Radiometric Dating Confirms a Young Age for the Earth

[DrCreation]

Radiometric Dating Confirms a Young Age for the Earth
By Allen J. Dunckley, Th.D. (C)-NOvember 2005

Because of media hype, many people are under the assumption that radiometric dating has confirmed that the earth is very old - 4.6 billion years old to be exact. However, what is not well known by the public is the glaring weaknesses with which isotopic dating is entangled.

When a rock is formed and hardened, some of the elements in the rock begin to decay, that is breakdown into lesser “daughter” elements. If the parent element is Uranium 238, it decays into Thorium 234 but it does not stop there; it continues its entropic trek down to lead. If the rate at which this process takes place is known (and could be proven that it has never varied), one allegedly might be able to determine the age of a rock specimen by the ratio between the parent element, U and its daughter element, Th or Pb. However, there are some problems with this method for “deep-timers” that actually go against the billions of years scenario and point to a very young earth instead.

Firstly: Not enough Helium in the Atmosphere

The type of decay that is most talked about is called alpha-decay where the parent element decays down the periodic table to the daughter element. The glaring problem here is the chemical equation. Chemical equations must be balanced; what is on the right of the yield sign (the arrow) must equal what is on the left side.

U ---> Th

This equation is not balanced. This is usually what is presented and discussed publically. It is usually stated something like, “Uranium, when it decays to thorium then to lead takes several billion years. Therefore if one calculates what the amount of lead is in the specimen and divides it by its half life; then an age for the specimen can be determined.” There is rarely if ever any mention of the additional product produced, that of helium. The equation should look something like this:

U ---> Th + He

This equation is balanced: Uranium, as it decays, turns into a thorium element plus two helium elements. To demonstrate this, let's assign the numeric value of 238 to Uranium, 234 to Thorium, and 2 to Helium. What we see then is 238 is equal to 234 plus 2 plus 2. These numbers are the mass numbers of each of these elements. What is produced is not only the “daughter” element, thorium, but also two elements of Helium. Like all equations, nuclear equations must be balanced, according to both atomic number and atomic mass. As uranium treks down the periodic table until it becomes lead, it leaves behind it a wake of helium atoms.

Scientists have calculated that 67 grams of helium comes into the atmosphere every second through the radio-active, alpha decay process. If the decay process has been going on for billions of years, as the uniformitarian, evolutionary model alleges; then the prediction follows that the amount of helium in the atmosphere should be extremely high. However, scientific fact shows that the amount of helium in our atmosphere is not very high at all; this presents a problem for long age assumptions.

Some have tried to counter with the argument that since helium is so light it just rises up through the atmosphere and escapes into space. This is simply not so because (1) helium only rises when confined in a very light weight container due to the external pressure pushing on it from the heavier gasses around it. However, when it is not confined; helium simply mixes with the other gasses in the atmosphere. (2) Some helium molecules do manage to escape into space and this is called “Jean's escape” but this escape does not take place at the rate necessary to account for its lack in the atmosphere. Science has determined that the Jean's escape rate for helium is only 1/40th of that which is coming into the atmosphere. Therefore a net gain of 65.4 grams of helium is building up in the atmosphere per second. If this build up has been taking place for as long as the “old-ager's” claim that it has; then we all should be sounding like Donald Duck when we talk, as excessive helium shrinks the larynx causing a rise in voice pitch. Yet science (not a philosophical paradigm) shows us that the necessary amount of helium build up is not there for an old earth scenario. This is a problem for the evolutionary, uniformitarian model, but not for the creation model as noted by scientist Melvin Cook in Nature magazine in an article entitled, “Where is the earth's radiogenic helium?” This question has yet to be answered by the uniformitarian sector. The amount of helium in the atmosphere that scientists have measured is excessively little for the earth to be millions upon millions of years old, but within the range of tolerance for the Biblical, Creation model of approximately 6,000 years.

Secondly, Too Much Helium in the Earth

Late in the 1970's in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico Geoscientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory drilled down several miles into the hot, dry granite. They wanted to determine how suitable it would be as a geothermal energy source. Drill core samples were sent to the National Laboratory at Oak Ridge for analysis. There a physicist ground up the rock extracting microscopic crystals called zircons. These are radioactive due to containing uranium and thorium isotopes. Zircons are scattered widely throughout the granitic rocks that make up the crust of the earth.

