New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In all the kafuffle and misunderstandings between our Joe Meert and ICR's Russell Humphreys et al we have not been able to celebrate an important creationist result!

---

I rather think that there is no misunderstanding between Joe and Humphreys, but by Humphreys. He has invented a 'closure interval' for zircons simply to put up a smoke screen to the fact that he has no data to support his assertions. It is interesting that you have started a new thread to avoid the questions that have arisen regarding Humphreys' work and simply dismissed them.

quote:

---

Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research

​

On the face of it, it appears that the radioactively generated helium present in zircons suggests that the helium was generated only in the last 4,000 to 14,000 years rather than gradually over the last 1.5 billion years. There is simply too much of it (up to 58% compared to the long-age expected 0.0002%) still in the rocks. The diffusion rates are experimentally measured and, on the face of it, rule out the ancient ages.

---

Yes, ... on the face of Humphreys article, but nothing else. You will notice that Humphreys gives exactly no actual data regarding the He content of zircons, only vague references that there 'should be less' according to evolutionists. But then, his only reference on this is a creationist paper!Humphreys actually gives us no logical explanation of why He content of zircons is an effective clock. You will notice that in his [He] vs time graph, the line goes flat after the end of his fanciful 'closure interval'. Therefore, at that He content, the zircon could be of ANY age! Why would a short 'closure interval' have anything to do with the age of a zircon crystal? You will also notice that Humphreys places no data on his graph, he just arbitrarily says the it was a short interval therefor a short age... Where is his data that shows the He content at a given age? It simply does not exist.

quote:

---

So, yes, the decay has occurred, but if this work holds up the millions of years worth of decay occurred quickly (under 14,000 years ago) obviously due to some acceleration of decay. Creationists suggest this occurred during creation, the fall and the flood, possibly even to instigate the flood via tectonic radio-heating.

---

And you will notice that he has NO mechanism for such an acceleration. None. Why did it not occur at the formation of the earth? Why did it wait until Noah? And then, why did it stop, not to be observed in any process since? Don't you get the least hint that you are being duped, TB?

quote:

---

Here we can discuss how this finding fits into the creation model.

---

I think this is where wj's 'utter rubbish' statement is appropriate. There is nothing to discuss! No data, no mechanism, no logical explanation of the relationship of [He] to age; just a bunch of the usual unsupported assertions and imaginary graphs by Humphreys.

quote:

---

Critical discussion should probably occur in the other thread ( http://EvC Forum: A funny mistake by ICR and example of poor scholarship -->EvC Forum: A funny mistake by ICR and example of poor scholarship )

---

Yes, let's avoid discussion of any data here.

quote:

---

...although its title appears to be due to a misunderstanding (see later posts by Joe).

---

The only misunderstanding is the invention of 'closure intervals' and application of them to radiometric clocks. This was a red herring designed to divert attention from the fact that Humphreys has got no real argument, just as Humphreys makes the ludicrous statement that Joe does not understand what closure is.If you think so, then show me a point on his graph and tell me what age corresponds to that He content.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In all the kafuffle and misunderstandings between our Joe Meert and ICR's Russell Humphreys ...

---

I think your confusion here is that perhaps the switching of signs (from -196C to +190C) did not occur as we originally thought, thanks to Humphreys' little two-step. I mean, this would be an understandable conclusion after witnessing Humphreys' fiasco over the magnetic reversal business. However, the work still exhibits poor scholarship, as numerous postings have shown. Even if this article were mainstream, it would rightly be rejected by most reviewers. There is no actual substance, just cheerleading.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
No mechanism on accelerated decay?
1. Chaffin in the RATE book gives his preliminary suggestions that involve evolution of fundamental constants.

---

Good. Then you can discuss them here. Explain why the decay rates have changed and under what conditions this might have happened.

quote:

---

2. We already know that the fine-structre constant (related to c,h,e) has changed so we all already need a mechanism.

---

Excellent. Now please explain how it happened. Show us that these constants have changed at the appropriate time.

quote:

---

I did feel the need for a thread with a descriptive title of the finding so that we could also discuss what it means for creationism, not just potential ways to tear it down.

