Old Earth?

[Devolution]

Evolutionary science apparently teaches “facts”.

Facts are set in stone. Facts are facts and non-negotiable, that is, not subject to change…otherwise they would not be facts…isn’t that a fact?

Lets look at some evolutionary “facts” that are subject to change in the “science” of time dating so arrogantly shoved down our children’s throats as irrefutable “facts”. It’s time to start regurgitating these soul poisoning atheistic humanistic focused self worshipping cretins masquerading as scientists which was created by Christians in the first place before being hijacked by God haters in a political mood of social change and upheaval looking for a new (God free) take on life as “we” know it and endorsed and unopposed by the social power brokers of its time of inception: mainstream ungodly materialistic priests…the ones who could have stopped this nonsense in the first place but who’d rather be intimately teaching “young boys” the “truth” of life!! Oh the facts run deep and dark to the unyielding seekers!

Take your time and read on at your own pace….enjoy the ever changing “facts” in motion…which by definition..can in no way be facts at all. And that is a fact.

[Devolution]

Copied from CEH website.

Geologists 750% Wrong in Death Valley
Posted on January 23, 2012 in Dating Methods, Geology, Physical Science, Physics

A volcanic explosion in northern Death Valley occurred 800 years ago, not 6,000, “far more recently than generally thought,” according to new dating estimates. The event that created Ubehebe Crater is so recent, in fact, geologists think another devastating explosion could happen today.

“This certainly adds another dimension to what we tell the public,” a park ranger said after hearing the announcement reported on Science Daily. Using isotopic ages on rocks blown out of the crater, geologists from Columbia University calculated dates from 2,100 to 800 years old from the debris, with the biggest explosion at 800 years ago perhaps being the grand finale of a series of eruptions. The article said some of the other pits in the vicinity, called maars, gave dates of 3,000 to 5,000 years.

Explosion pits like Ubehebe (pronounced you-be-hee-bee) are thought to result from groundwater hitting a magma pocket. It seems surprising to envision water in this hottest, driest part of North America, but if the explosion occurred in the middle ages (around 1200 A.D.), tree ring evidence shows it was even hotter and drier then. If explosions occur periodically every thousand years or less, it’s not out of the question another one is coming.

Here’s what the geologists estimate an eyewitness would see:

Study coauthor Brent Goehring, (now at Purdue University) says this would have created an atom-bomb-like mushroom cloud that collapsed on itself in a donut shape, then rushed outward along the ground at some 200 miles an hour, while rocks hailed down. Any creature within two miles or more would be fatally thrown, suffocated, burned and bombarded, though not necessarily in that order. “It would be fun to witness — but I’d want to be 10 miles away,” said Goehring of the explosion.

In all fairness, the write-up on Live Science pegs the earlier estimate at 4,000 years. That would make the earlier geologists only 500% wrong.

When you go to national parks, do you accept the interpretive signs as authoritative? There have been other examples of misinformation, some even worse – like the realization in the 1980s after Mt. St. Helens erupted that the Yellowstone fossil forests must not have grown in place (as long taught by park sings), but were buried quickly by catastrophic volcanic mudflows. Scientists don’t know when Ubehebe erupted. Even the revised date is based on indirect evidence that might be overturned again.

What parks and geologists should do is state that the date is only an estimate based on certain assumptions, and that other interpretations are possible. They won’t do that, because they like the air of authority that comes from matter-of-fact statements, like “x million years ago, y happened.” Let’s see how long it takes them to rewrite the interpretive signs at the crater. Meanwhile, park visitors be forewarned. Don’t You Be Heeby.*

*Since there is no such word, we will assign it the temporary meaning of gullible for present pun-itive purposes.

[Devolution]

Copied from CEH website.

Ancient Raindrops Argue for Young Earth
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

What was the earth's atmosphere like when ancient rocks were forming? Was it cold and thin because the sun was supposedly dimmer back then?

