Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 122 (217029)
06-15-2005 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by wehappyfew
12-08-2002 4:56 PM


Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Over in New Proposed Threads I'm trying to start a thread on the Recolonization Model of the Flood but the administrators want me to talk about the radiodating issues first.
OK, here's the latest on helium diffusion dating.
ICR Research | The Institute for Creation Research
Last year, the RATE group - which is studying a new method of dating granites that is independent of radiodating - reported their work at a mainstream geology conference (American Geophysical Union, SF, Dec 2003).
The work was well received although not everyone is willing to instantly become a creationist.
Here are the links to the actual presentations by Humphreys, Baumgardner & Snelling:
Dr. Humphrey's AGU Helium Poster from AGU Conference | The Institute for Creation Research
Error | The Institute for Creation Research
Error | The Institute for Creation Research
Here's the helium diffusion paper:
Error | The Institute for Creation Research
The issue has changed little since I first began this thread. The basic result still stands. Helium produced simultaneously with radiodecay (actaully as a product of it) should have difused out of the biotites in grantite if indeed the samples were a billion years old. The amount of helium actually present matches an age of about 6000 years.
And as mentioned above the work was recently reported at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Fransisco.
This work demonstrates the plausibility of young age geological models including both the Recolonization and Morris et al Models.
[Edited to correct confernece date!]
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-15-2005 07:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by wehappyfew, posted 12-08-2002 4:56 PM wehappyfew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by sidelined, posted 06-15-2005 8:24 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 06-15-2005 8:43 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 79 by gengar, posted 06-15-2005 11:05 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 80 by Randy, posted 06-15-2005 11:25 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 77 of 122 (217067)
06-15-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Tranquility Base
06-15-2005 2:11 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Tranquility Base
Sorry T.B. but humphreys fudged previous data and made errors in experiment and model as he desperately tries to force nature to his agenda.Read about it here.
RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 2:11 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 6:48 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 122 (217073)
06-15-2005 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Tranquility Base
06-15-2005 2:11 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
I honestly like this, I find it to be an excellent piece of evidence for the lack of a Grand athiest secular humanist anti-God conspiracy theory.
Besides all that, all that ICR/RATE have done here is stuck three 6 foot by 4 posters up in a room. It's hardly presenting a paper for a peer review in a journal. As they confess, the viewers of the posters were civil, even if they disagreed with the contents. I would be interested in seeing some of the other poster titles that were put up. From what the AGU website seems to indicate, there were two floors of poster presentations, and it seems there was anywhere up to 1,200 of them.
Anyway - good on them! They need to keep presenting this to the scientific community, rather than presenting it to people that are already going to agree with their conclusions. There is another thread about this here that you might want to look at.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 15-June-2005 01:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 2:11 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
gengar
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 122 (217113)
06-15-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Tranquility Base
06-15-2005 2:11 AM


Last years news
I was actually kicking myself for a while on reading this, as I was at AGU last year and I didn't notice. No mention of their presentations in the Abstract volume either.
But then, following your own link I found they apparently went to the 2003 meeting, not the 2004.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 2:11 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 6:33 PM gengar has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 80 of 122 (217129)
06-15-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Tranquility Base
06-15-2005 2:11 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Hey TB, welcome back! We've missed you. I see you are still YEC after all these years.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 2:11 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 6:34 PM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 122 (217245)
06-15-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by gengar
06-15-2005 11:05 AM


