Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Helium in the atmosphere. Evidence for or against a young earth?
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 24 (14274)
07-28-2002 12:45 AM


Creationist websites such as Answers in Genesis are claiming that there is far too little helium in the atmosphere for the earth to be billions of years old. There argument is something like this:
Helium is produced by the decay of Uranium. It escapes from rocks fairly rapidly and enters the atmosphere. They agree that since helium is a very light gas, some Helium does escape into space, but there is still far more helium being added to the atmoshpere than escaping into space. Thus, because there is so little helium in the atmosphere, the earth cannot be very old.
(I am not very familiar with this subject, so can someone explain to me the flaws, if there are any, with this argument?
However, I have seen evolutionists use a similar kind of argument against a young earth. The evolutionist argument is something like this: There is a lot more radioactive uranium in the world than radioactive potassium. I believe the ratio of radioactive potassium to radioactive uranium in the planet is something like 27/100 (?). Helium, as the creationists have admitted, diffuses from rocks much more rapidly than argon. Thus, if the earth is young, there should be much, much more helium in the atmosphere than argon because, as stated above, helium defuses faster than argon and much more helium gets produced than argon. Unfortunately for the creationists, there is about 2000 times more argon in the atmosphere than helium!!! How can this be if the earth is so young?
[This message has been edited by EvO-DuDe, 07-27-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by blitz77, posted 07-28-2002 2:40 AM EvO-DuDe has not replied
 Message 8 by paisano, posted 09-16-2005 1:27 AM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 24 (14280)
07-28-2002 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
07-28-2002 12:45 AM


But isn't the decay of uranium much slower than that of potassium-argon? Therefore alot more argon should be produced than helium... Simply because there hasn't been enough time for enough of the uranium to decay using the creationist timeframe, while potassium-40 has a much shorter half-life. If there is much more uranium than potassium-40, then according to the evolutionist model then there should be more helium in the atmosphere. Because according to the evolutionist model there has been billions of years since the earth formed, allowing most of the uranium to have decayed. I think you got your argument the wrong way around. But correct me if I'm wrong please.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 07-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-28-2002 12:45 AM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 24 (14309)
07-28-2002 2:33 PM


The decay rate of Uranium is not much slower than radioactive potassium. The half life of U-235 is, in fact, considerably faster than the decay rate of K-40. The decay rate of U-238, however, is, as you said, a bit slower than the rate of decay for K-40. In the evolutionist model there has been enough time for most of the helium to escape into space. Thus, there is very little helium and lots and lots of argon. For the creationists, there should be lots and lots of helium (because there has not been enough time for large quantities of it to escape into space) and there should be very little argon (because argon diffuses slower than helium and there is more uranium than radioactive potassium)

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by blitz77, posted 07-28-2002 7:21 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 24 (14327)
07-28-2002 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by EvO-DuDe
07-28-2002 2:33 PM


Since according to the evolutionist model there has been billions of years, most of the argon should have escaped into the atmosphere, as well as the helium. But remember, a lot of the helium is also found in rocks, suggesting they did not have enough time to escape. Now a major debating point is how much helium escapes into space. Most scientists agree that little helium escapes into space, and much more enters the atmosphere than escapes by the earths movement around the solar system from inter-solar gas. Therefore according to the evolutionist model there should be even more helium in the atmosphere than the creationist model, because more uranium would have decayed and more gas absorbed by earth's orbit around the sun.
I'll give you two articles:
Excess argon
and helium
The first one about excess argon is quite interesting in its implications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-28-2002 2:33 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 07-28-2002 8:25 PM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 6 by Joe Meert, posted 07-28-2002 10:45 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 24 (14329)
07-28-2002 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by blitz77
07-28-2002 7:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Most scientists agree that little helium escapes into space, and much more enters the atmosphere than escapes by the earths movement around the solar system from inter-solar gas.
Helium escape has been worked out just fine.
Page Not Found - HolySmoke!
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by blitz77, posted 07-28-2002 7:21 PM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-15-2005 10:24 PM John has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 6 of 24 (14340)
07-28-2002 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by blitz77
07-28-2002 7:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Since according to the evolutionist model there has been billions of years, most of the argon should have escaped into the atmosphere, as well as the helium. But remember, a lot of the helium is also found in rocks, suggesting they did not have enough time to escape. Now a major debating point is how much helium escapes into space. Most scientists agree that little helium escapes into space, and much more enters the atmosphere than escapes by the earths movement around the solar system from inter-solar gas. Therefore according to the evolutionist model there should be even more helium in the atmosphere than the creationist model, because more uranium would have decayed and more gas absorbed by earth's orbit around the sun.
I'll give you two articles:
Excess argon
and helium
The first one about excess argon is quite interesting in its implications.

