After answering (I would even say invalidating) numerous criticisms of the helium diffusion dating method over a period of years and having the data defended by the experimenter, I think Dr.Humphreys and the RATE team are justified in putting the burden on the critics to invalidate the method as good science.When I presented this and similar criticisms of isotope dating to a gathering of the Lucas Heights Scientific Society (Sydney, Australia) in 1989, the only response that came from the chief of the division responsible for isotope dating at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization was the question, ‘Do you have a better dating method?
But if not, I think YEC's are entitled to claim that RATE scientists have determined (or rather verified, Scripture having already revealed) the approximate age of the Earth from this dating method.
Otherwise, what was the point of doing the RATE research at all?
No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all the other 139. They found what might have been the world’s oldest rock crystals, but unfortunately they were too old!
In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data. They extracted diamonds from rocks in Zaire and found by the potassium-argon method that they (the diamonds) were six billion years old.
After reading the 2008 CMI article referenced in the response to my second message, I have to say that I am even more confident that not only is it not impossible to determine the approximate age of the creation of granite basement rock by measuring in the present (given the right method, i.e.