Re: Last years news
Yes sorry about that - it WAS 2003. I've only just found the link a few months ago myself and remembered 2004.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by gengar, posted 06-15-2005 11:05 AM gengar has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 122 (217248)
06-15-2005 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Randy
06-15-2005 11:25 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Hi Randy - I remember you! Now what did we used to ar . . discuss in the old days . . ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Randy, posted 06-15-2005 11:25 AM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 122 (217252)
06-15-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by sidelined
06-15-2005 8:24 AM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Sidelined, funny you didn't mention that Humphrey's has a 15 point-by-point rebuttal of the Henke stuff and your link even links to it!
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp
Humphreys' summary of Henke's comments are:
" Amazingly, in his entire fifty pages he specifies only two real errors of mine: (a) I misspelled a name in one of my references, and (b) I was not precise enough in my geological description of a rock formation. The only other possibly significant items are (1) a quibble about how much helium should have been deposited in the zircons, and (2) a minor mistake I made (which Henke failed to discover) in summarizing our results."
The basic result stands. Henke is trying to bury a simple basic result with 25,000 words of waffle!
Henke's rebuttal of the rebuttal is a restatement of his earlier stuff. He can't forgive Humphreys' for naming a geological formation not per standard! And he picks at mole-hills whilst ignoring the basic result.
Nevertheless, although the ICC conference paper is available for all to see we still await the peer-reviewed publication in CRSQ. This work is extremely interesting, although not proof definiete, and as such yields plausability to YEC Flood frameworks like Recolonization (Garner et al) and Ecological Zoning (Morris et al).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by sidelined, posted 06-15-2005 8:24 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by mark24, posted 06-15-2005 6:59 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2005 2:59 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 84 of 122 (217255)
06-15-2005 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tranquility Base
06-15-2005 6:48 PM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Hi TB,
Welcome back!
The radiometric problem isn't confined to Helium Diffusion. Your model must also explain, in a non-ad hoc fashion, the young-to-old nature of the geologic column as regards various sample types & methods as you descend the column.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 06-15-2005 07:00 PM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 6:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 7:18 PM mark24 has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 122 (217260)
06-15-2005 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by mark24
06-15-2005 6:59 PM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Hi Mark - I recognize that username! Nice to read you.
That issue was discussed back in the old days of EvC.
It actually works analagosly to the long-age model. Accelerated decay occurs CONTINUOUSLY DURING the catastropohic sedimentation - whether it be 500 years (Recolonization model) or 10 years (Ecological Zoning Model). So it's not all in one spike, but during the process of deposition. Remember we propose God did it to dynamically govern the Flood and continental break-up (via radio-heat generation) so it makes sense to occur during the process.
That means - at a basic level - we have the same expectation as you. Early layers display large amounts of decay, later layers have less - in a completely continuous spectrum.
I've always assumed this is implicit in the proposal but I'll admit it's not obvios to those who don't think about accelerated decay on a daily basis!
PS - As regards the different methods/decay modes we need to discuss that more. RATE has recently published a comparison of different methods on the same rocks and shown that the discrepencies match their expectations of how the different methods (due to differnt decay modes) track. In other woirds RATE is saying they can explain why radiodating methods give different dates. I'll track this down - I've read it on the web and in TEC.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-15-2005 07:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mark24, posted 06-15-2005 6:59 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by edge, posted 06-15-2005 9:43 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2005 2:37 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 98 by mark24, posted 06-16-2005 4:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 86 of 122 (217274)
06-15-2005 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Tranquility Base
06-15-2005 7:18 PM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Accelerated decay occurs CONTINUOUSLY DURING the catastropohic sedimentation -...
Just what is the evidence for accelerated decay? Why did it start and why did it stop?
And just what is your evidence for catastrophic sedimentation? Which strata are catastrophic and which are not? What is the source of catastrophic sediments during a global flood?
... whether it be 500 years (Recolonization model)...
What evidence do you have for life before the mabul? In other words, how do you know it is 'recolonization'? Are you saying that the entire earth's fauna and flora reconstituted in 500 years? That entire major taxa came and went in 500 years?
... or 10 years (Ecological Zoning Model).
What does the ecologiical zoning model say? This sounds like something we've heard before. How were the ecological zones separated?
So it's not all in one spike, but during the process of deposition.
Right. So the entire phylum of dinosaurs arose evolved and died off during a spike? What are you saying? This is all so vague as to be unaddressable.
Remember we propose God did it to dynamically govern the Flood and continental break-up (via radio-heat generation) so it makes sense to occur during the process.
Sure, God-did-it. That is your explanation? Won't cut it, TB.
That means - at a basic level - we have the same expectation as you. Early layers display large amounts of decay, later layers have less - in a completely continuous spectrum.
So you guys can resolve less than ten years in age difference by radiometric methods. I hope you plan to publish.
I've always assumed this is implicit in the proposal but I'll admit it's not obvios to those who don't think about accelerated decay on a daily basis!
That goes without question. But why would one want to think about something that is unsupported by evidence every day?
PS - As regards the different methods/decay modes we need to discuss that more. RATE has recently published a comparison of different methods on the same rocks and shown that the discrepencies match their expectations of how the different methods (due to differnt decay modes) track. In other woirds RATE is saying they can explain why radiodating methods give different dates.
That's silly, also. THere are myriad reasons that different methods give different dates. The real problem you have is why there are many examples where the dates are congruent among methods. This should not happen. In fact, it would seem to me that if there is so much resolution caused by accelerated decay over a one year, or ten-year or 500-year period, that there should be virtually no agreement and rates should be completely random. They are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 7:18 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 10:39 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 122 (217280)
06-15-2005 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by edge
06-15-2005 9:43 PM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
Hi Edge
Just what is the evidence for accelerated decay? Why did it start and why did it stop?
Because we accept all of the data - both the radio data and the diffusion data - acceleration of decay is the only possiblity. It presumably started and stopped to dynamically govern the Flood and the break-up of Pangea via radio-heating of the crust/mantle.
And just what is your evidence for catastrophic sedimentation? Which strata are catastrophic and which are not? What is the source of catastrophic sediments during a global flood?
Helium diffusion dating implies catastrophic sedimentation. However, as we discussed in numerous threads in hte past:
* Most beds demonstrate rapidity: cross-bedding, pebble orientations, grading etc
* Many formations are almost unconformity-free
but this is not the place for this issue! There are other threads for rapid stratificaiton.
What evidence do you have for life before the mabul? In other words, how do you know it is 'recolonization'? Are you saying that the entire earth's fauna and flora reconstituted in 500 years? That entire major taxa came and went in 500 years?
We'll discuss the Recolonization Model when the adminstrators open up the Recolonization Model thread! They've asked me to discuss radiodecay first and that's what I'm doing.
What does the ecologiical zoning model say? This sounds like something we've heard before. How were the ecological zones separated?
I have switched models - I'm a recolonizer now.
So you guys can resolve less than ten years in age difference by radiometric methods. I hope you plan to publish.
In the Recolonization model we would be talking about 500 years. With accelerated decay we have the same signal-to-noise. There's plenty of time for radio resetting.
That's silly, also. THere are myriad reasons that different methods give different dates. The real problem you have is why there are many examples where the dates are congruent among methods. This should not happen. In fact, it would seem to me that if there is so much resolution caused by accelerated decay over a one year, or ten-year or 500-year period, that there should be virtually no agreement and rates should be completely random. They are not.
I agree with you that ther are lots of standard reasons for discordant dates. Accelerated decay gives one more. But if it explains the pattern of discordancy then it does more than that.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-15-2005 10:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by edge, posted 06-15-2005 9:43 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by edge, posted 06-17-2005 12:44 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 122 (217306)
06-16-2005 2:34 AM


