New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay

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!Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchOn 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.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.Here we can discuss how this finding fits into the creation model.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 ) although its title appears to be due to a misunderstanding (see later posts by Joe). Other relevant debate links are:More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation Research
News | The Institute for Creation Research[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-01-2002]

EdgeNo mechanism on accelerated decay?
1. Chaffin in the RATE book gives his preliminary suggestions that involve evolution of fundamental constants.
2. We already know that the fine-structre constant (related to c,h,e) has changed so we all already need a mechanism.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.But, OK, if Joe doesn't mind this can be a thread to discuss this result in general and Joe's thread can concentrate on his debates with Humphrey's in particular??[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-01-2002]

EdgeThere 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!

PercyYour question are very good ones:1. Layer trend? If accelerated decay occurred during the flood year/surrounding period then the first flows to solidify would demonstrate the most decay because the yet to solidify flows would still be in a 'reset' state by the same explanations that the mainstream system works. Of course in detail the models would produce some different effects but these are difficult to model and it is early days to try and distinguish on this basis. Obviously helium retention is one point of differentiation. So the layers measure time during the period of accelerated decay.2. Discontinuity? The first flows of the flood would experience the least reseting and so would have similar 'ages' to the pre-flood flows.3. Astronomy? We don't yet know exactly what constants may have evolved to cause accelerated decay although there are hypotheses. Some of these may not affect gross astronomical observations. In addition, for us, this also may work parallel with the dregs of the time dialation effects of the creationist cosmological model.4. Neutron bombardment? We believe life was affected by neutron bombardment casuing life expectancy to drop from 1000y to about 120y. But the water is a potential shield and a quantitative study of the effects on organic and trace nuclei in organisms would need to be done to fully answer this question.5. Earth melting? The RATE book offers some suggestions on disipation of heat. eg plumes of superheated water ejecting from the earth. Maybe these created comets? Who knows, these are just wild speculations.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-01-2002]

RandyResetting 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. My flows are of course lava flows (most direct rock dating is done on igneous rock). 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.Astronomy? Percy asked whether we should see the radiodecay rate changes in astronmical measurements (since we could potentially be able to see it in 4500 light year away observations). So I mentioned that (i) we don't know which constants did it for sure yet and (ii) in the creationist cosmological model time ran at a different rate in deep space compared to here at the start of the universe.Neutron bombardment? We? If I write 'we' in this forum it usually means YECs obviously. Othertimes it means structural biologists, other tiems physicists and other times Apollo project fans. Genomics people are talking about multiple hundred year old lifespans soon, so shortly after creation there is nothing stopping it. The water shield was the flood waters that the ark was sitting on! I'm talking about neutron bombardment from below!

PercyI 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. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-02-2002]

BradHave you got the RATE book? It's very good although of course dated compared to recent revelations. These are good guys and they're getting better all the time.

RandyThese are all issues that need serious consideration and creationists have already raised these issues themselves. The RATE book provides some potential solutions.

RandyYou raise some very good points that need to be considered. Whatever the case these experimental diffusion results strongly suggest that decay was accelerated.

BradSomehow I knew you'd be reading Wolfram. I wonder when the paperback version will come out?

EdgeI'll get back to you on that.

NosIn the other thread http://EvC Forum: How about teaching evolution at Sunday school? -->EvC Forum: How about teaching evolution at Sunday school?
I said

quote:

---

The recent helium work shows that the physical process of diffusion constrains the age of rocks in an almost as clear way as radiodecay.
Radiodecay had to be understood by science first. After 100 years of that we went back and looked at the consequences that simple diffusion has on the issue.

---

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. This helium is generated during the uranium decay series. i.e. the billions of years half-life series used to date the planet.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-05-2002]

WehappyThe 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)The experimental He diffusion (EDIT from fusion!) rate was mentioned to be in agreement with the extrapolated one last year:The Institute for Creation Researchand 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.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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-08-2002]

^ Being a nuclear physicist at heart I sub-conciously substituted He fusion for He diffusion!Temp: between 130C and 280C.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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-08-2002]

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 CNeither the experimental argon nor extrapolated helium change by 6 orders of magnitude over that temperature range.