Posted on 05/19/2005 8:32:11 PM PDT by DannyTN
Let's just say I am not holding my breath for this to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (the standard set by the article itself).
If you google "helium-leak age of zircons" you get only a few hits, and only to creationist web sites. I could find more evidence for mind reading or astrology.
Here's a link to some actual research on the subject, unbiased because it isn't in the service of any theory.
You might note that neither the leak rate nor the variables responsible for the rate are known or understood.
http://www.halos.com/reports/grl-1982-helium-in-zircons.pdf
You might also check this out.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
"We all know the answer to this. It would make people know that God is all-knowing and all-powerful."
Would it though? At the level of science it is one thing to disprove the theory of evolution (which is easy because its bad science) and quite another to prove special creation. It is almost impossible to "prove" anything that happened in pre-history.
If there was an alternative materialistic theory of origins, those who are committed to an atheistic world-view would dump evolution and jump onto that before they would acknowledge Almighty God.
The reason why evolutionists are getting so defensive about defending their precious theory is that they do not yet have a viable materialistic alternative to fall back on.
Evolution theory is deadly to man because it is a major obstacle in the way of him returning to God. But as far as tactics are concerned in this ideological battle, I think creationists would be better served by concentrating on destroying the theory of evolution without proposing a specifically theistic alternative.
Our job is to destroy the obstacle - only God can convince people of His truth.
I didn't think you'd be interested in facts, but I was asked for them. You can worship however you like, but I counsel you to beware of frauds. They do not serve God.
Not really. Nonsense is highly valued by children. Check out the Cartoon Channel.
This posting is remarkable for several reasons.
1. The author and poster are dedicated to having a supernatural miracle whenever they need one to reach their conclusions. Heck, with enough miracles, I can explain anything. The latest miracle series is an "accelerated decay event"---somehow radioactive decay rates for dozens of nuclei decide to change, conveniently, just at the "week of creation" and for a week or so "after the flood". So radioactive decay "speeds up" and for "exactly so long a time" in just such a way as to justify a cult interpretation of the Bible. This is deliciously convenient--but not convincing.
What would be the scientific reason for an "accelerated decay event"? If there is no force or mechanism supplied, then it is supernatural. We could just as well assert that little green men did it. Moreover, we could just as well hypothesize a "suppressed diffusion event". I mean, if decay can be interrupted for no apparent reason, then diffusion can equally well be interrupted for no real reason.
2. It is amusing that the author wishes to "assume" that modern scientific techniques are used--without criticism--to show that modern science is wrong! I read a lot of semantics about how a dozen different dating techniques are "wrong", wild-ass speculations about the speed of light, nuclear decay processes, God's interventions to fool us, and all of evolution is wrong. It is very odd how Danny and others try to believe science and use science when it suits them.
3. On the specific issue of "helium diffusion" in zircon, the author displays ignorance. First of all, these crystals--obtained and separated from a rock matrix from a self-described stratum in the local geologic column in which the degree of metamorphism and later heating from nearby Holocene volcanics is quite uncertain--are extremely small, 20-100 microns. 10 microns is 0.01 (1/100) millimeter. This zircon dust is very much smaller than the average grain of sand on a beach.
Hence the surface to volume ratio is very high. There is not a single mention of adsorption. Danny has not done the calculation. And it must be done on the basis of pressure, and the subsequent handling of the samples, which is not reported. Diffusion, osmosis, adsorption, absorption are not one-way streets,
4. Henke raises the essential point--was the helium detected really representative of intrinsic helium within the crystal matrix? Humphreys makes numerous assumptions. There is a clear way to distinguish exo-helium and intrinsic helium, which Humphreys failed to do. Measure the He3/He4 ratios in the original outgassing. The fact that Humphreys did not do this simple test means that he assumes that all Helium is He4 from the U-238 or Thorium decay series. But the recent volcanism (1.2 million years ago--contrary to YEC scenarios) may have added lots of He, both He3 and He4. The fact that Humphreys has ignored this means that his conclusions are suspect.
5. The notion of a "closure temperature" is novel, but ill-defined. Crystals do not open and close like Venus Flytraps. First of all, a serious thermodynamic discussion of diffusion in crystals has to be based on absolute temperature, in Kelvins. Room temperature is ca. 300 K. So a difference between 190 C and 313 C for the samples, is really only 19%. Not much, even by an Arrehenius equation (where Humphreys provides no values).
