@Da__Vinci - Limestone Cowboy is so stupid that it makes my head spin. 

Regardless, even if they COULD prove rapid fossilzation (they can’t), all but one fossilization possibilities would still operate on a slow geological time scale. They have no evidence that any significant number of fossilized remains came about through the rapid process; rather, all the evidence indicates they came about through the slow processes. 

@musterion99; @l_ORE - - It’s important to read scientific articles and understand what they say. It should also be stated that the suggestion that decay rates may be affected by neutrinos is nothing new. As talkorigin points out, Henry Morris mentioned the possiblity as ear as 1974. With that in mind, let’s look at the papers.

In the first paper: 

First, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent (0.1%) from the expected rates. This is not a significant difference. It certainly is not significant enough to account for the drastically different YEC account of the age of the Earth (6,000-10,000 years versus 4,600,000,000). This would require the rate of decay to have been many, many magnitudes FASTER than it’s current rate of decay. However, the results show that the rates of decay SLOWED down (the decay rate exhibited a “dip”) as a result of the solar flares (technically their results show a dip and a spike corresponding to the flare, which overall resulted in a net drop in decay rate). Thus, this study poses even MORE of a problem to Young Earthers and/or Biblical literalists. If study proves to be correct, the Earth is OLDER than 4.6 billion years. This would mean that gradualism occurs even slower than predicted, on average. That fossils are older, on average. 

Really, this is all the analysis that is needed, but because I am a glutton, there are more problems. 

With regards to the general paper’s findings, “perturbations” is the word the authors use, and it has important implications. A “perturbation” is defined as “A deviation of a system, moving object, or process from its regular or normal state of path, caused by an outside influence[.]” In the context of the article, it is clear that the when solar flares occur, this causes a temporary deviation of decay rates from their normal rates. So, in the event of a solar decay, the rates of decay of the C-14 affected by them (which probably wouldn’t be all of them at any given time) would return to normal after the flare was over. This is because, as GL has pointed out, the rate of decay of an element is an inherent property of the element.  Furthermore, the implication that nuclear decay rates may change with sun-earth distance does not help creationists/ID proponents. There is no reason to believe that the distance of the Earth-Sun is considerably different now than it was a million years ago or ten millions years ago or 1 billion years ago. There is no evidence to support that assumption and a lot of evidence to support that it is roughly the same. 

Lastly, if solar flares do, indeed, impact the rates of decay of elements, there is 0 evidence that there has ever been a period of time where solar flares were so frequent, and operating on such a massive level as to significantly impact C-14 decay rates for any significant period of time. 

In the second paper:

Again, let’s begin by reading the article honestly. It says, “Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of 32Si and 226Ra….” The scope of this paper and its implications begin and end with 32Si and 226Ra. Not C-14. C-14 is not mentioned because C-14 does not have “unexplained periodic fluctuations” in its decay rates. Whatever mechanisms “may” be impacted 32Si and 226Ra may not be impacting C-14 at all or in the same manner or to the same extent. This paper indicates that these phenomena are unique to 32Si and 226Ra.

Secondly, as I mentioned above, there is no evidence that the Earth’s distance from the sun is significantly different now than it was 4.6 billion years ago or 6,000 years ago or 1,000 years ago. Certainly not significant enough to cause the magnitude of change anti-evolutionists require for fossils to be dated in accordance with a young Earth theory (based on these results, if they are true).  

There is no reason to believe that this paper supports creationist claims that current dating C-14 dating methods. Again, we have a high degree of certainty that radioactive decays rates have been constant, especially since the age of biological organisms began on Earth. This is why they give astonishingly similar results as other dating methods that are not affected by solar flares or proximity to the sun (e.g., ice core dating, tree ring dating, etc.). If C-14 dating was inaccurate, it wouldn’t coincide with the other dating methods we know with a high degree of certainty are accurate. Holding out, hope against hope, that these results will somehow drastically overturn our current dating regime is beyond irrational. It’s crazy. 

Edit: Just found this comment online:

“P.S. Cooper [1] reports on the comparison of power output of the RTG (radioisotope thermal generator) aboard Cassini spacecraft which rules out variation with spacecraft-Sun distance for 238Pu to a level 1/350 the size reported by Jenkins et al.

