Last revised: Jan. 2, 2018
In contrast, most YECs claim the Earth, and indeed the entire universe, is only 6,000 to 10,000 year old universe and earth. They cite a number of processes that supposedly support this, but these have been well refuted (Strahler, 1987; Stassen, 2005; Stoner, 1992). Many YEC authors also frequently point to alleged flaws in radiometric dating methods, but have had difficulty explaining the overall sloping patterns they produce from stratigraphically lower to higher samples, and the largely consistent correlations among many radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods. .
With the aim of more fully investigating the validity of radioisotope dating methods, in 1997 the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society (CRS) launched an eight-year research program. Named RATE for "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth," the preliminary investigations carried out in the first three years were summarized in a publication by Larry Vardiman et al(2000), with a subsequent report entitled Thousands Not Billions by Donald DeYoung (2005). Although the authors declared the RATE project a success, when fully understood, it is seen to be an abject failure, and further confirmation of an ancient Earth.
First, the RATE authors employed a number of scientifically questionable methods (Neyman, 2003, 2004). Second, the authors raised a number of alleged problems for mainstream dating, such as Po halos and helium defusion rates, which have been well refuted (Kuban, 2013; Loechelt, 2008a, 2008b; Zweerink, 2012). Third, and most important, the RATE authors acknowledge that the amount of radioactive decay recorded in the geologic record is far greater than a YEC time frame can accommodate. One might think that they would then accept the logical conclusion that the Earth is old, or at least question their YEC views. Instead, they astoundingly claim that the results actually support their view. In order to do that, they proposed that nuclear decay rates were vastly accelerated during or soon after the "creation week" by some divine providential process (translation: miracle), even though there is no independent evidence for that. Even more problematic, if such acceleration had occurred, it would not generate more than enough heat to vaporize the entire earth. But that too did not deter the authors from their mission of supporting YECism. They then proposed more unspecified, ad-hoc, extra-Biblical miracles protect the Earth and all living things from the immense heat. They never explained why God would do either, since the only effect of accelerating decay rates would be to make the Earth old and generate lethal heat. Moreover, even the proposed acceleration would not solve the problem, since the sloping patterns of radio decay seen in the geologic record would not be produced, or anything close to them. Of course, one could imagine more miracles to change the patterns, even though there again would be no logical reason for it, other than to make the Earth look old. Such tactics, using ad-hoc miracles to evade clear and powerful evidence against YECism, and then claiming the evidence supports that view, shows how profoundly unscientific "scientific" creationism really is. For a more thorough evaluation of the RATE project see Isaac (2007).
Dalrymple, G. Brent. 1994. The Age of the Earth. Stanford University Press.
Deem, Rich, 2013. How Old is the Earth According to the Bible and Science? Web article at: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html
DeYoung, Donald, 2005. Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth. Master Books. 190 pages.
Duff, Joel, 2014. Smoking Gun Evidence of an Ancient Earth: GPS Data Confirms Radiometric Dating. Blog article at: https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2014/09/10/smoking-gun-evidence-of-an-ancient-earth-gps-data-confirms-radiometric-dating/
Isaac, Randy, 2007. Assessing the RATE Project. Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith (June 2007, pp. 143-146). Web version at: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm
Kuban, Glen, 2013. Unfounded Creationist Claims about Polonium Radiohalos. Web article at: http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm
Loechelt, Gary H. 2008a. Helium Diffusion in Zircon: Flaws in a Young-Earth Argument, Part 1 (of 2). Web article at: http://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2008/09/09/helium-diffusion-in-zircon-flaws-in-a-young-earth-argument-part-1-of-2
Loechelt, Gary H. 2008b. Helium Diffusion in Zircon: Evidence Supports an Old Earth, Part 2 (of 2). Web article at: http://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2008/09/16/helium-diffusion-in-zircon-evidence-supports-an-old-earth-part-2-of-2
Neyman, Greg, 2003, RATE Project: The Truth. Web article at: http://www.oldearth.org/rate.htm
Neyman, Greg, 2004, RATE Project Turns to Deception. Web article at: http://www.oldearth.org/ratedeception.htm
Stassen, Chris, The Age of the Earth. TalkOrigins archive article at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. Science and Earth History: The Creation/Evolution Controversy , New York, Prometheus. 552 pp. ISBN 0-87975-414-1
Stoner, Don, 1992. A New Look at an Old Earth: What the Creation Institutes Are Not Telling You about Genesis, California, Schroeder Publishing. 192 pp. ISBN 1-881446-00-X.
Vardiman, Larry, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, 2000. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth. Edited by ICR, El Cajon, CA & CRS, St Joseph, MI.
Webb, Steve, 2013. The Age of the Earth. Part 4: Glacial Varves and Tree Rings. BioLogos web article at: http://www.blogos.org/scienceandtechnology/age-earth-tree-rings.php
Young, Davis A., 1988, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, Artisian Publishers. 188 pages.
Young, Davis A., and Ralph F. Stearley, 2008. The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth. IVP Academic, 510 pages.
Zweerink, Jeff, 2012. Comments on the RATE Project. Reasons to Believe website article at: http://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2012/11/20/http-www.reasons.org-articles-comments-on-the-rate-project