At worst, as Kong pointed out, the RATE project was a deliberate attempt to subvert the techniques through deception. Technicians know that older inclusions in lava can give false readings, for example. But generally, when SCIENTISTS in the field submit a sample, they will mention if such problems are likely. Why? Because the want the truth of course, they want an accurate date if possible.<quoted text>
Our side embarked on a 7 year project to look at the isochron decay rate issue vs young earth.
They went back to a number of sites studied in the past by establishment scientists that formed the bulk of the modern lit on the subject, then submitted samples to multiple labs double blind.
What they found has ended up reopening the issue of reliability of long-age dating using isochon theory. Their primary paper called the "Rate Project" has passed peer review and been presented at a number of conferences being hailed as a "refreshing look" at the issue across a spectrum of geology professionals.
Apart from the lack of concordance between dating methods (sometimes over 900my) other testable chemical clocks contradicted the entire isochon system. The truth will win in the end.
We all know that different techniques have different ranges for accuracy, based on the decay rate of the particular elements being tested. So a 7 million year old inclusion is added to a sample that came form a recent eruption, and this "proves" the unreliability of radiometric dating? No, it would normally prove the sloppiness of the sample collector...and in this case merely proves the deliberate deception employed by the RATE project.
On the other hand, for samples known to be unadulterated and intact, multiple dating methods reliably give datings within 5-10% of each other, and often better. Its pretty hard to reconcile this fact with the claim that the techniques are unreliable.
And it is damned near impossible to reconcile them with any Young Earth scenario, unless you try some special pleading like claiming decay rates used to be much shorter...x700,000 acceleration is required to reconcile the dates with YEC!- And then you have the problem of dealing with enough energy release to fry the entire crust...not to mention spectroscopic analysis of distant stars showing decay has been pretty constant all this time.
We know you will attack radiometric dating with every means you can think of, because even more than evolution it proves that YEC is a pile of nonsense.