Researcher Sanjoy Som tried to answer these questions by analyzing tiny craters in South Africa that were left by raindrops landing in volcanic ash, which has long since turned to stone. However, his research actually indicated that the earth and its atmosphere aren't very old at all.

Som, now at the NASA Ames Research Center, began investigating the raindrop rocks before earning his doctorate in 2010. He used physics to infer the thickness of the atmosphere at the time the raindrops impacted the ash. A thinner atmosphere would have offered less resistance to a falling drop, which would have hit the ground harder and thus left a larger impression.

“Som and his colleagues conclude that the atmosphere back then was a lot like it is today,” National Public Radio reported.1

And that's a big problem for those who claim that the earth and sun are billions of years old. With the sun supposedly emitting so little light billions of years ago, water on earth would be frozen, making life impossible. Yet ancient fossils show that the earth had both water and living things. In order to solve this “faint young sun paradox,” researchers have been searching for clues showing that the ancient earth's atmosphere was much thicker.

“The easiest answer is that the atmosphere served as an insulating blanket,” according to NPR.1 A thick atmosphere might trap enough heat to keep water from freezing. However, there is no evidence of extra carbon or nitrogen-containing greenhouse chemicals having provided any ancient blanketing atmosphere. And now that these raindrop results also indicate that the ancient atmosphere was much like today's, “the [faint young sun] paradox remains.”1

Actually, the easiest answer to this paradox is not to imagine a totally different atmosphere or alter the physics of the ancient sun,2 but to erase the imaginary billion-year timescale. Once that's done, all the data align. And those data also line up with the Genesis account of a young earth created with a life-sustaining atmosphere from the beginning.

[Devolution]

Copied from CEH website

Both Argon and Helium Diffusion Rates Indicate a Young Earth
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. *

Introduction

In the final report of ICR’s Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project, Dr. Russell Humphreys reported that helium diffusion from zircons in borehole GT-2 at Fenton Hill, New Mexico, gave an age for the earth of 6,000 ± 2,000 years.1 This young age agrees with a literal reading of Scripture, but is at variance with the billions of years conventionally held. Gary Loechelt has been a frequent critic of Humphreys’ procedures for calculating the young age by helium diffusion.2 Humphreys has responded to Loechelt and other critics, demonstrating that their concerns were invalid and successfully defending his findings.

However, due to Loechelt’s persistent criticisms, Humphreys recently took a deeper look at one of the key papers on which his helium diffusion research was based, and he found some rather odd assumptions about local heating near the borehole.3 He concluded that some of the assumptions about the heating history of the borehole were made to avoid problems the authors of the paper (Harrison et al4) would otherwise have had with the diffusion of argon from the sample.

Humphreys decided to develop a second, independent method for estimating the age of the earth based on the diffusion of argon from feldspar in the same Fenton Hill borehole. The result was a slightly younger age for the earth than his earlier helium diffusion method.

A Brief Review of Diffusion

When radioactive isotopes decay in rock, various gases are produced as a byproduct. For example, uranium-238 in the rock decays to lead by alpha decay, producing alpha particles that combine with electrons to form helium. Potassium-40 decays directly to argon-40 by inverse beta decay and electron capture. The gases produced by radioactive decay are then free to move through the minerals in which they are imbedded and escape into the atmosphere.

However, the rate at which the gases can escape is highly dependent on the temperature of the minerals. For example, the rate of helium diffusion at the hot temperatures 15,000 feet below the surface is about 160 times faster than the rate at the cooler temperatures at 4,000 feet. Consequently, rock deep in the crust of the earth will be more depleted in helium than rock near the surface.

Humphreys was able to calculate the diffusivity, a measure of the rate of escape of helium from the zircons in the granite at Fenton Hill. Figure 1 displays observed and theoretical diffusivities for helium as a function of temperature. Note that temperature in degrees Celsius is hotter on the left side of the figure, so the diffusivity increases upward to the left. The diffusivity is plotted on a logarithmic scale and increases by a factor of 10 for each tick on the vertical axis.

