This Day In History

Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]

Rock of Ages or Rock of Creation?

Video by Institute for Creation Research
Featuring Dr. Larry Vardiman
Review Copyright 2005 epicidiot.com

See also

• How Old is the Earth?
• RATE - Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth
• Young Earth Evidence
• Discussion Group Age of the Earth
• Age of the Earth - A Christian Perspective

Contents

• Overview - What is this video all about?
• RATE Project
• Helium Diffusion Rates
• Radiohalo Studies
• Isochron Discordance
• Carbon 14
• Accelerated Decay
• Morphological Word Study of the Biblel
• Conclusions - What conclusions did EpicIdiot come to?
• Viewer Feedback - What did viewers think of this article?

Overview

This video is part of the RATE project.  It describes the goals, research, and results of this Young Earth Creationist project.  Other RATE videos reviewed include Radioisotopes & the Age of The Earth

Young Earth View

RATE Project

Dr. Vardiman begins by discussing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project.  See RATE and the review for the video Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth for more information on this project.

RATE deals with the "Age Issue"

• Evolution requires long periods of time
• Some Christians have accepted evolution
• Effect is to degrade the reliability of scripture
• Is the earth really old?

and "Assumptions of Radioisotope Dating"

• No initial concentration of daughter element (lead)
• Decay rate is constant
• Closed System (no leaching or addition of parent or daughter elements)

Vardiman acknowledges that there is a lot of evidence that large amounts of daughter element, in particular lead, has been produced.  This are two possible explanations:

• Lead was produced over long periods of time (Old Earth Model).
• Lead was produced over a short period of time at an accelerated rate of decay (Young Earth Model).

When U²³⁸ (uranium) decays to Pb²⁰⁶ (lead) via alpha decay it produces a nucleus of two protons and two neutrons which is basically the nucleus of a helium atom without the electrons.  This produces a fission track.  The nucleus eventually slows down and captures electrons to become helium, thus leaving helium in the rocks.  There are lots of fission tracks where the lead is located.  There are also radiohalos.  Radiohalos are also the result of damage produced by alpha particles emitting from the uranium atom.  These provide evidence for a lot of decay.

RATE Hypotheses

• Accelerated decay has occurred during Creation, at the Curse, and during the Flood

Some limitations of this:  If accelerated decay has occurred during Creation, it couldn't have happened after day 3 because there was life on Earth that would have been greatly affected by the decay.  What would accelerated decay do to Adam and Eve if it happened during the curse?  During the flood, the water layer over the Earth could have shielded Noah and his family from nuclear decay occurring in the Earth.  The problem is our bodies contain potassium 40.  If this was also accelerated, then Noah and his family would not have been protected.  However, maybe Noah and family didn't have potassium 40 in their bodies.  Vardiman states that they probably won't solve these problems during the RATE project.

• Some daughter elements may be primordial.

If the Earth started out with lead and helium, this would answer some of the questions.

• Radioactive processes have produced evidence of accelerated decay

This has been confirmed and he would like for the RATE project to be able to describe this over the Earth time frame.

Old Earth View
Critique of this Video

The "Assumptions of Radioisotope Dating" are not mere assumptions.  Much research has been done to verify these "assumptions."  Also, radiometric dating, such as isochron dating, does not require assumptions for the amounts of the initial starting elements.  There is much evidence that decay rates have not changed for the last few billion years.  The consequences of a rate of change great enough to make the Earth only 6,000 years old would be easily noticeable since this would have generated extreme amounts of radioactive energy over a relatively short period of time.  See Radiometric Dating for a more detailed explanation.

For the moment, let's assume that the accelerated decay occurred during the times proposed by RATE.  If the amount of decay, as acknowledged by Vardiman (see here), were to have occurred the amount of heat released would have been tremendous.  Every time a uranium atom decays into a lead atom a specific amount of heat is released.  This is a requirement of the famous equation E=MC^2.  The amount of heat currently released by the radioactive decay is enough to keep the Earth's core molten.  Otherwise it would have cooled long ago. (Lord Kelvin did a nice work up on this).   If the decay rate is accelerated by the factor of 4,500,000,000 necessary to make it happen in the time frame specified by this video (3 days before the fall plus about a year for the Flood), you can just imagine the affect it would have on the Earth.   This clearly didn't happen, because if it did, there would be plenty of evidence showing it. (or actually no evidence since the Earth would likely have evaporated).

This leaves the possibility of primordial daughter elements.  But even this video doesn't offer a possible explanation for how this could occur.  They don't even speculate.

