New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wehappyfew:
For more background, check out the rather technical discussion on T.O.
Sign in - Google Accounts
In the thread titled:
helium in zircons means young earth?
The message number 43 (currently) by Chris Ho-Stuart 11/09/02 has a lot of good references.[/B][/QUOTE]WeHappy...Thanks for the TO link. I think I can take consolation that at least some others were confused by Humphreys' byzantine logic and odd terminology. I really wasn't sure what he was saying. Now, perhaps, we can get down to the details.

Double posting deleted.[This message has been edited by edge, 11-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wehappyfew:
... But the results of those promised experiments are yet to be published, the models are quite puzzling in their peculiar logic and obtuse language, and the predictions seem to bear little resemblance to real-world conditions.

---

​

And yet, we see on another thread that TC has written:

​

"Catastrophic tectonics, flood surges, helium retention and a creationist cosmology IMO is the answer to your problems with YEC."

---

Yep, proven!

Double (triple!!?)posting deleted.[This message has been edited by edge, 11-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randy:
...The driving force for diffusion is the difference in themodynamic activity, usually expressed as chemical potential of helium inside and outside the crytal. It seems to me that the chemical potential of helium outside the crystal will be essentially zero ...

---

Why would you think this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randy:
LIke I said I could be wrong. I was considering diffusion from crystal to the atmosphere. As think about it you have crystals that are in contact with other solid material that the He is diffusing into so they may have an appreciable concentration of He.

---

Which would change the rate of diffusion. I cannot support this, but I have heard that there is a steady flux of He through the crust.

quote:

---

Ultimately it is going somewhere and diffusion rates will be determined by the chemical potential and diffusion constant in each material it diffuses through. I have only ever worked with diffusion through membranes where things like partition coefficients also come into play and I don't know if there is anything equivalent in this situation. I think the main point I was trying to make is that diffusion constant may be pressure dependant if the crystal structure is affect by the pressures involved and it not necessarily legitmate to extrapolate over huge temperature ranges using activation energies because of the possiblity of physical changes in the crytal which could effect diffusion. I don't know if that really makes any sense with the crystals being discussed here but it seems that way to me.

---

I concur absolutely. The ability or inability to model actual, natural conditions has always bothered me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"And yet, we see on another thread that TC has written:

​

"Catastrophic tectonics, flood surges, helium retention and a creationist cosmology IMO is the answer to your problems with YEC."

​

--Must've been another TC, whose the perpetrator?

---

Could be. These strained assertions are so abundant that it is hard to keep them straight. I think it's a creationist conspiracy.

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? 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? What does the ecologiical zoning model say? This sounds like something we've heard before. How were the ecological zones separated? 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. Sure, God-did-it. That is your explanation? Won't cut it, TB. So you guys can resolve less than ten years in age difference by radiometric methods. I hope you plan to publish. That goes without question. But why would one want to think about something that is unsupported by evidence every day? 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.

You have radiometric data showing that accelerated decay has actually occurred? Please publish this as soon as possible.And the diffusion data is nonsense. Do you realize that helium is produced constantly within the mantle and crust? Where do you suppose that He goes?Please explain the method of 'starting and stoppping' accelerated decay.Also I am curious about the secondary effects of this accelerated radiation. If we have several billions of years of equivalent radiation occurring within one year, what do you think would have happened to life in the sea and on any vessel navigating it? How is that? What does He diffusion in zircons have to do with sedimentation? Wrong. I just looked at thousands of feet of a shale basin that covered a large portion of North America. How do you suppose this happenened? Care to change your statement?And why does cross-bedding, per se, indicated rapid deposition of an entire formation? But not all are? What about the major inter-regional unconformities found throughout the geological record? I anxiously await your answers, wherever they may occur. So, you agree that ecological zoning doesn't work? No. You have to fit thousands of distinct dates, from billions of years equivalent radiation, into a 500 year time slot. The picture should be pure noise. You have completely avoided the argument that there are concordant dates by different techniques and that this should be impossible. THIS is what you need to explain. Discordance is not an issue.

You mean: other than the possibility that the RATE study is completely out to lunch. Not really. They do not include the constant flux of He through the crust. Actually, how could they? Not at all. Particularly if the diffusion rates are as great as you seem to think. With older rocks this is an utterly useless method. And so? What does this say about the time to deposit the entire Moine Series? You do not understand the mechanism of cross-bedding. While one layer may occur rapidly, this says absolutely nothing about how long it takes to deposit and preserve an entire formation. It's like saying that a car that travels at 100 kph will cover 2400 km in a day. You don't account for refueling, rest for the driver, eating, etc. In this case it's much worse. Because of erosion in the fluviatile environment, many of the 'kilometers' are actually in a backward direction! To a geologist your statement is incredibly silly. Why would there be breaks during a flood? How long are the breaks? Why do they have soils developed on some of these unconformities? Yes, where do you find the time to reset? According to your theory, there should be a batholith entirely cooling below the trapping temperature ever year or so. How do you tell thes apart with an accelerated decay scenario? By the time large bodies cool they have a number of ages, depending upon the depth of cooling and which phase of intrusion you are talking about. The record should be a completely random dates over 500 years. No. You MUST explain concordant dates. They would be impossible according to your scenario. You may run from this fact, but anyone with scientific background will simply not take you seriously.

Where?