Here's a link to one of the papers discussing dating comaprisons using different nuclei. In more than one case, alpha-emmitters seem to give larger ages than beta-emitters.
Error | The Institute for Creation Research

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 89 of 122 (217309)
06-16-2005 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Tranquility Base
06-15-2005 7:18 PM


Re: Helium Diffusion Dating reported at mainstream geology conference
quote:
That means - at a basic level - we have the same expectation as you.
It's not hard to think of differences. For instance your model provides no reason to suppose that the different elements used in readiometric dating should give consistent dates tot he extent that they do.
Also you claim that carbon dating is affected, too. This requires a longer "tail" to the supposed effect that the 10 years of the "Ecological Zoning Model" (probably longer than the 500 proposed by "Recolonisation Model").
Moreover there are questions like the time taken to form features like the Deccan Traps. Assuming a constant "acceleration rate" spreading 4.5 billion years over the 500 years of the "Recolonisation Model" 1,000,000 years becomes a little under 7 weeks. That doesn't sound very plausible and obviously it is far worse for the "Ecological Zoning Mode" which only has 10 years instead of 500.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-15-2005 7:18 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-16-2005 2:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 122 (217310)
06-16-2005 2:46 AM


Dear Administrators,
You asked me to discuss radiodating before you would open the Recolonization Model thread I proposed.
I have demonstrated here that the RATE results lend plausability to young-age models. I actually enjoy discussing radiodating, but I'd really like to discuss the biology, paleontology, stratigraphy and geophysics of the Recolonization Flood/post-Flood Model.
I will continue keeping an eye on it HERE - but can you please open up the Recolonization Model thread I proposed a few days ago?
Thanks, TB
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-16-2005 03:04 AM

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024