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

[Tri Unity]

I don't think you really read the responses to your claim that the research is so different that there is nothing in common. This game will always go round and round.

Try playing a different record...

You said you wouldn't put much stock in AIG. Who cares what you would put stock in? You've hardly had too much value to add. You admitted not even reading the material.

 

[Free]

Try playing a different record...

You said you wouldn't put much stock in AIG. Who cares what you would put stock in? You've hardly had too much value to add. You admitted not even reading the material.

I said "I didn't read much of either but from what I read, it still seems to me that the links give your argument problems." This was confirmed by others who have responded.

 

[Tri Unity]

I said "I didn't read much of either but from what I read, it still seems to me that the links give your argument problems." This was confirmed by others who have responded.

It doesn't take much to convince you. That is the beauty and irony of a belief system!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, off-gassing from the atmosphere keeps it from accumulating. Your "age of the Earth" is just the equilibrium time right now. This changes over time, depending on the tectonic activity of the Earth, which releases helium at different rates in different geological ages.

This research (in your post) has been debunked.

It's been denied, but the data says otherwise.

Helium escape from the terrestrial atmosphere: The ion outflow mechanism
O. Liesvendsen & M.H. Rees
Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics 101(A2): 2435-2443, February 1, 1996

ABSTRACT: We have computed global He+ escape fluxes for a range and a variety of diurnal, seasonal, universal time, and solar activity geophysical conditions. We average over the short-term variables and compute the globally averaged escape flux for a range of cutoff latitudes, which separate regions of open and closed field lines, during one solar cycle. The global escape flux averaged over a solar cycle was computed, and we find that a cutoff latitude of about 60 degrees or lower is sufficient to balance the outgassing from the Earth's crust.

Despite the misplaced confidence of Prince the "helium problem" is just another of the many pleasant fictions that creationists weave to while away the time.

Prince: Wrt radiogenic helium trapped in very hot rocks deep in the crust, whose rate of escape and diffusion upward is greatly increased at high temperatures: ...

Prince's first mistake, simply assuming without reason that the diffusion rate must be high enough to drive all of the primordial helium out, just because the temperature is "high". This is far from the truth. In reality, ost of the helium is trapped and hard to mobilize. The temperature is of little account, since diffusion is dominated by partial pressure. The helium only moves if the partial pressure in the direction of motion allows it. There is in fact no reason to believe that helium should escape so rapidly.

But the comment shows that Prince is unaware of the real problem. He says "yet much of the helium-4 produced in them has not escaped ...". Dead wrong, much of it, in fact most of it, has escaped. The real problem with Earth's mantle is not that there is too much helium, but too little helium.

The 3He/4He ratio is strongly skewed in the mantle, at a minimum of several times the atmospheric ratio. 3He is non-radiogenic, meaning that all of the 3He inside Earth must have been put there when the planet formed. But if Earth experienced nothing but a "normal" outgassing history, the ratio of 3He/4He should be much smaller than it is (there should be more 4He with respect to 3He).

The answer is that the outgassing rate is not constant, but quite variable. Outgassing was furious during planet formation, and during the the heavy bombardment phase of the early solar system. That outgassing model fits very nicely with the current observed outgassing rate.

Cosmic helium does not rain down on Earth. All of the helium in the solar wind (about 5% of the solar wind) is ionized & deflected by Earth's magnetic field. Helium generated by cosmic rays in Earth's crust is practically non-existent, a miniscule fraction of the helium produced by radioactive decay in the mantle. So two of Prince's sources are wrong. The earth's atmosphere gains helium exclusively by outgassing from the mantle.

The half life of the 238U decay chain is 4.468 billion years, and the half life of the 232Th decay chain is 14.010 billion years. This means that there are long term sources of 4He in Earth's mantle.