The zircons with uranium are a good source to study radio decay since unstable uranium decays into thorium through what is called alpha decay. This radioactivity makes the element helium. As pointed out above, helium is not in the earth's atmosphere but is still in the zircon crystals. Using the uniformitarian model of 1.5 billion years worth of decay for the zircons, scientists used the amount of lead to calculate the amount of helium would have been generated during that period. Then they measured how much helium was still in the zircons. Not surprised, they found that 58% of the radiogenic helium was still in the zircons. Dr. Humphreys notes:

“The 'Evolution' model assumed the time was 1.5 billion years, with continuous production of helium during the whole period. The 'Creation model assumed the time was 6,000 years, with most of the helium produced in one or more bursts of accelerated nuclear decay near the beginning of that time. . . . Our experiments showed that we need to account for both diffusion from zircon and biotite, but zircon is more important. . . .Our zircon data agree with recently published data from [Reiners, Farley, and Hickes, “He diffusion and (U-th)/He thermochronometry of zircon: Initial results from Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte, Nevada,” Tectonophysics 349 (1-4:297-308, 2002], and both agree with our Creation model. The data allow us to calculate how long diffusion has been taking place — between 4,000 and 14,000 years! The diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than the maximum rates the 'Evolutionary' model could allow. That leaves no hope for the 1.5 billion years. For most of that alleged time, the zircons would have had to have been as cold as liquid nitrogen … to retain the observed amount of helium.” (Humphries, “Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young World.” Impact 352, pp 2-3)

Conclusion
Due to radiometric activity in the earth, what real science shows is a big problem in using it to verify the uniformitarian conjecture of “deep-time.” In scientific contrast, the more study being done on the radiological decay of rock, the more it points to a young earth rather than an old earth. No wonder Evolutionist William Stansfield has admitted:

“It is obvious that radiometric methods may not be the reliable dating methods they are often claimed to be. . . .There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock.” — The Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillian, 1977) P 614.As one scientist observes:
“The amount of helium in the air and in rocks is not consistent with the earth's being billions of years old, as believed by evolutionists and progressive creationists. Rather it is good scientific evidence for a short age, as taught by a straightforward reading of Genesis.” (Dr. Johathan Sarfati, “Blowing Old Earth Belief Away,” Creation, 1998)

As the facts produced through scientific investigation keep coming in from biology, microbiology, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, etc. the more they underscore the standing Truth that the Bible is the revealed truth from the one and only Creator God, Who in the beginning created the heaven and the earth and all that is in them. Since both nature and the Bible are the products of the same Being called GOD then what is observed in one will not contradict what is revealed in the other. This is what we see more and more as scientific data are properly understood. There is no conflict between the facts of science and the Word of God. The conflict comes only when an interpretation of scientific data is advanced that is at variance with God's Word and one's interpretation is neither science nor scientific fact; it is only human opinion. And the Word of God is clear on this point, “Let God be true and every man a liar.” One will never go wrong being in line with God's Word the Bible.

[August]

Already a long thread on the topic here:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1687

[Jay_7]

Thanks for the article.. welco me to the forum

[The Barbarian]

"What about Humphreys excess helium arguments
The premise of the RATE work is this:

"Acquisition of data on which to base a claim that the amount of helium in rocks today should not be so high if it was produced by nuclear decay over millions of years. If helium was produced within the most recent thousands of years, it would be expected to still remain in the rocks as observed"

Mumbo-jumbo. The claim here appears to be that there is too much helium in the rocks today. The RATE Group does not provide an explanation of what is too much. It states rather matter-of-factly that it is too high. The rate of helium diffusion from minerals is not a simple linear process1,5,6. Once again, the RATE Group begins with a false premise that it intends to prove by misinterpretation of the data and an incomplete reading of the literature. Remember: Misinterpreting Science is not the same thing as disproving science. Humphreys takes issue with me on this at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.asp

Humphreys claims that helium is not retained for any great time in zircons. He proposes that zircons close and 'then re-open" to helium diffusion shortly after their closure temperature. Dodson describes the concept of closure temperature as follows:

" It is assumed that, while the system is near to the temperature of crystallization, the daughter nuclide diffuses out as fast as it is produced by radioactive decay. As the system cools, it enters a transitional temperature within which some of the daughter product accumulates in the mineral and some is lost. Eventually, at temperatures near ambient, the losses are negligible, and the daughter product accumulates without any loss whatsoever.....Closure temperature can be given a precise definition namely the temperature of the system at the time given by its apparent age"

