Replies

You read A paper. You don't know you read the one that AIG is talking about because they just announced this as breaking today. It may NOT be the same paper.

It says on their news release it's the same paper. They say in

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp

and I quote

There is now powerful independent confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark RATE paper,¹, though technical, can be summarized as follows: (yadda)

Reference 1, cited is Humphreys, D. et al., Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay, www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf. That is the paper I've been analysing, the one where they buried the fact that the initial data, collected under conditions where the crystal was unaltered by heat, gave identical reuslts to previous values and did not support their hypothesis at all.

Then it doesn't appear to be Breaking news. That is, if the only think that they are referring to is a month old paper. It could be that there is additional research within the paper on other dating methods, so I'm still withholding judgment that this should be dismissed out of hand. If they only thing they refer to is a month old paper, then I would still like to see their rebuttal to criticisms; however, my contention that you had not read it would be false and my apologies are extended (if that is all they have in their paper).