New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay

wehappyIt's not that I'm uninterested I just have my doubts whether we'll be able to sort this out from the data we have. So, until its presented somewhere by Humphreys I was perpared to trust. If you can work out what's going on in between then that's great. If you really did present a carefully laid out summary of the ENTIRE story (and calcs you have done) I would be prepared to comment/check. I don't have time to do it completely independently however.

^ Nice summary (I think I would have been able to detect you are not a YEC from that discourse though ).

TB steps forward.

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 ResearchLast 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 ResearchHere's the helium diffusion paper:Error | The Institute for Creation ResearchThe 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

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

Hi Randy - I remember you! Now what did we used to ar . . discuss in the old days . . ?

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.aspHumphreys' 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).

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

Hi Edge 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. 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-freebut this is not the place for this issue! There are other threads for rapid stratificaiton. 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. I have switched models - I'm a recolonizer now. 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. 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

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

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, TBThis message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-16-2005 03:04 AM

PaulKThe reference in message 88 above covers new data on discordant dates. In more than one study the alpha-emitters are giving significantly older ages than the beta-emitters.Creationists are presently working on the likely pattern of expected accelerations:Error | The Institute for Creation ResearchYes it's hard to tell whether the Deccan Traps could be formed as quick as we require. I agree. But we can't rule it out a priori.[Re your acceleratoion calc: in 500 years we would need to achieve about 500-700 million years of decay becasue the layers below that I would assign to the origin of land on creation day 3].

We of course expect that accelerated decay was the geophysical trigger for the creaiton day 3 event.

Humphrey's clearly states that indicating that the confusion is simply a terminology issue.And Humphreys does address the Assumptions section. For example, 'Constant Temperatures over Time' is addressed under the heading

I did read the quotes. Humphreys empatically states that the geophysicist Baumgardner claims they are grandiorite! All Henke does in his re-rebuttal is say: Baumgardner says he specifically chose gradniorite over gniess, and physically removed as well!!You need to read Humphreys rebuttal because he covers all of Henke's 'assumption' points.You quite seriously need to realise that Buamgardner, Snelling and Humphreys - who all had ultra-successful careers outsdie creaiton sciencce - are serious scientists and not pretend that they would make stuff up.[Minor edit to be more respectful to Henke]This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-16-2005 08:03 PM