There are five white data points shown on the red and green curves in the lower right portion of the figure. These are actual concentrations of helium measured from the Fenton Hill core used to compute diffusivity. The diffusivity for the red curve (the uniformitarian model) was computed by dividing the difference between the theoretical amount of helium produced over the conventional age of the rock and the measured amount remaining by the conventional 1.5-billion-year age of the rock.

The diffusivity for the green curve (the creation model) was computed by dividing the difference in helium concentration by 6,000 years. Note there is a factor of about 100,000 in diffusivity between the two curves. In other words, the rate at which helium diffuses from the rock must be many times slower for the uniformitarian model in order to explain the concentration of helium observed in the rock today.

The RATE project obtained samples of granite from the Fenton Hill borehole and submitted them to one of the most widely respected helium laboratories for determination of helium diffusion rate as a function of temperature. Humphreys hypothesized before the laboratory work was completed that the results would fit the creation model rather than the uniformitarian model and support a young earth.5 Figure 1 clearly shows that his hypothesis was confirmed. The blue data from the laboratory experiments matched the green curve so well that Humphreys has said several times in his public lectures, “Never in my entire scientific career have I ever seen a numerical prediction verified so accurately.” Using the laboratory-measured diffusion rates, he was able to compute an estimated age of the earth and its uncertainties. The value was 6,000 ± 2,000 years.

The New Argon Results

The deep Precambrian granite “basement” rock from the Fenton Hill GT-2 borehole contained not only zircons from which helium diffusion rates could be determined, but also a potassium-bearing microcline feldspar containing argon-40 that could be used to estimate age. Harrison et al conducted argon-argon dating and diffusivity measurements on five feldspar samples.4 They were forced to assume recent heating of the rock in the borehole from a nearby volcano to explain the abundant release of argon evident in the samples.

They rejected several of the samples from their full analysis because the diffusion rates resulted in a young earth. However, they reported the laboratory results on all five samples. Figure 2 shows their “Age Spectrum” for one of their rejected samples (sample 5) collected from the hottest temperature at a depth of 15,000 feet below the surface. It shows the conventional estimate for age as a function of the percent of argon released by heating experiments in the laboratory.

The peak of 1160 Ma in Figure 2 shows that over “one billion years’ worth” of potassium-40 to argon-40 decay occurred in situ. RATE hypothesized that this decay occurred during several episodes of accelerated nuclear decay in the past, the more recent during the year of the Genesis Flood.

RATE also hypothesized an accelerated cooling mechanism that would have gotten rid of much of the resulting radiogenic heat. Harrison et al had more confidence in the estimate of losses of argon in sample 5. Humphreys also believed that the age of sample 5, with a small adjustment in the percentage of argon loss, was more accurate and better-founded than the others.

Humphreys used the argon data from Figure 2 to compute the age of sample 5 to be 5,100+3,800 -2,100 years, where 5,100 years was his best estimate with the lowest age of 3,000 years and the oldest age of 8,900 years. Humphreys’ lower estimate of 3,000 years was the same as the estimate made by Harrison et al.4

Conclusions

Humphreys concluded that the observed high argon retentions shown in Figure 2 conflict severely with the uniformitarian-assumed long ages. These data say that the feldspar in the Fenton Hill borehole generated over a billion years’ worth of argon-40 and then retained it during a period of time that began only thousands of years ago.The argon data thus support accelerated nuclear decay, RATE’s young helium age, and the biblical youth of the world. Consequently, we can say that both argon and helium diffusion rates agree that the earth is only thousands of years old.

[Devolution]

Copied from CEH website.

The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating
by Tas Walker

Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations.

Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).

However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.

Dating

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.

So, how do geologists know how to interpret their radiometric dates and what the ‘correct’ date should be?

Field relationships

A geologist works out the relative age of a rock by carefully studying where the rock is found in the field. The field relationships, as they are called, are of primary importance and all radiometric dates are evaluated against them.

