TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Yes and no, The "Big Bang Theory" still claimes that something was there before the bang, unlike Creation which claims something out of nothing.
School killings possibly caused by teaching evolution - left tries to censor truth
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
Yes and no, The "Big Bang Theory" still claimes that something was there before the bang, unlike Creation which claims something out of nothing.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
I do not believe science will ever disprove evolution, the evidence is there. As science progresses it will probably reshape some theories but I believe the foundation is solid as is.
But as far as your hypothetical scenario, if science were to point that man was made from a pill of dirt, and the evidence was overwhelming, I would believe it, will that happen? I do not think so.
Question to you Fossten, what will you say when science disproves the notion that man was created as is and that the Earth is far older than 6k years old? Will you rethink your ideas of how God put us here?
....................................................................................................
Claim CD011:
Carbon-14 dating gives unreliable results. Source:
Lee, Robert E., 1981. Radiocarbon: Ages in error. Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3): 9-29. Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(2): 117-127 (1982).
Response:
Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).
In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.
Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990). References:
Bard, Edouard, Bruno Hamelin, Richard G. Fairbanks and Alan Zindler, 1990. Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature 345: 405-410.
Faure, Gunter, 1998. Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
MNSU, n.d. Radio-carbon dating. http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html
Watson, Kathie, 2001. Radiometric time scale. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
Claim CD011.1:
Carbon dating is based on the atmospheric C-14/C-12 ratio, but that ratio varies. Thus the carbon dating method is not valid. Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 162-166.
Response:
The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004).
Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R1
References:
Bard, E., B. Hamelin, R. G. Fairbanks and A. Zindler. 1990. Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature 345: 405-410.
Becker, B., B. Kromer and P. Trimborn. 1991. A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the Late Glacial/Holocene boundary. Nature 353: 647-649.
Dickin, A. P. 1995. Radiogenic Isotope Geology, Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, R. L. et al. 1993. A large drop in atmospheric 14C/12C and reduced melting in the Younger Dryas, documented with 230Th ages of corals. Science 260: 962-968.
Hughen, K. et al. 2004. 14C activity and global carbon cycle changes over the past 50,000 years. Science 303: 202-207. See also Bard, E., F. Rostek and G. Ménot-Combes. 2004. A better radiocarbon clock. Science 303: 178-179.
Kitagawa, H. and J. van der Plicht. 1998. Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late glacial fluctuations and cosmogenic isotope production. Science 279: 1187-1190. See also Kitagawa, H. and J. van der Plicht, 2000. PE-04. A 45.000 year varve chronology from Japan. http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Claim CE001:
The radioactive decay of several elements produces helium, which migrates to the atmosphere. There is too little helium in the atmosphere to account for the amount that would have been produced in 4.5 billion years. Escape of helium into space is not sufficient to account for the lack.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 150-151.
Response:
Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996).
Claim CD015:
Uranium and thorium in zircons produce helium as a by-product of their radioactive decay. This helium seeps out of the the zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age that conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6,000 +/- 2,000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time.
Source:
Humphreys, D. Russell, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, and Andrew A. Snelling, 2003. Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay. http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf
Humphreys, D. Russell, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner and A. A. Snelling, 2004. Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay. Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1): 1-16. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm
Response:
Subsurface pressure and temperature conditions affect how quickly the helium diffuses out of zircons. D. R. Humphreys et al. selected a rock core sample from the Fenton Hill site, which Los Alamos National Laboratory evaluated in the 1970s for geothermal energy production. The area is within a few kilometers of the Valles Caldera, which has gone through several periods of faulting and volcanism. The rocks of the Fenton Hill core have been fractured, brecciated, and intruded by hydrothermal veins. Excess helium is present in the rocks of the Valles Caldera (Goff and Gardner 1994). The helium may have contaminated the gneiss that Humphreys et al. studied. In short, the entire region has had a very complex thermal history. Based on oil industry experience, it is essentially impossible to make accurate statements about the helium-diffusion history of such a system.
Scientific studies, especially those with radical implications, do not mean much until the results have been replicated by others. Many scientific claims have disappeared entirely when others could not get the same results. Confidence in this particular paper is reduced by certain points:
Most measurement errors and variabilities are not reported. Therefore, we do not know how accurate the results are.
Humphreys et al. claimed that they studied zircons and biotites from depths of 750 and 1,490 meters in the Jemez Granodiorite. However, Sasada (1989) showed that at those depths, the samples came from a gneiss, an entirely different rock type.
Because of math errors, the Q/Q0 values (fraction of helium retained), used by Humphreys et al. to derive their dates, are too high.
Humphreys et al. (2003) failed properly to total their data in Appendix C, which means that they grossly underestimated the total amount of helium released by their 750-meter-deep zircons. The amount of helium in the zircons greatly exceeds the amount that would be expected from the radioactive decay of uranium over 1.5 billion years. The high helium concentration may be due to samples that were abnormally high in uranium and/or to the presence of excess helium.
Much is made of the fact that samples five and six retained the same amount of helium, even though the amounts are probably at the limit of what could be measured. The possibility of measurement error accounting for the results is never mentioned.
If one discounts sample five, which is likely at the limit of measurable precision, the conclusions of Humphreys et al. (2004) rest on just three samples. Such a small data set may be the basis for further research, but not for drawing firm conclusions.
Humphreys et al. (2003, note 9) referred to correcting "apparent typographical errors" in the raw data, casting suspicion on the validity of all the data.
The helium results could easily be due to an aberrant sample. They could be an artifact of the experimental or collecting method (e.g., defects in the zircons caused by rapid cooling) or from just plain sloppiness. We cannot know for sure until others have looked at the issue, too.
Producing a billion years of radioactive decay in a "Creation week" or year-long flood would have produced a billion years worth of heat from radioactive decay as well. This would pretty much vaporize the earth. Since the earth apparently has not been vaporized recently, we can be confident that the accelerated decay did not occur. (Humphreys recognizes this "heat problem" but is currently unable to provide a solution.)
If helium concentrations stay high around the rocks, it is possible for helium to diffuse into voids and fractures in the zircons, or at least high helium pressures could reduce the rate at which helium diffuses out. Either of these scenarios would invalidate the helium diffusion calculations in Humphreys et al. (2003, 2004). Helium concentrations within the earth become high enough for commercial mining. The sample measured by Humphreys et al. came from an area that is probably helium enriched. Helium deposits are common in New Mexico, and excess helium has been found just a few miles from where the sample was taken (Goff and Gardner 1994). To test for the presence of excess helium in their zircons, Humphreys et al. should look for 3He.
Uranium does not decay directly to lead; rather, it proceeds through a series of multiple intermediate radioactive elements (Faure 1986, 284-287). It takes about ten half-lives of the longest lived intermediate to achieve secular equilibrium (i.e., each intermediate having the same activity). The uranium decay series contains elements with half-lives well over 10,000 years. If the decay rates changed suddenly, we would not expect the various elements to be in a secular equilibrium. Humphreys et al. should test for this in their zircons. Other uranium ores are at secular equilibrium, indicating a constant decay rate for at least the last two million years.
.....................................................................................................
There is a very well written article here, I didn't post it because of it's size. Check it out, I am sure you will find it facinating.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
So, in effect, Henke discredits the very sample that was used by Los Alamos to prove evolution? LOL this guy can't get out of his own way.
95DevilleNS said:
Your boy is completely full of guesswork, ifs, maybes, coulds, and possiblys. All he's done is pick and poke at another's work, but he's done no experiments himself. In addition, he's trying to discredit the study through fraudulent means, by a not-so-slick attempt to remove one of the samples so he can attack the sample number. What an absolute buffoon you chose to refute my article.
NEXT!
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
Bingo! This proves my point, that evolutionists who use C14 dating to prove the age of fossils and rock formations are misusing the method. Therefore, they cannot accurately date anything older than 50,000 years. Thus, they cannot accurately state that they are doing anything but guessing when they estimate millions or billions of years.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Geological conflict
Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating
by Andrew Snelling
For most people, the discovery of fossilised wood in a quarry would not be newsworthy. However, some pieces recently found embedded in limestone alongside some well-known ‘index’ fossils (see aside below) for the ‘Jurassic period’ (supposedly 142–205.7 million years ago) have proved highly significant.
It is not generally realised that index fossils are still crucial to the millions-of-years geological dating, in spite of the advent of radioactive ‘dating’ techniques. Not all locations have rocks suitable for radioactive ‘dating’, but in any case, if a radioactive ‘date’ disagrees with a fossil ‘date’ then it is the latter which usually has precedence.
Finding this fossil wood in Jurassic limestone suggested the possibility of testing for the presence of radiocarbon (14C). Most geologists, however, would not bother with such tests because they wouldn’t expect any 14C to still exist. With a half-life of only 5,570 years, no 14C should be detectable after about 50,000 years, let alone millions of years, even with the most sensitive equipment. So this fossilised wood from the Marlstone Rock Bed of Jurassic ‘age’ had potential for testing the validity of the fossil dating technique underpinning modern geology.
The Marlstone Rock Bed
The Marlstone Rock Bed is a distinctive limestone unit that outcrops from Lyme Regis on the Dorset coast of southern England, north-eastwards to just west of Hull near the North Sea coast (Figure 1).1 In many places, the top 5–30 cm (2–12 inches) or more of this bed has been weathered and altered, the original green iron minerals2 being oxidized to limonite (hydrous iron oxides), and also in a few areas the sand content is higher. In the past, the outcrop has been quarried frequently for iron ore or building stone.
Evolutionary geologists consider that the top three metres (10 feet) of the Marlstone Rock Bed represent the whole of the Tenuicostatum Zone, the basal zone of the Toarcian Stage,1 the last stage of the Early Jurassic. This ‘dating’ is based on the presence of the ammonite index fossil Dactylioceras tenuicostatum.1
Thus the bed is said to be about 189 million years old according to the geological time-scale.3
Amongst the remaining quarries still ‘working’ the top of the Marlstone Rock Bed are the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill near the village of Ratley, on the north-western edge of the Edge Hill plateau, some 10½ km (6½ miles) north-west of the town of Banbury (Figures 2 and 3). Building stone, known as ‘Hornton Stone’, has been quarried there since medieval times.4,5
A ‘dating’ test at Hornton Quarries
During two visits to the Hornton Quarries, it was established that fossil wood occurs alongside ammonite and belemnite index fossils (see aside below) in the ‘Hornton Stone’, the oxidized silty top of the Marlstone Rock Bed. The ammonite recovered in the quarries is Dactylioceras semicelatum (Figure 4), abundant in a subzone of the Tenuicostatum Zone.1 Fossil wood was actually found sitting on top of a fossilised belemnite (Figure 5), probably belonging to the genus Acrocoelites, a Toarcian Stage index fossil in north-west Europe.6 Many such belemnite fossils had been found during quarrying operations (Figure 6). Together these index fossils have, in evolutionary reckoning, established the rock containing them as being Early Jurassic and about 189 million years old.1,3 Logically, the fossil wood must be the same ‘age’.
Three samples of fossil wood were collected from the south wall of Hornton Quarries, one from immediately adjacent to the belemnite fossil (Figure 5) during the first visit, and two from locations nearby during the second visit. All the fossil wood samples were from short broken lengths of what were probably branches of trees fossilised in situ. The woody internal structure was clearly evident, thus the samples were not the remains of roots that had grown into this weathered rock from trees on the present land surface. When sampled, the fossil wood readily splintered, diagnostic of it still being ‘woody’ in spite of its impregnation with iron minerals during fossilisation.
Pieces of all three samples were sent for radiocarbon (14C) analyses to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), while as a cross-check, a piece of the first sample was also sent to the Antares Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Lucas Heights near Sydney (Australia). Both laboratories are reputable and internationally recognised, the former a commercial laboratory and the latter a major research laboratory.
The staff at these laboratories were not told exactly where the samples came from, or their supposed evolutionary age, to ensure that there would be no resultant bias.
Both laboratories used the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique for radiocarbon analyses, recognised as producing reliable results even on samples with minute quantities of carbon.
Figure 3(a) General view of the south wall of the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill near Ratley, north-west of Banbury.
(b) Closer view of the quarry face of the south wall showing the oxidized limestone of the top of the Marlstone Rock Bed which is quarried as ‘Hornton Brown’ building stone.
The results
The radiocarbon (14C) results are listed in Table 1. Obviously, there was detectable radiocarbon in all the fossil wood samples, the calculated 14C ‘ages’ ranging from 20,700 ± 1,200 to 28,820 ± 350 years BP (Before Present).
For sample UK-HB-1, collected from on top of the belemnite index fossil (Figure 5), the results from the two laboratories are reasonably close to one another within the error margins, and when averaged yield a 14C ‘age’ almost identical (within the error margins) to the 22,730 ± 170 years BP of sample UK-HB-2.
Alternatively, if all four results on the three samples are averaged, the 14C ‘age’ is almost identical (within the error margins) to the Geochron result for UK-HB-1 of 24,005 ± 600 years BP. This suggests that a reasonable estimate for the 14C ‘age’ of this fossil wood would be 23,000–23,500 years BP.
Quite obviously this radiocarbon ‘age’ is drastically short of the ‘age’ of 189 million years for the index fossils found with the fossil wood, and thus for the host rock.
Of course, uniformitarian geologists would not even test this fossil wood for radiocarbon. They don’t expect any to be in it, since they would regard it as about 189 million years old due to the ‘age’ of the index fossils. No detectable 14C would remain in wood older than about 50,000 years. Undoubtedly, they would thus suggest that the radiocarbon, which has been unequivocally demonstrated to be in this fossil wood, is due somehow to contamination. Such a criticism is totally unjustified (see aside two).
Conclusions
The fossil wood in the top three metres of the Marlstone Rock Bed near Banbury, England, has been 14C ‘dated’ at 23,000–23,500 years BP. However, based on evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions, the ammonite and belemnite index fossils in this rock ‘date’ it at about 189 million years. Obviously, both ‘dates’ can’t be right!
Furthermore, it is somewhat enigmatic that broken pieces of wood from land plants were buried and fossilised in a limestone alongside marine ammonite and belemnite fossils. Uniformitarians consider limestone to have been slowly deposited over countless thousands of years on a shallow ocean floor where wood from trees is not usually found.
Figure 4. The ammonite index fossil Dactylioceras semicelatum recovered from the top section of the Marlstone Rock Bed in the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill.
Figure 5. Fossil wood in the top section of the Marlstone Rock Bed exposed in the south wall of the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill. The pen is not only for scale, but points to an end-on circular profile of a belemnite fossil sitting directly underneath the fossil wood (sampled as UK-HB-1).
However, the radiocarbon ‘dating’ of the fossil wood has emphatically demonstrated the complete failure of the evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions underpinning geological ‘dating’.
A far superior explanation for this limestone and the mixture of terrestrial wood and marine shellfish fossils it contains is extremely rapid burial in a turbulent watery catastrophe that affected both the land and ocean floor, such as the recent global biblical Flood.
The 23,000–23,500 year BP 14C ‘date’ for this fossil wood is not inconsistent with it being buried about 4,500 years ago during the Flood, the original plants having grown before the Flood.
Figure 6. Four belemnite fossils, probably Acrocoelites, recovered from the top section of the Marlstone Rock Bed in the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill (pen for scale). These cylindrical skeletal shells of the belemnites which taper to apices are called rostrums (ref. 2, of Index fossils and geologic dating, aside below).
A stronger magnetic field before, and during, the Flood would have shielded the earth more effectively from incoming cosmic rays,7 so there would have been much less radiocarbon in the atmosphere then, and thus much less in the vegetation. Since the laboratories calculated the 14C ‘ages’ assuming that the level of atmospheric radiocarbon in the past has been roughly the same as the level in 1950, the resultant radiocarbon ‘ages’ are much greater than the true age.8,9
Thus, correctly understood, this fossil wood and its 14C analyses cast grave doubts upon the index fossil ‘dating’ method and its uniformitarian and evolutionary presuppositions.
On the other hand, these results are totally consistent with the details of the recent global Genesis Flood, as recorded in the Creator’s Word — the Bible.
Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating
by Andrew Snelling
For most people, the discovery of fossilised wood in a quarry would not be newsworthy. However, some pieces recently found embedded in limestone alongside some well-known ‘index’ fossils (see aside below) for the ‘Jurassic period’ (supposedly 142–205.7 million years ago) have proved highly significant.
It is not generally realised that index fossils are still crucial to the millions-of-years geological dating, in spite of the advent of radioactive ‘dating’ techniques. Not all locations have rocks suitable for radioactive ‘dating’, but in any case, if a radioactive ‘date’ disagrees with a fossil ‘date’ then it is the latter which usually has precedence.
Finding this fossil wood in Jurassic limestone suggested the possibility of testing for the presence of radiocarbon (14C). Most geologists, however, would not bother with such tests because they wouldn’t expect any 14C to still exist. With a half-life of only 5,570 years, no 14C should be detectable after about 50,000 years, let alone millions of years, even with the most sensitive equipment. So this fossilised wood from the Marlstone Rock Bed of Jurassic ‘age’ had potential for testing the validity of the fossil dating technique underpinning modern geology.
The Marlstone Rock Bed
The Marlstone Rock Bed is a distinctive limestone unit that outcrops from Lyme Regis on the Dorset coast of southern England, north-eastwards to just west of Hull near the North Sea coast (Figure 1).1 In many places, the top 5–30 cm (2–12 inches) or more of this bed has been weathered and altered, the original green iron minerals2 being oxidized to limonite (hydrous iron oxides), and also in a few areas the sand content is higher. In the past, the outcrop has been quarried frequently for iron ore or building stone.