Humphreys work describes a number Q which he states is the 're-opening'. This re-opening is defined as marking a point where helium loss is balanced by helium production resulting in a steady state level of helium within the zircon. Unfortunately, Humphreys does not provide the critical analysis for defining what Q really is (he refers to equation 16, but did not bother to post it). Therefore, it is difficult to analyze exactly what Humphreys is talking about without providing the relevant equations. There certainly is a point in the cooling history of zircons where loss=gain, and this may even occur at temperatures below the 'closure temperature', but Humphreys assertion that the zircons would maintain this steady-state situation is not grounded in good science.
http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

I would be pleased if anyone here could post the "missing equation" that Humphreys claims will save his theory, and explain why it contradicts observed behavior of helium in zircons.

[DrCreation]

To the Barbarian

Greetings. Thank you for your input but mabe I missed something; what particular point are you trying to make?

You mention "closure temperature" which Dr. Humphries very clearly points out is irrelevant by stating "Even if the Jemez zircons had gone below their closure temperature, according to the uniformitarian scenario the would have reopened with in a few dozen years to a few thousand years after closure. After reopening, they would again be an open system, again losing helium as fast as nuclear decay generated it for most of the alleged 1.% billion years. Today the zircons would have retained less than 0.0002% of the helium, instead of the (up to) 58% observed"

My point is the basic equation still has to be balanced. If uranium is decaying down the periodic table into lead it is producing helium in the process, aprox. 15 atoms worth from each uranium atom. That amount of helium must be someplace; if uniformitarian assumptions were true; it should be in the atmosphere. But it is not; it is still in the zircons at around 58% not at the 0.0002% if they were as old as conjectured. Therefore, the evidence (58% still in zircons) favors a young age for the earth not billions and billions of years and the closure issue does not enter into the picture.

[Jbuza]

My point is the basic equation still has to be balanced.

Hello DR Creation. I just want to point out that most people won't let something like silly FACTS get in the way of what they choose to believe.

I agree with what you posted and find the case for a young earth to be very convincing.

[DrCreation]

Jbuza,

Greetings and thanks for the reply. The key is what you stated, "in what they choose to believe." How ever the facts don't lie, only their interpretation does. In the words of Dr Steven C. Meyer, "Science, done right, points toward God."

[DrCreation]

Dear Jay_7

Just to let you know I read your reply; Thank you! I am glad the article was a blessing to you. This post is like "peer review" my desire is to turn it into a tract to help put anyone open to the truth on the right track. The feed back here will help me to strengthen it more.
Thanks again.

[jerickson314]

What about believing Christians who believe that the facts point to an old universe? People like me and Greg Koukl, who has a good article here on one basic scientific/theological argument for an old earth. Or anybody else on this list, for example.

In fact, it was facts that converted me to an old-earth position from my previous young-earth position. I don't like overly simplistic rhetoric, no matter what point of view it is coming from.

[Jbuza]

Is it harder to have it come about by speaking "let there be stars in the heavens"

OR is it harder to say "Let there be stars in the heaven, that they give light to the earth"?

I personally do not see the problem.

Also God said that he rolls out the heavens, and that he will roll them up.

I don't see the fact that the stars didn't give light on the world when God said they would.

[jerickson314]

Is it harder to have it come about by speaking "let there be stars in the heavens"

OR is it harder to say "Let there be stars in the heaven, that they give light to the earth"?

I personally do not see the problem.

Also God said that he rolls out the heavens, and that he will roll them up.

I don't see the fact that the stars didn't give light on the world when God said they would.

You're oversimplifying things. Yes, God could have created the light in transit, from stars that actually didn't exist. He would just be lying, in a sense. Or he could have made the light travel instantaneously, but then why do all scientific experiments lead to a particular speed of light within a reasonable margin of error? Again, this would mean that God was deceiving scientists in a different manner. Otherwise, what's going on with all the events we see with telescopes - supernovas and such?

I prefer to believe in a God who was not deliberately misleading and inconsistent.

The fact is that the billion-plus year old stars are giving light to the world now, so God's command was fulfilled.

[DrCreation]

Greetings Jerickson 312.

jerickson314 writes:

"What about believing Christians who believe that the facts point to an old universe?. "In fact, it was facts that converted me to an old-earth position from my previous young-earth position.