Humphreys hasn't the slightest idea whether he measured anything of significance. Recording numbers from a meter and making a story from them is not science.
Your desire to label everything related to God as "supernatural" and therefore take it out of the realm of study is noted. However, only God is natural. Everything else is supernatural.
The author believes the radiometric dating of the evolutionists to be in error and has sought out other evidence that contradicts the dates given by radiometric dating.
"The latest miracle series is an "accelerated decay event"---somehow radioactive decay rates for dozens of nuclei decide to change,"
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic." - Authur C. Clark.
That you don't know a way to accelerate decay rates, doesn't mean it can't be done, doesn't mean it hasn't happened, and doesn't mean that it can't be explained by cause and effect.
"If there is no force or mechanism supplied, then it is supernatural."
False premise. Our understanding of physics is woefully incomplete. We are still searching for a unifying theory. We are still experimenting to determine if there are multiple dimensions. To assume that no force or mechanism was supplied is just a stupid assumption on your part.
"Moreover, we could just as well hypothesize a "suppressed diffusion event". I mean, if decay can be interrupted for no apparent reason, then diffusion can equally well be interrupted for no real reason. "
That's a plausible hypothesis for the difference. Determining that there is a difference between diffusion events and decay rates does not necessarily prove the difference is due to decay rate acceleration.
However, if the difference is real, then certainly I'd take the explanation that matches the record of scripture than your hypothesis. Research on how would be required to further validate either hypothesis.
2. It is amusing that the author wishes to "assume" that modern scientific techniques are used--without criticism--to show that modern science is wrong!
False premise. I think he's expecting criticism. In fact this article was a response to criticism.
"It is very odd how Danny and others try to believe science and use science when it suits them. "
I think it's very odd that you just swallow anything that's spoon fed to you if it's labeled science. Didn't they teach you to think critically in grade school?
"Hence the surface to volume ratio is very high. There is not a single mention of adsorption."
This article is Humprheys response to Henke. Henke doesn't appear to have raised adsorption as a criticism. At least in the abstract available on Talk Origins appears to be the summary Humprheys is responding to and there is no mention of adsorption there.
"Danny has not done the calculation."
How true. I'm very honored that you think Humphreys should have his worked critiqued by me. But I think Henke is far better qualified to critique it than I am. Unfortunately, it looks like Henke has chosen to obscure and make mountains out of molehills. Perhaps you should mention adsorption to Henke or publish your own critique in a scientific journal.
"4. Henke raises the essential point--was the helium detected really representative of intrinsic helium within the crystal matrix? ... But the recent volcanism (1.2 million years ago--contrary to YEC scenarios) may have added lots of He, both He3 and He4..."
I believe Humphreys answers this in #9. From the article....
First, if the helium in the zircons were “excess” and came from outside them, it would have had to come through the biotite. As I pointed out on p. 9 of CRSQ 2004, the helium concentration in the biotite is two hundred times lower than the concentration in the zircon. That means, according to the laws of diffusion, that the helium is presently leaking out of the zircons into the biotite, not the other way around. Also, as I pointed out, the total amount of helium in the biotite is roughly the same as the helium lost from the zircon.
In Henke’s vague scenario, the source of the helium is “recent” (100,000 to 1.45 million years ago) volcanic magmas several kilometers away from our borehole. He is apparently assuming that conduits of such magma came relatively close to borehole GT-2. The conduits could not have broken through to the surface, because then they would have immediately vented their helium into the atmosphere. Henke wants “fluids” from the magma to carry helium through the mineral interfaces in the granodiorite, through the biotite, and into the zircons.
"5. The notion of a "closure temperature" is novel, but ill-defined. Crystals do not open and close like Venus Flytraps."
I'm not following your point. If the Crystal is stable, then the current diffusion rate should hold for the past and Humphrey's calculations would be correct. If they opened, then more helium would have escaped. So what are you saying here?
"Humphreys hasn't the slightest idea whether he measured anything of significance."
I don't see from your criticism that you really offered anything more than Henke did.
Recording numbers from a meter and making a story from them is not science."
And yet evolutionists make up stories all the time and it passes like water through a seive into the so-called darwinist scientific journals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.