Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] The Age of the Earth – The Helium Clock

Tri Unity

Member
The age of the earth is determined by using clocks that have been ticking in the core, or in rocks, or in our atmosphere, ever since the earth was formed. Helium in our atmosphere is one of those clocks; because helium in our atmosphere has been accumulated by the decay process of uranium in rocks. This is the same process of decay that is used for calculating the uranium-lead clock, for the uranium decays into lead through the process of alpha decay - which is escaped helium from uranium. Lead and helium are both radiogenic daughter products of uranium. As almost all rocks on earth contain uranium, the accumulation of helium 4 (alpha decay) in our atmosphere is synchronous with the age of rocks, or the crust of the earth. Our earth and our atmosphere are two clocks that were set in motion at the same time!

As both of these clocks were started at the same time, both of these clocks should yield the same age of the earth. In other words, the 4.6 billion years given for the uranium-lead clock needs to be consistent with the helium clock, otherwise the uranium-lead clock is inconsistent, unreliable, and not “scientific”.

The problem is that these two clocks show irreconcilable differences. If the uranium lead clock was correct, and the earth is 4.6 billion years old, then there would need to be 10,000 billion tons of radiogenic helium 4 in the atmosphere. The actual amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere is 3.5 billion tons – 0.035 percent of the required amount to match the 4.6 billion years of the uranium-lead clock.

In Where is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium?, Melvin Cook says: “AT the estimated 2 ×1020 gm. uranium and 5 × 1020 gm. thorium in the lithosphere, helium should be generated radiogenically at a rate of about 3 ×109gm./year. Moreover, the (secondary) cosmic-ray source of helium has been estimated to be of comparable magnitude. Apparently nearly all the helium from sedimentary rock sand, according to Keevil and Hurley, about 0.8 of the radiogenic helium from igneous rocks, have been released into the atmosphere during geological times (currently taken to be about 5 × 109 yr.). Hence more than 1020gm. of helium should have passed into the atmosphere since the `beginning'. Because the atmosphere contains only 3.5 × 1015 gm. helium-4, the common assumption is therefore that about 1020 gm. of helium-4 must also have passed out through the exosphere, and that its present rate of loss through the exosphere balances the rate of exudation from the lithosphere.”

Scientists have assumed that the discrepancy of the missing 99.96 percent of helium has occurred through helium escaping the earth’s gravitational field into space. This has not been observed, however. In fact, they have observed the opposite. Another source of helium accumulation, such as when the earth travels through the solar atmosphere, actually builds on the helium quantities. Again, another source of accumulated helium are the factors wherein meteorite collisions and intense volcanism have brought about periods of accelerated decay. These periods could have brought about the alpha decay rate of helium diffusion many times of the natural diffusion rates.

With the combined accumulation of helium in the atmosphere, the calculation yields a date of 175,000 years. The natural rate contributed to by alpha decay may only be that of 10,000 - 15,000 years. This is but one example of a natural clock in which the age of the earth can be dated by other means than the uranium-lead clock, and how the same process gives radically different yields to what has become a scientific fantasy of 4.6 billion years.


http://www.christianforums.net/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=22#_ednref1 Nature,Volume 179, Issue 4552, pp. 213 (1957).
 
Purely for the purposes of discussions, I would like to submit 2 rebuttals...

There are many evolutionists that will attempt to rebutt the bible, God, creation, or any science that is used to expose the errors of evolution. Faith is the driving force of evolution and creation... you need faith to believe God and you need faith to disbelieve God. Evolution and creation are in a faith war.
 
There are many evolutionists that will attempt to rebutt the bible, God, creation, or any science that is used to expose the errors of evolution. Faith is the driving force of evolution and creation... you need faith to believe God and you need faith to disbelieve God. Evolution and creation are in a faith war.

The real conflict is between theism and naturalism. Which worldview best explains the data? I don't see evolution and creation being at war anymore than I see evolution and God being at war. But evolution isn't a faith is a process/mechanism and does not conflict with God no matter how much Richard Dawkins (and indeed Young Earth Creationists) want it to. It doesn't even conflict with the Bible, only an absolute linear litetalistic interpretation of it.