Evolutionary geologists consider that the top three metres (10 feet) of the Marlstone Rock Bed represent the whole of the Tenuicostatum Zone, the basal zone of the Toarcian Stage,1 the last stage of the Early Jurassic. This ‘dating’ is based on the presence of the ammonite index fossil Dactylioceras tenuicostatum.1
Thus the bed is said to be about 189 million years old according to the geological time-scale.3
Amongst the remaining quarries still ‘working’ the top of the Marlstone Rock Bed are the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill near the village of Ratley, on the north-western edge of the Edge Hill plateau, some 10½ km (6½ miles) north-west of the town of Banbury (Figures 2 and 3). Building stone, known as ‘Hornton Stone’, has been quarried there since medieval times.4,5
A ‘dating’ test at Hornton Quarries
During two visits to the Hornton Quarries, it was established that fossil wood occurs alongside ammonite and belemnite index fossils (see aside below) in the ‘Hornton Stone’, the oxidized silty top of the Marlstone Rock Bed. The ammonite recovered in the quarries is Dactylioceras semicelatum (Figure 4), abundant in a subzone of the Tenuicostatum Zone.1 Fossil wood was actually found sitting on top of a fossilised belemnite (Figure 5), probably belonging to the genus Acrocoelites, a Toarcian Stage index fossil in north-west Europe.6 Many such belemnite fossils had been found during quarrying operations (Figure 6). Together these index fossils have, in evolutionary reckoning, established the rock containing them as being Early Jurassic and about 189 million years old.1,3 Logically, the fossil wood must be the same ‘age’.
Three samples of fossil wood were collected from the south wall of Hornton Quarries, one from immediately adjacent to the belemnite fossil (Figure 5) during the first visit, and two from locations nearby during the second visit. All the fossil wood samples were from short broken lengths of what were probably branches of trees fossilised in situ. The woody internal structure was clearly evident, thus the samples were not the remains of roots that had grown into this weathered rock from trees on the present land surface. When sampled, the fossil wood readily splintered, diagnostic of it still being ‘woody’ in spite of its impregnation with iron minerals during fossilisation.
Pieces of all three samples were sent for radiocarbon (14C) analyses to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), while as a cross-check, a piece of the first sample was also sent to the Antares Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Lucas Heights near Sydney (Australia). Both laboratories are reputable and internationally recognised, the former a commercial laboratory and the latter a major research laboratory.
The staff at these laboratories were not told exactly where the samples came from, or their supposed evolutionary age, to ensure that there would be no resultant bias.
Both laboratories used the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique for radiocarbon analyses, recognised as producing reliable results even on samples with minute quantities of carbon.
Figure 3(a) General view of the south wall of the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill near Ratley, north-west of Banbury.
(b) Closer view of the quarry face of the south wall showing the oxidized limestone of the top of the Marlstone Rock Bed which is quarried as ‘Hornton Brown’ building stone.
The results
The radiocarbon (14C) results are listed in Table 1. Obviously, there was detectable radiocarbon in all the fossil wood samples, the calculated 14C ‘ages’ ranging from 20,700 ± 1,200 to 28,820 ± 350 years BP (Before Present).
For sample UK-HB-1, collected from on top of the belemnite index fossil (Figure 5), the results from the two laboratories are reasonably close to one another within the error margins, and when averaged yield a 14C ‘age’ almost identical (within the error margins) to the 22,730 ± 170 years BP of sample UK-HB-2.
Alternatively, if all four results on the three samples are averaged, the 14C ‘age’ is almost identical (within the error margins) to the Geochron result for UK-HB-1 of 24,005 ± 600 years BP. This suggests that a reasonable estimate for the 14C ‘age’ of this fossil wood would be 23,000–23,500 years BP.
Quite obviously this radiocarbon ‘age’ is drastically short of the ‘age’ of 189 million years for the index fossils found with the fossil wood, and thus for the host rock.
Of course, uniformitarian geologists would not even test this fossil wood for radiocarbon. They don’t expect any to be in it, since they would regard it as about 189 million years old due to the ‘age’ of the index fossils. No detectable 14C would remain in wood older than about 50,000 years. Undoubtedly, they would thus suggest that the radiocarbon, which has been unequivocally demonstrated to be in this fossil wood, is due somehow to contamination. Such a criticism is totally unjustified (see aside two).
Conclusions
The fossil wood in the top three metres of the Marlstone Rock Bed near Banbury, England, has been 14C ‘dated’ at 23,000–23,500 years BP. However, based on evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions, the ammonite and belemnite index fossils in this rock ‘date’ it at about 189 million years. Obviously, both ‘dates’ can’t be right!
Furthermore, it is somewhat enigmatic that broken pieces of wood from land plants were buried and fossilised in a limestone alongside marine ammonite and belemnite fossils. Uniformitarians consider limestone to have been slowly deposited over countless thousands of years on a shallow ocean floor where wood from trees is not usually found.
Figure 4. The ammonite index fossil Dactylioceras semicelatum recovered from the top section of the Marlstone Rock Bed in the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill.
Figure 5. Fossil wood in the top section of the Marlstone Rock Bed exposed in the south wall of the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill. The pen is not only for scale, but points to an end-on circular profile of a belemnite fossil sitting directly underneath the fossil wood (sampled as UK-HB-1).
However, the radiocarbon ‘dating’ of the fossil wood has emphatically demonstrated the complete failure of the evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions underpinning geological ‘dating’.
A far superior explanation for this limestone and the mixture of terrestrial wood and marine shellfish fossils it contains is extremely rapid burial in a turbulent watery catastrophe that affected both the land and ocean floor, such as the recent global biblical Flood.
The 23,000–23,500 year BP 14C ‘date’ for this fossil wood is not inconsistent with it being buried about 4,500 years ago during the Flood, the original plants having grown before the Flood.
Figure 6. Four belemnite fossils, probably Acrocoelites, recovered from the top section of the Marlstone Rock Bed in the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill (pen for scale). These cylindrical skeletal shells of the belemnites which taper to apices are called rostrums (ref. 2, of Index fossils and geologic dating, aside below).
A stronger magnetic field before, and during, the Flood would have shielded the earth more effectively from incoming cosmic rays,7 so there would have been much less radiocarbon in the atmosphere then, and thus much less in the vegetation. Since the laboratories calculated the 14C ‘ages’ assuming that the level of atmospheric radiocarbon in the past has been roughly the same as the level in 1950, the resultant radiocarbon ‘ages’ are much greater than the true age.8,9
Thus, correctly understood, this fossil wood and its 14C analyses cast grave doubts upon the index fossil ‘dating’ method and its uniformitarian and evolutionary presuppositions.
On the other hand, these results are totally consistent with the details of the recent global Genesis Flood, as recorded in the Creator’s Word — the Bible.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Yea, and your boys are super-scientist... Did you check out the link to the larger article? I only posted the link since it is very long and very detailed.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Maybe you have a dog named Bingo, this does not prove your point. First, this does prove that the earth is FAR older than the measly 6k you propose and as far as not being accurate when speaking of million or billions of years, you make it sound like it is complete bogus because science cannot nail something down to a particular day of the week when we're talking about millions of years. Ok, they might be off by a few thousand years when they say 13.5 million years or similar. Boo hoo.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
Um...did you check out Dr. Humphrey's credentials? They speak for themselves. He ACTUALLY IS A SUPER-SCIENTIST.
D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Creationist physicist, guest lecturer
(USA)
Biography
Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist. For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company, designing and inventing equipment and researching high-voltage phenomena. While there, he received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine’s IR-100 awards.
Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use.
The last few years at Sandia had seen greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world’s first lab-scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining another U.S. patent, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.
Dr. Humphreys has retired from Sandia and now works with ICR. He still continues to write for TJ and serves as a resource scientist for AiG to assist with questions and information concerning physics, astronomy and cosmology.
Education
B.S., Duke University, Durham, NC, 1963
Ph.D., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 1972
Honors/Awards/Associations
Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, President
Industrial Research Magazine’s IR-100 award
Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory
Adjunct professor of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego
board member of the Creation Research Society
Publications
Dr Humphreys has published some 20 papers in secular scientific journals, as well as many creationist technical papers. He is also the author of Starlight and Time, in which he proposes a model that the universe may only be thousands of years old even though light from distant stars appears to have taken billions of years to reach Earth. He is also author of Evidences for a Young World (available as a tract), and this is also the title of a video featuring Dr Humphreys.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
1) Andrew Snelling is considered to be a schizophrenic by the science community and the religious community alike. His dates conflict with both Evolution and Creation. There is a book written about him, 'Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism' by Ian Plimer.
2) If you must believe his 'science' then you must accept that the Bible is not infallible, since he claims that his miracle wood is around 25,000 years old or about four times older than the Biblical account of the Earth. Which is it, you can't have both here?
NEXT
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Sorry, this is what the science community thinks of your creationist/scientist...
Young-Earth creationist (YEC) Dr. D. Russell Humphreys recently posted another insufficient reply (Humphreys, 2006) to my criticisms of his RATE project. Rather than engaging in responsible science, Dr. Humphreys has simply ripped off another rash and superficial note that fails to provide the required evidence to defend his "creation model" and its ridiculous "creation date" of 60,000 ± 400,000 years (2 standard deviations). Instead of relying on evasion and ridicule, Dr. Humphreys needs to take some time (many months and not just hours or days) to actually think about the numerous problems in his work. To begin with, the "dating" equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a) are based on many blatantly false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) that cannot be dismissed with any claims of "generosity" to the "uniformitarians." Also, the vast majority of Dr. Humphreys' critical a, b, and Q/Q0values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate. For example, he should stop picking and choosing from the obviously questionable data in Gentry et al. (1982a) and instead take several months to redo the analyses. Dr. Humphreys must further realize that the uranium and thorium data in Gentry et al. (1982b) indicate that his Q0 is far too low and that his Q/Q0values are probably inflated by at least an order of magnitude, which by themselves invalidate his YEC agenda. Rather than ignoring the problems or relying on invalid assumptions about the concentrations of 3He, 4He, uranium and thorium in his zircons, Dr. Humphreys actually needs to perform some detailed analyses similar to those in Gentry et al. (1982b). Extraordinary claims demand extensive and high quality data, which Dr. Humphreys currently doesn't have.
Contrary to claims in Humphreys (2006) that my November update is "rehashing" and has a lack of "substance", anyone can review the diagrams, tables and text in my update and realize that I have raised many new issues and properly reemphasized countless other critical problems in Dr. Humphreys' work, which he continues to unjustifiably belittle and ignore. Just as he did in Humphreys (2005), Dr. Humphreys in Humphreys (2006) believes that he can just read brief snippets of my detailed evaluations of his work, throw out some insults, try to trivialize his serious mistakes, repeat false claims, misrepresent critical details in the literature, invoke several irrelevant analogies, ignore the details, and then hope that his readers will just accept whatever he says and go away. Now, some individuals might accept this type of arm waving, the invoking of "God did it!", and the brushing off of serious criticisms, but real scientists and editors of scientific journals would not. Dr. Humphreys needs to overcome his denial and answer the questions, defend the details of his claims, and fully admit and correct his mistakes. To illustrate the long list of serious flaws in Dr. Humphreys' work, I have summarized some of the problems in my Appendix D.
Dr. Humphreys' work is a prime example of fallacious reasoning that YECs (e.g., Woodmorappe, 1999) falsely accuse geochronologists of using. Because his bogus calculations and inaccurate data just happened to spit out a meaningless number that he likes (6,000), Dr. Humphreys is more than willing to ignore and inappropriately dismiss any data or criticisms that expose the fraudulent nature of his "creation date."
If Dr. Humphreys really wants respect from scientists, he must actually publish something in an AUTHENTIC PEER-REVIEWED science journal and not just Sunday School materials (e.g., Humphreys, 2003) and YEC tabloids (e.g., Creation Research Society Quarterly [CRSQ]), where other RATE members and YEC officials will readily rubber stamp anything he says and suppress criticisms of his work (for example, not publishing or referencing the actual statements from an anonymous critic of Dr. Humphreys' work, which are referred to in Humphreys et al., 2004).
Dr. Humphreys Has Repeatedly Ignored Pressure Problems
In my original March, 2005 essay, I quoted Farley (2002) and Lippolt and Weigel (1988, p. 1454), and I warned Dr. Humphreys that laboratory vacuums may not accurately represent the conditions in the subsurface of the Fenton Hill site and that he should perform high-pressure laboratory studies that actually model the conditions at Fenton Hill. Again Farley (2002, p. 822) states:
"It is important to note that such laboratory measurements MAY NOT APPLY under natural conditions. For example, diffusion coefficients are commonly measured at temperatures far higher than are relevant in nature, so large and potentially inaccurate extrapolations are often necessary. Similarly, some minerals undergo chemical or structural transformations and possibly defect annealing during vacuum heating; extrapolation of laboratory data from these modified phases to natural conditions MAY LEAD TO ERRONEOUS PREDICTIONS." [my emphasis]
Despite the clear statements in my original March, 2005 essay, I had to place this pressure issue prominently in a figure in the abstract of my November, 2005 essay before Dr. Humphreys (2006) even took notice. Again, this demonstrates that Dr. Humphreys does not carefully and appropriately consider scientific evidence and discussions from his critics. Instead, he prefers insults, flippant "answers," and groundless ad hominem innuendo about my former religious beliefs (i.e., Humphreys, 2005). If Dr. Humphreys wants to demonstrate that pressure has no effect on the position of the DEFECT LINE of his zircons and supports his "creation model", he NEEDS to stop arm waving, calling on me to do his work for him, and be responsible and do the experiments himself.
Humphreys (2006) is on the Wrong Side of the Curve
Dr. Humphreys' essays need to discuss how subsurface pressures and long-term exposure to extraneous helium might affect the vacuum-generated DEFECT curve that coincides with his "creation model" (see my Figure 7). Instead, Humphreys (2006) simply cites some information from a small number of articles that either have absolutely nothing to do with the diffusion of noble gases (helium and argon) in silicates (i.e., self-diffusion of lead in Hudson and Hoffman, 1961) or only apply to noble gas diffusion on high-temperature INTRINSIC curves, which are not relevant to the low-temperature DEFECT line of his zircons and his "creation model." In most of the discussions in Humphreys (2006), Dr. Humphreys invokes invalid analogies and makes simplistic and unrealistic statements about "hard" minerals supposedly not being affected by pressure. For example, when Humphreys (2006) refers to the diffusion of argon in the glasses of Carroll (1991, p. 160), he forgets that this reference is dealing with argon diffusion over a relatively small pressure range of 1179 to 3725 bars on AN INTRINSIC CURVE. Unlike Dr. Humphreys, Carroll (1991) makes no irrational extrapolations between vacuum-generated results and high-pressure subsurface conditions. Furthermore, unlike Dr. Humphreys' zircons, the bubble-free rhyolitic glass in Figure 4 of Carroll (1991, p. 161) shows no defect curve. Considering the relatively small pressure range and that the glass was free of bubbles and other defects, it's not surprising that the pressure effects in Carroll (1991) were minor, only involved an intrinsic curve, and do not support Dr. Humphreys' YEC agenda.
While Humphreys (2006) proclaims that zircons are hard and incompressible, he fails to recognize that his zircons are full of potentially compressible defects and glassy metamict regions. Many of these defects are clearly seen in photographs in Dr. Humphreys' articles and even on the cover of the June, 2004 issue of the CRSQ.
The diffusion results in Dr. Humphreys' studies were obtained in a vacuum of a quadrupole mass spectrometer. These instruments typically operate at vacuums with maximum pressures of no more than 10-4 torr or about 5 × 10-7 bar. Therefore, the vacuum that was used to produce Dr. Humphreys' results was AT LEAST 9 orders of magnitude lower than the natural pressures that his zircons experienced in the subsurface of Fenton Hill (200 to 1,200 bars). Until Dr. Humphreys actually does some high-pressure laboratory experiments, how can he boldly proclaim that a 9-fold pressure increase would never significantly affect the defects in his zircons and the associated defect line supporting his "creation model"? It doesn't take much thought to realize that helium diffusion is going to be much greater from a bare and fractured zircon in a laboratory vacuum than a zircon 750 to 4,310 meters in the subsurface encased in other minerals and possibly bathed in extraneous helium over ten's of thousands of years or longer. Since this is his project, Dr. Humphreys has the burden of proof to demonstrate that such enormous differences in pressure would have no significant effect on his YEC claims and agenda.
Dr. Humphreys must realize that crystal defects can seal under pressure (McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 144). Without performing high-pressure laboratory experiments, how can Dr. Humphreys assure us that the numerous cracks and other defects in his zircons would not have been significantly sealed under the subsurface pressures and temperatures (96-313°C; Humphreys et al., 2004, p. 3) at Fenton Hill? As the defects in Dr. Humphreys' zircons begin to seal under pressure, the intrinsic curve (orange line on the Arrhenius plot in my Figure 7) might only lower slightly. However, the defect curve for the zircons (the green line in my Figure 7) would be expected to significantly lower (perhaps by many orders of magnitude) and could easily merge with the intrinsic curve (orange line). The resulting curve would resemble the linear or nearly linear distributions that are often seen in Reiners et al. (2002), Lippolt and Weigel (1988), and even several of the articles cited in Humphreys (2006). That is, under subsurface pressures and at 96-124°C, it would not be surprising if the helium diffusivity of the zircons was six orders of magnitude lower than Dr. Humphreys' vacuum-generated defect curve and would approach Dr. Humphreys' "uniformitarian" curve (see my Figure 7). Furthermore, when the inflated Q/Q0values in Humphreys et al. (2004) and Gentry et al. (1982a) are corrected with the chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b) (see my Appendix B) and entered into equation 16 of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 11), the predicted diffusion coefficients (D) for the "uniformitarian model" would rise about an order of magnitude so that they would pass right through the extended intrinsic curve at 96-124°C. Unlike Dr. Humphreys' magical accelerated radioactive decay fantasies, here are several plausible circumstances that Dr. Humphreys could test with some high-pressure experiments.