---

You mean ignore the fatal flaws? Surrrrre. Sounds like a bunch of creationists sitting around agreeing on everything....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
There was no two-step with the sign of the temperature. This is beyond doubt - they were simply conincidentally similar numbers with opposite sign that had nothing to do with each other. The 'cryogenic' -190 temp is simply what would be needed assuming the measured diffusion rates to keep helium locked away for 1.5 billion years. It never had anything to do with the +190!]

---

That whooshing sound is my point flying right over your head. Humphreys has invented the meaningless term 'closure interval' to deflect arguments against him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Why isn't there a clear discontinuity in radiometric age between the lowest layers of the flood and the preexisting layers upon which flood deposits were laid?"

​

--The above quote also may explain this, deposited sediments lower in the geologic column would have had a longer time to produce higher quantities of daughter isotopes.

---

Actually, Percy is right. If the first layer suddenly radiodecays at rates millions(?) of times faster than the the previous layers, then it should have a starkly different age than the Precambrian rocks. Contamination or no. Face it, any process accelerated to the degree that you are talking is going to leave tracks a mile wide.

quote:

---

Of course there will be discontinuities, which are found quite often as anomalies. They are contaminations from various mechanisms such as fluid lavas flowing underground over a long period of time may separate concentrations of Parent isotopes from daughter concentrations before it cools into basalt. Even mainstream studies have more than enough examples of similar events of contamination, we cope with it expectantly.

---

So, you say that it is okay for you to have contamination, but for us it's not?

quote:

---

"How did life survive the neutron bombardment from billions of years of radiometric decay occurring in a single year?"
--I don't think I can agree with TB's notion that it played a roll in causing decreased life-spans, ...

---

Sorry, but there should be no life to even have a span...

quote:

---

...I would argue that it is very much genetic, but that's another discussion there. I would however note, that as is explained a bit in my quote above, as well as my post #10 here:

​

http://EvC Forum: Creationist only flood topic? / Young Earth vs. Old Earth id's? -->EvC Forum: Creationist only flood topic? / Young Earth vs. Old Earth id's?

​

--..that as I accept the model, the supposed flood acceleration had much less decay than billions of years. If memory serves me right, the RATE group suggests .5 Ga & it seems very reasonable considering the radioisotopic data through the GC (Ages for eras, periods, epochs, etc.).

---

But you have to account for billions of years of error. Why would there be less material to decay under your scenario?

quote:

---

"How did the earth avoid melting from the billions of years of radiometric decay occurring in a single year?"
--See above, & we also may very well require the period of accelerated decay as the initial reason there was a geologic catastrophe.

---

Man, I hope that I never hear the argument from you that evolution is based on assumptions!

quote:

---

So we may not have had enough to turn the earth into a molten ball as did happened during creation, though I do believe there was enough to increase tectonic activity to produce what we observe throughout the geologic record.

---

Well then show us some kind of calculations that indicate this. You are way off the speculation meter, TC.

As usual, your understanding is partial, but it appears that we are making progress:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Resetting etc? I wrote that presuming you knew about how the mainstream system works. The radioclock is reset by liquificaiton if I remember my discusions with Edge correctly.

---

Well, by heating above the closure temperature anyway. Keeping in mind that the thermal history of any rock might be quite complex. This is another item that Humphreys, of course, does not address.

quote:

---

My flows are of course lava flows (most direct rock dating is done on igneous rock).

---

Yes, most, but it is not an absolute requirement for a rock to be igneous so that it can be dated.

quote:

---

There were lava flows during the flood and the lower ones cooled earlier than the upper ones obviously hence the great 'age' differences since decay was acclerated during this time. It is perfectly analagous to the mainstream system although in detail there would be differences.

---

Or it could be that the rocks really are of those 'great ages,' but I don't suppose that could be considered by YECs. They would rather call upon some unobserved, fantastic notion of 'accelerated decay.'

quote:

---

I need to think a little more about the discontinuity point. It may be a valid point (and not just a priori). My arguement about resetting for that part may be in error although there has been a nagging doubt in my mind about how radiodating works with regards to resetting. Edge explained it to me but even he expressed some uncertainty about the mainstream resetting question a few months ago. I'll get into it if I can.

