I am willing to believe that WILLOWTREE can misunderstand anything. But he's claiming that he went to the La Brea Tar Pits. That's reasonable since just about every school kid in the LA Basin will have a trip to the tar pits. They are a wonderous place. The hills around are dotted with the booms of oil wells, those offshore are desguised to look like tropical islands. The pits look more like a lake, amazingly harmless. It's easy to imagine people, mamouths and saber tooth tigers wandering into them, becoming trapped and drowning.
But the displays there are very clear. They involve animals, mammals, not dinosaurs. The La Brea Tar Pits didn't even exist when the dinosaurs were around.
The Page Museum is located at the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits in the heart of Los Angeles. Rancho La Brea is one of the world’s most famous fossil localities, recognized for having the largest and most diverse assemblage of extinct Ice Age plants and animals in the world. Visitors can learn about Los Angeles as it was between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago, during the last Ice Age, when animals such as saber-toothed cats and mammoths roamed the Los Angeles Basin.
The other possibility is that he may have attended one of the sessions held regularly at the Tar Pits on general fossil themes. They do hold sessions on dinosaurs there. But the dinosaurs were not from the Tar Pit. They would be from some other location, some other era.
The reference to the Red Hand and Red Tape is yet another example of WILLOWTREE simply not being able to read and understand the source. He cannot read and understand the Bible any more than any other source. As an example, he believes that the questions I ask are trick or loaded questions. They're not. They are simply the basics of how dating is done.
If he is not capable of understanding even the simple examples laid out here, if he is not capable of adding up the miles in the LLM, if he is incapable of reading the Bible, how can we expect him to understand what the tour guides tell him?
I haven't followed this topic close enough to have a clue of what the tar pits have to do with this topic.
Now, consulting my geological dictionary, the volcanics definition of "traps":
Trap in the Dutch language signifies stairs, a staircase. In basaltic lava fields a remarkable steplike or terracelike appearance is observable. This configuration is due to the abrupt terminations of the successive flows.
So, "traps" is just a geomorphological discription of basaltic volcanics.
"Argon 40 is a very common isoptope. Argon is the 12th most abundant chemical element on Earth and more than 99 percent is argon 40.
There is no physical or chemical way to tell whether any given sample of argon 40 is the residue of radioactive decay or was present in the rocks when they formed. Moreover, as argon is an inert gas that will not react with any other element, its atoms will always be trapped in the crystal structures of minerals whether it is radiogenic in origin or not.
So, if radiogenic argon 40 is like "a bird in a cage", then it is a cage that already contains birds of the same feather, from which it is indistinguishable." END MILTON QUOTE.
The above evidence went completely unchallenged.
For from having gone unchallenged, I completely refuted it.
Let me repeat the two main points. The study did not return datings of the lavas that were all over the place: the lava was dated and duly returned a zero age date (correct given the age of the sample and the accuracy of the test). What it did do was produce datings for the inclusions (unmelted rocks carried along with the lava) that were inconsistent with each other. Conclusion: as theory had predicted, inclusions cannot be used to date the underlying rock. Unfortunate, but no problem for radio-isotope dating.
However, that was not my main point.
This was that Milton misrepresented the study. In short, he lied about the results.
This was that had Milton read the study - or even read the title of the study, he would have know this. He therefore could not make the claim that the study supported his conclusion that radio-isotope daing was unreliable, for the study came to almost the oppoiste conclusion - that it was reliable, except in certain easily recognisable circumstances. So, if he had read the study he lied about its conclusions.
If he had not read the study, but merely did a typical creationists cut-and-paste, he lied by implication, because he would have had no way of knowing if the study supported or did not support his views.
It is this latter point that you have totally failed to address by merely restating your initial position.