Now, YECs might be tempted to view the average "date" of 60,000 years from the "creation model" to be close enough to support young-Earth creationism and refute "uniformitarianism." However, this value is simply an average of a diverse set of meaningless numbers resulting from Dr. Humphreys' equations and inappropriate data. As shown in Table 3 of my November, 2005 essay, the "dates" from the equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a) range anywhere from a few hundred to millions of "years." Even if the equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a) were correct (and they're not), the "dates" from these equations are unrealistically too low because they're based on conditions in a laboratory vacuum of 5 × 10-7 bar or less. These vacuum results give no comfort to anyone that wants to know how these zircons and their helium would have actually behaved in the subsurface of Fenton Hill.
The Literature Undermines Dr. Humphreys' YEC Claims
Because my November, 2005 essay includes examples from the literature of the diffusion of noble gases (helium and argon) in micas and other silicates, Humphreys (2006) accuses me of "baiting and switching":
"The upshot is that here Henke is playing the ancient merchant's trick of "bait and switch". Having lured the customer in with an implied promise about one item (helium, zircon, dry), he then tries to sell the customer an item (argon, mica, wet) which will cost him more and benefit him less. I hope you won't buy Henke's merchandise!"
So, why is it improper for me to cite papers dealing with noble gas (helium and argon) diffusion in micas (like phlogopite and glauconite) when Humphreys et al. (2003a) misuses questionable helium diffusion data from biotites to exclude Sample #6 and prop up his "creation model"? (Biotite is a mica, which is a solid solution ["mixture"] of annite and phlogopite.) Also, how am I guilty of "baiting and switching" when the evidence in Laney et al., (1981), Laughlin and Eddy (1977, p. 28), and Sasada (1989) overwhelmingly shows that the Fenton Hill cores had a WET past? Why does Dr. Humphreys continue to embrace Lyell uniformitarian fantasies and proclaim that because the zircons in the Fenton Hill cores were dry when they were collected in the 1970s, they must always have been dry? Why doesn't Dr. Humphreys deal with the consequences of the URANIUM-bearing fluids that once existed in the Fenton Hill cores (West and Laughlin, 1976, p. 618)? Of course, where there's uranium, there's extraneous helium that could contaminant his zircons. Dr. Humphreys needs to accept the fact that the currently dry and impermeable Fenton Hill rocks were once cooler, more permeable, wetter, and contained at least some uranium and extraneous helium (Laney et al., 1981; Laughlin and Eddy, 1977, Sasada, 1989, West and Laughlin, 1976). This is why I have repeatedly requested (including in my original essay) that Dr. Humphreys measure his zircons for 3He and the associated quartz grains for extraneous 4He.
Because research papers on the diffusion of helium in silicates are scarce, I also cited argon papers as the next best alternative. As shown in the following section of my November, 2005 essay, which Humphreys (2006) quotes, I made it VERY CLEAR that my citations of high pressure studies from the literature included helium and argon with a variety of silicate minerals:
"Numerous researchers have shown that the diffusion of helium or argon in silicate minerals may vary by many orders of magnitude at a given temperature depending on whether the studies were conducted in a vacuum or under pressure. For example, argon diffusion in phlogopite mica may be at least 3 to 6 orders of magnitude higher in a vacuum than under pressurized conditions (McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 154.)"
The very next sentence of this paragraph, which Humphreys (2006) omits, further shows that I was very open about the gas chemistry, mineralogy and amount of water in the experiments of my references:
"Argon diffusion in glauconite at 1,000 to 10,000 psi of water vapor is up to three orders of magnitude slower than under a vacuum (Dalrymple and Lanphere, 1969, p. 155)."
Unlike Dr. Humphreys with his mystery math involving questionable results from Gentry et al. (1982a), I have been very open and detailed about the contents, relevance and limitations of the literature that I cite (for examples of the limitations, see my discussions in Appendices A and B).
The Information in Dunai and Roselieb (1996) that Dr. Humphreys Doesn't Want You to See
Dr. Humphreys needs to explain why he continues to ignore the contents of Dunai and Roselieb (1996) and the consequences this article raises for his agenda. I have repeatedly cited this article in both my original March, 2005 essay and my November, 2005 update. Dunai and Roselieb (1996) deals with the SLOW diffusion of helium through garnet, a HARD silicate like zircon. Dunai and Roselieb (1996, p. 412-413) feared that garnets would be too unstable under a vacuum for their experiments. As an alternative, they exposed their garnets to helium under high pressures (250 bars), subsequently measured the amount of the helium incorporated into the garnets, and then calculated the diffusion of helium in the minerals. Garnets are silicate minerals that retain helium very well over time, even at high temperatures. Dunai and Roselieb (1996) concluded that even at high temperatures (700°C), helium would take TENS to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS TO PARTIALLY DIFFUSE out of garnets. They also discuss the possibility of excess helium in garnets, which Dr. Humphreys should think about with his zircons. Because garnets, like zircons, are hard silicates, the proclamations in Humphreys (2006) on mineral hardness are hardly relevant. The question is, once the defects in his zircons begin to close under pressure would the diffusion of helium in Dr. Humphreys' zircons behave more like these garnets? Again, Dr. Humphreys needs to be responsible and perform these experiments.
Dr. Humphreys Ignores Pressure and Activation Energy
Dr. Humphreys ignores another critical pressure-related issue. McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 144) show in the following pressure (P) equation that activation energy (E) is important in controlling the diffusivity of noble gases in minerals:
D = D0 e[-(E+PV*)/RT]
where:
V* = activation volume
P = pressure
E = activation energy
D = Diffusion coefficient
D0 = Frequency factor
(Because the diffusivities of Dr. Humphreys' zircons were measured in a vacuum (P~0), the above equation reduces to equation #2 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 5): D = D0 e [-(E/RT)]).
Pressure-induced strain on minerals and metamict areas in zircons can change their activation energies. Notice that because pressure (P) and activation energy (E) are in the exponent of the above equation, even relatively small changes in these variables could lead to huge changes in diffusion coefficients (D). This is why enormous changes in diffusivity were seen when Humphreys et al. (2003a, Fig. 5, p. 6) fudged the units of measure on the y-axis of the Magomedov (1970) graph from natural logs to base 10 logs. The activation energy nearly tripled to ~40 kcal from Magomedov's listed value of 15 kcal, but the effects on the diffusion coefficients were even more profound and changed by five orders of magnitude. So, even relatively small or moderate changes in activation energy could lead to orders of magnitude changes in diffusion. Furthermore, when Humphreys (2006) cited Carroll (1991) in his attempts to belittle the importance of pressure, Dr. Humphreys failed to mention that Carroll (1991, p. 161) admitted that his pressure range was NOT sufficiently great to determine how pressure might affect the activation energy of his glasses. Rather than hoping and guessing that any pressure-induced changes in the activation energies of his metamict zircons are inconsequential, Dr. Humphreys actually needs to perform the pressure experiments to verify his hopes and defend his "creation model."
Pressure is an Important Variable
Humphreys (2006) unjustifiably believes that the lack of high-pressure noble gas diffusion studies in the literature somehow indicates that pressure is an unimportant variable in helium diffusion. However, the literature suggests alternative explanations on why pressure studies are relatively rare. Pressure experiments can be technically difficult to perform and single runs can take long periods of time to complete. That is, high pressures may slow down diffusion so significantly that it may take weeks or months just to perform one measurement. For example, when Humphreys (2006) refers to the high pressure results in Table 2 of p. 160 of Carroll (1991), he never mentions that some of the runs took almost 65 days to perform. Furthermore, some of the runs performed by Dunai and Roselieb (1996) lasted for 500 hours or nearly three weeks. Dunai and Roselieb (1996, p. 413) also noted that their platinum sample capsules were unable to withstand pressures above 250 bars. Certainly, long-term high-pressure diffusion experiments are difficult to perform, time-consuming and expensive, but how else can the subsurface conditions at Fenton Hill be realistically modeled? Dr. Humphreys must either find some way of properly performing these difficult and expensive experiments or abandon (at least for now) any claims that he has adequately modeled the diffusion of helium under natural conditions in the subsurface of Fenton Hill.
Because Dr. Humphreys collected his zircons from gneisses and not granodiorites (my Figure 1), he needs to realize that thermodynamic and other laboratory studies indicate that gneisses and their metamorphic zircons form under much greater metamorphic temperatures and pressures than could ever have existed at depths of 750 to 4,310 meters (Hyndman, 1985; Winkler, 1979). The gneisses at Fenton Hill were obviously uplifted from much greater depths. By definition, gneisses have gneissic banding, which requires minimum pressures of about 4,000 to 6,000 bars and temperatures of about 600-750°C to form. So, Dr. Humphreys' gneisses and their zircons were once at depths of at least 15-22 kilometers (Winkler, 1979, p. 5), perhaps for much of their history. To be entirely realistic, Dr. Humphreys' diffusion studies not only need to model helium diffusion at depths of 750 meters to 4.3 kilometers, but also depths of greater than 15 kilometers.
Of course, technical difficulties, high costs, and limitations are no indication that pressure is unimportant. As discussed in the above equation, McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 144) demonstrate that pressure can have profound effects on diffusion. So, until Dr. Humphreys tries to perform some high-pressure experiments, he simply has no evidence to proclaim that helium diffusion under realistic subsurface pressures would support his "creation model."
Reality of Extraneous Helium
As I've mentioned many times before, Dr. Humphreys fails to realize that the Fenton Hill zircons could have been bathed in extraneous helium for long periods of time up to a few thousand years ago just as the rocks in the neighboring Valles Caldera currently are. Indeed, the extraneous helium concentrations at about ~1000 meters depth in the Valles Caldera (Smith and Kennedy, 1985, p. 897; Truesdell and Janik, 1986, their Table 8, p. 1831) still exceed the helium concentrations in samples 4, 5, and 6 of Dr. Humphrey's documents. Somehow, Dr. Humphreys believes that when helium rose out of the deep mantle in the recent past and entered the nearby Valles Caldera, it was incapable of traveling a few extra kilometers through abundant fractures that existed at that time to contaminate his samples (also see descriptions of fluid movements through the Fenton Hill core in Sasada, 1989). As long as extraneous helium is present in rocks, the diffusion of radiogenic helium from the zircons may be suppressed. Zircons could even be contaminated with extraneous helium. As I've stated many times before, the extraneous helium could have largely dispersed from the Fenton Hill biotites thousands of years ago during the warming period described in Sasada (1989) and the remaining helium in the biotites could have mostly escaped when ICR personnel improperly ground them. However, extraneous helium could still be present in the relatively impermeable zircons. YECs repeatedly complain about extraneous argon supposedly undermining K-Ar radiometric dating, but Dr. Humphreys won't even consider the possibility that extraneous helium could easily invalidate his "creation model."
Talkorigins is Popular and Mainstream
As I've stated before, the readership of Talkorigins is probably greater than most peer-reviewed science journals and YEC magazines, including CRSQ. Contrary to the claims in Humphreys (2006), the science essays at Talkorigins are extensively read, reviewed and cited, and are not in a "dark corner" of the Internet."
As part of the review process at Talkorigins, essays are submitted to scientists and the general public through the Talkorigins newsgroup. The non-anonymous reviewers of my March, 2005 essay are listed in the acknowledgements. Also, while I frequently link to his essays, Humphreys (2006) doesn't even have the courage and courtesy to directly link to my November, 2005 essay in his text. Through an intermediary, I had requested that Dr. Humphreys link to my original March, 2005 essay in his responses. He did so (once) in a footnote in Humphreys (2005). However, Humphreys (2006) only hid one unlinked URL of my November, 2005 essay in his references. Dr. Humphreys should explain why he doesn't want the readers of "Trueorigins" to have easy access to my works. Why should I have to request that a copy of my essays receive a convenient clickable link before Dr. Humphreys and "Trueorigins" provide them? Why are Dr. Humphreys and "Trueorigins" afraid of what people might read at Talkorigins?
Dr. Humphreys' Inappropriate Challenge: It's Not My Responsibility to Do Your Work for You, Dr. Humphreys
Dr. Humphreys has wasted a lot of time and money to create his mess and he has yet to present any conclusive evidence to support his "creation model." Humphreys (2006) has challenged me to drop my current research projects and perform high-pressure studies on the Fenton Hill zircons, studies that he should be doing. Dr. Humphreys doesn't seem to realize that he, and not me, has the responsibility to perform ALL of the essential studies (including realistic high-pressure diffusion experiments) before he can promote his "creation model" and claim that he has overthrown the validity of radiometric dating. Furthermore, as I've repeatedly stated in my previous Talkorigins essays, all of his mistakes, invalid assumptions, and mystery math must be explained and corrected before any of his claims can be taken seriously by scientists (Appendix D). Dr. Humphreys has no moral or scientific authority to challenge anyone to perform or publish experiments on this topic until he cleans up his own sloppy data and actually publishes his work in an AUTHENTIC peer-reviewed science journal (such as Earth and Planetary Science Letters or Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta).
It's time for Dr. Humphreys' to remove his claims from the dark corner of young-Earth creationism and into the light of real science, where his work can be critically examined without any protection from dogmatic YEC publishers that suppress criticism and hide or omit the references of critics (e.g., Humphreys et al., 2004). Rather than me seeking any "glory" by doing his work for him, it's more important that Dr. Humphreys overcome his denials, and soberly and responsibly deal with the numerous bad assumptions and errors in his work, which are well documented in my previous essays and summarized in my Appendix D. He can start by finally studying Dunai and Roselieb (1996) and maybe he'll get some ideas on how to measure helium diffusion in zircons at high pressure.
Main Appendices
Main Article
Appendix D
Questions for Humphreys
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
Carroll, M. R, 1991, "Diffusion of Ar in Rhyolite, Orthoclase, and Albite Composition Glasses," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 103, p. 156-168.
Dalrymple, G. B. and Lanphere, M. A. 1969. Potassium-argon dating. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, p. 155, Figure 9-7.
Dunai, T.J. and K. Roselieb, 1996, "Sorption and Diffusion of Helium in Garnet: Implications for Volatile Tracing and Dating," Earth Planet. Sci. Letter, v. 139, p. 411-421.
Farley, K.A., 2002, "(U-Th)/He Dating: Techniques, Calibrations, and Applications," Rev. Min. Geochem., v. 47, p. 819-844.
Gentry, R.V., G.L. Gush, and E.R. McBay, 1982a, "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Cortainment," Geophys. Res. Letters, v. 9, n. 10, p. 1129-1130. http://www.halos.com/reports/grl-1982-helium-in-zircons.pdf
Gentry, R.V., T.J. Sworski, H.S. McKown, D.H. Smith, R.E. Eby, and W.H. Christie, 1982b, "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment," Science, v. 216, April 16, p. 296-298. http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1982-lead-in-zircons.pdf
Hudson, J. B. and R. Hoffman, 1961, "The Effect of Hydrostatic Pressure on Self-diffusion in Lead," Transactions of the Metallurgical Society of AIME v. 221, August, p. 761-768.
Humphreys, D.R., 2003, "New RATE Data Support Young World," Impact, n. 366, Institute for Creation Research. http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-366.pdf
Humphreys, D.R., 2005, "Helium Evidence for a Young World Remains Crystal Clear," at the True.origin website: http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp; pdf version at ICR website: http://www.icr.org/pdf/rate/humphreys_to_hanke.pdf
Humphreys, D. R., 2006, "Helium Evidence for a Young World Overcomes Pressure," http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp
Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf
Humphreys, D.R., S.A Austin, J.R. Baumgardner, and A.A. Snelling, 2004, "Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 41, n. 1, June, p. 1-16. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm
Hyndman, D.W., 1985, Petrology of Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Laney, R., A.W. Laughlin, and M.J. Aldrich, Jr., 1981, Geology and Geochemistry of Samples from Los Alamos National Laboratory HDR Well EE-2, Fenton Hill, New Mexico, LA-8923-MS, National Technical Information Service, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM.
Laughlin, A.W. and A. Eddy, 1977, Petrolography and Geochemistry of Precambrian Rocks from GT-2 and EE-1, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, Report LA-6930-MS.
Lippolt, H.J. and E. Weigel, 1988, "4He Diffusion in 40Ar-retentive Minerals," Geochim. et Cosmo. Acta, v. 52, p. 1449-1458.
Magomedov, Sh. A., 1970, "Migration of Radiogenic Products in Zircon," Geokhimiya, v. 2, p. 263-267 (in Russian). English abstract: Geochemistry International, v. 7, n. 1, p. 203.
McDougall, I. and T. M. Harrison, 1999, Geochronology and Thermochronology by the 40Ar/39Ar Method, Oxford University Press, New York.
Reiners, P.W., K.A. Farley, and H.J. Hickes, 2002, "He Diffusion and (U-Th)/He Thermochronometry of Zircon: Initial Results from Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte," Tectonophysics, v. 349, p. 297-308.
Sasada, M., 1989, "Fluid Inclusion Evidence for Recent Temperature Increases at Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock Test Site West of the Valles Caldera, New Mexico, U.S.A., J. Volc. and Geotherm. Res. , v. 36, p. 257-266.
Smith, S. P. and B. M. Kennedy, 1985, "Noble Gas Evidence for Two Fluids in the Baca (Valles Caldera) Geothermal Reservoir," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 49, p. 893-902.
Truesdell, A.H. and C.J. Janik, 1986, "Reservoir Processes and Fluid Origins in the Baca Geothermal System, Valles Caldera, New Mexico," J. Geophys. Research, v. 91, n. B2, p. 1817-1833.
West, F.G. and A.W. Laughlin, 1976, "Spectral Gamma Logging in Crystalline Basement Rocks," Geology, v. 4, p. 617-618.
Winkler, H.G.F., 1979, Petrogenesis of Metamorphic Rocks, 5th ed., Springer-Verlag, New York.
Woodmorappe, J. (pseudonym), 1999, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
Wrong again. Your statement is false. The data doesn't suggest a 50,000-year margin of error. Rather, it states that you can't use C14 for anything OLDER than 50,000 years.
But keep backing up, I see you're giving ground enormously.
The below article pretty much flattens your boy Henke's argument against isochrons (note the absence of direct U-PB dating claim):
U-TH-PB DATING: AN EXAMPLE OF FALSE ISOCHRONS
Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
Creation Science Foundation
PO Box 6302
Acacia Ridge D.C., Old
4110, Australia.
