The conclusions of the Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE) Project as summarized above signify an important shift in argumentation by many of the major institutions of young-Earth creationism such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.It marks a move away from reliance on 'appearance of age' and the arguments of creationists like John Woodmoreappe (Plaisted 2002), who asserted that radioisotope dates are the result of filtering essentially random numbers through the institutional biases of science.
Indeed, by doing almost 20 seconds of research on google (type in “variations in C14”, click on Google Scholar) the second link is this article from 1954: Carbon 13 in plants and the relationships between carbon 13 and carbon 14 variations in nature So, this issue has been known about for a long time. Then we compare the two and adjust the radiocarbon date to the known date. That’s less than 1% if you’re interested in that sort of thing. But this is already almost a thousand words and I’ve only done ONE! Long story short, scientists have always known that variations in C-14 concentration happen.
Do you honestly think that no one has done anything about it? By making thousands (if not millions) of these adjustments we get a very good idea of how old a piece of unknown material can be. The 2009 calibration set extends the ‘well calibrated range’ to 50,000 years using the varves in a Japanese lake. This is unlike the creationists which think it happened, but can’t be bothered to check.
The RATE team, however, because of their unshakable Biblical faith in a 6,000 year old Earth, rejects uniformitarianism (Humphreys 20) and argues that the rate of decay was greatly accelerated during the first two days of Creation Week and during the year-long Flood of Noah (De Young 200-151).
This paper examines the evidence RATE cites for believing that decay has been accelerated, the proposed mechanisms for that acceleration, and several difficulties with the theory.
The first is that atoms have always decayed at the same rate.
And this isn’t really an assumption as the decay rates have been tested in the laboratory for a hundred years or so, we have an example of a natural nuclear reactor where we can measure the various products and determine the decay rates (and the fine structure constant), and we can observe the past by looking deep into the past of the universe. The sigh isn’t for the effort of writing, it’s for the effort of finding all the references.
(the same) size, then it can be safely assumed that the half-life of that decay is a constant.
At their request, physicist Dr Jim Mason, of CMI Canada, reviewed the material from the meeting and his response was published on 2 April 2015 (see Response to Geochronology: Understanding the Uncertainties, a presentation by Dr Justin Payne).
It can be experimentally confirmed that molten Zircon rejects lead.