I already showed that the loss rate of ionized helium from the polar regions balances the observed rate of outgassing, so the system is in equilibrium. It may have been that way for a long time or a short time, but the fasct that it is in equilibrium is simply not a problem for any evolutionary model of an "old earth". Furthermore, ougassing models based on evolutionary histories for Earth do reproduce the current observed abundances, outgassing rates, and isotopic ratios (Noble gases in the Earth's Mantle, Farley & Naroda, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 26: 189-218, 1998; Rheology and Volatile Exchange in the Framework of Planetary Evolution, Franck & Bounama, Advances in Space Research 15(10): 79-86, 1995).

Summary: The current loss rate from the upper atmosphere is in equilibrium with mantle outgassing, contrary to Vardiman's claim. The current abundance of helium in the mantle is not too large, contrary to Prince's claim. The Earth's atmosphere receives helium only from mantle outgassing, contrary to Prince's claim. The expected diffusion rate of helium in the mantle is not as high as Prince thinks, which means that he seriously overestimates the outgassing rate. The skewed isotopic abundance (3He/4He) indicates that either the mantle or the atmosphere (probably the latter) is not primordial, but has been processed. The net result is that there is no "helium problem" for evolution with respect to creationism.

Please keep your comments respectful. I will do the same.

As a Christian, I'm disappointed that you think so little of faith that you associated it with a scientific theory. Notice that AiG has again misrepresented the scientific data.

That you are emotionally attached to the correct assertion is gratifying. It shows you have a value system and you must therefore have been designed by a creator.

The "space alien designer" is for those who worship a smaller god. The Creator does not design. He has no need to figure anything out.

 

[Tri Unity]

As a Christian, I'm disappointed that you think so little of faith that you associated it with a scientific theory.

As I said earlier, you are entitled to your beliefs. That's all they are - beliefs.

 

[lordkalvan]

As I said earlier, you are entitled to your beliefs. That's all they are - beliefs.

As Free has suggested we stick with the topic of the OP, can you (or AiG) elaborate how a theoretical timescale for the accumulation of atmospheric helium dating Earth to an age of around 175,000 years sits with a YEC timescale of around 6000 years? Can you further explain how either date is consilient with numerous independent dating methodologies that show Earth to be much older than 6000 years?

 

[Tri Unity]

As Free has suggested we stick with the topic of the OP, can you (or AiG) elaborate how a theoretical timescale for the accumulation of atmospheric helium dating Earth to an age of around 175,000 years sits with a YEC timescale of around 6000 years? Can you further explain how either date is consilient with numerous independent dating methodologies that show Earth to be much older than 6000 years?

Hi Lord.

1st, I don't believe that the earth has only been here for 6,000 years. I don't accept the days of creation are literal - I believe they represent a day = 1000 years.

2nd, I stated in my OP that:

"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."
​

There are many other dating methods apart from Helium. Helium is not my strongest clock I am familiar with; but I was willing to go through each clock seperately to show the overwhelming amount of "science" that vindicates a young earth. I will not do that now, as the reception from "christians" who support evolution is too confusing for non-christians (and me) to bare. I do not wish to be party to that confusion. I am also quite shocked by the rudeness by christians who demand their voice be heard... the atheists on the other hand have been very respectful.

Tri

 

[lordkalvan]

Hi Lord.

1st, I don't believe that the earth has only been here for 6,000 years. I don't accept the days of creation are literal - I believe they represent a day = 1000 years.

2nd, I stated in my OP that:

"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."
​

There are many other dating methods apart from Helium. Helium is not my strongest clock I am familiar with; but I was willing to go through each clock seperately to show the overwhelming amount of "science" that vindicates a young earth. I will not do that now, as the reception from "christians" who support evolution is too confusing for non-christians (and me) to bare. I do not wish to be party to that confusion. I am also quite shocked by the rudeness by christians who demand their voice be heard... the atheists on the other hand have been very respectful.

Tri

Thanks for your reply. So what is your timescale for Earth's age and what science vindicates this age?

 

[Tri Unity]

Thanks for your reply. So what is your timescale for Earth's age and what science vindicates this age?