Presented at the Third International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA, July 18-23, 1994.
Copyright 1994 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA, USA. All Rights Reserved.
ABSTRACT
As with other isochron methods, the U-Pb isochron method has been questioned in the open literature, because often an excellent line of best fit between ratios obtained from a set of good cogenetic samples gives a resultant ?isochron? and yields a derived ?age? that has no distinct geological meaning. At Koongarra, Australia, U-Th-Pb isotopic studies of uranium ore, host rocks and soils have produced an array of false ?isochrons? that yield ?ages? that are geologically meaningless. Even a claimed near-concordant U-Pb ?age? of 862Ma on one uraninite grain is identical to a false Pb-Pb isochron ?age?, but neither can be connected to any geological event. Open system behavior of the U-Th-Pb system is clearly the norm, as is the resultant mixing of radiogenic Pb with common or background Pb, even in soils in the surrounding region. Because no geologically meaningful results can be interpreted from the U-Th-Pb data at Koongarra (three uraninite grains even yield a 232Th/208Pb ?age? of 0Ma), serious questions must be asked about the validity of the fundamental/foundational basis of the U-Th-Pb ?dating? method. This makes the task of creationists building their model for the geological record much easier, since claims of U-Th-Pb radiometric ?dating? having ?proven? the claimed great antiquity of the earth, its strata and fossils can be safely side-stepped.
INTRODUCTION
Radiometric dating has now been used for almost 50 years to establish ?beyond doubt? the earth's multi-billion year geological column. Although this column and its ?age? was firmly settled well before the advent of radiometric dating, the latter has been successfully used to help quantify the ?ages? of the strata and the fossils in the column, so that in many people's minds today radiometric dating has ?proved? the presumed antiquity of the earth. Of the various methods, uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) was the first used and it is still widely employed today, particularly when zircons are present in the rocks to be dated. But the method does not always give the ?expected? results, leading to fundamental questions about its validity.
In his conclusion in a recent paper exposing shortcomings and criticizing the validity of the popular rubidium- strontium (Rb-Sr) isochron method, Zheng [28, p. 14] wrote:
... some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr vs. 87Rb/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd and U-Pb isochron methods.
Amongst the concerns voiced by Zheng were the problems being found with anomalous isochrons, that is, where there is an apparent linear relationship between 87Sr/86Sr and 87Rb/86Sr ratios, even an excellent line of best fit between ratios obtained from good cogenetic samples, and yet the resultant isochron and derived ?age? have no distinct geological meaning. Zheng documented the copious reporting of this problem in the literature where various names had been given to these anomalous isochrons, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron and pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, source isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line, and mixing isochron.
Similar anomalous or false isochrons are commonly obtained from U-Th-Pb data, which is hardly surprising given the common open system behavior of the U-Th-Pb system. Yet in the literature these problems are commonly glossed over or pushed aside, but their increasing occurrence from a variety of geological settings does seriously raise the question as to whether U-Th-Pb data ever yields any valid ?age? information. One such geological setting that yields these false U-Th-Pb isochrons is the Koongarra uranium deposit and the surrounding area (Northern Territory, Australia).
THE KOONGARRA AREA
The Koongarra area is 25Okm east of Darwin (Northern Territory, Australia) at latitude 12°52'S and longitude 132°50'E. The regional geology has been described in detail by Needham and Stuart-Smith [19] and by Needham [17, 18], while Snelling [25] describes the Koongarra uranium deposit and the area's local geology.
The Koongarra uranium deposit occurs in a metamorphic terrain that has an Archean basement consisting of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Lower Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (estimated to represent conditions of 5-8kb and 550-630°C) at 1800-1870Ma. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism. The Lower Proterozoic Cahill Formation flanking the Nanambu Complex has been divided into two members. The lower member is dominated by a thick basal dolomite and passes transitionally upwards into the psammitic upper member, which is largely feldspathic schist and quartzite. The uranium mineralization at Koongarra is associated with graphitic horizons within chloritized quartz-mica (±feldspar ±garnet) schists overlying the basal dolomite in the lower member. A 150Ma period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism. A thick sequence of essentially flat-lying sandstones (the Middle Proterozoic Kombolgie Formation) was then deposited unconformably on the Archean-Lower Proterozoic basement and metasediments. At Koongarra subsequent reverse faulting has juxtaposed the lower Cahill Formation schists and Kombolgie Formation sandstone.
Owing to the isoclinal recumbent folding of metasedimentary units of the Cahill Formation, the typical rock sequence encountered at Koongarra is probably a tectono-stratigraphy (from youngest to oldest):
? muscovite-biotite-quartz-feldspar schist (at least 180m thick)
? garnet-muscovite-biotite-quartz schist (90-100m thick)
? sulphide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist (±garnet) (about 25m thick)
? distinctive graphite-quartz-chlorite schist marker unit (5-8m thick)
? quartz-chlorite schist (±illite, garnet, sillimanite, muscovite) (50m thick) ? the mineralized zone
? reverse fault breccia (5-7m thick)
? sandstone of the Kombolgie Formation
Polyphase deformation accompanied metamorphism of the original sediments, that were probably dolomite, shales and siltstones. Johnston [12] identified a D2 event as responsible for the dominant S2 foliation of the schist sequence, which at Koongarra dips at 55° to the south-east. The dominant structural feature, however, is the reverse fault system that dips at about 60° to the south-east, sub-parallel to the dominant S2 foliation and lithological boundaries, just below the mineralized zone.
THE URANIUM DEPOSIT
There are two discrete uranium orebodies at Koongarra, separated by a 100m wide barren zone. The main (No. 1) orebody has a strike length of 450m and persists to 100m depth. Secondary uranium mineralization is present in the weathered schists, from below the surficial sand cover to the base of weathering at depths varying between 25 and 30m. This secondary mineralization has been derived from decomposition and leaching of the primary mineralized zone, and forms a tongue-like fan of ore-grade material dispersed down-slope for about 80m to the south-east. The primary uranium mineralized zone in cross-section is a series of partially coalescing lenses, which together form an elongated wedge dipping at 55° to the south-east within the host quartz-chlorite schist unit, subparallel to the reverse fault. True widths average 30m at the top of the primary mineralized zone but taper out at about 1 00m below surface and along strike.
Superimposed on the primary prograde metamorphic mineral assemblages of the host schist units is a distinct and extensive primary alteration halo associated, and cogenetic, with the uranium mineralization. This alteration extends for up to 1.5km from the ore in a direction perpendicular to the host quartz-chlorite schist unit, because the mineralization is essentially stratabound. The outer zone of the alteration halo is most extensively developed in the semi-pelitic schists, and is manifested by the pseudomorphous replacement of biotite by chlorite, rutile and quartz, and feldspar by sericite. Silicification has also occurred in fault planes and within the Kombolgie Formation sandstone beneath the mineralization, particularly adjacent to the reverse fault.
Association of this outer halo alteration with the mineralization is demonstrated by the apparent symmetrical distribution of this alteration about the orebody. In the inner alteration zone, less than 50m from ore, the metamorphic rock fabric is disrupted, and quartz is replaced by pervasive chlorite and phengitic mica, and garnet by chlorite. Uranium mineralization is only present where this alteration has taken place.
The primary ore consists of uraninite veins and veinlets (1-10mm thick) that cross-cut the S2 foliation of the brecciated and hydrothermally altered quartz-chlorite schist host. Groups of uraninite veinlets are intimately intergrown with chlorite, which forms the matrix to the host breccias. Small (10-10Oµm) euhedral and subhedral uraninite grains are finely disseminated in the chloritic alteration adjacent to veins, but these grains may coalesce to form clusters, strings and massive uraninite. Coarse colloform and botryoidal uraninite masses and uraninite spherules with internal lacework textures have also been noted, but the bulk of the ore appears to be of the disseminated type, with thin (<0.5mm) discontinuous wisps and streaks of uraninite, and continuous strings both parallel and discordant to the foliation (S2), and parallel to phyllosilicate (001) cleavage planes.
Associated with the ore are minor volumes (up to 5%) of sulphides, which include galena and lesser chalcopyrite, bornite and pyrite, with rare grains of native gold, clausthalite (PbSe), gersdorffite-cobaltite (NiAsS-CoAsS) and mackinawite (Fe,Ni)1.1 S. Galena is the most abundant, commonly occurring as cubes (5-10µm wide) disseminated in uraninite or gangue, and as stringers and veinlets particularly filling thin fractures within uraninite. Galena may also overgrow clausthalite, and replace pyrite and chalcopyrite. Chlorite, predominantly magnesium chlorite, is the principal gangue, and its intimate association with the uraninite indicates that the two minerals formed together.
Oxidation and alteration of uraninite within the primary ore zone has produced a variety of secondary uranium minerals, principally uranyl silicates [22]. Uraninite veins, even veins over 1cm wide, have been completely altered in situ. Within the primary ore zone this in situ replacement of uraninite is most pronounced immediately above the reverse fault breccia, and this alteration and oxidation diminish upwards stratigraphically. It is accompanied by hematite staining of the schists, the more intense hematite alteration in and near the reverse fault breccia being due to hematite replacement of chlorite. The secondary mineralization of the dispersion fan in the weathered schist above the No. 1 orebody is characterized by uranyl phosphates found exclusively in the ?tail? of the fan. Away from the tail uranium is dispersed in the weathered schists and adsorbed onto clays and iron oxides.
The age of the uranium mineralization is problematical. The mineralization, however, must post-date both the Kombolgie Formation sandstone and the Koongarra reverse fault, since it occupies the breccia zones generated by the post-Kombolgie reverse faulting. The pattern of alteration which is intimately associated with the ore also crosses the reverse fault into the Kombolgie sandstone beneath the ore zone, so this again implies that the ore was formed after the reverse fault and therefore is younger than both the Kombolgie sandstone and the reverse fault. Because of these geological constraints, Page et al. [20] suggested the mineralization was younger than 1600-1688Ma because of their determination of the timing of the Kombolgie Formation deposition to that period. Sm-Nd isotopic data obtained on Koongarra uraninites [15,16] appears to narrow down the timing of mineralization to 1550-1650Ma. It is unclear as to when deep ground-water circulation began to cause oxidation and alteration of the primary uraninite ore at depth, but Airey et al. [1] suggest that the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan in the weathered schists above the No. 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3Ma.
U-TH-PB DATA
?Dating? of the Primary Ore
Hills and Richards [11] isotopically analyzed individual grains of uraninite and galena that had been hand-picked from drill core. Only one of the five uraninite samples gave a near-concordant ?age? of 862Ma, that is, the sample plotted almost on the standard concordia curve, and Hills and Richards [10] interpreted this as recording fresh formation of Pb-free uraninite at 870Ma. The other four uraninite samples all lie well below concordia and do not conform to any regular linear array. Hills and Richards were left with two possible interpretations. On the one hand, preferential loss of the intermediate daughter products of 238U (that is, escape of radon, a gas) would cause vertical displacement of points below an episodic-loss line, but this would only produce a significant Pb isotopic effect if the loss had persisted for a very long proportion of the life of the uraninite (which is incidentally not only feasible but likely). Alternatively, they suggested that contamination by small amounts of an older (pre- 900Ma) Pb could cause such a pattern as on their concordia plot, to which they added mixing lines that they postulated arose from the restoration to each uraninite sample of the galena which separated from it.
This of course assumes that the Pb in the galenas was also derived predominantly from uranium decay. They plotted their Pb ratios in all their uraninite samples on a standard 207Pb/206Pb diagram, and contended that the pattern of data points did not conform to a simple age interpretation. Instead, they contended that the scatter of points could be contained between two lines radiating from the diagram's origin, lines that essentially represented isochrons for uraninites and galenas from the Ranger and Nabarlek uranium deposits in the same geological region. From the positions of the Koongarra uraninites and galenas on these diagrams they claimed that the galenas contained left-over radiogenic Pb from earlier uraninites as old as 1700-1800Ma (the ?age? of the Ranger uranium mineralization), these earlier uraninites being obliterated by the uranium having remobilized at 870Ma, the ?age? of the lone Pb-free uraninite sample.
In a separate study Carr and Dean [2] isotopically analyzed whole-rock samples from the Koongarra primary ore zone. These were samples of drill core that had been crushed. Their isotopic data on four samples were plotted on a U-Pb isochron diagram and indicated a non-systematic relationship between the 238U parent and the 206Pb daughter. In other words, the quantities of 206Pb could not simply be accounted for by radioactive decay of 238U, implying open system behavior. They also plotted their four results on a standard 207Pb/206Pb isochron diagram and found that these samples fell on a very poorly defined linear array whose apparent age they did not quantify.
?Dating? of Weathered Rocks and Soils
Carr and Dean [2] also isotopically analyzed a further nine whole-rock samples from the weathered schist zone at Koongarra. Some of these samples were again crushed drill core, but the majority were crushed percussion drill chips. When their isotopic data were plotted on a U-Pb isochron diagram six of the nine samples plotted close to the reference 1000Ma isochron, while the other three were widely scattered. However, on the 207Pb/206Pb diagram all nine weathered rock samples plotted on a linear array which gave an apparent isochron ?age? of 1270 ±50Ma.
In an unrelated investigation, Dickson et al. [6,7] collected soil samples from above the mineralization at Koongarra and from surrounding areas, and these were analyzed for Pb isotopes to see if there was any Pb-isotopic dispersion halo around the mineralization sufficiently large enough to warrant the use of Pb-isotopic analyses of soils as an exploration technique to find new uranium orebodies. The technique did in fact work, Pb-isotopic traces of the deeply buried No. 2 orebody mineralization being found in the soils above. This mineralization, 40m below the surface, is blind to other detection techniques.
Dickson et al. [7] found that all 113 soil samples from their two studies were highly correlated (r = 0.99986) on a standard 207Pb/206Pb diagram, yielding an apparent (false) isochron representing an ?age? of 1445 ±20Ma for the samples. However, most of the soil samples consisted of detritus eroded from the Middle Proterozoic Kombolgie sandstone, so because the samples from near the mineralization gave a radiogenic Pb signature Dickson et al. interpreted the false ?isochron? as being due to mixing of radiogenic Pb from the uranium mineralization with the common Pb from the sandstone.
DISCUSSION
Snelling [23] has already highlighted a telling omission by Hills and Richards [11]. Having included all the Pb isotopic ratios they had obtained on their five uraninite samples, they tabulated also the derived ?ages?, except for those obtainable from 208Pb. These Th-derived ?dates? should normally be regarded as the most reliable, since Th is less mobile in geochemical environments and therefore open system behavior is less likely than for U. Significantly, three of the five uraninite samples therefore give, within their experimental error, a 0Ma ?age? [23]. In any case, their ?age? of 1700-1800Ma for the first generation of uranium mineralization at Koongarra neither fits the geological criteria for an expected 1550-1600Ma ?age?, nor does their 870Ma ?date? correlate with any geological event capable of remobilizing U and Pb to produce the presumed second generation of uranium mineralization.
Using Ludwig [13], standard 207Pb/206Pb diagrams were prepared for the uraninite, galena and whole-rock data sets, and combinations thereof, to check the regression statistics and possible derived ?isochrons? using the standard York [27] method. In each case the mean square of weighted deviates (MSWD), which tests the ?goodness of fit? of data to a line, is large to extremely large, which reflects in the derived isochron ?ages? of 841 ±140Ma (uraninites), 1008 ±420Ma (galenas), 668 ±330Ma (whole-rocks), 818 ±150Ma (uraninites plus galenas) and 863 ±130Ma (all three data sets combined), all ?ages? being within the 95% confidence limits. It is perhaps fortuitously significant that the combination of all three data sets yields an isochron ?age? of 863 ±130Ma, almost identical to Hills' and Richards' near-concordant ?age? of 862Ma, although this was using a line-fitting routine of Ludwig [13] that assigns equal weights and zero error-correlations to each data point to avoid the mistake of weighting the points according to analytical errors when it is clear that some other cause of scatter is involved, which is clearly the case here. The normal York [27] algorithm assumes that the only cause for scatter from a straight line are the assigned errors, and for the combined data set here the amount of scatter calculated thereby yields an astronomical MSWD of 669000 and a bad line of fit that yields an isochron ?age? of 1632 ±410Ma. This ?result? may make more geological sense, but the regression statistics are such that derivation of any ?age? information from these data is totally unjustified, even though it can be rightfully argued that these samples form a cogenetic set (they are all samples of uranium ore or its components from the same primary ore zone at Koongarra).
It is not uncommon to find that ?ages? derived from standard 207Pb/206Pb plots are erroneous, even though the data fit well-defined linear arrays ('isochrons'). Ludwig et al. [14] found that this was due to migration of both Pb and radioactive daughters of 238U yielding a 207Pb/206Pb ?isochron? giving ?superficially attractive results which would nonetheless be seriously misleading? because the derived ?age? (in their example) was more than six times higher than the U-Pb isochron ?age?. Similarly, Cunningham et al. [3] obtained 207Pb/206Pb isochron ?ages? up to 50 times higher than those derived from ?more reliable? U-Pb isochrons for whole-rock uranium ore samples, even though ?the apparent slight degree of scatter is almost entirely a misleading artifact?. Ironically, at Koongarra the U-Pb isochron using Ludwig [13] yields an ?age? of 857 ±149Ma (with an MSWD of 13400, tolerably large compared to that obtained with the Pb-Pb isochron), almost identical to the ?fortuitous? Pb-Pb isochron ?age? obtained using Ludwig's modified algorithm on the combined three data sets (863 ±130Ma), as well as Hills' and Richards' single near-concordant 862Ma ?age?.
