Regarding helium, what say ye?

[Jorge]

I’m very interested in hearing the old earthers' (theist or not) here at TWeb explain how zircons suffered 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay but only 6,000 years worth of helium losses.

For more details see http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp and links therein.

Not really looking to debate (time constraints); I just want to hear alternate, OE explanations to these data.

BTW, this is all part of the scientific research that YEC scientists are presently conducting to gather supporting evidence for our position (you know, the type of research that "YECs never conduct" ).

Jorge

[SteveF]

There are some responses to the helium issue here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Humphries recently replied to the second article (check out trueorigin). I don't know what the next move is from Henke, though JonF may well do as he is involved with Talk Origins. Joe Meert, a geologist at U Florida is apparently going to get an expert in the field to have a look at some point in the coming months.

[Jugulum]

BTW, this is all part of the scientific research that YEC scientists are presently conducting to gather supporting evidence for our position (you know, the type of research that "YECs never conduct" ).

Actually, IIRC, the last time I heard someone on this board denigrate YECs on the grounds of not doing scientific research, they specifically mentioned the RATE group's helium zircons as an exception. (They didn't think that the zircons are good YEC evidence, of crouse, but they did acknowledge it.)

[Jorge]

There are some responses to the helium issue here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Humphries recently replied to the second article (check out trueorigin). I don't know what the next move is from Henke, though JonF may well do as he is involved with Talk Origins. Joe Meert, a geologist at U Florida is apparently going to get an expert in the field to have a look at some point in the coming months.

I'd read Henke's responses. Humphreys has replied, at least here : http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp

I was more looking to see if anyone here at TWeb had an alternate explanation, i.e., what do you say?

Jorge

[Jorge]

Actually, IIRC, the last time I heard someone on this board denigrate YECs on the grounds of not doing scientific research, they specifically mentioned the RATE group's helium zircons as an exception.

(They didn't think that the zircons are good YEC evidence, of crouse, but they did acknowledge it.)

I'm puzzled : how could they "acknowledge it" and yet not regard this as good YEC evidence?
Do these zircons constitute 'bad' or 'neutral' YEC evidence?

Jorge

[technomage]

I'm puzzled : how could they "acknowledge it" and yet not regard this as good YEC evidence?
Do these zircons constitute 'bad' or 'neutral' YEC evidence?

Perhaps they recognize that the work was done, but disagree with the methodology?

Just a guess on my part--I've not been following this particular research chain.

[SteveF]

I'd read Henke's responses. Humphreys has replied, at least here : http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp

I was more looking to see if anyone here at TWeb had an alternate explanation, i.e., what do you say?

Jorge

An alternate explanation? Well, first off I think Henke's responses have been fairly convincing so far (if a little waffly at times), though I'd like to see what he has to say to the latest salvo in the debate.

Having said that, my general feeling (not being an expert in this particular field) would be that we have a single study that would require further replication and research and also to be placed into the context of other isotopes.

This single study has implications in terms of heat that are very problematic from the YEC point of view (yes I am aware that Chaffin is working on this). Considering that we are dealing with such a small data set and that there is a large body of data arguing for a world older than 6000 years, I don't feel my views to be challenged especially strongly.

[JonF]

I’m very interested in hearing the old earthers' (theist or not) here at TWeb explain how zircons suffered 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay but only 6,000 years worth of helium losses.

For more details see http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp and links therein.

Not really looking to debate (time constraints); I just want to hear alternate, OE explanations to these data.

BTW, this is all part of the scientific research that YEC scientists are presently conducting to gather supporting evidence for our position (you know, the type of research that "YECs never conduct" ).

Jorge

Assuming for the sake of argument that the measurements are correct and the analysis is also correct (neither of which has been established beyond reasonable doubt), the most one can say is that there may be something we don't understand or have not taken into account in the history of those particular zircons. There may well be something new to learn there; but it's not going to affect the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, whether or not we have an explanation for this alleged anomaly.

There's far from enough evidence to conclude that apparently excessive helium loss is common in zircons, and much farther still from enough evidence to conclude that there are any significant errors in mainstream readiometric dating. YECs love to think that finding a few anomalies or errors calls the entire structure into question. Of course they don't; to seriously question the whole of the evidence for an old Earth they would need to question the whole of the evidence, and the correlations and agreement between all the different lines of inquiry. But they never do, and obviously can't do, that.

I do have some hope for the RATE group, though; unlike most YECs they do understand that the only way to get lead into zircons is through radioactive decay of uranium, and they do understand that the only way to get accelerated radioactive decay without leaving other traces (that we don't see) is multiple direct interventions by a Divine Being. This knocks the props out of most YEC arguments against radiometric dating, and implicitly acknowledges that their scenarios can never be considered scientific.

[JonF]

JonF may well do as he is involved with Talk Origins.

Not very much; I'm not in the core group.

[aniso]

I’m very interested in hearing the old earthers' (theist or not) here at TWeb explain how zircons suffered 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay but only 6,000 years worth of helium losses.

For more details see http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp and links therein.

Not really looking to debate (time constraints); I just want to hear alternate, OE explanations to these data.

BTW, this is all part of the scientific research that YEC scientists are presently conducting to gather supporting evidence for our position (you know, the type of research that "YECs never conduct" ).

Jorge

So, Jorge, have you read Henke's critique? The arguments for alternative interpretations are pretty clear. There are two main arguments right in the first paragraphs including variable diffusivity related to confining pressures (a known effect) and unusual He fluxes through the crust in the region where the drill cores were collected (another known feature).

Basically, I would say that there are some variables that Humphreys has not taken into account. In a peer-reviewed journal this probably would not even make the first cut.

