Editing Creation science (section)

====Radiometric dating====
Creationists point to flawed [[RATE project|experiments]] they have performed, which they claim demonstrate that 1.5 billion years of [[Radioactive decay|nuclear decay]] took place over a short period of time, from which they infer that "billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying [[nuclear physics]] generally, and [[radiometric dating]] in particular.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Humphreys |first=D. Russell |author-link=Russell Humphreys |date=October 2002 |title=Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World |url=http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-352.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080706194518/http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-352.pdf |archive-date=2008-07-06 |url-status=live |journal=Impact |issue=352 |pages=i–iv |isbn=9780914513407 |oclc=175308381 |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref>

The scientific community points to numerous flaws in the creationists' experiments, to the fact that their results have not been accepted for publication by any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and to the fact that the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental [[geochronology]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html |title=Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion 'Dates': Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data |last=Henke |first=Kevin R. |author-link=Kevin Henke |date=June 20, 2010 |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-09-18}} Original version: March 17, 2005; Revisions: November 24, 2005; July 25, 2006 and June 20, 2010.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm |title=R.A.T.E: More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research |last=Meert |first=Joseph G. |date=February 6, 2003 |website=Gondwana Research |publisher=Joseph Meert |location=Gainesville, FL |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref> They have also been criticised for widely publicising the results of their research as successful despite their own admission of insurmountable problems with their hypothesis.<ref name=isaac>{{cite journal|last1=Isaac|first1=Randy|title=Assessing the RATE project|journal=Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith|date=June 2007|volume=59|issue=2|pages=143–146|url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081007070845/http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf |archive-date=2008-10-07 |url-status=live|access-date=3 October 2015}}</ref>

The constancy of the decay rates of [[isotope]]s is well supported in science. Evidence for this constancy includes the correspondences of date estimates taken from different radioactive isotopes as well as correspondences with non-radiometric dating techniques such as [[dendrochronology]], ice core dating, and historical records. Although scientists have noted slight increases in the decay rate for isotopes subject to extreme pressures, those differences were too small to significantly impact date estimates. The constancy of the decay rates is also governed by first principles in [[quantum mechanics]], wherein any deviation in the rate would require a change in the fundamental constants. According to these principles, a change in the fundamental constants could not influence different elements uniformly, and a comparison between each of the elements' resulting unique chronological timescales would then give inconsistent time estimates.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html |title=CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates |date=June 4, 2003 |editor-last=Isaak |editor-first=Mark |website=TalkOrigins Archive |publisher=The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. |location=Houston, TX |access-date=2014-09-18}}</ref>

In refutation of young Earth claims of inconstant decay rates affecting the reliability of radiometric dating, Roger C. Wiens, a physicist specializing in isotope dating states:
{{blockquote|There are only three quite technical instances where a [[half-life]] changes, and these do not affect the dating methods:<ref name="Wiens_2002">{{cite web |url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html |title=Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective |last=Wiens |first=Roger C. |year=2002 |orig-year=First edition 1994 |publisher=[[American Scientific Affiliation]] |location=Ipswich, MA |access-date=2014-08-27 }} Dating methods discussed were [[K–Ar dating|potassium–argon dating]], [[argon–argon dating]], [[rubidium–strontium dating]], [[samarium–neodymium dating]], lutetium–hafnium, [[rhenium–osmium dating]], and [[uranium–lead dating]].</ref>}}
#"Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. ... The artificially-produced isotope, [[Isotopes of beryllium|beryllium-7]] has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment. ... Heavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent."
# "... Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. 'Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus. ... All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than several hundred thousand degrees."
#"The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by [[atomic clock]]s in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates."{{sfn|Wiens|2002|pp=[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2020 20–21]|ps=}}