Snelling and Dickson [26] demonstrated that there is significant radiometric disequilibrium in the primary ore and surrounding host rocks at Koongarra due to the redistribution of both U and its Ra decay product. That Ra mobility at depth in the primary ore zone is currently more significant than U migration was confirmed by Dickson and Snelling [8], which of course results ultimately in the redistribution of 206Pb, the end-member of the whole 238U decay chain. Dickson et al. [5, 7] demonstrated that Ra is transported through the unweathered rocks in this area in the ground waters, while Davey et al. [4] determined the emanation rate of radon gas from the Koongarra No. 1 orebody, an ever present hazard in uranium ore mining operations. The radon gas is known to migrate along fractures and rise through the ground over considerable distances to form a halo in the air above, while radon is also transported in ground waters.
These observations alone demonstrate the open system behavior of the U-Th-Pb system that renders meaningless any ?age? information derived. However, both Hills [9] and Snelling [21,22] have recognized that U also has migrated on a considerable scale in the primary ore zone, since supergene uraninites, often with colloform banding, are found as fracture and cavity infillings, and between quartz and gangue grain boundaries. The unit cell dimensions of these uraninites, plus this textural evidence, supports the conclusion that these uraninites have precipitated after dissolution of earlier formed uraninite and transportation in low-temperature ground waters. With such wholesale migration of U also, all attempts at ?dating? must be rendered useless, especially when whole-rock samples, in which different generations of uraninites are lumped together, are used.
In contrast to the poor-fitting linear arrays produced from the Pb-Pb data of minerals and whole-rocks from the primary ore zone, that all appear to give an apparent (false) isochron ?age? grouped around 857-863Ma, both Carr and Dean [2] and Dickson et al. [7] found that weathered whole-rock and soil samples produced good fitting linear arrays that would normally represent ?isochrons? that yield ?ages? of 1270Ma and 1445Ma respectively. The weathered whole-rock samples all of course come from Koongarra itself, and consist of secondary ore samples from the weathered schist zone, plus weathered schist samples that contain uranium dispersed down-slope by ground waters moving through the weathered rock. Because these whole-rock samples come from a volume of rock through which U is known to be migrating, leading to redistribution not only of U but of its decay products, it is therefore very surprising to find that these whole-rock samples define a good enough linear array to yield an ?isochron?. Even the observed scatter calculated using Ludwig [13] is much less than that associated with fitting an ?isochron? to the 207Pb-206Pb data from the primary ore zone samples, which is again surprising given U migration in the weathered zone, the data from which one would expect to show considerable scatter and thus no ?age? consensus. Furthermore, it is baffling as to why the ?isochron?-derived ?age? should be so much ?older? than the ?age? of the primary ore, which of course is ultimately the source through weathering and ground-water transport of the U, decay products and the stable Pb isotopes. Perhaps the only explanation is that the ?isochron? represents the mixing of radiogenic Pb from the mineralization with the common or background Pb in the surrounding schists.
The idea of such an ?isochron? being a mixing line was suggested by Dickson et al. [7]. They were however, dealing with the Pb isotopic data obtained from soil samples collected from depths of only about 30-40cm, the majority of which represented sandy soils consisting of detritus eroded from the Kombolgie sandstone. For this mixing explanation to be feasible there should be some other evidence of mobilization of Pb in the area. Dickson et al. found that not only were there high 206Pb/204Pb ratios in three of their soil samples from the near-surface (0-1 m) zone south of the No. 1 orebody, but there was a lack of any other U-series daughter products in the same samples. This near-surface zone is inundated for approximately six months of the year as a result of the high monsoonal rainfall in this tropical area. Towards the end of the ensuing six-month dry season the water table has been known to drop in some cases more than ten meters from its wet season ?high?. This means that the top of the weathered schist zone is regularly fluctuating between wet and dry conditions, so that any trace elements such as Pb leached from the weathered ore and transported by ground water in the weathered schist zone would also be dispersed vertically up into the thin surficial sand cover on top of the weathered schist ? the sandy soils that were sampled by Dickson et al. [6,7]. Snelling [24] found that Pb was a significant pathfinder element for uranium ore in the Koongarra environment, anomalous Pb being present in the surficial sand cover above the zone of weathered primary ore, and that there was even hydrodynamic dispersal of Pb at a depth of 0.5-1.5m. Dickson et al. [6] found a similarity between the isotopic ratios for Pb extracted from their soil samples by either a mild HCI-hydroxylamine (pH 1) or a strong 7M HCI-7M HNO3 leach, which indicates that Pb is loosely attached to sand grain surfaces in the samples rather than tightly bound in silicate or resistate mineral lattices. This in turn suggests Pb is adsorbed from ground waters, meaning that radiogenic Pb is being added to the common or background Pb in the sand by both vertical and lateral ground-water dispersion.
However, not all of Dickson et al.'s soil samples came from the immediate area to the Koongarra orebodies, nor were they all the samples of Kombolgie sandstone detritus. That this mixing line explanation for the apparent ?isochron? is clearly demonstrated for these samples from the immediate Koongarra area is not in question, although it is somewhat surprising that these soil samples should give an apparent isochron ?age? somewhat higher than that obtained from the weathered schist samples beneath. Indeed, the common or background Pb in the respective samples should reflect an ?older? apparent age in the schists compared to the sandstone, due to their relative ages based on geological relationships between them. However, the apparent ages are the other way around, the sandy soils yielding an ?older? apparent age compared to that yielded by the weathered schists. Perhaps this difference is a reflection of the extent of mixing in each type of sample at their respective levels in the weathering profile. Nevertheless, what is astounding is that Dickson et al. [7] found that even though several of their soil samples consisted of weathered schist or basement granite (containing accessory zircon) up to 17km from the known uranium mineralization, they still plotted on the same apparent ?isochron?. Indeed, the ?fit? is comparatively good, as indicated by the MSWD of only 964 using Ludwig [13], yet much of this observed scattered can be attributed to two samples out of the 113, one of which was subsequently known to be probably contaminated by cuttings from an adjacent drill hole [6]. If that sample is removed from the regression analysis the MSWD drops to 505, indicating that almost half of the observed scatter is due to that one data point alone. If the data point that is the next worst for fitting to the apparent ?isochron? is removed, then the MSWD drops by a further 315 to a mere 190. Yet in both cases the apparent ?isochron? or ?mixing line? still has lying on or close to it the samples from up to 17km away from the known uranium mineralization and the samples that are not Kombolgie sandstone detritus. The final ?isochron? fitted to the remaining 111 samples still yields an ?age? of 1420 ±18Ma.
While Carr and Dean's nine weathered whole-rock samples are not strictly cogenetic with Dickson et al.'s 113 soil samples, the two sample sets are obviously related because the source of the radiogenic Pb in the majority of the soil samples from the immediate Koongarra area is the same as that in the weathered rocks. Not surprisingly, when the regression analysis was performed on Carr and Dean's nine weathered whole-rock samples using Ludwig [13], the MSWD for the observed scatter was 24100, indicating a poor fit to an ?isochron? which yielded an ?age? of 1287 ±120Ma. Yet when these nine samples were added to the 113 soil samples the MSWD dropped substantially to 1210, and not surprisingly the fitted ?isochron? yielded an ?age? of 1346 ±27Ma, an ?isochron age? intermediate between those of the two data sets being combined. However, when the two soil samples responsible for the majority of the scatter in that data set were removed the MSWD dropped to 430 and yielded an ?isochron age? of 1336 ±17Ma.
As with all the other apparent isochron ?ages? this result has no apparent geological meaning, because there is no geological event to which these ?ages? might correlate. Indeed, even in the evolutionary time-frame the weathering of the Koongarra uranium mineralization is extremely recent, and in any case these ?ages? derived from Pb-Pb ?isochrons? from the weathered rock and soil samples are much ?older? than the supposedly more reliable U-Pb ?isochron age? of the Koongarra primary ore. But since that latter result has no apparent geological meaning, because it also cannot be correlated with any known geological event, nothing then is certain at all from any of these U-Th-Pb isotopic studies of the Koongarra ores, rocks and surrounding soils. Indeed, it is just as certain that the primary ore is 0 years old, based on three 232Th/208Pb single sample ages, as is the claim that one near-concordant result means that there was formation of Pb-free uraninite at 870Ma. After all, this postulated formation of Pb-free uraninite is supposed to have occurred in an environment where there was Pb left over from an earlier 1700-1800Ma original uranium mineralization for which we no longer have any evidence, textural or otherwise, apart from a rather tenuous interpretation of Pb isotopic evidence that has otherwise shown itself to be devoid of any capability of providing any ?age? information.
All these results raise serious fundamental questions about the claimed validity of the U-Th-Pb ?dating? method. It may seem reasonable to regard an apparent ?isochron? as a ?mixing line? within the restricted area close to the known source of radiogenic Pb, which can be shown by independent evidence to be migrating into rocks and soils that contain common or background Pb in the immediate environs. However, it strains all credulity to suggest that a false ?isochron? through a data set derived from samples representing a variety of rock types, of significantly different evolutionary ?ages?, over an area of up to 17km lateral extent from the known radiogenic Pb source, can still represent mixing! One can only conclude that all assumptions used to derive the estimates of common or background Pb, including models for the supposed evolution of the stable Pb isotopes through earth history, from their presumed commencement on the protoearth with its claimed original Pb isotope content some 4.6 billion or so years ago, cannot be valid. Equally, we cannot be sure what the U-Th-Pb system's isotopic ratios really mean, because the basic assumptions that are foundational to the interpretation of these isotopic ratios are fatally flawed. Not only has open system behavior of these isotopes been demonstrated as the norm, but even where there is an apparent ?isochron? with an excellent ?goodness of fit? the derived ?age? is invariably geologically meaningless. Thus creationists need not be hindered in their building of the Creation-Flood young-earth model for the geological record by the many claims in the open geological literature that U-Th-Pb radiometric ?dating? has ?proved? the presumed great antiquity of the earth, and the strata and fossils of the so-called geological column.
CONCLUSION
The concerns raised by Zheng [28] regarding U-Pb isochrons are warranted. At Koongarra a 207Pb/206Pb ?isochron? produced from 11 hand-picked uraninite and galena grains, plus four whole-rock samples, yields an ?age? of 863 Ma, the same as a near-concordant ?age? from one of the uraninite grains. Nine weathered whole-rock samples yield an ?isochron age? of 1270Ma, while 113 soil samples produce an excellent ?isochron? with an ?age? of 1445Ma. All of these ?ages? are geologically meaningless. While the apparent isochron produced by the soil samples may be identified as a mixing line, produced by the mixing of radiogenic Pb with common or background Pb in the surrounding rocks and soils, even this explanation strains credulity because the samples come from up to 17km away from known uranium mineralization, and a few of the soil samples represent different rock types. Not only then has open system behavior of these isotopes been demonstrated, but apparent ?isochrons? and their derived ?ages? are invariably geologically meaningless. Thus none of the assumptions used to interpret the U-Th-Pb isotopic system to yield ?ages? can be valid. If these assumptions were valid, then the 232Th/208Pb ?age? of 0Ma for three of the five uraninite samples should be taken seriously. Creationists should therefore not be intimidated by claims that U-Th-Pb radiometric ?dating? has ?proved? the presumed great antiquity of the earth, and the strata and fossils of the so-called geological column.
REFERENCES
P.L. Airey, C. Golian and D.A. Lever, An Approach to the Mathematical Modelling of the Uranium Series Redistribution within Ore Bodies, Topical Report AAEC/C49, 1986, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Sydney.
G.R. Carr and J.A. Dean, Report to AAEC on a Pb Isotopic Study of Samples from Jabiluka and Koongarra, unpublished report, 1986, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Division of Mineral Physics and Mineralogy, Sydney.
C.G. Cunningham, K.R. Ludwig, C.W. Naeser, E.K. Weiland, H.H. Mehnert, T.A. Steven and J.D. Rasmussen, Geochronology of Hydrothermal Uranium Deposits and Associated Igneous Rocks in the Eastern Source Area of the Mount Belknap Volcanics, Marysvale, Utah, Economic Geology, 77 (1982) 453-463.
D.R. Davy, A. Dudaitis and B.G. O'Brien, Radon Survey at the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, Northern Territory, Topical Report AAEC/E459, 1978, Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Sydney, in Koongarra Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 1978, Noranda Australia Limited, Melbourne, Appendix 2.
B.L. Dickson, A.M. Giblin and A.A. Snelling, The Source of Radium in Anomalous Accumulations near Sandstone Escarpments, Australia, Applied Geochemistry, 2 (1987) 385-398.
B.L. Dickson, B.L. Gulson and A.A. Snelling, Evaluation of Lead Isotopic Methods for Uranium Exploration, Koongarra Area, Northern Territory, Australia, Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 24 (1985) 81-102.
B.L. Dickson, B.L. Gulson and A.A. Snelling, Further Assessment of Stable Lead Isotope Measurements for Uranium Exploration, Pine Creek Geosyncline, Northern Territory, Australia, Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 27 (1987) 63-75.
B.L. Dickson and A.A. Snelling, Movements of Uranium and Daughter Isotopes in the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, in Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, J. Ferguson and A.B. Goleby, Editors, 1980, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 499--507.
J.H. Hills, Lead Isotopes and the Regional Geochemistry of North Australian Uranium Deposits, Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), 1973, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
J.H. Hills and J.R. Richards, The Age of Uranium Mineralization in Northern Australia, Search, 3 (1972) 382-385.
J.H. Hills and J.R. Richards, Pitchblende and Galena Ages in the Alligator Rivers Region, Northern Territory, Australia, Mineralium Deposita, 11 (1976) 133-154.
J.D. Johnston, Structural Evolution of the Pine Creek Inlier and Mineralisation Therein, Northern Territory, Australia, Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), 1984, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
K.R. Ludwig, ISOPLOT: A Plotting and Regression Program for Radiogenic-lsotope Data, Version 2.60, United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-445, 1993, Denver, Colorado.
K.R. Ludwig, J.T. Nash and C.W. Naeser, U-Pb lsotope Systematics and Age of Uranium Mineralisation, Midnite Mine, Washington, Economic Geology, 76 (1981) 89-110.
R. Maas, The Application of Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr Isotope Systematics to Ore Deposits, Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), 1987, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
R. Maas, Nd-Sr Isotope Constraints on the Age and Origin of Unconformity-Type Uranium Deposits in the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, Northern Territory, Australia, Economic Geology, 84 (1989) 64-90.
R.S. Needham, Alligator River, Northern Territory ? 1:250,000 Geological Series, Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics Australia, Explanatory Notes, 1984, SD 53-1.
R.S. Needham, Geology of the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, Northern Territory, Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics Australia, Bulletin 224, 1988, Canberra, Australia.
R.S. Needham and P.G. Stuart-Smith, Geology of the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, in Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, J. Ferguson and A.B. Goleby, Editors, 1980, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 233-257.
R.W. Page, W. Compston and R.S. Needham, Geochronology and Evolution of the Late-Archaean Basement and Proterozoic Rocks in the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, Northern Territory, Australia, in Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, J. Ferguson and A.B. Goleby, Editors, 1980, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 13-68.
A.A. Snelling, A Geochemical Study of the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, Northern Territory, Australia, Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), 1980, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
A.A. Snelling, Uraninite and its Alteration Products, Koongarra Uranium Deposit, in Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, J. Ferguson and A.B. Goleby, Editors, 1980, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 487-498.
A.A. Snelling, The Age of Australian Uranium: A Case Study of the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, Ex Nihilo, 4 (1981) 44-57.
A.A. Snelling, A Soil Geochemistry Orientation Survey for Uranium at Koongarra, Northern Territory, Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 22 (1984) 83-99.
A.A. Snelling, Koongarra Uranium Deposits, in Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea, F.E. Hughes, Editor, 1990, The Australasian institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 807-812.
A.A. Snelling and B.L. Dickson, Uranium/Daughter Equilibrium In the Koongarra Uranium Deposit, Australia, Mineralium Deposita, 14 (1979) 109-118.
D. York, Least-Squares Fitting of a Straight Line with Correlated Errors, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 5 (1969) 320-324.
Y.-F.Zheng, Influences of the Nature of the Initial Rb-Sr System on lsochron Validity, Chemical Geology, 80 (1989) 1-16.
Back to top
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
If we're going to play the discredit game, at least have enough courage to list the author of the article.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Here's your response to my claim:
And here's my rebuttal:
Helium in the Earth’s Atmosphere
by David Malcolm
http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/helium.asp
Synopsis
Creationists have used the argument that the amount of helium in the earth’s atmosphere indicates a young earth. It was first brought to the public’s attention by Nobel Prize nominee Melvin A. Cook in 1957, when an article was printed in Nature.1 The rate at which helium is entering the atmosphere from radioactive decay is known fairly well; as is the rate at which helium is presently escaping from the atmosphere into interplanetary space.
However, the Australian Skeptics, in their publication Creationism, an Australian Perspective, have printed an article by Ken Smith, suggesting that creationists have not done their homework properly, and are in fact seriously in error with this conclusion.2 This paper is submitted with the aim of correcting the false claims put forward in the Skeptics’ publication. Much of Ken Smith’s article is highly misleading if not simply wrong as we will here attempt to show.
We will explain how the rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere has been obtained. Since the rate of loss is less than the rate at which helium is entering the atmosphere, the evidence does indicate a young age for the earth (of the order of two million years), a result which is well known amongst atmospheric scientists.
Jeans Escape
To understand the mechanism by which helium is known to be escaping from the atmosphere, we can do no better than quote from the reference Walker.3 In fact we will be relying heavily on this source, as he presents a full and fair treatment of the matter.
Ken Smith accuses creationists of relying on obsolete work done before the International Geophysical Year of 1957–58. However, Walker’s book was written in 1977, so both he and almost all his authorities come after 1958.
Figure 1. Diagram of atmosphere.
With reference to figure 1, the mechanism of Jeans escape is as follows:
‘Let us assume that there is a level in the atmosphere, called the critical level or exobase, above which collisions between molecules are so infrequent as to be negligible and below which collisions are sufficiently frequent to maintain a completely isotropic and random distribution of molecular velocities. At or below the exobase, therefore, the velocity distribution of the molecules of a given atmospheric constituent is the Maxwellian distribution. Since collisions are negligible above the exobase, the molecules in this region, called the exosphere, move along ballistic trajectories under the action of the earth’s gravitational field. Some of the upward-moving molecules have velocities sufficiently great to carry them on hyperbolic trajectories away from the earth, into space.’4
The escape velocity can be found from a known formula.5 At the planetary surface the escape velocity is given by —
where G is the universal gravitational constant; and r and M are respectively the radius and mass of the planet.