Semkow et al.[2] reports that temperature variations of the air between the radioactive source and the detector can explain the annual variation reported by Jenkins et al.

[1] P. S. Cooper. Searching for modifications to the exponential radioactive decay law with the Cassini spacecraft. 
ArXiv e-prints, September 2008.
[2] T. M. Semkow, D. K. Haines, S. E. Beach, B. J. Kilpatrick, A. J. Khan, and K. O’Brien. Oscillations in radioactive exponential decay. Physics Letters B, 675:415–419, May 2009. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.04.051.”

Also, Jenkins and his co-author are both evolutionists. Just FYI. They spoke at a conference I attended once. Not sure why they would continue being evolutionists if they were uncovering reliable data that indicated a major pillar was wrong. 

@eagleendtime - 1.) No, C-14 dating is accurate. Read my previous comments, GL’s current post, and GL’s previous posts on its accuracy. It’s accuracy is reflected by the fact that it gives us approximately the same dates as non-radiometric dating methods (e.g., tree ring dating, ice core dating, etc.) This simply wouldn’t be occurring if these dating methods weren’t roughly accurate. 

2.) There is no reason to believe a cooling Earth, heating sun, or supernovas would significantly affect the rate of decay of atoms. Read the comment in response to I-Lore that discusses the relevant studies. The evidence we have gathered indicates that these factors, at most, SLOW the rates of decay by 0.1% of their normal rate. This doesn’t disprove C-14 dating; it doesnt’ pose a significant problem to evolutionists (but actually hurts the the Young Earth theory, as these factors would seem to mean the Earth is OLDER than 4.6 billion years). 

3.) Modern natural science is seldom wrong about axiomatic principles and theories. There have been 0 theories as well-established and accepted for as long as C-14 dating that have been overturned in the last 100 years. And again, we know C-14 dating is accurate beyond 4,000 years because we can compare the dates C-14 dating gives us with independent dating methodologies with a high degree of certainty and confirm that they give approximately the same dates. To assume that these dating methods are all wrong for unique reasons (they were not created to confirm each other’s results) is simply unreasonable. There is no reason to believe this is the case, which is why no ID or creationist proponent has even attempted to tackle this issue. They are clearly wrong.  

4.) The fact that “scientists” (they were more philosophers) in the distant past were ridiculed by the establishment (which was largely religious) concerning novel theories they put forth (e.g., continental drift, which was first posited in the late 1500′s) is largely irrelevant to the veracity of modern scientific theories. It’s like arguing “cavemen could never fly; therefore, modern men will never fly.” Ancient aviation technology is nothing like modern aviation technology. Similarly, ancient philosphy is nothing like modern science. Modern science is drastically different than the philosophy-science practiced by people hundreds of years ago, which was often confined to conform with religious texts under or suffer the charge of heresy. Modern scientific theory has an infrastructure, a systematic and rigorous approach, and level of objectivity that is unparalleled throughout human history. Nothing else is remotely close. Furthermore, the technology to confirm even the most simplest of theories was largely absent until about 150 years ago, and with regards to evolution and radiometric decay, it was largely non-existent until about 40 years ago. The philosophers of the past were largely confined to divining things based on observation, logical inference, etc. on very limited knowledge and with very limited means to test their theories. This is not the case any more. We are no longer stumbling through the dark. Mankind has built a very sizeable body of knowledge that simply isn’t rational to assume is wrong at this point in time. Radiometric decay and evolution are among them.  

5.) To imply that science is always changing is misrepresentative. Many aspects of science are not changing because we have confirmed they are right beyond a reasonable doubt. We have sufficient evidence to support their veracity, and they have incredible predictive and explanatory power that can be used in modern applications that establish that they are correct because these applications of these theories wouldn’t work unless the underlying theories were correct (e.g., using evolutionary biology to develop new medical treatments or agricultural schema; explain the fossil record as interpreted by scientists; etc.). 

It is not rational to assume that evolutionary biology or radiometric dating will “change” based on the errors of archaic philosophy, let alone that they will change in any significant way, at this point in human history. We are beyond that threshold. The questions that remain are “what are the precise mechanisms that evolution operates” or “what are the factors that can have minor impacts on the rate of radiometric decay”?