​

Maybe of course there is a well known discontinuity and the in-crowd isn't telling us.

---

In fact there is no great discontinuity of ages, though there is clustering of data at various times. However, I have to admit that vagueness regarding when the flood occurred according to YEC mythology has aided them in avoiding this detail. If we take the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary, for instance, it was once debatable exactly where this time boundary occurred (in some sedimentary sections, I believe, there is very little to signify this transition as one would expect there would be). Only by refining the methods and collecting a lot of data is there now a precise (well, within a few hundred thousand years or so), generally accepted date.Now, I would like to reiterate one of my earlier questions. I would like TB to look at Humphreys' graph in his response to Joe's critique and pick a point on the right side (the flat part) of the graph. Then tell me just what age corresponds to the He concentration at that point. Then tell me how any point on that flat section could yield a unique age. I think you will see that after a zircon crystal reaches [He] equilibrium (according to Humphreys, now) , it could be of ANY age including trillions of years old. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Humphreys is telling you. In other words, he is saying that the He concentration of a zircon is independent of age, but at the same time telling you that it indicates a young age for (all, but this is another issue) zircons. Please explain this and why you blindly believe such utter nonsense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randy:
This deep-water shielding explanation conflicts with your surging-flood, high ground claims. How deep do you think the water that produced this shielding was? Remember it can’t be too deep during most of the flood because you need to keep animals alive on high ground to make tracks between those magic flood surges. ...

---

Not only that, but it is also true that continental crust, which would logically form the high ground, concentrates more radioactive elements than oceanic crust. Heck, granites should explode according to this story...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Actually, Percy is right. If the first layer suddenly radiodecays at rates millions(?) of times faster than the the previous layers, then it should have a starkly different age than the Precambrian rocks. Contamination or no. Face it, any process accelerated to the degree that you are talking is going to leave tracks a mile wide."

​

--Yes they would have a starkly different age than Precambrian, I am not arguing that if accelerated decay occurred that it only effected newly deposited sediments such as Cambrian+.

---

Okay, I read you so far.

quote:

---

Below Parent isotopes would be decaying at the same accelerated rate as above. I do not require that contamination be at all the reason we see this correlation. I fail to see why lower strata should have an apparent age to any degree younger than a latterly deposited sedimentary layer.

---

Okay, could you tell us then what is the mechanism for sudden and brief acceleration of nuclear decay. And why did it just happen to have correlated with your flood? You guys have a chain of coincidences that boggles the mind. I have heard some vague references to changing universal constants, but TB (I think) has not given us any more information than this.

quote:

---

"So, you say that it is okay for you to have contamination, but for us it's not?"

​

--Of course not, I am saying exactly what I said, 'even mainstream studies have more than enough examples of similar events of contamination, we cope with it expectantly.' Whether the mainstream obtains successful hypotheses pertaining to such contaminations is not an argument I have made business with at all.

---

Good then we will hear no whining about evolutionists appealing to contamination as a source of error in radiometric dating.

quote:

---

"Well then show us some kind of calculations that indicate this. You are way off the speculation meter, TC."

​

--Yes I admit it is based conjecture (I wouldn't think you wouldn't notice it!), though I did not mean it to be sophistry of any kind, it is an unscritinized premise from which I would develop a coherent notion. Yes calculations would be wonderful. I am unable to give them now, though I will see what I can do. I need some time to critically examine my recent readings of the Heat Transfer section of T & S - Geodynamics.

---

Good luck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The you said:

quote:

---

It was found that carbon dating is only accurate up to 50,000 years, this is why they now use different methods to find the age of things.

---

​

So what does that have to do with it? I suspect you are not up to scratch on these issues. Mechanical diffusion of nuclear decay generated helium is an indpendent way of trying to date rocks.

---

No, it is a way of showing that [He] is not a very good clock.Humphreys appears to believe this and yet says that the same clock requires a young earth. Does this make sense to you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
e: "No, it is a way of showing that [He] is not a very good clock."