At an altitude Z, the escape velocity6 will be —
Height Z
(km) Escape Speed
(km/sec)
0
100
200
300
400
500 11.18
11.09
11.01
10.93
10.84
10.75
Table 1. Escape speed is dependent on altitude
Escape velocity figures for the earth are tabulated in table 1, for different altitudes.
Deciding on the height of the exobase is rather difficult because there is actually a transition region. But
‘Let us take a value for the exospheric temperature T=1500 K, which is higher than average, and let us place the exobase at a height of 500km.’7
So particles need to be moving at 10.75 kilometers per second to escape from the earth’s gravitational influence. And this is independent of the mass of the particles.
Maxwell Distribution
As a next step we need to find the distribution of molecular velocities, so that we can find how many molecules can be expected to be traveling faster than the escape velocity. This is given by the Maxwell distribution8, the equation for which is:-
Results are shown for this function in figure 2. We have shown distribution curves for atomic hydrogen, atomic oxygen, and helium at 1500 K.
Figure 2. Curve showing relative probability of molecules having any given speed.
The most probable speed9 is given by the equation:
Although the formula for the Maxwell distribution looks complicated, it will be seen that the only variable in it is the square of the most probable speed. In other words, given a most probable speed, the probability curve is completely defined. And the area under the curve is unity. This means that if two distributions are displayed, and the most probable speed for B is twice that for A, then B will have exactly twice the spread of A, and half the height.
Now the plot shown in the skeptics’ article, which is shown as figure 3, is misleading in several ways. Most importantly, no units are shown on the x axis. (It is reasonable for there to be no y axis units). Clearly units should be shown for the plot to have any meaning, and so that we can compare against the known escape velocity. A curve is shown dashed, which purports to be at a somewhat higher temperature, but there is no indication of how much higher. If the most probable speed is doubled for the higher temperature, as seems to be the case, then it must be at four times the absolute temperature, i.e. If the solid curve represents 1500 K, then the dashed curve is for 6000 K.
Figure 3. Supposed Maxwell distribution given in Skeptic’s publication.
It is also misleading to group hydrogen and helium as being similar, and in a contrasting class to oxygen and nitrogen. In fact, helium is placed as a geometric mean in between hydrogen and oxygen, in the sense that the most probable speed for helium is twice that for oxygen, and half that for hydrogen, as shown in table 2. (This is because the square roots of their molecular weights are in the ratio of 1:2:4).
Table 2 also shows the molecular density of the most common gases at the exobase.10
Molecule Density
(m–3) Molecular
Weight (m) vmp
at 1500 K
Atomic Hydrogen (H) 8 x 1010 1 5 km/sec
Helium (He) 2.5 x 1012 4 2.5 km/sec
Atomic Oxygen (O) 2.7 x 1013 16 1.25 km/sec
Atomic Nitrogen (N) 8 x 1011
Nitrogen (N2) 4.4 x 1011
Oxygen (O2) 8 x 109
Argon (Ar) 1 x 107
Table 2. Molecular densities and most probable speeds at the exobase.
Some Qualifications
It will probably be clear at this point that a number of assumptions have been made. This includes the unrealistic assumption that there is a sharp change at the exobase. Walker evaluates this and other approximations: To Walker —
‘The arbitrary nature of the definition of the exobase is not a matter of concern (Jeans, 1925; Chamberlain 1963).’11
But Fahr and Shizgal caution that
‘The rigorous kinetic theory treatment of the transition region from collision-dominated to collisionless flow remains an outstanding objective.’12
‘Chamberlain (1963) has shown that the neglect of collisions occurring above the exobase does not lead to an overestimate of the escape flux.’13
There is also apparently no problem in considering each type of gas molecule independently. That is, as if it was present alone.14
‘A slight overestimate does result from the assumption that the Maxwellian distribution is fully populated in the region from which escape occurs. … The effect has been extensively studied (Hays and Liu, 1965; Chamberlain and Campbell, 1967; Chamberlain, 1969; Brinkmann, 1970, 1971; Chamberlain and Smith, 1971), and it appears that corrections to the expression for the escape flux derived above are generally smaller than 30%.’15
Vardiman doesn’t quite agree:
‘Fahr and Shizgal imply that the rate of actual thermal escape is probably 70-80% of Jeans escape, although some calculations have been made that indicate the actual flux to be as little as 10–20% of the rate of Jeans escape. … In any case, Jeans escape is likely to be an upper limit to the thermal flux.’16
It should also be noted that the Maxwell speed distribution function alone, does not give the full story, as is implied by Ken Smith’s article. For some gases, diffusion is the limiting factor, rather than Jeans escape:
‘Hydrogen, in fact, escapes into space almost as soon as it reaches the level from which escape is possible. The rate of loss of hydrogen is therefore limited to the rate at which hydrogen and its compounds are transported upwards from lower levels.’17
Estimated Helium Loss
To obtain the actual rate of loss of helium, we need to integrate the probability function for all molecules traveling upwards at a speed greater than the escape velocity. This has been done correctly by Walker, and is confirmed by Vardiman.18 The result is clear:
The characteristic time for helium escape at an average exospheric temperature of 1500 K is 60 million years19 or 70 million years20. But the magnitude of the source from the decay of radioactive elements has been estimated by a number of researchers [21 22 23 24 25] as 2 x 106 cm-2 sec-1. By dividing this flux into the column density of helium in the atmosphere (1.1 x 1020 cm-2)we obtain a residence time for helium of 2 million years, much less than the characteristic escape time.
‘This result implies that the rate of Jeans escape at 1500 K is much smaller than the crustal source of helium. Since 1500 K is well above the average temperature of the exosphere, there appears to be a problem with the helium budget of the atmosphere.’26
Walker realizes that the influx of helium into the atmosphere vastly outweighs the loss to space by means of Jeans escape. But he is not happy with this result and immediately sets out to suggest various mechanisms that could perhaps account for this obvious problem with orthodox evolutionary science.
Other Loss Mechanisms
‘MacDonald (1963, 1964) has evaluated the escape flux averaged over an entire 11-year cycle of solar activity, using satellite data on exospheric temperature. He finds an average escape flux of 6 x 104 cm-2sec–1, a factor of 30 less than the source. It is still possible, nevertheless, that the bulk of escape occurs during infrequent periods of unusually high temperature (Spitzer, 1949; Hunten 1973). Hunten has pointed out that if the temperature were to exceed 2000 K, diffusion would become the limiting process and the escape flux would be equal to the limiting flux, about 108 cm-2sec–1. To provide an average loss rate of 2 x 106 cm–2sec–1, these hot episodes would therefore have to occupy about 2% of the time.’27
Such hot episodes would dispose of the helium, but note that they have not been observed.
In figure 4 we show how the speed distribution for helium varies with temperature (1000–2000 K). Although there doesn’t appear to be a significant increase in the area under the tail of the curve above 10.75 km/s at 2000 K, it is apparently enough to make a difference. However—
‘The average global exospheric temperature is 1037 K for average solar flux and magnetically quiet conditions.’28
There is the process of photochemical escape, which seems to be significant on Mars but not on earth.
‘An alternative possibility is that there is a loss process for helium in addition to Jeans escape. Mechanisms other than Jeans escape have been proposed for the escape of gases from planetary atmospheres (Cole, 1966; Axford, 1968; Michel, 1971; Sheldon and Kern, 1972; Torr et al., 1974; Liu and Donahue, 1974a,b). Most of these are speculative and of undetermined evolutionary significance.’29
In this section we have referenced 11 papers in technical publications involving 13 different authors, who are trying to explain the ‘discrepancy’ in the ‘helium budget.’ Perhaps, they haven’t even considered the possibility that there is no problem with the helium figures because the earth is just not 4.5 billion years old.
Conclusion
It certainly seems that the creationist position is correct, on the basis of the latest observational evidence. As Chamberlain and Hunten admitted30 as recently as 1987, the helium escape problem ‘will not go away, and it is unsolved.’
This is a subject area which creationists will need to monitor closely. Quite complex calculations are involved, and data is needed from several disciplines, so there exists the possibility that authors may try to force results to fit their preconceived ideas. Therefore, if you are interested in this subject, it would be worthwhile obtaining the book by Larry Vardiman, which looks at this subject a lot more thoroughly than we have done here.
Acknowledgments
The Maxwell distribution curves were produced using the gnuplot software.
The book by Larry Vardiman was very helpful to me, particularly with his Bibliography of scientists who admit there is a problem.
David Malcolm has a Masters Degree in Engineering and works as a Computer Systems Officer for the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Newcastle, Australia. (in 1994). Return to top
Appendix: Symbols and Constants
Meaning Symbol Value
Avogadro’s number NA 6.022 x 1023 mol-1
Boltzman’s constant k 1.381 x 10-23 JK-1
Earth radius r 6370 km
Earth mass M 5.9742 x 1024 kg
Gravitational constant G 6.672 x 10-11 m3kg-1s-2
Molecular weight m
Temperature T K
Escape velocity ve
Most probable speed vmp
Sample
So that readers can check on the mathematics, we give here a sample calculation. Evaluating the most probable speed for helium at 1500 K:
References
Cook, M. A. 1957. Where is the Earth’s radiogenic helium? Nature 179:213. Return to text
Smith, K., 1986. Where is the Earth’s radiogenic helium. In: Creationism: An Australian Perspecive, M. Bridgstock and K. Smith (eds), The Australian Skeptics, Melbourne, pp. 20-21. Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York). Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 151 Return to text
Szebehely, V. G. 1989. Adventures in Celestial Mechanics (University of Texas Press), pp. 59,65 Return to text
Vardiman, L. 1990. The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere (Institute for Creation Research, San Diego). p. 13 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 155 Return to text
Riedi, P. C. 1988. Thermal Physics (Oxford Uni. Press). p. 177 Return to text
Riedi, P. C. 1988. Thermal Physics (Oxford Uni. Press). p. 177 Return to text
COSPAR, 1988. COSPAR International Reference Atmosphere: 1986, Part I: Thermosphere Models (Pergamon Press, Great Britain), p. 153 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 153 Return to text
Fahr, H.J. and B. Shizgal 1983. Modern exospheric theories and their observational relevance. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 21, 75–124. p. 118 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 153 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), pp. 153–154 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 153 Return to text
Vardiman, L. 1990. The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere (Institute for Creation Research, San Diego), p. 23 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 145 Return to text
Vardiman, L. 1990. The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere (Institute for Creation Research, San Diego), pp. 19–24 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 171 Return to text
Vardiman, L. 1990. The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere (Institute for Creation Research, San Diego), p. 23 Return to text
MacDonald, G. J. F. 1963. The escape of helium from the earth’s atmosphere. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 1:305–349. Return to text
MacDonald, G. J. F. 1964. The escape of helium from the earth’s atmosphere. In P. J. Brancazio and A. G. W. Cameron, eds., The Origins and Evolution of Atmospheres and Oceans, (John Wiley and Sons, New York), pp. 127–182. Return to text
Turekian, K. K. 1964. Degasssing of argon and helium from the earth. In P. J. Brancazio and A. G. W. Cameron, eds., The Origin and Evolution of Atmospheres and Oceans (John Wiley and Sons, New York), pp. 74–85. Return to text
Axford, W. I. 1968. The polar wind and the terrestrial helium budget. Journal of Geophysical Research 73:6855–6859. Return to text
Craig, H. and W. B. Clarke 1970. Oceanic 3He: Contribution from cosmogenic tritium. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 10:289–296. Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 171 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 172 Return to text
COSPAR, 1988. COSPAR International Reference Atmosphere: 1986, Part I: Thermosphere Models (Pergamon Press, Great Britain), p11 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 172 Return to text
Chamberlain, J. W. and D. M. Hunten 1987. Theory of Planetary Atmospheres, 2nd Ed. (Academic Press), p. 372 Return to text
Bibliography
AXFORD, W. I. (1968): The polar wind and the terrestrial helium budget. Journal of Geophysical Research 73:6855–6859.
BRINKMANN, R. T. (1970): Departures from Jeans escape rate for H and He in the Earth’s atmosphere. Planetary and Space Science 18:449–478.
BRINKMANN, R. T. (1971): More comments on the validity of Jeans escape rate. Planetary and Space Science 19:791–794.
CHAMBERLAIN, J. W. (1963): Planetary coronae and atmospheric evaporation. Planetary and Space Science 11:901–960.
CHAMBERLAIN, J. W. (1969): Escape rate of hydrogen from a carbon dioxide atmosphere. Astrophysical Journal 155:711–714.
CHAMBERLAIN, J. W. and F. J. CAMPBELL (1967): Rate of evaporation of a non-Maxwellian atmosphere. Astrophysical Journal 49:687–705.
CHAMBERLAIN, J. W. and G. R. SMITH (1971): Comments on the rate of evaporation of a non-Maxwellian atmosphere. Planetary and Space Science 19:675–684.
COLE, K. D. (1966): Theory of some quiet magnetospheric phenomena related to the geomagnetic tail. Nature, 211, 1385–1387.
HAYS, P. B. and V. C. LIU (1965): On the loss of gases from a planetary atmosphere. Planetary and Space Science 13:1185–1212.
HUNTEN, D. M. (1973): The escape of light gases from planetary atmospheres. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 30:1481–1494.
JEANS, J. H. (1925): The Dynamical Theory of Gases (Cambridge University Press, London).
LIU, S. C. and T. M. DONAHUE (1974a): Mesospheric hydrogen related to exospheric escape mechanisms. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 31:1466–1470.
LIU, S. C. and T. M. DONAHUE (1974b): Realistic model of hydrogen constituents in the lower atmosphere and escape flux from the upper atmosphere. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 2238–2242.
MacDONALD, G. J. F. (1963): The escape of helium from the earth’s atmosphere. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 1:305–349.
MacDONALD, G. J. F. (1964): The escape of helium from the earth’s atmosphere. In P. J. Brancazio and A. G. W. Cameron, eds., The Origins and Evolution of Atmospheres and Oceans, (John Wiley and Sons, New York), pp. 127–182.
MICHEL, F. C. (1971): Solar wind induced mass loss from magnetic field-free planets. Planetary and Space Science 19:1580–1583.
SHELDON, W. R. and J. W. KERN (1972): Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals. Journal of Geophysical Research 77:6194–6201.
SPITZER, L. (1949): The terrestrial atmosphere above 300km. In G. P. Kuiper, ed., The Atmospheres of the Earth and Planets (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago), pp. 211–247.
TORR, M. R., J. C. G. WALKER, and D. G. TORR (1974): Escape of fast oxygen from the atmosphere during geomagnetic storms. Journal of Geophysical Research 79:5267–5271.
And here's my rebuttal:
Helium in the Earth’s Atmosphere
by David Malcolm
http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/helium.asp
Synopsis
Creationists have used the argument that the amount of helium in the earth’s atmosphere indicates a young earth. It was first brought to the public’s attention by Nobel Prize nominee Melvin A. Cook in 1957, when an article was printed in Nature.1 The rate at which helium is entering the atmosphere from radioactive decay is known fairly well; as is the rate at which helium is presently escaping from the atmosphere into interplanetary space.
However, the Australian Skeptics, in their publication Creationism, an Australian Perspective, have printed an article by Ken Smith, suggesting that creationists have not done their homework properly, and are in fact seriously in error with this conclusion.2 This paper is submitted with the aim of correcting the false claims put forward in the Skeptics’ publication. Much of Ken Smith’s article is highly misleading if not simply wrong as we will here attempt to show.
We will explain how the rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere has been obtained. Since the rate of loss is less than the rate at which helium is entering the atmosphere, the evidence does indicate a young age for the earth (of the order of two million years), a result which is well known amongst atmospheric scientists.
Jeans Escape
To understand the mechanism by which helium is known to be escaping from the atmosphere, we can do no better than quote from the reference Walker.3 In fact we will be relying heavily on this source, as he presents a full and fair treatment of the matter.
Ken Smith accuses creationists of relying on obsolete work done before the International Geophysical Year of 1957–58. However, Walker’s book was written in 1977, so both he and almost all his authorities come after 1958.
Figure 1. Diagram of atmosphere.
With reference to figure 1, the mechanism of Jeans escape is as follows:
‘Let us assume that there is a level in the atmosphere, called the critical level or exobase, above which collisions between molecules are so infrequent as to be negligible and below which collisions are sufficiently frequent to maintain a completely isotropic and random distribution of molecular velocities. At or below the exobase, therefore, the velocity distribution of the molecules of a given atmospheric constituent is the Maxwellian distribution. Since collisions are negligible above the exobase, the molecules in this region, called the exosphere, move along ballistic trajectories under the action of the earth’s gravitational field. Some of the upward-moving molecules have velocities sufficiently great to carry them on hyperbolic trajectories away from the earth, into space.’4
The escape velocity can be found from a known formula.5 At the planetary surface the escape velocity is given by —
where G is the universal gravitational constant; and r and M are respectively the radius and mass of the planet.
At an altitude Z, the escape velocity6 will be —
Height Z
(km) Escape Speed
(km/sec)
0
100
200
300
400
500 11.18
11.09
11.01
10.93
10.84
10.75
Table 1. Escape speed is dependent on altitude
Escape velocity figures for the earth are tabulated in table 1, for different altitudes.
Deciding on the height of the exobase is rather difficult because there is actually a transition region. But
‘Let us take a value for the exospheric temperature T=1500 K, which is higher than average, and let us place the exobase at a height of 500km.’7
So particles need to be moving at 10.75 kilometers per second to escape from the earth’s gravitational influence. And this is independent of the mass of the particles.
