The landmark RATE paper, The paper looks at the various avenues a long-ager might take by which to wriggle out of these powerful implications, but there seems to be little hope for them unless they can show that the techniques used to obtain the results were seriously flawed. carbon-14, or has, over the years, commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g.
Another dramatic breakthrough concerns radiocarbon. samples with Jurassic fossils, samples inside Triassic sandstone, and samples burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in C further, building on the literature reviews of creationist physician Dr Paul Giem.
From the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place.
So it was clear that the assumption of a constant, slow decay process was wrong.
Once the organism dies, however, it ceases to absorb carbon-14, so that the amount of the radiocarbon in its tissues steadily decreases.
(These include the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos and fission track dating.) It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes alone could explain all these.
Rather, there was likely to be an answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.
Others had tried to find an answer in geological processes—e.g.
the pattern was caused by the way the magma was emplaced or how it crystallized. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that in other cases there were many independent lines of evidence that suggested that huge amounts of radioactive decay had indeed taken place.