Nuclear decay rates are not constant

To answer your first three questions regarding the research paper of scientists from Los Alamost National Laboratory (R1): it seems to me that you have misunderstood the place of the papers from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in this debate. It is not these papers that I have chosen as my argument. The whole reason these papers are vague and have assumptions, is that their whole purpose was not to present a complete study of helium in zircon crystals, but rather to put on record a possibly suspicious observation for other scientists who have the time and resources to look into it. The papers from the ICR is what you should be focusing on, not the papers that merely served as an inspiration for the research that the ICR has conducted.Then on to R2. Both of your questions can be answered as one in the following way: the ICR is an organization that is biased towards certain views, and an organization that is not considered legitimate by the scientific community, entirely correct. I do not argue with any of that, I am in complete agreement. However, from a scientific perspective, the argument from majority opinion is not an argument (Galileo would have been wrong if that were the case). What you should do, is focus on their research instead of trying to criticize them for who they are and what they stand for. Other than that, such a controversial paper would never have been accepted into an accredited scientific journal, there is strict control on such. If you doubt any of that, send an email to dr. Richard Sternberg (from the Smithsonian), who suffered terrible consequences for publishing a biology paper on intelligent design after it passed peer review. The Office of Special Counsel confirmed his claims, and he is far from the only one to find himself in such a situation.Then you question how the RATE team has arrived at the Q/Q-zero values and assert that they might have made assumptions in this regard: I have to make a correction here. The rate of diffusion is not an assumption, but has been measured in the laboratory and reported in several studies which have been used as a reference and cross check for the independent measurements of the ICR in the very first section of the paper, the abstract section. Magmomedov (1970), Humphreys (2000), Lippolt & Weigel (1988)... Reiners, Farley & Hickes (2002). There are no assumptions when it comes to the conclusion of this study, it is a definitive, not speculative, study. And then you state that external helium might have entered the zircon crystals: not possible, minerals surrounding the zircons have significantly less helium and uranium. This rebuttal was originally written by Hugh Ross (another person you would consider unscientific) and he seems satisfied with the response, his only excuse being that he has not been informed enough about the nature fo zircon crystals when he made the rebuttal to the study of the ICR.You raise an issue about the temperature and how it affects the diffusion: this is completely irrelevant, as the team has calculated the diffusion for temperatures lower than the Los Alamos Ice Age heat flow models, which would be the best case scenario for uniformitarians. Other temperature ranges were also calculated and all of this is included in the study, which you seem not to have read as you are writing such a rebuttal?Regarding your contentions, there are five different areas that you have included, this is clearly too large for this debate. I have only included one area for my case (the RATE study) and I asked that you do the same in my opening statement for the current discussion. If you could, that would be much more systematic and equal - that is to say, choose one study at a time, f.ex., dendochronology.