As you are probably aware; there are two major models of how the continents, mountains, oceans, rivers, etc., developed. There is the long version, based on Charles Lyell’s, James Hutton’s, William Whewell, Alfred Wallace and Erasmus Darwin’s (father of Charles Darwin) theories of Uniformitarianism. Then there is the short version of Catastrophism, based on creation, which was believed by the entire world up until the church was over-run by secular scholars in the 17th and 18th centuries. These events were intended to happen as preperation for these times - the end-times.

This catastrophism view suggests that the world was shaped by a series of catastrophes, such as the Catastrophes that shaped the MOR, and the lavas that filled up much of the continent Lithosphere, as is observed through the Siberian and Deccan Steppes.

There is a great deal written about this period, and the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century had invested their lives to these discoveries, such as Albert Einstein and Immanuel Velikovsky. Their collaboration together, along with dozens of other scientific pioneers, was the last book that Einstein worked on before his death, which is detailed in Velikovsky’s Earth in Upheaval.

The explanation given by evolutionists for the development of the Siberian Steppes is that it was one continuous volcano that erupted for over 1 million years. Well, that’s a good story. But the likelihood is that this volcano which formed a continent (exemplary of all continents), took place over a much shorter period of time, such as a period of 1000 years (the 2nd day of creation).

As I have already mentioned, I “believe” that the earth was created in 6000 years, complete with animals and man, using the day = 1000 years principal. This was also taught by the Early Church Fathers, such as Cyprian. We have been on earth an additional 6000 - 7000 years since then, making a total of 12,000 – 13,000 years. Each of the major creation blocks (days) took 1000 years each to complete. I believe all of the clocks that exist on earth, such as Helium, Sea Salt, Sediment, Radiometrics, Zircons, Polonium, etc., all give an approximate history which recognizes these dates. The dating of the universe and light is also given a great amount of detail and research in Starlight and Time, by D. Russell Humphreys, PH.D.

There is ample scientific evidence to support a young earth creation. If you are searching for God and truth you will find it. If you are closed off to God and truth you will never find it. God has made these truths discoverable, but with effort. This is a very brief summary, but I hope this helps.

 

[Barbarian]

Too bad you can't show us that evidence for a young Earth. I was hoping that there would be something more interesting than the old helium story. As you see, that one was shown to be false nearly 50 years ago.

 

[lordkalvan]

As you are probably aware; there are two major models of how the continents, mountains, oceans, rivers, etc., developed. There is the long version, based on Charles Lyell’s, James Hutton’s, William Whewell, Alfred Wallace and Erasmus Darwin’s (father of Charles Darwin) theories of Uniformitarianism. Then there is the short version of Catastrophism, based on creation, which was believed by the entire world up until the church was over-run by secular scholars in the 17th and 18th centuries. These events were intended to happen as preperation for these times - the end-times.

A couple of points come to mind immediately.

In the first place, modern geology views Earth's geologic history neither as purely uniformitarian nor purely catastrophic, but rather as gradual processes over long periods (plate tectonics, erosion, uplift, etc) punctuated by catastrophic events over much shorter periods (Earth impact events, major volcanic events, earthquakes, etc). This model is supported by the great weight of evidence.

In the second place, it was not secular scholars alone who questioned a short, catastrophic history of Earth's geology. 18th and 19th Century clergymen-scientists - and secular scientists, all educated in and largely persuaded of biblical catastrophism as the key to Earth's geology - went looking for evidence of catastrophic events in Earth's past (specifically the Noachian deluge) and rather quickly came to the conclusion that none such existed. Furthermore,they noted that the processes that they did observe could be best explained by gradual processes over long ages. nothing has emerged in the last two centuries of investigation to overturn that viewpoint and, indeed, it has only been reinforced.

ETA See, for example, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...nepage&q=british clergymen geologists&f=false
 

This catastrophism view suggests that the world was shaped by a series of catastrophes, such as the Catastrophes that shaped the MOR, and the lavas that filled up much of the continent Lithosphere, as is observed through the Siberian and Deccan Steppes.
 
There is a great deal written about this period, and the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century had invested their lives to these discoveries, such as Albert Einstein and Immanuel Velikovsky. Their collaboration together, along with dozens of other scientific pioneers, was the last book that Einstein worked on before his death, which is detailed in Velikovsky’s Earth in Upheaval.
 