To what "facts" do you refer? Are you sure that you are not confusing evolutionary/uniformitarian "interpretations" with the real scientific facts? This is the case many times. For instance, Archaeopteryx is a fossil found just a couple of years after Darwin published his book, Origins of the Species. The question is, Is it a bird or a half bird, half reptile? An evolutionist interprets the data as having the characteristics of both reptile and bird and then pronounces it a transitional form. A Bible believing scientist looks at it and interpretes the same data as belonging to a unique, extinct bird and only a bird.

Interpretations are made on preconceived biases based on one's world view or philosophical paradigm but interpretations are not science; they are only a fallable, human opinion. The key here is that biases are not bad, only dangerous because if one has the wrong bias so will be one's interpretations of the facts. [/color]

"I don't like overly simplistic rhetoric, no matter what point of view it is coming from."

To which I agree; however, truth does not have to be complex to be truth.[/color]

[jerickson314]

To what "facts" do you refer? Are you sure that you are not confusing evolutionary/uniformitarian "interpretations" with the real scientific facts? This is the case many times. For instance, Archaeopteryx is a fossil found just a couple of years after Darwin published his book, Origins of the Species. The question is, Is it a bird or a half bird, half reptile? An evolutionist interprets the data as having the characteristics of both reptile and bird and then pronounces it a transitional form. A Bible believing scientist looks at it and interpretes the same data as belonging to a unique, extinct bird and only a bird.

You're confusing old-earth creationism with theistic evolution. I lean towards the view that God created each species individually, but that He decided to spend billions of years to do the process. This viewpoint does not accept evolution. While I must admit that I am open to the possibility that theistic evolution is a correct view of the world, stronger evidence from both science and theology would have to be produced in order to convince me. An old-earth creationist would agree with a young-earth creationist on Archaeopteryx.

I'm talking about things like starlight, radiometric dating, Big Bang cosmology (which actually supports theism), and the like. Not to mention arguments from the Bible proposed by Christians such as Hugh Ross and Rich Deem. (Deem wrote the main http://www.godandscience.org site.)

Interpretations are made on preconceived biases based on one's world view or philosophical paradigm but interpretations are not science; they are only a fallable, human opinion. The key here is that biases are not bad, only dangerous because if one has the wrong bias so will be one's interpretations of the facts.

This is generally true, yes. However, this does not mean we cannot seek evidence to determine whether our biases are correct, or whether we are interpreting the consequences of our own world views correctly. God gave reason and the physical universe to all men, not just those who believe in the Bible.

[Jbuza]

Is it harder to have it come about by speaking "let there be stars in the heavens"

OR is it harder to say "Let there be stars in the heaven, that they give light to the earth"?

I personally do not see the problem.

Also God said that he rolls out the heavens, and that he will roll them up.

I don't see the fact that the stars didn't give light on the world when God said they would.

You're oversimplifying things. Yes, God could have created the light in transit, from stars that actually didn't exist. He would just be lying, in a sense. Or he could have made the light travel instantaneously, but then why do all scientific experiments lead to a particular speed of light within a reasonable margin of error? Again, this would mean that God was deceiving scientists in a different manner. Otherwise, what's going on with all the events we see with telescopes - supernovas and such?

I prefer to believe in a God who was not deliberately misleading and inconsistent.

The fact is that the billion-plus year old stars are giving light to the world now, so God's command was fulfilled.

Ok I can understand that, but I do not see it as inconsistent for God to say that he created stars to give light, and he caused them to be created giving light. Further the idea that God streatched out the heavens seems to indicate that he stretched out the heavens, so It could have been far lesser distances at creation.

[jerickson314]

Ok I can understand that, but I do not see it as inconsistent for God to say that he created stars to give light, and he caused them to be created giving light.

Well, there are billions of years between when stars give light and when we can see the light on Earth, at least at current distances.

Further the idea that God streatched out the heavens seems to indicate that he stretched out the heavens, so It could have been far lesser distances at creation.

Either such an expansion would occur during creation but not now, in which case the stars would now be out of range and we couldn't see them, or such an expansion would occur over time, in which case we would see a lot more red shift than we do now.

The fact is, the distances of stars have been expanding since creation, as observed red shift has demonstrated. However, extrapolations date the beginning of the expansion, when the stars were close together, to being billions of years in the past.