Evolution and Young Earth Creationism are opponents certainly.
 
Which worldview best explains the data?

Evolution is indeed a faith. It is a worldview. Science can be used to support both premises; so it is naive to claim that it is a "science". It is not a science - it is faith in a worldview. It is no different to Buddhism or philosophy; it is a worldview that explains where we came from and where we are going. Acknowledging Christianity as well simply states that you are trying to combine christian philosophy with evolution. You inadvertently call Christ a false teacher since He taught us about Adam and Eve. Evolution is NOT consistent with Christianity. Forcing christianity and evolution creates a hybrid animal - it is not the same animal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Evolution is indeed a faith. It is a worldview. Science can be used to support both premises; so it is naive to claim that it is a "science". It is not a science - it is faith in a worldview. It is no different to Buddhism or philosophy; it is a worldview that explains where we came from and where we are going. Acknowledging Christianity as well simply states that you are trying to combine christian philosophy with evolution. You inadvertently call Christ a false teacher since He taught us about Adam and Eve. Evolution is NOT consistent with Christianity. Forcing christianity and evolution creates a hybrid animal - it is not the same animal.

I think you're confusing Evolution with Evolutionism with the latter very much being a worldview. http://steamdoc.s5.com/sci-nature/chapter5.pdf provides some good definitions for evolution and evolutionism.

Now, Adam and Eve. Evolution does not contradict these even if you take the view they were historical figures. I agree with N.T Wright when he says that its important to explain our situation in that there was a primeval pair that got it wrong but that doesn't mean Genesis is pure history

[video=youtube;3BP1PpDyDCw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BP1PpDyDCw[/video]

As for Jesus, to me he was using figures that people would have been familiar with to make his point. He later on says he is a door but I doubt he meant literally. Something doesn't have to be literal to convey truth. We use metaphors naturally all the time. But as I put above, historical Adam and Eve do not conflict with evolution. http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response details some of the stances

The central claim of the Christian faith is that Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead. This is what my faith is based on. It's got nothing to do with how the earth was created.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you're confusing Evolution with Evolutionism with the latter very much being a worldview.

Hi Grazer. Perhaps you should start your own thread to promote evolution. You are entitled to whatever opinion you want. For me personally, belief in evolution by christians is spiritual blindness. It is actually a punishment from God. When we make compromises in the name of religion by mixing church and state, or sport, music, pubs, clubs... all of this leads to a watered down liberalism - and this is our reward for what the bible calls being "luke-warm". This thread, however, is on helium diffusion in the atmosphere. If you want to start another thread to promote evolution that would be up to you. Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Grazer. Perhaps you should start your own thread to promote evolution. You are entitled to whatever opinion you want. For me personally, belief in evolution by christians is spiritual blindness. It is actually a punishment from God. When we make compromises in the name of religion by mixing church and state, or sport, music, pubs, clubs... all of this leads to a watered down liberalism - and this is our reward for what the bible calls being "luke-warm". This thread, however, is on helium diffusion in the atmosphere. If you want to start another thread to promote evolution that would be up to you. Thanks

Except that I'm not promoting evolution. To do that would involve putting the evidence for it being true which I have not done, I linked to 2 rebuttals. You brought evolution and its compatibility with Christianity into it. All I'm "promoting" is the view that there is simply no contradiction between evolution and the Christian faith. It certainly doesn't dilute it because its got nothing to do with what the Christian faith is based on. It is possible to be an absolute committed Christian and hold the theory of evolution to be true as many scientists have shown throughout history. If anyone wishes to continue the evolution discussion, please feel free to PM me.

As I said, I linked to 2 rebuttals of your post. Everyone can read both sides and decide for themselves.
 
As I said, I linked to 2 rebuttals of your post. Everyone can read both sides and decide for themselves.

If you would like to explain why the evidence of helium diffusion does not support the old age of the earth instead of simply posting links of other peoples faith opinions that would be more useful to the thread.
 
