is a method of radiometric dating. In conclusion the evidence presented by Dr. Austin was obviously faulty and the validity of radiometric dating as well as the age of the Earth at 4.28 billion years old was proved. I am going to ask the same questions as last time and desperately want an answer. How old is the Earth in your opinion and where is your proof? What other reliable source than the Bible, which I believe you have misinterpreted, supports your claims? Link to website: https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...