Helium Diffusion Rates

Helium experiments give nuclear evidence for a young world.  Russell Humphreys findings are "1.5 billion years" of nuclear decay occurred between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago.

Tiny zircon crystals in the Earth's continental crust are radioactive.  They contain Uranium and Thorium atoms.  They don't melt during a volcanic eruption because they melt at 800-1000 degrees and the materials coming out of an eruption melt at 500-600 degrees.  These zircons has helium trapped in it.  This helium was produced by the decay of Uranium and Thorium into Lead.

Each time a U238 atom decays to Pb206 eight helium atoms are released.  These small helium atoms then leak out the zircons.  The helium should then make its way to the atmosphere where it leaks slowly into space.  This helium is not found in the atmosphere.  In fact, there is less than 0.04% of the helium in the atmosphere than there should be if the Earth was 4.5 billion years old.  It is still in the rocks.  RATE began experiments in 2000 to determine the helium diffusion rate in zircon.

Give a rock sample that has been dated to 1.5 billion years old, the amount of helium produced during that 1.5 billions years of decay can be calculated   The following table shows the percentage of that helium still remaining in the zircon for samples taken at the specified depths and temperatures.

There measurements show that rate of diffusion meets the Young Earth Model and is a factor 100,000 off of the 4.5 Billion year age.

Russell Humphreys says that the RATE helium diffusion experiments support the young Biblical time scale and is a factor of 100,000 off of the 4.5 Billion year age. The evidence is for an accelerated nuclear decay recently and against uniformitarian nuclear dating.

Zircon diffusion rate data compared with the Creation and Uniformitarian models

Other Supporting Views

• Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
• HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY
• New Rate Data Support a Young World
• Helium Evidence for A Young World Remains Crystal-Clear

Helium Diffusion Rates - Comments

This argument is based on how fast helium gas escapes from the biotite and zircon samples.

The RATE group took helium diffusion measurements in the lab and then applied them to real-world rock samples.  For the lab measurements to have meaning in the real world, then the lab testing environment would have to simulate real-world conditions, such as pressure and temperature.  In RATE papers, they state that the lab work was done in a vacuum.  This is in contrast to the pressures of their rock samples taken from 2,460-14,000 feet with a pressure of 2,900-17,400 psi.  One would expect this to generate an unrealistically high diffusion rate in the lab.  For example, tennis balls are pressurized with gas.  As long as they are stored in their unopened pressurized can, their internal gas diffuses very slowly and they can maintain their pressure for a long time.  However, once you open the can they are exposed to the lower pressure of the atmosphere.  This causes their internal gas then diffuses much more rapidly (thus causing them to lose their bounce in just a few weeks).  The same applies to the helium gas in the zircon crystals.  There is no reason to suspect that the helium is going to diffuse at the same rate in the lab at 0 psi (vacuum) as it does at 10,000 psi in the real world.

Their conclusions are based on applying the helium diffusion rate of rocks in a vacuum to pressurized rocks without any attempt to compensate for the difference in pressures.

This by itself renders their helium diffusion rate argument invalid.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

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. (McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 154).

Vacuums may also decompose minerals (such as biotites and other micas) or open fractures, which would allow helium to more readily escape than under natural subsurface conditions.  Farley (2002, p. 822) warns that laboratory diffusion data must be carefully applied to natural situations:

But wait, there are more problems.

The zircon samples in the lab had been extracted from their surrounding minerals.  These act a barrier that also slows down the helium diffusion.  Again, one should expect the lab results to have a higher diffusion rate then the zircons in their natural environment.

Even Humphreys (the RATE researcher doing this study) states,

"Measurements of noble gas diffusion in a given type of naturally occurring mineral often show significant differences from site to site, caused by variations in composition." (HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY)

Surely if simply coming from two different types of surrounding minerals will cause "significant differences" in the the diffusion rate, then how can you expect a sample that has had the surrounding minerals removed to have the same diffusion rate?  And since he derived his conclusions by applying the diffusion rates of zircons with their surrounding minerals removed to zircons with their surrounding minerals intact, his own statements show that his conclusions are invalid.

Helium includes two major isotopes: ³He and ⁴He. ³He is a product of the Big Bang and nuclear fusion in stars.  Some ³He was trapped within the Earth when our planet formed.  ³He is currently degassing from the Earth's interior.  ⁴He is another product of the Big Bang and stellar fusion.  Additionally, ⁴He may form from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium.  Helium in the zircon crystals is composed primarily of these sources:

1. ³He and ⁴He that is trapped in the crystal when is formed.
2. ³He and ⁴He that rises, due to volcanic and tectonic activity, from the Earth's interior and accumulates in minerals in the upper crust (such as zircons).
3. ⁴He that is a result of the decay of uranium and thorium.