​

--I wouldn't expect dating by He diffusion to be a reliable 'clock', though it could serve as a relative dating method.

---

So that fact that helium can diffuse out of zircon crystals does not bother you in using this method as a clock? After all of the discussions regarding argon loss and retention you are going back on the creationist position that these make radiodating undependable?

quote:

---

Tranquility and the RATE team seems to make the claim that the analysis is not cooperative with such 'Ga' scale ages given by isotopic measurements.

---

Please follow the logic of my previous posts and tell me how a 6000 year old (according to Humphreys) zircon looks any different in He content than a 6 trillion year old zircon.

quote:

---

Of course this is my assertion made without considering what the data actually does say about He diffusion.

---

Actually, it is irrelevant. Humphreys' data does not tell him what he thinks it does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The RATE book contains the extrapolated helium diffusion constant from the argon experimental one:

​

Extrap He: 10^-15 to 10^-17 cm^2/s (temp dependent)
Expt Ar: 10^-19 to 10-22 cm^2/s (temp dependent)

---

Of course the diffusion rates are temperature dependent. Now what temperatures are we talking about?

quote:

---

The experimental He fusion rate was mentioned to be in agreement with the extrapolated one last year:

​

The Institute for Creation Research

---

What do you mean 'fusion rate,' and what experimental rate are you talking about? You have given us an 'extrapolated' rate and then say that the experimental rate compares well with the 'extrapolated' rate from last year. Then explain how the experimental value was determined, and how that relates to natural conditions of the zircons.

quote:

---

...and represents a rapid diffusion coeffeicen about 5-orders of magnitude greater than what the long-age model needs. If He diffused at the Ar rate things would be all hunky-dory for you.

---

Please explain why such rates are a problem for us. I your own words, please. You have seen Humphreys' own data that shows an equilibrium [He] for the zircons in question. No matter what the diffusion rate, Humphreys says that the He concentration will always be the equilibrium value after the 'closure interval.' So, what does this have to do with diffusion and the age of the crystals?

quote:

---

I have it on good authority that the data will be presented at a creation conference and be up on the web some time in 2003.

---

I can't wait.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The argon exp data is published: Grove M & Harrison TM American Minerologist 81, 940-951 (1996). The extrapolaitons are mainstream, what anyone would expect (helium is a lot smaller) and the He diff is now experimental too.

​

I don't claim that I completely understand what Humphrey's is going on about on his website but I haven't spent time on it either. I suspect that you shouldn't assume that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

---

Well, since he tells us that there is too much He in zircons and then shows us why there can be only so much He in zircon, I think it's a good bet that he does not know what he's talking about. The fact that he invented the 'closure interval' to cover up his other errors is also evidence. Not to mention his magnetic reversal fiasco.All Humphreys has shown (if he is right) is that there should be a sill value of He concentration in zircons, and that He diffusion MIGHT occur at a faster rate than previously thought. Any other conclusions are only the wishful thinking of a die-hard creationist attempting to bend the facts to fit a preconceived idea.You still have not made the case that this is a 'problem for evolution,' either. So, He diffuses faster than previously thought. Where does it diffuse to? Even Humphreys admits that some He stays in the zircon. Why is it too much? This whole argument makes no sense at all. Perhaps that is why you do not fully understand what Humphreys is saying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
In the RATE book, the extrapolated He diffusion constants in biotite are (as measured from Fig 7-7, p348):

​

10^-15 cm^2/s @ 280 C
10^-17 cm^2/s @ 160 C

​

Neither the experimental argon nor extrapolated helium change by 6 orders of magnitude over that temperature range.

