Ooh, this is going to take a bit of unpacking.
1. “If observations are lacking.” We’re clearly talking about an observation in this passage, specifically observations about argon levels in rocks, used to date them. It’s not the lack of observations that’s the problem, it’s the fact that the authors don’t like what’s been observed.
2. “God could have put any mixture of His choosing into the original rock.” What does this tell us about God, then? This argument sounds like he’s a giant cosmic troll. In which case I have to ask, is creating Rush Limbaugh His equivalent of leaving badly-spelled insults on youtube videos? More importantly, if the authors don’t have anything more substantial to contribute than “God did it last Thursday!” why aren’t they leaving science, philosophy, and theology to actual adults?
3. “Because that course of action appeals to him intellectually.”
a. Nice job with that gender-inclusive language!
b. The irony of lines like these is always worth pointing out.
From Emmett L. Williams & George Mulfinger, Physical Science for Christian Schools (Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 1974), 271.