by 
This is great news from Answers In Genesis:
We have known for some time that radiometric dating methods are unreliable. They often disagree between methods (this was quantified by RATE geologist Dr. Steven Austin) and can produce vastly inflated age estimates for rocks that are known to be recently formed. However, RATE scientists have attempted to answer the question of why the radioisotope methods are giving the inflated ages. One of the profound results of the RATE research is
the exciting evidence of accelerated nuclear decay in the past.All radioisotope dating methods assume (among other things) that the decay rate of a given isotope (an atomic nucleus with a given number of neutrons) is constant—that it has always been what it is today. Only if nuclear decay rates have always been constant can the method be used to estimate a reliable age. After all, a clock would not give the correct time if it were to dramatically speed up or slow down. The RATE researchers have uncovered several independent lines of evidence that strongly indicates that nuclear decay was much more rapid in the past.They specifically looked at four various methods:
RATE physicist Dr. Russ Humphreys reported on the measurements of helium diffusing (leaking) out of zircon crystals…
RATE geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner reported on the detection of 14C in coal and in diamonds…
Dr. Andrew Snelling (Ph.D. in geology) reported on the topic of radiohalos (tiny spheres of discolored crystal produced by the decay of radioactive material at their center) and fission tracks…
RATE researcher Dr. Larry Vardiman (Ph.D. in atmospheric science) summarized the results and discussed possible avenues for future research…
This is something that we know is correct from God’s Word, so it’s exciting to see it bear out.
(Visited 17 times, 1 visits today)
All I can say is “It’s about time!”
I stand by my challenge for you to look up any of the phenomena listed. All it takes is some googling and about five minute’s reading for each phenomenon. But you still haven’t done it, have you?
someone’s already done it for you
notice that C-14 in coal/diamond was rebutted back in 2002, and radiohalo’s in 1992.
Either RATE’s research doesn’t extend to a comprehensive review of the literature (which makes it worthless, any research student knows that’s the first step) or else they’re lying to you. They’re selling you their books, and they are dispicable.
If we’re throwing websites around: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
Again– a quick glance at that site doesn’t begin to address the fact that dates have been massaged to “make sense”, that dating something with multiple different dating methods does not reveal the same result, or the fact that things of known dates have proven that one cannot use these methods to accurately date. The site itself said that in its test there’s a “.02 percent” discrepancy which they go on to claim could have no effect on dates, and yet that doesn’t make sense considering the time scale they’re dealing with. And you still haven’t addressed (or have they) the fossils that cover multiple layers, are caught in copulation, etc. Granted, they’ll have excuses, but that’s the way evolution has been from the beginning, constantly shifting because it sits on shifting sand. The only thing that it maintains is that it can’t acknowledge the possibility of a creator.
Again, it goes back to a discussion on Frenzy’s site– you have a worldview that things have to fit to and I do too. You claim this proves that these people are somehow fish oil salesmen and your people are somehow above reproach.
Let’s compare– What has evolution done with false information? How many generations of school children have been taught spontanious generation was true? How many textbooks still have it in there with the pictures of gills on a human embryo that we know were forged? How many books still have the expiraments that were supposed to “prove” non-life can lead to life, yet were proven wrong? How many pictures of the moths in England that were staged (killed and placed on bark for photos)? How many grand a glorious events were made of fossil digs claiming to find the missing link, yet ending up not to find it after all but the retraction didn’t gain as much publicity?
I rest my case.
I have, in the past posts, shifted from rebutting to point to the main problem– the problem that your religion requires you to view evidence one way (just as, I admit, mine does).
However, let’s look at your information:
I’ll start with this document.
Point 1 –
Subpoint 1-
“The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy.” — Again, how long have they been taking measurements? The article that claims to refute makes some kind of allusion to 1972 as a chance to change the rate. However, even if we grant the long time of 100 years of study on the rate of decay, the “scientists” can’t even point to 100% similar rate. They say there’s a variation of .2% which they immediately classify as inconsequential. So, this hardly proves what point 1 is supposed to state – that radioactive decay is a constant, because they even say that there’s a change!
