Radioactive dating sounds complicated but it is really quite simple.

Russ Humphreys responds to six years of criticism of one part of the creationist research initiative into Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE).

Why it has tended to reinforce what geologists already believed.

These brilliant and hard gems are almost pure carbon. Recent research shows they contain some radiocarbon. But since this should have all decayed in under a million years, how could the diamonds be billions of years old as evolutionists believe?

An anticreationist attacks biblical creation as heresy, although biblical heresy is an oxymoron. The response also refutes a common argument about the absence of short-lived isotopes, beloved of atheists and progressive creationists, and answers some alleged biblical contradictions.

Carbon–dating sometimes gives negative dates, i.e. dates for events that have not yet happened.

A young supporter asks some questions about young-earth evidence raised by an evolutionary debater. The response points out some of the evolutionist’s misunderstandings and even outright errors, and the role of axioms in the debate.

The explosive eruption of Mt St Helens—observed in 1980, but according to so-called ‘reliable’ radioisotope methods, it happened millions of years ago!

Does Carbon Dating Prove Millions of Years?

A study of Stone Mountain granite samples raises more questions than answers.