In true FR tradition, I have not read the article. But using radioactive decay in rare earths over a period of about 1 century (which NOBODY does) has nothing in common with using carbon 12 over millenia. The averaging effects over that period of time would make the results far more “believable” for carbon dating. Which is not the same as dating much older women, by the way. Additionally, rare earth chemistry is such that it may not be possible to get such pure samples, since the chemistry of the elements in the RE series is so similar. Thus, there could be impurities that would effect the count. Color me skeptical of what this article is saying; that dating in this fashion invalidates or calls into question carbon dating. Interesting, though.
The author of the article is using a very poor Strawman Argument by omitting inconvenient facts and then using a variety of outright falsehoods, misrepresentations, and omissions to force a false conclusion comporting with the author’s desired and pre-ordained outcome. Unfortunately for this author and author’s thesis, the examples of erroneous REE dating the author is using as the basis for all of the argument and argument’s conclusions were already known and accounted for by a number of factors used to determine the CHUR Line. For one such example, the depletion of certain REE components in the source reservoirs accounts for the differences in the REE radiometric dating methods. This is a well known and understood phenomenon, and the author’s omission of the observational methods used to exclude such data from the CHUR Line and/or other radiometric method applications is just downright dishonest and fraudulent.