Maxwell Distribution
As a next step we need to find the distribution of molecular velocities, so that we can find how many molecules can be expected to be traveling faster than the escape velocity. This is given by the Maxwell distribution8, the equation for which is:-
Results are shown for this function in figure 2. We have shown distribution curves for atomic hydrogen, atomic oxygen, and helium at 1500 K.
Figure 2. Curve showing relative probability of molecules having any given speed.
The most probable speed9 is given by the equation:
Although the formula for the Maxwell distribution looks complicated, it will be seen that the only variable in it is the square of the most probable speed. In other words, given a most probable speed, the probability curve is completely defined. And the area under the curve is unity. This means that if two distributions are displayed, and the most probable speed for B is twice that for A, then B will have exactly twice the spread of A, and half the height.
Now the plot shown in the skeptics’ article, which is shown as figure 3, is misleading in several ways. Most importantly, no units are shown on the x axis. (It is reasonable for there to be no y axis units). Clearly units should be shown for the plot to have any meaning, and so that we can compare against the known escape velocity. A curve is shown dashed, which purports to be at a somewhat higher temperature, but there is no indication of how much higher. If the most probable speed is doubled for the higher temperature, as seems to be the case, then it must be at four times the absolute temperature, i.e. If the solid curve represents 1500 K, then the dashed curve is for 6000 K.
Figure 3. Supposed Maxwell distribution given in Skeptic’s publication.
It is also misleading to group hydrogen and helium as being similar, and in a contrasting class to oxygen and nitrogen. In fact, helium is placed as a geometric mean in between hydrogen and oxygen, in the sense that the most probable speed for helium is twice that for oxygen, and half that for hydrogen, as shown in table 2. (This is because the square roots of their molecular weights are in the ratio of 1:2:4).
Table 2 also shows the molecular density of the most common gases at the exobase.10
Molecule Density
(m–3) Molecular
Weight (m) vmp
at 1500 K
Atomic Hydrogen (H) 8 x 1010 1 5 km/sec
Helium (He) 2.5 x 1012 4 2.5 km/sec
Atomic Oxygen (O) 2.7 x 1013 16 1.25 km/sec
Atomic Nitrogen (N) 8 x 1011
Nitrogen (N2) 4.4 x 1011
Oxygen (O2) 8 x 109
Argon (Ar) 1 x 107
Table 2. Molecular densities and most probable speeds at the exobase.
Some Qualifications
It will probably be clear at this point that a number of assumptions have been made. This includes the unrealistic assumption that there is a sharp change at the exobase. Walker evaluates this and other approximations: To Walker —
‘The arbitrary nature of the definition of the exobase is not a matter of concern (Jeans, 1925; Chamberlain 1963).’11
But Fahr and Shizgal caution that
‘The rigorous kinetic theory treatment of the transition region from collision-dominated to collisionless flow remains an outstanding objective.’12
‘Chamberlain (1963) has shown that the neglect of collisions occurring above the exobase does not lead to an overestimate of the escape flux.’13
There is also apparently no problem in considering each type of gas molecule independently. That is, as if it was present alone.14
‘A slight overestimate does result from the assumption that the Maxwellian distribution is fully populated in the region from which escape occurs. … The effect has been extensively studied (Hays and Liu, 1965; Chamberlain and Campbell, 1967; Chamberlain, 1969; Brinkmann, 1970, 1971; Chamberlain and Smith, 1971), and it appears that corrections to the expression for the escape flux derived above are generally smaller than 30%.’15
Vardiman doesn’t quite agree:
‘Fahr and Shizgal imply that the rate of actual thermal escape is probably 70-80% of Jeans escape, although some calculations have been made that indicate the actual flux to be as little as 10–20% of the rate of Jeans escape. … In any case, Jeans escape is likely to be an upper limit to the thermal flux.’16
It should also be noted that the Maxwell speed distribution function alone, does not give the full story, as is implied by Ken Smith’s article. For some gases, diffusion is the limiting factor, rather than Jeans escape:
‘Hydrogen, in fact, escapes into space almost as soon as it reaches the level from which escape is possible. The rate of loss of hydrogen is therefore limited to the rate at which hydrogen and its compounds are transported upwards from lower levels.’17
Estimated Helium Loss
To obtain the actual rate of loss of helium, we need to integrate the probability function for all molecules traveling upwards at a speed greater than the escape velocity. This has been done correctly by Walker, and is confirmed by Vardiman.18 The result is clear:
The characteristic time for helium escape at an average exospheric temperature of 1500 K is 60 million years19 or 70 million years20. But the magnitude of the source from the decay of radioactive elements has been estimated by a number of researchers [21 22 23 24 25] as 2 x 106 cm-2 sec-1. By dividing this flux into the column density of helium in the atmosphere (1.1 x 1020 cm-2)we obtain a residence time for helium of 2 million years, much less than the characteristic escape time.
‘This result implies that the rate of Jeans escape at 1500 K is much smaller than the crustal source of helium. Since 1500 K is well above the average temperature of the exosphere, there appears to be a problem with the helium budget of the atmosphere.’26
Walker realizes that the influx of helium into the atmosphere vastly outweighs the loss to space by means of Jeans escape. But he is not happy with this result and immediately sets out to suggest various mechanisms that could perhaps account for this obvious problem with orthodox evolutionary science.
Other Loss Mechanisms
‘MacDonald (1963, 1964) has evaluated the escape flux averaged over an entire 11-year cycle of solar activity, using satellite data on exospheric temperature. He finds an average escape flux of 6 x 104 cm-2sec–1, a factor of 30 less than the source. It is still possible, nevertheless, that the bulk of escape occurs during infrequent periods of unusually high temperature (Spitzer, 1949; Hunten 1973). Hunten has pointed out that if the temperature were to exceed 2000 K, diffusion would become the limiting process and the escape flux would be equal to the limiting flux, about 108 cm-2sec–1. To provide an average loss rate of 2 x 106 cm–2sec–1, these hot episodes would therefore have to occupy about 2% of the time.’27
Such hot episodes would dispose of the helium, but note that they have not been observed.
In figure 4 we show how the speed distribution for helium varies with temperature (1000–2000 K). Although there doesn’t appear to be a significant increase in the area under the tail of the curve above 10.75 km/s at 2000 K, it is apparently enough to make a difference. However—
‘The average global exospheric temperature is 1037 K for average solar flux and magnetically quiet conditions.’28
There is the process of photochemical escape, which seems to be significant on Mars but not on earth.
‘An alternative possibility is that there is a loss process for helium in addition to Jeans escape. Mechanisms other than Jeans escape have been proposed for the escape of gases from planetary atmospheres (Cole, 1966; Axford, 1968; Michel, 1971; Sheldon and Kern, 1972; Torr et al., 1974; Liu and Donahue, 1974a,b). Most of these are speculative and of undetermined evolutionary significance.’29
In this section we have referenced 11 papers in technical publications involving 13 different authors, who are trying to explain the ‘discrepancy’ in the ‘helium budget.’ Perhaps, they haven’t even considered the possibility that there is no problem with the helium figures because the earth is just not 4.5 billion years old.
Conclusion
It certainly seems that the creationist position is correct, on the basis of the latest observational evidence. As Chamberlain and Hunten admitted30 as recently as 1987, the helium escape problem ‘will not go away, and it is unsolved.’
This is a subject area which creationists will need to monitor closely. Quite complex calculations are involved, and data is needed from several disciplines, so there exists the possibility that authors may try to force results to fit their preconceived ideas. Therefore, if you are interested in this subject, it would be worthwhile obtaining the book by Larry Vardiman, which looks at this subject a lot more thoroughly than we have done here.
Acknowledgments
The Maxwell distribution curves were produced using the gnuplot software.
The book by Larry Vardiman was very helpful to me, particularly with his Bibliography of scientists who admit there is a problem.
David Malcolm has a Masters Degree in Engineering and works as a Computer Systems Officer for the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Newcastle, Australia. (in 1994). Return to top
Appendix: Symbols and Constants
Meaning Symbol Value
Avogadro’s number NA 6.022 x 1023 mol-1
Boltzman’s constant k 1.381 x 10-23 JK-1
Earth radius r 6370 km
Earth mass M 5.9742 x 1024 kg
Gravitational constant G 6.672 x 10-11 m3kg-1s-2
Molecular weight m
Temperature T K
Escape velocity ve
Most probable speed vmp
Sample
So that readers can check on the mathematics, we give here a sample calculation. Evaluating the most probable speed for helium at 1500 K:
References
Cook, M. A. 1957. Where is the Earth’s radiogenic helium? Nature 179:213. Return to text
Smith, K., 1986. Where is the Earth’s radiogenic helium. In: Creationism: An Australian Perspecive, M. Bridgstock and K. Smith (eds), The Australian Skeptics, Melbourne, pp. 20-21. Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York). Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 151 Return to text
Szebehely, V. G. 1989. Adventures in Celestial Mechanics (University of Texas Press), pp. 59,65 Return to text
Vardiman, L. 1990. The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere (Institute for Creation Research, San Diego). p. 13 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 155 Return to text
Riedi, P. C. 1988. Thermal Physics (Oxford Uni. Press). p. 177 Return to text
Riedi, P. C. 1988. Thermal Physics (Oxford Uni. Press). p. 177 Return to text
COSPAR, 1988. COSPAR International Reference Atmosphere: 1986, Part I: Thermosphere Models (Pergamon Press, Great Britain), p. 153 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 153 Return to text
Fahr, H.J. and B. Shizgal 1983. Modern exospheric theories and their observational relevance. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 21, 75–124. p. 118 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 153 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), pp. 153–154 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 153 Return to text
Vardiman, L. 1990. The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere (Institute for Creation Research, San Diego), p. 23 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 145 Return to text
Vardiman, L. 1990. The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere (Institute for Creation Research, San Diego), pp. 19–24 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 171 Return to text
Vardiman, L. 1990. The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere (Institute for Creation Research, San Diego), p. 23 Return to text
MacDonald, G. J. F. 1963. The escape of helium from the earth’s atmosphere. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 1:305–349. Return to text
MacDonald, G. J. F. 1964. The escape of helium from the earth’s atmosphere. In P. J. Brancazio and A. G. W. Cameron, eds., The Origins and Evolution of Atmospheres and Oceans, (John Wiley and Sons, New York), pp. 127–182. Return to text
Turekian, K. K. 1964. Degasssing of argon and helium from the earth. In P. J. Brancazio and A. G. W. Cameron, eds., The Origin and Evolution of Atmospheres and Oceans (John Wiley and Sons, New York), pp. 74–85. Return to text
Axford, W. I. 1968. The polar wind and the terrestrial helium budget. Journal of Geophysical Research 73:6855–6859. Return to text
Craig, H. and W. B. Clarke 1970. Oceanic 3He: Contribution from cosmogenic tritium. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 10:289–296. Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 171 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 172 Return to text
COSPAR, 1988. COSPAR International Reference Atmosphere: 1986, Part I: Thermosphere Models (Pergamon Press, Great Britain), p11 Return to text
Walker, J. C. G. 1977. Evolution of the Atmosphere (Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York), p. 172 Return to text
Chamberlain, J. W. and D. M. Hunten 1987. Theory of Planetary Atmospheres, 2nd Ed. (Academic Press), p. 372 Return to text
Bibliography
AXFORD, W. I. (1968): The polar wind and the terrestrial helium budget. Journal of Geophysical Research 73:6855–6859.
BRINKMANN, R. T. (1970): Departures from Jeans escape rate for H and He in the Earth’s atmosphere. Planetary and Space Science 18:449–478.
BRINKMANN, R. T. (1971): More comments on the validity of Jeans escape rate. Planetary and Space Science 19:791–794.
CHAMBERLAIN, J. W. (1963): Planetary coronae and atmospheric evaporation. Planetary and Space Science 11:901–960.
CHAMBERLAIN, J. W. (1969): Escape rate of hydrogen from a carbon dioxide atmosphere. Astrophysical Journal 155:711–714.
CHAMBERLAIN, J. W. and F. J. CAMPBELL (1967): Rate of evaporation of a non-Maxwellian atmosphere. Astrophysical Journal 49:687–705.
CHAMBERLAIN, J. W. and G. R. SMITH (1971): Comments on the rate of evaporation of a non-Maxwellian atmosphere. Planetary and Space Science 19:675–684.
COLE, K. D. (1966): Theory of some quiet magnetospheric phenomena related to the geomagnetic tail. Nature, 211, 1385–1387.
HAYS, P. B. and V. C. LIU (1965): On the loss of gases from a planetary atmosphere. Planetary and Space Science 13:1185–1212.
HUNTEN, D. M. (1973): The escape of light gases from planetary atmospheres. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 30:1481–1494.
JEANS, J. H. (1925): The Dynamical Theory of Gases (Cambridge University Press, London).
LIU, S. C. and T. M. DONAHUE (1974a): Mesospheric hydrogen related to exospheric escape mechanisms. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 31:1466–1470.
LIU, S. C. and T. M. DONAHUE (1974b): Realistic model of hydrogen constituents in the lower atmosphere and escape flux from the upper atmosphere. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 2238–2242.
MacDONALD, G. J. F. (1963): The escape of helium from the earth’s atmosphere. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 1:305–349.
MacDONALD, G. J. F. (1964): The escape of helium from the earth’s atmosphere. In P. J. Brancazio and A. G. W. Cameron, eds., The Origins and Evolution of Atmospheres and Oceans, (John Wiley and Sons, New York), pp. 127–182.
MICHEL, F. C. (1971): Solar wind induced mass loss from magnetic field-free planets. Planetary and Space Science 19:1580–1583.
SHELDON, W. R. and J. W. KERN (1972): Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals. Journal of Geophysical Research 77:6194–6201.
SPITZER, L. (1949): The terrestrial atmosphere above 300km. In G. P. Kuiper, ed., The Atmospheres of the Earth and Planets (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago), pp. 211–247.
TORR, M. R., J. C. G. WALKER, and D. G. TORR (1974): Escape of fast oxygen from the atmosphere during geomagnetic storms. Journal of Geophysical Research 79:5267–5271.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Take your pick from any one of these:
Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14
The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15
Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17
The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.19
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp
Evidence for a young world
Actually, 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them:
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived.14
The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn’t be more than about 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the flood year and fluctuations shortly after just caused the field energy to drop even faster.15
Helium is pouring into the atmosphere from radioactive decay, but not much is escaping. But the total amount in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it couldn’t have had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.16
A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 2) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic clouds. This is just what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.17
The moon is slowly receding from earth at about 1-1/2 inches (4cm) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon—not the actual age. This is far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks).18
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the seas could not be more than 62 million years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.19
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Only in your own skewed mind am I giving ground up. First off, you're the person who post articles that contradict each other, which is it Fossten,is the Earth only 6k years old or is it older? Second, Carbon Dating is but one way to measure the passing of time.
SCIENTIFIC AGE OF THE EARTH
by G. Brent Dalrymple
Before analyzing the arguments advanced by creation “scientists” for a very young Earth, I here summarize briefly the evidence that has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.
There can be no doubt about the Earth’s antiquity; the evidence is abundant, conclusive, and readily available to all who care to examine it. The best evidence is contained in the Earth’s incomplete and complex but accurate stratigraphic record — a record that has been the subject of nearly two centuries of study. Slowly and painstakingly, geologists have assembled this record into the generalized geologic time scale shown in Figure 1. This was done by observing the relative age sequence of rock units in a given area and determining, from stratigraphic relations, which rock units are younger, which are older, and what assemblages of fossils are contained in each unit. Using fossils to correlate from area to area, geologists have been able to work out a relative worldwide order of rock formations and to divide the rock record and geologic time into the eras, periods, and epochs shown in Figure 1. The last modification to the geologic time scale of Figure 1 was in the 1930s, before radiometric dating was fully developed, when the Oligocene Epoch was inserted between the Eocene and the Miocene.
Although early stratigraphers could determine the relative order of rock units and fossils, they could only estimate the lengths of time involved by observing the rates of present geologic processes and comparing the rocks produced by those processes with those preserved in the stratigraphic record. With the development of modern radiometric dating methods in the late 1940s and 1950s, it was possible for the first time not only to measure the lengths of the eras, periods, and epochs but also to check the relative order of these geologic time units. Radiometric dating verified that the relative time scale determined by stratigraphers and paleontologists (Figure 1) is absolutely correct, a result that could only have been obtained if both the relative time scale and radiometric dating methods were correct.
The abundance and variety of fossils in Phanerozoic rocks have allowed geologists to decipher in considerable detail the past 600 million years or so of the Earth’s history. In Precambrian rocks, however, fossils are rare; thus, the geologic record of this important part of the Earth’s history has been especially difficult to decipher. Nonetheless, stratigraphy and radiometric dating of Precambrian rocks have clearly demonstrated that the history of the Earth extends billions of years into the past.
Radiometric dating has not been applied to just a few selected rocks from the geologic record. Literally many tens of thousands of radiometric age measurements are documented in the scientific literature. Since beginning operation in the early 1960s, the Geochronology laboratories of the U. S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, have alone produced more than 20,000 K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and 14C ages. Add to this number the age measurements made by from 50 to 100 other laboratories worldwide, and it is easy to see that the number of radiometric ages produced over the past two to three decades and published in the scientific literature must easily exceed 100,000. Taken as a whole, these data clearly prove that the Earth’s history extends backward from the present to at least 3.8 billion years into the past.
A particularly fascinating question about the history of the Earth is “When did the Earth begin?” The answer to this question was provided by radiometric dating and is now known to within a few percent.
Three basic approaches are used to determine the age of the Earth. The first is to search for and date the oldest rocks exposed on the surface of the Earth. These oldest rocks are metamorphic rocks with earlier but now erased histories, so the ages obtained in this way are minimum ages for the Earth. Because the Earth formed as part of the Solar System, a second approach is to date extraterrestrial objects, i.e., meteorites and samples from the Moon. Many of these samples have not had so intense nor so complex histories as the oldest Earth rocks, and they commonly record events nearer or equal to the time of formation of the planets. The third approach, and the one that scientists think gives the most accurate age for the Earth, the other planets, and the Solar System, is to determine model lead ages for the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites. This method is thought to represent the time when lead isotopes were last homogeneously distributed throughout the Solar System and, thus, the time that the planetary bodies were segregated into discrete chemical systems. The results from these methods indicate that the Earth, meteorites, the Moon, and, by inference, the entire Solar System are 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old.