Subpoints 2 & 3-
These points reason in a circular method. First, they take as fact that because SN1987A is 169,000 light-years away (if measurements are correct), then we can take that and prove that current rates are consistent for 169,000 years. But, missing from this great “proof” and the next one is the knowledge that the universe has been around more than 169,000 years. This begs the question, is the only way that this radiation can be explained is by having that many years, or could the whole universe being created in a short period of time, and then enlarging, change readings.
Point 1 hardly proves anything as far as consistency. First it claims that there is a discrepancy over the “short” amount of actual study, and then makes untestable assumptions as its basis for claiming age.
Point 2-
The whole “earth melt” thing is pretty graphic and its understandable its use. The problem is, this again starts with the assumption that things are as they always were and attempts to take that “evidence” and apply it a YEC model to make it look bad. Since you don’t know the condition of the Earth when it was created, you cannot tell the state of the radiation, etc. You have an eyewitness account, but that obviously isn’t good enough for you. You should read the post I had on the parable of the candle.
Point 3 & 4-
This whole point tries to refute the concept that radiometric dating has gotten everything right. Big problem, this is a lie.
Don’t like AIG, how about some links from UNC, Chapel Hill This guy even links to talk origins, and it makes his point! That Point 3 is a lie. Here’s his conclusion:
An evolutionist said his experience is that whenever he looks into a creationist source, it blows up on him. My experience is that whenever I look into an evidence for evolution or (now) the reliability of radiometric dating on the geologic column, it blows up on me, too.
please, people, do some research. You can look up any of those four phenomena and find the other side of the argument. (these are NOT new). Have you done that?
Did you read it? If you did, you would have caught the mistake I made. I only listed 3 methods of research, not four. But you didn’t point that out– you said that “any of those four phenomena”. Also, you gave no evidence to the contrary, nor can you. The methods are unreliable and assume uniformitarianism where you can’t prove that. You can’t even set up a test for a thousand years to prove it’s stable. Come back when you’ve done some more research.
I said four instead of three, that’s not a reason to disregard my comment. (If it were, I could already disregard yours).
I’m serious, if you look up any of the phenomena you will find commentary dealing, I expect, with the “problems” put forward by these creationists. Don’t think I can’t supply rebuttals, I can. My point would be better made if you used a search engine yourself, though.
If the evidence is consistant with uniformitarianism, why reject it? If it isn’t true, there is no need for the evidence to look as if science has stayed the same…
Did you read the whole article or just the snippets I gave? The whole point of the research was to look if uniformitarianism is suspect or not. The research casts serious doubt as to whether any of the methods of dating can be trusted.
Furthermore, Biblically, we are told that people will make statements regarding things always being like they were (2 Peter 3:4-7). Peter says that people claim that they’ve always been this way, but it’s not true, because there has been a world wide flood.
In more modern times, we have indications that things are not as they appear. We have carbon dating of live things that make them appear dead for hundreds of years. Scientists are constantly fudging dates because they don’t know the exact time, they can only hypothesize. We’ve seen the formation of fossils that happened in our life time– not requiring millions of years. We’ve also seen many different fossils that span multiple strata and in the process of copulating, eating, etc. which flies in the face of fossils being formed over time. Catastophes happen, which flies in the face of uniformitarianism as well.
You have not yet begun to make your case. You’ve made accusations but have not backed them up.
Really, how many textbooks such as those you mention are still on curriculums’ reading lists? I don’t know, do you? same goes for your other claims… is it based on any current curriculum?
I don’t give a kidney about publicity… underlying scientific discourse is rigour and peer review. Creationists do not submit to these. It is because of this that your suggested symmetry does not stand.
Sliding back on-topic, you have side-stepped my complaint about your original post. Do you admit that you reproduced RATE’s “findings” without doing any of your own research?
I guess you have me as far as the question about is it still in textbooks. I don’t have the resources to check them all right now. What I can attest to is that it was taught to me in high school which was still many years after they knew it to be a forgery and false.
