Did you even read what I wrote, my dear brother @Helloandgoodbye?
The reason I ask is that you saw that the subject of my post was radiometric dating, so (it seems) you thought it would be a good idea to just copy-paste links from creationist publications about the subject
Here’s the thing: it is 100% obvious that you did not pay attention to any of the details in what I had posted.
If you had actually read and understood what I wrote, you definitely would not have linked to the article on radioactive decay under laboratory conditions.
Allow me to explain in more detail. You have never heard this information before, I am quite sure.
Here’s a quote from that article:
163Dy, a stable nuclide under normal-Earth conditions, was found to decay to 163Ho, with t½ = 47 days, under the bare-nucleus conditions of the completely ionized state. [Emphasis added]
First of all, Woodrappe admits that under the conditions in which life can exist (“normal Earth conditions”), radioactivity is negligible. To reach the fast decay state, 163Dy must be heated to such insanely high temperatures that all of the electrons are stripped away. Physicists normally call this a plasma state, and it is considered to be a fourth state of matter (the other three being solid, liquid, and gas).
What else is in the plasma state? The hydrogen and helium in the sun.
You seem to think that raising the temperature on the earth to many times higher than the temperature on the sun’s surface–this being the “laboratory conditions”- explains why radiometric dating is inaccurate.
I am sorry, my dear brother, but I think you and Woodrappe, the author of the AiG article, are mistaken in thinking that those laboratory conditions have ever existed on earth. If you were right, the entire earth would have been completely vaporized into quadrillions of atoms. Not even the sand would have survived, much less water and life itself.
Woodrappe also proposes a vast weakening of the weak nuclear force during the creation week. The problem with this hypothesis is that every atom other than hydrogen would have flown apart under such conditions.
A heavens and earth with nothing but hydrogen: does that sound plausible to you, my brother?
The first article you linked from ICR is no better. First Thomas cites research about tiny, insignificant fluctuations in systems that are not even used in radiometric dating. The systems used in radiometric dating have not been shown to be influenced at all by those seasonal factors.
Then Thomas discusses cavitation-induced fluctuation in radioactivity. This presumably has an effect by immensely compressing the radioactive material, much as the explosion of TNT in a warhead can turn a lump of uranium into a bomb.
Once again, a widespread cavitation condition that might cause radiometric dating to fail would also destroy the earth and every trace of life upon it.
Finally, Thomas states that helium atoms in zircons supposedly indicate a young age. The study upon which he is relying is riddled with bad data and erroneous analysis, as Henke explains here:
Please, my brother read Henke’s article carefully.
Thanks and God bless,
Chris