For example, a geologist may examine a cutting where the rocks appear as shown in Figure 1. Here he can see that some curved sedimentary rocks have been cut vertically by a sheet of volcanic rock called a dyke. It is clear that the sedimentary rock was deposited and folded before the dyke was squeezed into place.
figure 1
Figure 1
figure 2
Figure 2 Cross-section

By looking at other outcrops in the area, our geologist is able to draw a geological map which records how the rocks are related to each other in the field. From the mapped field relationships, it is a simple matter to work out a geological cross-section and the relative timing of the geologic events. His geological cross-section may look something like Figure 2.

Clearly, Sedimentary Rocks A were deposited and deformed before the Volcanic Dyke intruded them. These were then eroded and Sedimentary Rocks B were deposited.

The geologist may have found some fossils in Sedimentary Rocks A and discovered that they are similar to fossils found in some other rocks in the region. He assumes therefore that Sedimentary Rocks A are the same age as the other rocks in the region, which have already been dated by other geologists. In the same way, by identifying fossils, he may have related Sedimentary Rocks B with some other rocks.

Creationists would generally agree with the above methods and use them in their geological work.

From his research, our evolutionary geologist may have discovered that other geologists believe that Sedimentary Rocks A are 200 million years old and Sedimentary Rocks B are 30 million years old. Thus, he already ‘knows’ that the igneous dyke must be younger than 200 million years and older than 30 million years. (Creationists do not agree with these ages of millions of years because of the assumptions they are based on.2)

Because of his interest in the volcanic dyke, he collects a sample, being careful to select rock that looks fresh and unaltered. On his return, he sends his sample to the laboratory for dating, and after a few weeks receives the lab report.

Let us imagine that the date reported by the lab was 150.7 ± 2.8 million years. Our geologist would be very happy with this result. He would say that the date represents the time when the volcanic lava solidified. Such an interpretation fits nicely into the range of what he already believes the age to be. In fact, he would have been equally happy with any date a bit less than 200 million years or a bit more than 30 million years. They would all have fitted nicely into the field relationships that he had observed and his interpretation of them. The field relationships are generally broad, and a wide range of ‘dates’ can be interpreted as the time when the lava solidified.

What would our geologist have thought if the date from the lab had been greater than 200 million years, say 350.5 ± 4.3 million years? Would he have concluded that the fossil date for the sediments was wrong? Not likely. Would he have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? No. Instead of questioning the method, he would say that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified. He may suggest that the rock contained crystals (called xenocrysts) that formed long before the rock solidified and that these crystals gave an older date.3 He may suggest that some other very old material had contaminated the lava as it passed through the earth. Or he may suggest that the result was due to a characteristic of the lava—that the dyke had inherited an old ‘age’.

The error is not the real error:
Lava

The convention for reporting dates (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) implies that the calculated date of 200.4 million years is accurate to plus or minus 3.2 million years. In other words, the age should lie between 197.2 million years and 203.6 million years. However, this error is not the real error on the date. It relates only to the accuracy of the measuring equipment in the laboratory. Even different samples of rock collected from the same outcrop would give a larger scatter of results. And, of course, the reported error ignores the huge uncertainties in the assumptions behind the ‘age’ calculation. These include the assumption that decay rates have never changed. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times.1 Creationist physicists point to several lines of evidence that decay rates have been faster in the past, and propose a pulse of accelerated decay during Creation Week, and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year.2

Return to text.
References

   Woodmorappe, J., Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory, TJ15(2):4–6, 2001.
   Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F., Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Missouri, USA, 2000.

What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million years? No problem. Would he query the dating method, the chronometer? No. He would again say that the calculated age did not represent the time when the rock solidified. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the rock had been disturbed by groundwater or weathering.4 Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field.

No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it. He would simply change his assumptions about the history of the rock to explain the result in a plausible way. G. Wasserburg, who received the 1986 Crafoord Prize in Geosciences, said, ‘There are no bad chronometers, only bad interpretations of them!’5 In fact, there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results.

Why use it?