The explanation given by evolutionists for the development of the Siberian Steppes is that it was one continuous volcano that erupted for over 1 million years. Well, that’s a good story. But the likelihood is that this volcano which formed a continent (exemplary of all continents), took place over a much shorter period of time, such as a period of 1000 years (the 2nd day of creation).

Not a volcano, I think you will find, but rather a series of volcanic events resulting in flood basalt on near-continental scales. I would be interested in your account of how the outgassing and heat input into the atmosphere if these events took place over hundreds of years rather than hundreds of thousands of years can be explained without rendering Earth uninhabitable to most forms of life as we know them.
 

As I have already mentioned, I “believe” that the earth was created in 6000 years, complete with animals and man, using the day = 1000 years principal.  This was also taught by the Early Church Fathers, such as Cyprian. We have been on earth an additional 6000 - 7000 years since then, making a total of 12,000 – 13,000 years. Each of the major creation blocks (days) took 1000 years each to complete.  I believe all of the clocks that exist on earth, such as Helium, Sea Salt, Sediment, Radiometrics, Zircons, Polonium, etc., all give an approximate history which recognizes these dates.

Well, to take your helium clock as the only example you have proffered to date, I would suggest that 175,000 years =/= 12,000 years, so I am not clear how this model supports your hypothesis.

The dating of the universe and light is also given a great amount of detail and research in Starlight and Time, by D. Russell Humphreys, PH.D.  

Until you present your argument based on this research, I am unable to comment on this.
 

There is ample scientific evidence to support a young earth creation. If you are searching for God and truth you will find it. If you are closed off to God and truth you will never find it. God has made these truths discoverable, but with effort. This is a very brief summary, but I hope this helps.

I appreciate your summary, but as it stands it is insufficient to convince. The contrary evidence seems overwhelming. For example, there is evidenced human activity on Earth long before 6000-7000 years ago and, if the biblical flood took place some 1500 years after the proposed date of creation, then one is left wondering where all the people came from that created the thriving civilisations that existed in several widely separate locations 4500-5000 years ago.
 

 

[cupid dave]

Helium escape from the terrestrial atmosphere: The ion outflow mechanism
O. Liesvendsen & M.H. Rees
Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics 101(A2): 2435-2443, February 1, 1996

ABSTRACT:

I already showed that the loss rate of ionized helium from the polar regions balances the observed rate of outgassing, so the system is in equilibrium.

Summary: The current loss rate from the upper atmosphere is in equilibrium with mantle outgassing, contrary to Vardiman's claim.

The current abundance of helium in the mantle is not too large, contrary to Prince's claim.

The Earth's atmosphere receives helium only from mantle outgassing, contrary to Prince's claim.

The expected diffusion rate of helium in the mantle is not as high as Prince thinks, which means that he seriously overestimates the outgassing rate.

The skewed isotopic abundance (3He/4He) indicates that either the mantle or the atmosphere (probably the latter) is not primordial, but has been processed.



The net result is that there is no "helium problem" for evolution with respect to creationism.


.

2x...

...interesting that half of all U238 on earth is gone now.

 

[cupid dave]

A couple of points come to mind immediately.

In the first place, modern geology views Earth's geologic history neither as purely uniformitarian nor purely catastrophic, but rather as gradual processes over long periods (plate tectonics, erosion, uplift, etc) punctuated by catastrophic events over much shorter periods (Earth impact events, major volcanic events, earthquakes, etc).

This model is supported by the great weight of evidence.

An that same model of the Geochronological Rock Layers supports the concept in Genesis of six very long "days" of creation that followed the first evening of the Big Bang Expansion:

 

[lordkalvan]

An that same model of the Geochronological Rock Layers supports the concept in Genesis of six very long "days" of creation that followed the first evening of the Big Bang Expansion:

You seem to have omitted the Phanerozoic (542 MY between the Proterozoic and the Paleozoic).

 

[cupid dave]

You seem to have omitted the Phanerozoic (542 MY between the Proterozoic and the Paleozoic).