Before reviewing briefly the evidence for the age of the Earth, I emphasize that the formation of the Solar System and the Earth was not an instantaneous event but occurred over a finite period as a result of processes set in motion when the universe formed. It is, therefore, more correct to talk about formational intervals rather than discrete ages for the Solar System and the Earth. Present evidence indicates, however, that these intervals were rather short (100-200 million years) in comparison with the length of time that has elapsed since the Solar System formed some 4 to 5 billion years ago. Thus, the ages of the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites as measured by different methods represent slightly different events, although the differences in these ages are generally slight, and so, for the purposes of this chapter they are here treated as a single event.
THE EARTH’S OLDEST ROCKS
All the major continents contain a core of very old rocks fringed by younger rocks. These cores, called Precambrian shields, are all that remain of the Earth’s oldest crust. The rocks in these shields are mostly metamorphic, meaning they have been changed from other rocks into their present form by great heat and pressure beneath the surface; most have been through more than one metamorphism and have had very complex histories. A metamorphic event may change the apparent radiometric age of a rock. Most commonly, the event causes partial or total loss of the radiogenic daughter isotope, resulting in a reduced age. Not all metamorphisms completely erase the radiometric record of a rock’s age, although many do. Thus, the radiometric ages obtained from these oldest rocks are not necessarily the age of the first event in the history of the rock. Moreover, many of the oldest dated rocks intrude still older but undatable rocks. In all cases, the measured ages provide only a minimum age for the Earth.
So far, rocks older than 3.0 billion years have been found in North America, India, Russia, Greenland, Australia, and Africa. The oldest rocks in North America, found in Minnesota, give a U-Pb discordia age of 3.56 billion years (Figure 5). The oldest rocks yet found on the Earth are in Greenland, South Africa, and India. The Greenland samples have been especially well studied. The Amitsoq Gneisses in western Greenland, for example, have been dated by five different methods (Table 6); within the analytical uncertainties, the ages are the same and indicate that these rocks are about 3.7 billion years old.
Table 6: Radiometric Ages on the Amitsoq Gneisses, Western Greenland. Data from Baadsgaard (10), Moorbath et al. (89), Pettingill and Patchett (106) weighted mean age 3.67 ± 0.06
Method Age (billion years)
Rb - Sr isochron 3.70 ± 0.14
Lu - Hf isochron 3.55 ± 0.22
Pb - Pb isochron 3.80 ± 0.12
U - Pb discordia 3.65 ± 0.05
Th - Pb discordia 3.65 ± 0.08
Whole-rock samples from the Sand River Gneisses in the Limpopo Valley, South Africa, have been dated by the Rb-Sr isochron method at 3.79 ± 0.06 billion years (15). These samples are from rocks that contain inclusions of still older but as yet undatable rocks. Recently, Basu and others (16) reported a nine-sample Sm-Nd isochron age of 3.78 ± 0.11 billion years for rocks in eastern India.
Studies of the oldest rocks from the Precambrian shields show that the Earth is older than 3.8 billion years. The geology of these oldest rocks also indicates that there was a substantial period of history of the Earth before 3.8 billion years ago for which no datable geological record now exists. There are several possible reasons for the apparent absence of this earliest record. One reason is that during that period of Earth’s history not only was the first continental crust forming, but it was also being vigorously recycled and regenerated. A second reason is that the Moon and, by inference, the Earth, were subjected to intense bombardment by large meteorites from the time of their initial formation to about 3.8 billion years ago; this bombardment occurred because the Earth was still sweeping up material in its orbital path. A third reason may be that the record of the Earth’s early history exists somewhere but simply has not yet been found. The correct reason for the absence of data may well be some combination of the above. Whatever the reasons, if we are to learn more about the Earth’s history before 3.8 billion years ago, we must examine the evidence obtained from other, older sources, particularly meteorites and the Moon.
AGES OF METEORITES
Rest of the article here... It's long.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html
Dereck
Well-Known LVC Member
Hi Fossten & 95DeVilleNS
I don't think I have the intellectual prowess or knowledge of the subject to argue with you guys but what I do know is;
I am here now and that is all that matters, I don't care where I came from or how I got here and do not care where I am going, I am just enjoying the ride
Take care guys, I want a clean fight, no punching bellow the belt.
Dereck
I don't think I have the intellectual prowess or knowledge of the subject to argue with you guys but what I do know is;
I am here now and that is all that matters, I don't care where I came from or how I got here and do not care where I am going, I am just enjoying the ride
Take care guys, I want a clean fight, no punching bellow the belt.
Dereck
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
LOL, excuse me, I am not used to copy and pasting like you are. It was an accident that I left the authors name out.
Here is the guys name: Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
Link to article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/appendixc.html
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Dereck said:Hi Fossten & 95DeVilleNS
I don't think I have the intellectual prowess or knowledge of the subject to argue with you guys but what I do know is;
I am here now and that is all that matters, I don't care where I came from or how I got here and do not care where I am going, I am just enjoying the ride
Take care guys, I want a clean fight, no punching bellow the belt.
Dereck
That makes three of us, all we're doing is copy&pasting others work and then seeing what makes more logical sense.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Disproved.
Schweitzer et al. did not find hemoglobin or red blood cells. Rather, they found evidence of degraded hemoglobin fragments and structures that might represent altered blood remnants. They emphasizd repeatedly that even those results were tentative, that the chemicals and structures may be from geological processes and contamination (Schweitzer and Horner 1999; Schweitzer and Staedter 1997; Schweitzer et al. 1997a, 1997b). The bone is exceptionally well preserved, so much so that it may contain some organic material from the original dinosaur, but the preservation should not be exaggerated.
The bone that Schweitzer and her colleagues studied was fossilized, but it was not altered by "permineralization or other diagenetic effects" (Schweitzer et al. 1997b). Permineralization is the filling of the bone's open parts with minerals; diagenetic effects include alterations like cracking. Schweitzer commented that the bone was "not completely fossilized" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997, 35), but lack of permineralization does not mean unfossilized.
An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino racemization dating technique.
Soft tissues have been found on fossils tens of thousands of years old, and DNA has been recovered from samples more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, recovering DNA and non-bone tissues from them should be routine enough that it would not be news.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html
fossten said:
Disproved...
The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).
Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.
T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth's interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser's dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.
Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.
Links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html &
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
fossten said:
Disproved...
Subsurface pressure and temperature conditions affect how quickly the helium diffuses out of zircons. D. R. Humphreys et al. selected a rock core sample from the Fenton Hill site, which Los Alamos National Laboratory evaluated in the 1970s for geothermal energy production. The area is within a few kilometers of the Valles Caldera, which has gone through several periods of faulting and volcanism. The rocks of the Fenton Hill core have been fractured, brecciated, and intruded by hydrothermal veins. Excess helium is present in the rocks of the Valles Caldera (Goff and Gardner 1994). The helium may have contaminated the gneiss that Humphreys et al. studied. In short, the entire region has had a very complex thermal history. Based on oil industry experience, it is essentially impossible to make accurate statements about the helium-diffusion history of such a system.
Rest of it here...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html &
http://www.google.com/custom?q=Helium+decay&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org
fossten said:
Claim disproved by the science community...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/sarfati.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/snrfab.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/
fossten said:
Disproved...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
fossten said:
Austin and Humphreys greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omit sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omit numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt.
A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html &
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html
There, I picked them all.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Tree ring dating disproved.
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.
by Don Batten, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does modern radiometric dating prove billions of years? See why the answer is a definite NO!
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
John Woodmorappe
A masterful demonstration of the fallacy of radioactive dating assumptions and techniques with citations of almost 500 articles by evolutionists. A solid refutation of the belief that radiometric dating proves the Earth is old.
118 pages. (Sr. High School–Adult)
PURCHASE ONLINE!
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straight-forward approach to Biblical chronology.
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion. Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’ — see my article Ligers and wholphins? What next?.
Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.
Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.
Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Answers Book, chapter 4).
The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood match well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be ‘incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 ‘age’). So the carbon ‘date’ is used to constrain just which match is acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system.2
The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl,3 the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confidant of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.
Conclusion
Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates, as has been claimed.
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology)
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.
by Don Batten, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does modern radiometric dating prove billions of years? See why the answer is a definite NO!
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
John Woodmorappe
A masterful demonstration of the fallacy of radioactive dating assumptions and techniques with citations of almost 500 articles by evolutionists. A solid refutation of the belief that radiometric dating proves the Earth is old.
118 pages. (Sr. High School–Adult)
PURCHASE ONLINE!
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straight-forward approach to Biblical chronology.
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion. Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’ — see my article Ligers and wholphins? What next?.
Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.
Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.
Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Answers Book, chapter 4).
The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood match well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be ‘incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 ‘age’). So the carbon ‘date’ is used to constrain just which match is acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system.2
The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl,3 the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confidant of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.
Conclusion
Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates, as has been claimed.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
First of all, your article cites radiometric dating, which has been thoroughly discredited. Nevertheless:
The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating
by Tas Walker
Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).
However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.
So, how do geologists know how to interpret their radiometric dates and what the ‘correct’ date should be?
Field relationships
A geologist works out the relative age of a rock by carefully studying where the rock is found in the field. The field relationships, as they are called, are of primary importance and all radiometric dates are evaluated against them.
For example, a geologist may examine a cutting where the rocks appear as shown in Figure 1. Here he can see that some curved sedimentary rocks have been cut vertically by a sheet of volcanic rock called a dyke. It is clear that the sedimentary rock was deposited and folded before the dyke was squeezed into place.
Figure 1
Figure 2 Cross-section
By looking at other outcrops in the area, our geologist is able to draw a geological map which records how the rocks are related to each other in the field. From the mapped field relationships, it is a simple matter to work out a geological cross-section and the relative timing of the geologic events. His geological cross-section may look something like Figure 2.
Clearly, Sedimentary Rocks A were deposited and deformed before the Volcanic Dyke intruded them. These were then eroded and Sedimentary Rocks B were deposited.
The geologist may have found some fossils in Sedimentary Rocks A and discovered that they are similar to fossils found in some other rocks in the region. He assumes therefore that Sedimentary Rocks A are the same age as the other rocks in the region, which have already been dated by other geologists. In the same way, by identifying fossils, he may have related Sedimentary Rocks B with some other rocks.
Creationists would generally agree with the above methods and use them in their geological work.
From his research, our evolutionary geologist may have discovered that other geologists believe that Sedimentary Rocks A are 200 million years old and Sedimentary Rocks B are 30 million years old. Thus, he already ‘knows’ that the igneous dyke must be younger than 200 million years and older than 30 million years. (Creationists do not agree with these ages of millions of years because of the assumptions they are based on.2)
Because of his interest in the volcanic dyke, he collects a sample, being careful to select rock that looks fresh and unaltered. On his return, he sends his sample to the laboratory for dating, and after a few weeks receives the lab report.
Let us imagine that the date reported by the lab was 150.7 ± 2.8 million years. Our geologist would be very happy with this result. He would say that the date represents the time when the volcanic lava solidified. Such an interpretation fits nicely into the range of what he already believes the age to be. In fact, he would have been equally happy with any date a bit less than 200 million years or a bit more than 30 million years. They would all have fitted nicely into the field relationships that he had observed and his interpretation of them. The field relationships are generally broad, and a wide range of ‘dates’ can be interpreted as the time when the lava solidified.
What would our geologist have thought if the date from the lab had been greater than 200 million years, say 350.5 ± 4.3 million years? Would he have concluded that the fossil date for the sediments was wrong? Not likely. Would he have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? No. Instead of questioning the method, he would say that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified. He may suggest that the rock contained crystals (called xenocrysts) that formed long before the rock solidified and that these crystals gave an older date.3 He may suggest that some other very old material had contaminated the lava as it passed through the earth. Or he may suggest that the result was due to a characteristic of the lava—that the dyke had inherited an old ‘age’.
The error is not the real error
The convention for reporting dates (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) implies that the calculated date of 200.4 million years is accurate to plus or minus 3.2 million years. In other words, the age should lie between 197.2 million years and 203.6 million years. However, this error is not the real error on the date. It relates only to the accuracy of the measuring equipment in the laboratory. Even different samples of rock collected from the same outcrop would give a larger scatter of results. And, of course, the reported error ignores the huge uncertainties in the assumptions behind the ‘age’ calculation. These include the assumption that decay rates have never changed. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times.1 Creationist physicists point to several lines of evidence that decay rates have been faster in the past, and propose a pulse of accelerated decay during Creation Week, and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year.2
References
Woodmorappe, J., Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory, TJ 15(2):4–6, 2001. Return to text.
Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F., Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Missouri, USA, 2000. Return to text.
What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million years? No problem. Would he query the dating method, the chronometer? No. He would again say that the calculated age did not represent the time when the rock solidified. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the rock had been disturbed by groundwater or weathering.4 Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field.
No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it. He would simply change his assumptions about the history of the rock to explain the result in a plausible way. G. Wasserburg, who received the 1986 Crafoord Prize in Geosciences, said, ‘There are no bad chronometers, only bad interpretations of them!’5 In fact, there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results.
Why use it?
Someone may ask, ‘Why do geologists still use radiometric dating? Wouldn’t they have abandoned the method long ago if it was so unreliable?’ Just because the calculated results are not the true ages does not mean that the method is completely useless. The dates calculated are based on the isotopic composition of the rock. And the composition is a characteristic of the molten lava from which the rock solidified. Therefore, rocks in the same area which give similar ‘dates’ are likely to have formed from the same lava at about the same time during the Flood. So, although the assumptions behind the calculation are wrong and the dates are incorrect, there may be a pattern in the results that can help geologists understand the relationships between igneous rocks in a region.
Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years old. The vast age has simply been assumed.2 The calculated radiometric ‘ages’ depend on the assumptions that are made. The results are only accepted if they agree with what is already believed. The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible. And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the Bible to constrain their interpretations of the geological evidence.
What if the rock ages are not ‘known’ in advance—does radio-dating give coherent results?
Recently, I conducted a geological field trip in the Townsville area, North Queensland. A geological guidebook,1 prepared by two geologists, was available from a government department.
The guidebook’s appendix explains ‘geological time and the ages of rocks.’ It describes how geologists use field relationships to determine the relative ages of rocks. It also says that the ‘actual’ ages are measured by radiometric dating—an expensive technique performed in modern laboratories. The guide describes a number of radiometric methods and states that for ‘suitable specimens the errors involved in radiometric dating usually amount to several percent of the age result. Thus … a result of two hundred million years is expected to be quite close (within, say, 4 million) to the true age.’
This gives the impression that radiometric dating is very precise and very reliable—the impression generally held by the public. However, the appendix concludes with this qualification: ‘Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. … if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable’.
This is exactly what our main article explains. Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be.
Townsville geology is dominated by a number of prominent granitic mountains and hills. However, these are isolated from each other, and the area lacks significant sedimentary strata. We therefore cannot determine the field relationships and thus cannot be sure which hills are older and which are younger. In fact, the constraints on the ages are such that there is a very large range possible.
We would expect that radiometric dating, being allegedly so ‘accurate,’ would rescue the situation and provide exact ages for each of these hills. Apparently, this is not so.
Concerning the basement volcanic rocks in the area, the guidebook says, ‘Their exact age remains uncertain.’ About Frederick Peak, a rhyolite ring dyke in the area, it says, ‘Their age of emplacement is not certain.’ And for Castle Hill, a prominent feature in the city of Townsville, the guidebook says, ‘The age of the granite is unconfirmed.’
No doubt, radiometric dating has been carried out and precise ‘dates’ have been obtained. It seems they have not been accepted because they were not meaningful.
Reference
Trezise, D.L. and Stephenson, P.J., Rocks and landscapes of the Townsville district, Department of Resource Industries, Queensland, 1990. Return to text.
References and notes
In addition to other unprovable assumptions, e.g. that the decay rate has never changed. Return to text. Return to text.
Evolutionary geologists believe that the rocks are millions of years old because they assume they were formed very slowly. They have worked out their geologic timescale based on this assumption. This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very quickly. Return to text.
This argument was used against creationist work that exposed problems with radiometric dating. Laboratory tests on rock formed from the 1980 eruption of Mt St Helens gave ‘ages’ of millions of years. Critics claimed that ‘old’ crystals contained in the rock contaminated the result. However, careful measurements by Dr Steve Austin showed this criticism to be wrong. See Swenson, K., Radio-dating in rubble, Creation 23(3):23–25, 2001. Return to text.
This argument was used against creationist work done on a piece of wood found in sandstone near Sydney, Australia, that was supposed to be 230 million years old. Critics claimed that the carbon-14 results were ‘too young’ because the wood had been contaminated by weathering. However, careful measurements of the carbon-13 isotope refuted this criticism. See Snelling, A.A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone, Creation 21(3):39–41, 1999. Return to text.
Wasserburg, G.J., Isotopic abundances: inferences on solar system and planetary evolution, Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters 86:129–173, 150, 1987. Return to text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAS WALKER, B.Sc.(Hons) [geology], B.Eng.(Hons), Ph.D., worked in power station design and operation, and the geological assessment of coal deposits. He works full-time researching and speaking for Answers in Genesis in Australia.
http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/radiometric.asp
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You should really read before you post. This snip shows a loss of salt per year. According to this, after billions of years, the entire ocean should be freshwater. And the error measurement isn't small, either. Maybe somebody should go behind him and check HIS math.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
You know what dude, I think I am done; all we're doing is copy/pasting and eating up massive amounts of web-space. Believe your 'science' if you like, it's no consequence to me. I do have one question though, which you failed to answer the three times I have asked it. Is the earth only 6,000 years old (Biblical) or it is far older? The people you used to back up your claims do not agree even with each other.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Huh? Did you miss the part where it said "the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed"?