Someone may ask, ‘Why do geologists still use radiometric dating? Wouldn’t the
y have abandoned the method long ago if it was so unreliable?’ Just because the calculated results are not the true ages does not mean that the method is completely useless. The dates calculated are based on the isotopic composition of the rock. And the composition is a characteristic of the molten lava from which the rock solidified. Therefore, rocks in the same area which give similar ‘dates’ are likely to have formed from the same lava at about the same time during the Flood. So, although the assumptions behind the calculation are wrong and the dates are incorrect, there may be a pattern in the results that can help geologists understand the relationships between igneous rocks in a region.

Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years old. The vast age has simply been assumed.2 The calculated radiometric ‘ages’ depend on the assumptions that are made. The results are only accepted if they agree with what is already believed. The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible. And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the Bible to constrain their interpretations of the geological evidence.

What if the rock ages are not ‘known’ in advance—does radio-dating give coherent results?

Recently, I conducted a geological field trip in the Townsville area, North Queensland. A geological guidebook,1 prepared by two geologists, was available from a government department.

The guidebook’s appendix explains ‘geological time and the ages of rocks.’ It describes how geologists use field relationships to determine the relative ages of rocks. It also says that the ‘actual’ ages are measured by radiometric dating—an expensive technique performed in modern laboratories. The guide describes a number of radiometric methods and states that for ‘suitable specimens the errors involved in radiometric dating usually amount to several percent of the age result. Thus … a result of two hundred million years is expected to be quite close (within, say, 4 million) to the true age.’

This gives the impression that radiometric dating is very precise and very reliable—the impression generally held by the public. However, the appendix concludes with this qualification: ‘Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. … if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable’.

This is exactly what our main article explains. Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be.

Townsville geology is dominated by a number of prominent granitic mountains and hills. However, these are isolated from each other, and the area lacks significant sedimentary strata. We therefore cannot determine the field relationships and thus cannot be sure which hills are older and which are younger. In fact, the constraints on the ages are such that there is a very large range possible.

We would expect that radiometric dating, being allegedly so ‘accurate,’ would rescue the situation and provide exact ages for each of these hills. Apparently, this is not so.

Concerning the basement volcanic rocks in the area, the guidebook says, ‘Their exact age remains uncertain.’ About Frederick Peak, a rhyolite ring dyke in the area, it says, ‘Their age of emplacement is not certain.’ And for Castle Hill, a prominent feature in the city of Townsville, the guidebook says, ‘The age of the granite is unconfirmed.’

No doubt, radiometric dating has been carried out and precise ‘dates’ have been obtained. It seems they have not been accepted because they were not meaningful.
Reference

   Trezise, D.L. and Stephenson, P.J., Rocks and landscapes of the Townsville district, Department of Resource Industries, Queensland, 1990.

References and notes

   In addition to other unprovable assumptions, e.g. that the decay rate has never changed.
   Evolutionary geologists believe that the rocks are millions of years old because they assume they were formed very slowly.  They have worked out their geologic timescale based on this assumption.  This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very quickly.
   This argument was used against creationist work that exposed problems with radiometric dating.  Laboratory tests on rock formed from the 1980 eruption of Mt St Helens gave ‘ages’ of millions of years.  Critics claimed that ‘old’ crystals contained in the rock contaminated the result.  However, careful measurements by Dr Steve Austin showed this criticism to be wrong.  See Swenson, K., Radio-dating in rubble, Creation23(3):23–25, 2001.
   This argument was used against creationist work done on a piece of wood found in sandstone near Sydney, Australia, that was supposed to be 230 million years old.  Critics claimed that the carbon-14 results were ‘too young’ because the wood had been contaminated by weathering.  However, careful measurements of the carbon-13 isotope refuted this criticism.  See Snelling, A.A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone, Creation21(3):39–41, 1999.
   Wasserburg, G.J., Isotopic abundances: inferences on solar system and planetary evolution, Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters86:129–173, 150, 1987.

[Author]

Posts