On another point, I don't know the details, but Henke says that the actual ages derived for the Jemez rocks vary wildly and 6ky is a broad generalization. This is probably not the kind of clock that one would want to use as a foundation for research.

[Jugulum]

I'm puzzled : how could they "acknowledge it" and yet not regard this as good YEC evidence?
Do these zircons constitute 'bad' or 'neutral' YEC evidence?

As I recall, it was something like, "There's only one group that even tries original research, and the best they could come up with was a couple small anomalies." So presumably, they thought that the zircons are not good YEC evidence in the sense that it's not hard to explain how they could be old.

[oxmixmudd]

I’m very interested in hearing the old earthers' (theist or not) here at TWeb explain how zircons suffered 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay but only 6,000 years worth of helium losses.

For more details see http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp and links therein.

Not really looking to debate (time constraints); I just want to hear alternate, OE explanations to these data.

BTW, this is all part of the scientific research that YEC scientists are presently conducting to gather supporting evidence for our position (you know, the type of research that "YECs never conduct" ).

Jorge

My main response is that it is interesting, but there are a lot of variables involved, and there is a lot of other evidence (most other evidence) that points to old.

That said, excessive radiometric decay should have left signatures a lot of places. Enough anomalies like this that stand scrutiny (which this has yet to do - although it is doing better than most YEC evidences) and one can begin to make a real scientific case for YE.

The main problem I see is similar to a lot of YEC evidences. We again have a system that is poorly understood. And the main issue here is threefold:

Can one eliminate external sources of helium.

Can one understand fully how the helium can get in and out of the zircon.

Can one use h3/h4 ratios to extablish a probability for the source of the helium not to be the uranium decay.

I suppose it is similar to any of the arguments related to radiometric dating. One must show a closed system,or many data points from many different sites and a high probability for a closed system, or the ability to determine if it is open or closed to be able to say anything meaningful about the implied date.

If these results are repeatable, especially at sites far from any current (geologic time) volcanic or geothermal activity that might create anomalous heat variation and external helium sources, then I suppose (non-expert that I am) it might be able to have some weight attached to it.

But unless more anomalies of this type show up in other areas of radiometric dating (or other OE indicators) it still will not point to a major change in fundamental constants in the universe, but rather something odd about uranium in zircons.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

My main response is that it is interesting, but there are a lot of variables involved, and there is a lot of other evidence (most other evidence) that points to old.

That said, excessive radiometric decay should have left signatures a lot of places. Enough anomalies like this that stand scrutiny (which this has yet to do - although it is doing better than most YEC evidences) and one can begin to make a real scientific case for YE.

The main problem I see is similar to a lot of YEC evidences. We again have a system that is poorly understood. And the main issue here is threefold:

Can one eliminate external sources of helium.

Can one understand fully how the helium can get in and out of the zircon.

Can one use h3/h4 ratios to extablish a probability for the source of the helium not to be the uranium decay.

I suppose it is similar to any of the arguments related to radiometric dating. One must show a closed system,or many data points from many different sites and a high probability for a closed system, or the ability to determine if it is open or closed to be able to say anything meaningful about the implied date.

If these results are repeatable, especially at sites far from any current (geologic time) volcanic or geothermal activity that might create anomalous heat variation and external helium sources, then I suppose (non-expert that I am) it might be able to have some weight attached to it.

But unless more anomalies of this type show up in other areas of radiometric dating (or other OE indicators) it still will not point to a major change in fundamental constants in the universe, but rather something odd about uranium in zircons.


Jim

Drat - missed the 45 by 5:

ETA: I have one other thought on this. Let Humphrys et al take this paper(these papers?) and submit it(them) for publication in respected Journals for geology/radiometric dating. And let the reviewers rip them apart. Then, take their comments, go back to the field and answer every objection. Then, submit them again, let the rip them apart again. Repeat until one of two things occurs:

The paper is published
The rejection line is: We acknowledge the completeness and throroughness of the research, but can't accept the conclusion.

Better yet, title the paper: "Anomalous helium retention points to anomolously high decay rates in the recent past" and leave any conclusions about age out of it.

These guys (Humphries/Sarfati etc) are not experts in this field. Let the experts in the field tell them where they fall short. Then do the hard work of meeting the standards. This is the honorable, humble, and right way to do this work.

When Jesus healed the lepers, he had them go and present themselves to the priests. The work had to pass the test. They had to show they were REALLY healed. It is the same here - you must show the research methodology is sound, meets all current standards for scientific research, and these guys must be humble and understand they probably have a lot to learn about how to do this kind of research.

[Roy]

I’m very interested in hearing the old earthers' (theist or not) here at TWeb explain how zircons suffered 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay but only 6,000 years worth of helium losses.

They didn't - Henke's criticisms of Humphrey's data handling appear to me to be on target and largely unanswered.

Roy

[aniso]

ETA: I have one other thought on this. Let Humphrys et al take this paper(these papers?) and submit it(them) for publication in respected Journals for geology/radiometric dating. And let the reviewers rip them apart. Then, take their comments, go back to the field and answer every objection. Then, submit them again, let the rip them apart again. Repeat until one of two things occurs:

The paper is published
The rejection line is: We acknowledge the completeness and throroughness of the research, but can't accept the conclusion.

Better yet, title the paper: "Anomalous helium retention points to anomolously high decay rates in the recent past" and leave any conclusions about age out of it.

What a novel idea! The only problem is that it won't happen. For two reasons. First, the cost of satisfying the reviewers would be basically to do the whole thing over at huge costs to cover the many variables involved. Second, Humphreys and others would be afraid of the results.