There are three different ways used to classify the rock layers.

1) BIOCHRONOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION:
Phanerozoic and Cryptozoic (also called Pre-cambrian) classifies rocks with abundant evidence of life locked inside them from those with little or no such evidence.

2) CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATION:

Stratigraphic enumeration of all rock layers amd sub-layers according to how old each layer and sub-layer is.
The terms eon, era, period, epoch, etc is used to indicate age.

3) GEOCHRONOGRAHIC CLASSIFICATION:

Chronologic measurement:
The geologic time scale provides a system of chronologicmeasurement relating stratigraphy to time that is used by geologists, paleontologists and other earth scientists to describe the timing and relationships between events that have occurred during the history of the Earth.

Classifying by the layers or Strata is called Chronostratigraphy, while classification in order to show the "periods of Time" is called Geochronography.
We are interested in the Geo chronology that relates to the six "days" mentioned in Genesis.

 

[lordkalvan]

There are three different ways used to classify the rock layers.

1) BIOCHRONOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION:
Phanerozoic and Cryptozoic (also called Pre-cambrian) classifies rocks with abundant evidence of life locked inside them from those with little or no such evidence.

2) CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATION:

Stratigraphic enumeration of all rock layers amd sub-layers according to how old each layer and sub-layer is.
The terms eon, era, period, epoch, etc is used to indicate age.

3) GEOCHRONOGRAHIC CLASSIFICATION:

Chronologic measurement:
The geologic time scale provides a system of chronologicmeasurement relating stratigraphy to time that is used by geologists, paleontologists and other earth scientists to describe the timing and relationships between events that have occurred during the history of the Earth.

Classifying by the layers or Strata is called Chronostratigraphy, while classification in order to show the "periods of Time" is called Geochronography.
We are interested in the Geo chronology that relates to the six "days" mentioned in Genesis.

Sorry, my bad. Can you explain why you are mixing eons and eras, as the first three in your list are the former, the last three the latter, and the relevant eon for these three the Phanerozoic? In other words, you either have four eons or many more than six eras (the Proterozoic, for example, is divided into three geologic eras). From the outside, it seems that your labelling conventions are arbitrary and selected simply to support the conclusion you wish to arrive at.

 

[cupid dave]

Can you explain why you are mixing eons and eras, as the first three in your list are the former, the last three the latter, and the relevant eon for these three the Phanerozoic? .

The Biological Classification separate the rocks into Eons base upon the four biological components:

1) Phanerozoic Eon:
Rocks with abundant evidence of life, i.e. fossils.

2) Proterozoic Eon:
Rocks with only evidence of Protozoan life forms, no fossils.

3) Archean Eon:
Rocks with evidence of only bacteria.

4) Hadean eon:
Rocks devoid of evidence for any life.

 

[lordkalvan]

The Biological Classification separate the rocks into Eons base upon the four biological components:

1) Phanerozoic Eon:
Rocks with abundant evidence of life, i.e. fossils.

2) Proterozoic Eon:
Rocks with only evidence of Protozoan life forms, no fossils.

3) Archean Eon:
Rocks with evidence of only bacteria.

4) Hadean eon:
Rocks devoid of evidence for any life.

Okay, so why do you separate the former into three Separate eras and not the other eons?

 

[cupid dave]

Okay, so why do you separate the former into three Separate eras and not the other eons?

Each of the 3 classifications are sub-divided:

The 4 divisions of the Biochronological Classification is sub-divided, as are the 6 divisions of the Geochronological Classification and the 12 Chronostratigraphical Classification.

 

[lordkalvan]

Each of the 3 classifications are sub-divided:

The 4 divisions of the Biochronological Classification is sub-divided, as are the 6 divisions of the Geochronological Classification and the 12 Chronostratigraphical Classification.

And in geochronological classification we see, according to your table above, four eons and 10 eras. So it seems to be the case that you are are simply mixing and matching as necessary to achieve the six divisions you need to support your argument. If I have misunderstood this, perhaps you can explain your classification of divisions more precisely?