JM: What makes excess argon so interesting to you? Remember it was conventional geologists who made this 'discovery' not creationists. So, what do you think the major 'implication' is?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by blitz77, posted 07-28-2002 7:21 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 24 (243974)
09-15-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
07-28-2002 8:25 PM


Just a concern.
The you website reffed didn't say when Dr. Vardiman was quoted as saying this. This is quite conspicuous as they give a date on everyone else's statements. As they didn't I can't be sure as to whether or not you are using outdated info.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 07-28-2002 8:25 PM John has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 8 of 24 (244032)
09-16-2005 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
07-28-2002 12:45 AM


To me the most interesting element in debates of this sort is not helium or argon, but technetium.
Now, technetium (Tc) is a most interesting element in that:
a) All of its isotopes are radioactive.
b) It's not the end product of typical nuclear decay of any naturally occurring heavier elements (other than rare cases of spontaneous fission of uranium).
c) It is not found in the Earth's crust except in minute amounts (nanograms per kilogram of uranium).
But the decay products of its longest lived isotopes, which are both stable, are found in the Earth's crust ( Tc-97, half life 2.6 million years, decays to Molybdenum-97; Tc-98, half life 4.2 million years, decays to Ruthenium-98 ) in much larger abundances than that.
d) Tc has been found in stars via spectroscopy, and in fact, this is a data point supporting the current theories of nucleosynthesis in stars.
e) Like all elements, it can be produced artificially by nuclear reactions; in fact this is how it was discovered.
If the YE hypothesis were valid, why don't we observe Technetium in the Earth's crust in abundances comparable to its decay products Ruthenium and Molybdenum and in association with them ? There is nothing strange about Tc chemically, it's a typical transition metal.
I think it's very telling that entering "technetium" in the search engines of YEC websites produces...nothing.
I don't think Technetium is favorable to their case.
It would be nice to see a YEC try to explain this. At least they'd have to be original; no boilerplate from their favorite sites to rely on.
And if Tc is too exotic, there are other short-lived isotopes that are not part of other element's decay series, that aren't found on Earth, like Lead-205.
Why no Lead -205 (half life 15 million years), but lots of stable Lead isotopes ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-28-2002 12:45 AM EvO-DuDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-16-2005 6:44 AM paisano has not replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 24 (244066)
09-16-2005 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by paisano
09-16-2005 1:27 AM


Very Interseting.
Your point is very interesting. The main point I have to make at this time is that the further you go back in time, the more radioactive our soil becomes. This probably wouldn't effect much in the last few "million" years, but you see my point. I'll look for some Tc articles and reff them for you if I find them. As to your point about lead, I was taught that most, if not all of the lead we have comes from nuclear decay, and only a small fraction of the product lead would be radioactive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by paisano, posted 09-16-2005 1:27 AM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 8:26 AM christ_fanatic has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 24 (244091)
09-16-2005 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by christ_fanatic
09-16-2005 6:44 AM


Re: Very Interseting.
quote:
...but you see my point.
Actually, I don't see your point. I wonder, though, whether the Oklo reactors are relevant to your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-16-2005 6:44 AM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-16-2005 1:28 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 24 (244159)
09-16-2005 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
09-16-2005 8:26 AM


Re: Very Interseting.
My point was that as you go back in time, past a few million years, the soil becomes more radioactive. My point any way was that the earth would be irradiated extremely. I've never heard of Oklo reactors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 8:26 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 1:43 PM christ_fanatic has replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 09-16-2005 2:55 PM christ_fanatic has not replied
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 09-16-2005 4:12 PM christ_fanatic has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 24 (244165)
09-16-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by christ_fanatic
09-16-2005 1:28 PM


Re: Very Interseting.
quote:
My point any way was that the earth would be irradiated extremely.
If by "extremely" you mean "somewhat more than at present" then you would be correct.
The Oklo reactors are an interesting natural phenomenon. Modern fission reactors rely on a certain isotope of Uranium, U-235. Most uranium ores are mostly the relatively useless U-238, and so must be extensively processed in order to get increased U-235. But the half-life of U-235 is much shorter than U-238, so that it decays faster. So as time goes on, the proportion of U-235 must decrease in a given sample of ore.
This means that as we backwards in time, the relative proportion of U-235 must increase. About 2 billion years ago, about 3% of uranium in a typical sample would have been U-235 -- which is enough to sustain a fission reaction, like in modern reactors, if the conditions were right. In western Africa, there are the remains of uranium ore bodies with anomalous characteristics -- characteristics that can be explained if the conditions at these locations were just right for a sustained fission reaction.
So, the Oklo reactors are the remains of a naturally occurring nuclear reactor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-16-2005 1:28 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-16-2005 1:45 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 24 (244166)
09-16-2005 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Chiroptera
09-16-2005 1:43 PM


Re: Very Interseting.
Ok, are you familiar with the RATE project?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 1:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 1:48 PM christ_fanatic has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 24 (244168)
09-16-2005 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by christ_fanatic
09-16-2005 1:45 PM


Re: Very Interseting.
Enough to know that their results have been refuted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-16-2005 1:45 PM christ_fanatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-16-2005 2:14 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 20 by christ_fanatic, posted 09-16-2005 9:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 24 (244175)
09-16-2005 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Chiroptera
09-16-2005 1:48 PM


Re: Very Interseting.
Did you know that they were well received at a geoscience conference? To get to this article go to The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research and hit research, then go to research papers, then scroll down until you see RATE posters well received at AGU conference. This bears the question, if their results have been refuted, wouldn't these well educated scientists have noticed?
This message has been edited by christ_fanatic, 09-16-2005 02:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 1:48 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 3:41 PM christ_fanatic has not replied
 Message 19 by JonF, posted 09-16-2005 6:38 PM christ_fanatic has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024