It is interesting to note that the Fenton Hill site is a volcanic site, thereby making the infusion of extraneous (outside) helium (via method 2 above) likely.  This again could lead to excess helium as found in the samples.  Even though there are methods of testing for this excess helium, Humphreys has not published the results of any such test, so one would presume that he either hasn't run the test, or the results of the test were unfavorable.  Until the results of this test are known, then there is no way of knowing for sure if the helium he is measuring is from radioactive decay in the zircon or from surrounding materials.  Therefore, until this basic information is determined, his finding are meaningless.

Other Opposing Views

• Critique of the RATE Group’s Zircon-Helium Diffusion Project
• Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data
• More Faulty Creation Science from The Institute for Creation Research

Radiohalo Studies

This work was done by Andrew A. Snelling, PhD.

Radiohalos were first discovered by Dr. Robert Gentry.

Radiohalos can only be produced in solid rock, therefore the magma has to cool before the radiohalo can be produced.  Polonium has such a short half live that the magma would have to have cooled rapidly.  They believe that this points to the "finger of God" in that these rocks were created during Creation.

Radiohalo Studies

Coming Soon...

Isochron Discordance

This work was done by Steven A. Austin, PhD

Note: The RATE project covers this is greater detail in the video Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth

Discordance Summary Bass Rapids Diabase Sill

Each of these samples should produce the same dates.  However, the samples show varying dates that are outside of the error bounds.

Dr. Snelling is doing work on a slab that they believe was subducted rapidly during the great flood.  During that process materials were mixed and contaminated.  This may help to explain some of the dating problems.

Counter View

Dr. Austin used a method called isochron dating.  For isochron dating to work the data points must be derived from materials which were isotopically homogeneous when the object formed.  In his book "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe," Austin states that his data points came from different lava flows.  This violates this basic rule of isochron dating, thus ensuring that he would get meaningless results.

Also, the scatter from the data that Dr. Austin used suggested that the samples did not meet the requirements of the above homogeneous rule, therefore indicating that the resulting date was probably meaningless.  However, Austin selectively choose data points that fell close to a single line, making it "appear" to be a valid isochron dating.  Since Dr. Austin is a geologist, he should have known that the samples used would not produce a meaningful isochron dating.  In any case, the data showed that it didn't and should not have been used.  And if he wasn't sure, he could have consulted a paper HE WROTE in 1988 which states that this problem is well known and cites references for how to detect it.  Basically it appears that he created a situation that he should have known would fail, and then was surprised by it.

See also Bass Diabase Sill

Carbon 14

Has a short half live of 5,700 years.  Therefore, old rocks should not have any carbon 14 remaining in it, yet carbon 14 is being found in some of these samples.

Carbon 14

Coming Soon...

See Radiometric Dating

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

Theoretical Studies of Accelerated Decay

This work was done by Eugene F. Chaffin, PhD

Chaffin investigated whether or not it was theoretically possible for accelerated decay to occur.  He believes that if the width of nuclear well and height of potential barrier are changed, then the decay rate can be changed by orders of magnitude.  If these changed then the speed of light, Planck's constant, the gravitational constant, etc. would also have to change.  Vardiman says he hasn't proved that this could be done and the best explanation they have is that God may changed these factors.

Theoretical Studies of Accelerated Decay

This hardly deserves refuting, since the best even they can offer is that it is a miracle of God.  And that may be the case, but then why even attempt a scientific explanation if you are going to resort to miracles.  Just call it miraculous intervention and leave it at that.

From What's So Funny About Science?: Cartoons from American Scientist, by Sidney Harris

Show larger image

Morphological Word Study of the Bible

• Statistical comparison of narrative (literal) to poetic (allegorical) passages.
• Frequency of Preterite, Imperfect, and Perfect verb forms.
• Comparison of passages in Exodus 14 and 15, Judges 4 and 5, Genesis 1:1-2:3, and Psalm 104, and the Flood.

He has found highly statistically significant differences between narrative and poetic forms.  This may be a way to determine the difference between the literal and poetic verses in the Bible.

See also the review of the video
Radioisotopes & the Age of The Earth

Viewer Feedback

Add your Comments
Submit a Rebuttal
Submit an Article on another topic