Creation Scientists do submit to peer review. They are published in many techincal journals. You make the assumption that it is easy to get into this peer review process, but in reality I can assure you that anyone that posits anything other than the accepted religion of Evolutionism is not going to have an easy time getting in there.
I post many things on this site without doing research. My style of Blogging is finsing articles that interest me and should interest my readers. I link to the original article and include snippets. These links and topics are to encourage thought and let people know the kinds of things that are happening in our day to day world. I cannot help but wonder why you waited until this article went into my archives until posting your comments, but hey, you’re only going to believe those things that fit your religion, so I really can’t help you see the truth until you see it for yourself. Perhaps you should stop just proclaiming the dogma of your religion and start looking at the fact that there can be other worldviews that explain what happened, and that your religion is not the one that best fits what’s out there.
I mean, lets face it, how many years of data do you have to back up your assertions? Since Darwin? Unlikely, since evolution has changed many many times since then. How long has my data been out there? Thousands of years. Has anyone proved that it does not fit what we see? Nope.
Again, go ahead, practice your religion. Believe your own worldview and call anyone that has a different one a liar, ignorant or whatever you desire. You’re more than welcome to be wrong.
Which journals?
The nature of this post was supposed to disprove or expose cracks in the evidence for evolution. The phenomena pointed out are not up to the task, and obviously so. Very little research is required to demonstrate that these are old arguments, already won by mainstream science. I hope to encourage you to check future articals just a little bit before being taken in. It is my judgement that creationist websites are lying to you, and they’re not even being very careful about it.
This checking procedure is standard practice in mainstream science. It is a check / balance which is clearly absent in creationist circles, and it is one of the reasons why mainstream science is stronger.
(Some of) your assertions are unfalsifyable. Those which are somewhat checkable, such as a young earth, global flood, absence of death before man etc. appear to be false. There is nothing we would expect to see if there had been a global flood. It didn’t happen; or if it did, it has been hidden. Either way, it doesn’t fit what we see.
This is passive aggression, is it?
It is not the creationist’s belief in a literal genesis which makes him a liar, it is his dishonest selective representation of old evidence. It’s like what you accuse mainstream text books of but times 100. Don’t you want your side to conduct itself with more aplomb?? Do you not see a problem with answersingenesis reproducing RATE’s findings in the way they have? (knowing what I have shown you?) It may not be your duty to do any research, but I think it should be answersingenesis’s. I’d like to know what you think answersingenesis’s duties towards good scientific journalism are. Please join me at the point and stop furtively circling the edges looking for non-existent symmetry.
In conclusion, far from what you state– that this research has been “proven” false already– it’s in fact the opposite. Your “sites” that claim to be telling you the truth are spouting poorly thought logic and lies. They mislead you into believing that your religion is the only one– and for what purpose? That’s what I would think you should find out.
Measurements always have an error, this is a physical and, it turns out, philosophical reality which cannot ever be circumvented. To take an easily understood example, you cannot completely accurately measure the length of your kitchen table. There will always be some error, maybe less than a millimeter, but never zero. .2% error would be amazing, dates are given with bigger error-bars than that.
But this isn’t error they’re talking about, this is the effect of massive pressure. This demonstrates that even huge changes in environment impact decay rates only very slightly, and within the experimental error of the measurement anyway.
If the universe were young, there would be no need for one measurement which provides the distance to a star, and another independent measurement which provides the frequency and fading rate of gamma-rays to match. Do you have some other explanation for this correspondence (which occurs across multiple stars)?
The same with Oklo. The measurement of neutron capture rates are independent of age measurements. What reason do you have for the correspondence??
I hope you understand now this is NOT circular reasoning. It’s also not proof. All this does is demonstrate consistency. Creationists are in the position of doubting dating techniques, and claiming inconsistency… but radiodating stands up to scrutiny, so far at least.
Point 2 demonstrates that the whole of physics needs to be pretty much discarded for a young earth model to hold. Not necessarily a problem, but an extraordinary consequence which deserves to be flagged up.
radiodating is remarkably consistent. Please be specific about the problems you percieve. Your link is too long for me to critique it all, but making vague handwavy suggestions about the possible effects of nutrinos didn’t impress me at all…