HTML:
HTML:
HTML:
If you would like to explain why the evidence of helium diffusion does not support the old age of the earth instead of simply posting links of other peoples faith opinions that would be more useful to the thread.

Since I have not done any extensive study into using helium to date the earth, I've referred to those who have as my non expert opinion on these matters wouldn't count for very much. Now if you want a view on darts or digital forensic analysis I'd more than happy to give my own views.

Their articles are no more faith opinions than the one you appear to have copied and pasted.

The articles cast doubt over the validity of the results and the way the experiments were conducted. They provide further links to other technical papers detailing the experiments and other information that take into account the pressure the helium was under as it escaped. I know about how using isotopes to date things works but when the actual experiments are being questioned, I have to defer the view to the experts hence the articles. I have no doubt that your source is regarded as an expert which is why what you and I think doesn't really matter (unless you yourself are the expert then its even more important I refer to others in the field)

A quick Google search brings up a number of articles which shows there is discussion over using helium as an accurate measurement and thought this information would be useful in the discussion for those who are interested. You'll note that I haven't actually given my view on this so here it is. There seems to be sufficient doubt over the results to question them. Even if the results are valid, doesn't affect my faith one iota, just means I'd have to change my view on how old the earth is.
 
If you would like to explain why the evidence of helium diffusion does not support the old age of the earth instead of simply posting links of other peoples faith opinions that would be more useful to the thread.
Was your op based on your own actual research or was it other peoples' opinions?

Tri Unity said:
Hi Grazer. Perhaps you should start your own thread to promote evolution.
It needs to be said that you are the one who brought up the discussion of evolution, so don't chastise someone for responding to something you said. Evolution is not a world view, scientific naturalism is. Grazer is correct that the battle is between naturalism and theism, not evolution and theism.

Evolution is an interpretation of the data and is a mechanism by which living organisms change and reproduce. It is a category error on your part to equate a mechanism with an intelligent agent.
 
There seems to be sufficient doubt over the results to question them.

There seems to be sufficient doubt that Jesus didn't exist for some people. You are entitled to believe (have faith in) what ever you like.

Free said:
Was your op based on your own actual research or was it other peoples' opinions?

I am certain I have researched the subject more than you.

Free said:
Evolution is not a world view, scientific naturalism is.

I am responding to what Grazer said in his post, so don't go chastising me for responding to his post. Grazer said, "Which worldview best explains the data?" If you do not understand the terms, then please just ask instead of coming out guns blazing.

Free said:
Evolution is an interpretation of the data and is a mechanism by which living organisms change and reproduce. It is a category error on your part to equate a mechanism with an intelligent agent.

No, it is a mistake on your part to mistake intelligent mechanism with unintelligent accident. Evolution is a faith; evolution is a worldview; evolution is not scientific. Evolution is, as you said, an interpretation of the data to fit in with a worldview which requires faith - not empirical evidence.

Do you have any comment about the OP or did you just want to attack me personally?
 
Re: your definition of evolution, again sounds very much like evolutionism:

The philosophical position that natural explanations exclude God. Since science has produced these natural explanations for life, those with this ideology claim to have pushed God out of the picture. Of course these metaphysical conclusions are not science in any way – those who advocate this meaning are simply pushing atheistic philosophy, and it is wrong to try to claim it is a result of science.

Taking the most basic definition of evolution:

Change over time. Simply meaning that something changes with the passage of time. For example, we might talk about the evolution of popular music, or the evolution of stars. With regard to living things, this simply says that things are different than they were in the past (there used to be dinosaurs; now there aren’t). Almost nobody denies this meaning

There is also a further possible definition:

Evolutionary mechanisms (genetic variation, natural selection). This refers to specific natural mechanisms (first proposed by Darwin, although in a primitive way because genetics was not yet understood) that cause species to change. Genetic variation is the fact that (due to mixing of parental genes and to mutations) children have different genes and different traits. Natural selection refers to the fact that the traits will make some children more likely to survive and pass their genes on to future generations. This is clearly correct on some scales, as it can be directly observed (for example, the evolution of bacteria resistant to certain antibiotics) or studied at the level of individual traits (for example, a recent study traced the evolution of lactose tolerance in humans as milk-producing animals were domesticated in different societies)

So we need to be clear about what we mean by evolution.
 