---

Since we are now talking about biotite, what are the He rates (experimental and extrapolated) in biotite? I thought you also had experimental He diffusion rates, too. So how much do they vary?Also, you keep talking about 'extrapolated' data. Just how far is this data extrapolated? And where do the data come from? Are we talking the same kind of extrapolation that we see in the c-decay stories where they include 19th century measurements in the data set?TB, please remember that the RATE book is not the Third Testament. You have no real commitment to it. If you truly have a PhD and are truly interested in science, it is your duty to crtitcally analyze what this book says. For some reason, I think have not taken the time to do this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wehappyfew:
*note to edge: Humphreys' Tci equation is not made-up. He copied it from Wolf(1998) or independently derived it in a similar fashion. Either way, he should have given credit for it to Wolf (who called it the equilibrium age), and he uses it wrong (no surprise there, heh?).*

---

Yeah, well, I figured I was going out on a limb there. But the whole argument is so contrived that I have to think that the closure interval business is just a red herring to cover up the fact that Humphreys really doesn't understand geological systems. I still don't see what it has to do with the ultimate age of the zircons. An equilibrium age may have been 1 minute or a million years... it really has nothing to do with how long the zircon has been around since the equilibrium age. If you have figured out what Humphreys is saying, I would love to hear an explanation. Somebody throw me a line...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Pgs 344-350; Radioisotopes & the age of the earth, Humphreys, 'Accelerated Nuclear Decay: A viable Hypothesis?'----------

​

"6. Helium retention supports fast nuclear decay

​

"One of the strongest pieces of evidence I know of for accelerated decay is the high retention of radiogenic ⁴He in microstopic zircons. Figure 5 summarizes the data [Gentry et al., 1982b]. These zircons, about 75 microns long, are embedded in crystals of biotite (black mica). In turn, the biotite is embedded in hot Precambrian basement granodiorite (granitic rock) below the Jemez volcanic caldera near Los Alamos, New Mexico. Radioisotopic (Pb-Pb) dating of zircons recovered from deep boreholes in the formation give an age of "1.5 billion years" [Zartman, 1979].

​

"The surprising thing is this: although these zircons are tiny and were in hot rock, they have retained very large percentages of the 4He which the radioactive atoms in the zircons would have emitted by alpha-decay at normal rates over the alleged 1.5 billion years, as Table 3 shows. ...

---

Is Humphreys ignoring the fact that more He is constantly produced as uranium decays? Elsewhere, he has shown that the He concentration reaches an equilibrium state and can go no higher. So if the concentrations are so high doesn't that argue against his equilibrium limitation? Or does it mean that his diffusion calculations are way off?

quote:

---

"This is surprising to evolutionists because, over a billion years, they would expect most of the He to escape such small zircons by diffusion (He atoms wriggling through the crystal lattice), especially at high temperatures."

---

Actually, this is not surprising to me. I really do not see how the He concentration can depend solely on age. What is the driving force for He to 'wriggle through' the zircons? Does he realize that if He can exit the zircons, it can also enter them? Really, too many varibles for a dumb field guy to follow.

quote:

---

"Diffusion rates of radiogenic He through bare zircons, not embedded in other crystals, have been measured, as Figure 6 shows [Magomedov, 1970]. Those rates are too fast to retain the He for more than a few decades even at room temperatures."

---

But Humphreys has shown elsewhere that not all of the He diffuses away. It reaches an equilibrium concentration and stays there. Is there not a closure condition for He? If not then why are we even using this element as a clock?

quote:

---

"However, the biotite crystals in which the Jemez zircons were embedded could "bottle up" the He in the zircons, causing longer retention times. So the real question is: how fast does He diffuse through biotite?"

---

I'm not sure that I accept this as being the essential question.

quote:

---

"...

​

-Evolution model--steady low-rate radioactive decay, He production, and He diffusion for 1.5 billion years at today's temperatures in the formation.
-Creation model--a short burst of high-rate radioactive decay and He production, followed by 6000 years of He diffusion at today's temperatures in the formation."

---

But above, we learned that the He could diffuse away from such small zircons in a matter of decades (Magomedov). Why is it now 6000 years?

quote:

---

"...

​

Over a billion years worth of nuclear decay occured within thousands of years ago!

​

-Accelerated nuclear decay appears to explain the above summary very well."

---

He must mean 'other than the fact that there is no evidence for accelerated decay.' How does it explain the heat generated by such accelerated decay? I'll try to look at this in more detail when I have more time. As yet, I do not see a compelling argument. Perhaps this is why He is not usually used to date rocks? Why are creationists suddenly attempting to do so?