Nuclear decay rates are not constant

Please remember what Pro needs to prove here: NUCLEAR DECAY RATES ARE NOT CONSTANT. I am worried this debate is becoming a disagreement on sources and not one on the issue.Pro writes, “I have decided to dismiss the original study that I have mentioned because I find this one to be of greater significance and impact”. Please disregard the first source as evidence until used formerly since Pro did not respond to any of my arguments. -Rebuttal-(R1) Pro’s “Lets begin with background” The study can be summarized as follows “deep granite burial should be a very safe corrosion—resistant containment procedure for long—term waste encapsulation.”. After introducing the methodology the researchers move on to review their findings and discuss/conclude the study (as nearly all studies do). In it, they make a number of assumptions:1. Column four of the table “assumes negligible diffusion loss”, when referencing “the ratio of the amount of He actually measured in zircons from any particular depth to the estimated amount of He which should have accumulated” - How do they know this?2. They “assume this ratio was one because the specimens we used were small fragments from the interior of larger zircons” – how do they know this?3. They “made the assumption that the radiogenic Pb concentration […] was, on the average, the same as that measured” – why did they make this assumption?Assumptions in science, while sometimes necessary, are problematic and borrow for the evidence. It is exactly why research needs to be repeated, as in the scientific method.Nowhere in the citation provided does it even reference uranium-238 (please feel free to use the link Pro provided and Ctrl + F to search it). The conclusion clearly states that “deep-granite storage should be a very safe corrosion-resistant waste containment procedure [1]. It DOES NOT address decay rates AT ALL. So, the study below (see pro: “On to the relevant part”) is based on a study that was not repeated or validated and has its own internal problems.(R2) Pro’s “On to the relevant part”This “study” was done on behalf of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). There are several problems with this. 1. Science subsidized by partisan entities creates a conflict of interest. The Director of the ICR makes it clear they are biased, “Christians must diligently proceed to correlate the facts of science so with the bible” [2]. He is essentially saying that science HAS TO fit with the bible or it is wrong. How are we supposed to take this study seriously if the researchers aren’t permitted to disagree with the bible in the first place?2. The ICR is not an accredited research journal. These studies have not been reviewed by the scientific community (despite creationist claims that it is peer reviewed). Why don’t these “scientists” post their research in academic or revered journals; see Nature, Science, AAAS? Surely a quantum shift in the Radiometric Dating (RMD) field deserves attention? Heck, it deserves the Nobel Prize [3]. Somehow the ICR scientists do not even seem interested in scientific review.So we have seen that this “research” demonstrates a clear conflict of interest and is not accredited. Here's what you don't know.The studies contention, that "the rock formation is radiometrically dated at about 1.5 billion years of age. The zircons contain uranium and thorium which have decayed to their daughter products including helium. Most of the radiogenic helium is still present in the zircon crystals. If the crystals were really 1.5 billion years old the helium should have all diffused out into the surrounding mineral formations. Thus, the crystals cannot really be 1.5 billion years old rather they are only a few thousand years old. Otherwise the helium would be gone” [3]. First of all, the are “some serious questions as to how RATE [radioisotopes and the age of the earth] calculated the ratios of theoretical to actual helium contents in the zircons (their Q/Qzero values)” [3]. Recall (R1) where I comment on “making assumptions” - that is what RATE has done here. There seems to be a double standard as well. It is a regular claim by creationists that geochronology must account for potential error due to external forces they do), ie. outside temp, weathering etc. but this study blatantly overlooks this claim. They do not account for helium that may have diffused [my emphasis] into the zircon from external sources, which is known to happen in obsidian dating techniques and is accounted for. Further, they do not consider the very complex thermal and geologic history of a site so close to a volcano [4]. Additionally, they did not examine the possibility that their preparation may have accelerated the diffusion measurements and they never repeated (again, the scientific method people) the lower temp measurements to generate reproducible results. Why on earth do prevent other scientists from performing the experiment? Science must be duplicated to prove its validity. Dr. Henke states “RATE certainly has no grounds to declare the entire science of radiometric dating to be invalid based on a study that apparently involved only two published diffusion tests” [3] and does not allow for reproducibility.-My Contentions-(1)Radiometric dating (RMD) is verifiable using alternative methods not dependent on decay rates.(a)Dendrochronology - Dendrochronology uses tree rings that are deposited annually to cross examine carbon dating results. “These rings provide the exact calendar year the tree ring was formed. If a sample has the same proportion of radiocarbon as that of the tree ring, it is safe to conclude they are the same age” [5]. So we have independent means by which to measure a RMD process to verify its validity. (b)Ice-core dating – each year ice deposits accumulate. These deposits contain a statistically constant amount of Carbon-14 and can be calibrated using ice core samples. “These correlations could, in principle, allow layer-counted ice-core chronologies to be transferred to radiocarbonated paleoclimate archives, thus providing a (super 14) C calibration” (accurate up to 40,000 years) [6]. (c)Thermoluminescence (TL) - uses the fact that radioactive decays cause some electrons in a material to end up stuck in higher-energy orbits. The number of electrons in higher-energy orbits accumulates as a material experiences more natural radioactivity over time [7]. By comparing TL (~ 1 million years) to radiometric results we have yet another method for calibrating the accuracy of RMD.(d)Varves – sediments vary in character and strength through the seasons in rivers and lakes to produce annual patterns of deposition. Again, this method, when calibrated with RMD, helps validate RMD reliability [7].(e)Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) – changes in electron orbits and spin caused by radioactivity over time, can be used up to 2 million years and, once again, allows for calibration to verify RMD techniques [7].I have shown that Pro’s SINGLE reference is based on “assumptive” research, non-verifiable/non-repeatable experimentation and conspicuous/biased methodologies that have been repudiated in the scientific community at large. It does not even pretend to circulate in academia and is subsidized by publicly outspoken prejudiced parties.For Pro to prove the proposition, Pro must prove NUCLEAR DECAY RATES ARE NOT CONSTANT and answer each of my rebuttals and contentions. he has, thus far, proposed NO ARGUMENT AT ALL.If this is not done, vote CON.[1] http://www.halos.com...[2] http://www.icr.org...[3] http://www.oldearth.org...[4] The Fenton Hill site lies only a short distance from the Valle's Caldera, the remnants of one of the most massive volcanic systems in North America. [5] http://www.radiocarbon.com...[6] https://journals.uair.arizona.edu...[7] http://asa3.org... 18