Creationists have, in particular, pointed out the weak assumptions on which the method is based, and the contradictory nature of its results.
A research consortium has recently convened at ICR to go further and develop a workable understanding of the radioisotope decay data from a young-earth perspective.
For decades creation scientists have shown that the answer to this question is a clear NO!
Its results have been shown to be inconsistent, discordant, unreliable, and frequently bizarre in any model.
Yet nearby a full uranium halo might be found which would take a long period of time to form.
These two 'mutually-exclusive' facts convince one that something has been overlooked.
We are committed to maintaining standards, protecting users and giving those users assurance as outlined in Our Guiding Principles. A link to our customer service arrangements is provided here.
Assumption One: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past.
We know that some elements decay over time into another element, i.e., uranium (parent) changes into lead (daughter).
But even when questionable specimens are rejected, many results are still unusable, and explained away by contamination.
Furthermore, since the dynamic Flood of Noah's day covered the entire globe, what rock could have escaped its effects?