New data collected by secular researchers has confirmed what creation scientists discovered decades ago—geologists’ assumptions about radioactive decay are not always correct.

Reconstructions of animals based on fossilized remains are interesting and can be of value. However, they are notoriously subjective. Recent research suggested, for example, that many longstanding dinosaur reconstructions were almost double the size of the actual dinosaurs.¹ And similar distortions are evident in presentations of the fossil world’s latest superstar.

For about a century, radioactive decay rates have been heralded as steady and stable processes that can be reliably used to help measure how old rocks are. They helped underpin belief in vast ages and had largely gone unchallenged. But certain decay rates apparently aren’t as stable as some would hope.

A recent report serves to demonstrate a commonly observed pattern among evolutionary authors: circular reasoning. It turns out that the arguments used to support evolution rest upon the assumption of their own truthfulness.