Yet here we have it condoned by the top scientific journal in the world. I selected it because it was identified by the journal editors as a significant advance in knowledge. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be.Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.
Otherwise, what was the point of doing the RATE research at all?I predict the result will be an age of 6000 years or - 2000 years. But what unproved assumptions is helium diffusion dating basing itself on? Is it not possible that God created the material world is such a way that there is a dating method that doesn't depend upon unproved assumptions, and that the RATE project found that method?If you can tell me any unproved assumption upon which helium diffusion in zircon crystals is based, I will concede that point and bow to your logic.And if we assume that, why was helium diffusion dating performed by the RATE team? As I previously said, I agree that the RATE work provides strong evidence that the earth is young.And why did it date granite samples at about 6000 years old? In our article Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe we include the RATE results as one of those evidences (Items 59, 60, and 61).