I am certain I have researched the subject more than you.
That wasn't my point, was it? I ask again: Was your op based on your own actual research or was it other peoples' opinions?

Tri Unity said:
I am responding to what Grazer said in his post, so don't go chastising me for responding to his post. Grazer said, "Which worldview best explains the data?" If you do not understand the terms, then please just ask instead of coming out guns blazing.
I was referring to your second post: "There are many evolutionists that will attempt to rebutt the bible, God, creation, or any science that is used to expose the errors of evolution. Faith is the driving force of evolution and creation... you need faith to believe God and you need faith to disbelieve God. Evolution and creation are in a faith war. "

You clearly brought evolution into the discussion so he has every right to address what you said.

Tri Unity said:
No, it is a mistake on your part to mistake intelligent mechanism with unintelligent accident. Evolution is a faith; evolution is a worldview; evolution is not scientific. Evolution is, as you said, an interpretation of the data to fit in with a worldview which requires faith - not empirical evidence.
You even agree that evolution is an interpretation of the data--by which I mean there seems to be abundant empirical evidence pointing to evolution--"to fit in with a worldview" but also say that it is a worldview. How can it be both? Isn't science all about interpreting data? Scientific naturalism is the worldview which attempts to make the mechanism of evolution completely free of any sort of intelligent agent.

Evolution is not a worldview; it is a mechanism, nothing more.

Tri Unity said:
Do you have any comment about the OP or did you just want to attack me personally?
Since when has correcting become attacking?
 
Since when has correcting become attacking?

You have not corrected me on anything, you don't know what you are talking about. By targeting every sentence I make without once addressing the OP is an under-handed personal attack. You have done this on many of my previous posts. I don't understand why you are targeting me?
 
You have not corrected me on anything, you don't know what you are talking about. By targeting every sentence I make without once addressing the OP is a personal attack. You have done this on many of my previous posts. I don't understand why you are targeting me?
So addressing certain points you have made is now considered a personal attack? It's called debating and it is irrelevant if I have addressed the OP. I was correcting some of your erroneous assertions regarding evolution and addressing a possible fallacious argument, nothing more.

What a real personal attack is, is saying something like "you don't know what you are talking about," because it is attacking the person and has nothing to do with any points that have been raised. I suggest you read up on ogical fallacies as this is not the first time you have been confused in how they are used.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ (Read the first one, "Ad Hominem")

And I'm certainly not targeting you. If anyone else made the statements you did, and several have done so in the past, I would have corrected them, as I have done several times in the past.
 
I suggest you read up on ogical fallacies as this is not the first time you have been confused in how they are used.

It is not just what is said, it is the spirit of what is said that makes it a personal attack.

"You don't know what you are talking about" because you assume to be correcting me based on false arguments and false definitions.
 
It is not just what is said, it is the spirit of what is said that makes it a personal attack.

"You don't know what you are talking about" because you assume to be correcting me based on false arguments and false definitions.
And you somehow know, through this medium, the spirit of what I said? There was no personal attack, just correction towards proper, accepted definitions.

I strongly suggest you look into the difference between evolution and evolutionism, which is a similar difference as that between science and scientisim.

And I'm still curious: Was your op based on your own actual research or was it other peoples' opinions?
 
And I'm still curious: Was your op based on your own actual research or was it other peoples' opinions?

Do anyone's views on anything develop 100 percent independently, or are they built upon by the research of others? Are you immune to this? Do you have completely original views on evolution, or are you just borrowing from someone else's definitions?

I have researched this subject by looking at the arguments presented from both sides. I have examined the flaws and developed my own independent view which is based on research and my own observations. You are continually addressing me personally instead of the OP. You have not as yet once addressed the subject of the OP; you have only addressed me personally, as you have done in other threads. If you do not like me, in which you appear to hate me, you are best avoiding my posts.
 
Back
Top