Search This Blog

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Rock cores trump ice cores

Granite aka granitic rock

Ice cores are terrible for determining the age of the earth or even of the ice within the core. As I have posted previously, several layers of ice can be laid down in less than a year. Substances within ice layers travel. Lower layers will compress and become hard to distinguish. With all these variables ice cores become a favorite of evolutionists because they can make subjective claims that cannot be substantiated about age based upon their evaluation of ice cores.

Here on my back recovering from pneumonia and feeling really sick, not even able to take my grandsons to the movies. Not supposed to work until Monday to beat the illness and be strong enough to go forward. But I can cut and paste and add some additional information concerning a much better method of determining age. Rock cores, and especially granite.

The first RATE initiative - The RATE Team discovered:

• Conventional radioisotope dating methods are inconsistent and therefore not reliable. In dating the same rock layer, radioisotope dating showed four different ages.

• Substantial amounts of helium found in crystals within granite. If the earth evolved over billions of years, all the helium should have already escaped.

• Radiohalos in rocks caused by the decay of uranium and polonium, which strongly suggests a rapid decay rate, not gradual decay over billions of years.

• Diamonds thought to be millions/billions of years old by evolutionists contain significant levels of carbon-14. Since carbon-14 decays quickly, none should have been found in the diamonds if the evolutionary age is correct.

pdf book about the RATE initiative.

More RATE studies are being done and published in technical journals and presented at technical conferences. Allow me to give a for instance.

One scientist, Dr. Russell Humphreys, decided that he believed that God created the Universe and that the Bible is true. He then proposed that the rocks cannot be much older than six thousand years old. But how could this be tested?

He found that scientists had done deep drilling at Los Alamos, down into granite to obtain rock cores. Deep cores drilled into the foundation of the rock of our continent would reveal granitic rock that had supposedly been in place for millions of years. Now granitic rock contains biotite or mica which contain zircon crystals. Zircon crystals buried deep in the earth would leak or diffuse helium atoms, which are relatively "slippery" and can be expected to diffuse in an orderly and predictable manner. He tells this better than I:

New RATE Data Support a Young World

by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Download New RATE Data Support a Young World PDF

New experiments done this year for the RATE project 1 strongly support a young earth. This article updates results announced in an ICR Impact article last year 2 and documented at a technical conference last summer. 3 Our experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated Helium escapes from tiny radio-active crystals in granite-like rock. The new data extend into a critical range of temperatures, and they resoundingly confirm a num-erical prediction we published several years before the experiments. 4 The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian 5 age of the rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today. But the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6000 years. Thus these data are powerful evidence against the long ages of uniformitarianism and for a recent creation consistent with Scripture. Here are some details:

Radioactive crystals make and lose Helium

These radioactive crystals, called zircons, are common in granitic rock. As a zircon crystal grows in cooling magma, it incorporates Uranium and Thorium atoms from the magma into its crystal lattice. After a zircon is fully formed and the magma cools some more, a crystal of black mica called biotite forms around it. Other minerals, such as quartz and feldspar, form adjacent to the biotite.

The Uranium and Thorium atoms inside a zircon decay through a series of intermediate elements to eventually become atoms of Lead. Many of the inter-mediate nuclei emit alpha particles, which are nuclei of Helium atoms. For zircons of the sizes we are considering, most of the fast-moving alpha particles slow to a stop within the zircon. Then they gather two electrons apiece from the surrounding crystal and become Helium atoms. Thus a Uranium 238 atom produces eight Helium atoms as it becomes a Lead 206 atom. (See diagram.)

Helium atoms are lightweight, fast-moving, and do not form chemical bonds with other atoms. They move rapidly between the atoms of a material and spread themselves as far apart as possible. This process of diffusion, theoretically well-understood for over a century, makes Helium leak rapidly out of most materials.

Natural zircons still contain much Helium

In 1974, in the Jemez Mountains of northern New Mexico, geoscientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory drilled a borehole several miles deep into the hot, dry granitic rock to determine how suitable it would be as a geothermal energy source. They ground up samples from the rock cores, extracted the zircons, and measured the amount of Uranium, Thorium, and Lead in the crystals. From those data they calculated that 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay had taken place in the zircons, 6 making the usual uniformitarian assumption that decay rates have always been constant. 7

Then they sent core samples from the same borehole to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for analysis. At Oak Ridge, Robert Gentry (a well-known creationist) and his colleagues extracted the zircons, selected crystals between 50 and 75 µm (0.002 to 0.003 inches) long, and measured the total amount of Helium in them. They used the Los Alamos Uranium-Lead data to calculate the total amount of Helium the decay had produced in the zircons. Comparing the two values gave the percentage of Helium still retained in the zircons, which they published in 1982. 8

Their results were remarkable. Up to 58 percent of the nuclear-decay-generated Helium had not diffused out of the zircons. The percentages decreased with increasing depth and temperature in the borehole. That confirms diffusion had been happening, because the rate of diffusion in any material increases strongly with temperature. Also, the smaller the crystal, the less Helium should be retained. These zircons were both tiny and hot, yet they had retained huge amounts of Helium!

Experiments verify RATE prediction

Many creationists believed it would be impossible for that much Helium to remain in the zircons after 1.5 billion years, but we had no measurements of diffusion rates to substantiate that belief. As of 2000 the only reported Helium diffusion data for zircons9 were ambiguous. So in that year, the RATE project commissioned experiments to measure Helium diffusion in zircon (as well as biotite) from the same borehole. The experimenter was one of the world's foremost experts in Helium diffusion measurements in minerals.

At the same time, we estimated the diffusion rates that would be necessary to get Gentry's observed Helium retentions for two different zircon ages: (a) 6000 years, and (b) 1.5 billion years. Then in the year 2000 we published the two sets of rates as "Creation" and "Evolution" models in our book outlining the RATE project goals. 10

The next year, 2001, we received a preprint of a paper reporting data on zircons from another site. In 2002 we received zircon data for our site from our experimenter. Both sets of data cover a temperature range of 300º to 500º C, which is somewhat higher than the temperature range of Gentry's data and our prediction, 100º to 277º C. Both sets agree with each other and, while not overlapping our "Creation" model, both lined up nicely with it. We reported these data in a technical paper that the editors of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism 11 accepted for publication in their Proceedings. 12

In July 2003, just one month before the conference, we received a new set of zircon and biotite data from our experimenter. These data were much more useful to us, in three ways: (1) these zircons were 50 to 75 µm in length, (2) both zircons and biotite came from a 1490 meter depth, (3) the zircon diffusion rate data went down to 175º C. Items (1) and (2) mean that these zircons matched Gentry's exactly, being from the same borehole, rock unit, depth range, and size range. Item (3) means the diffusion rate data now extend well into the temperature range of our models.

These new data 13 agree very well with our "Creation" model prediction, as the figure shows. Moreover, the diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than the maximum rates the "Evolution" model could allow, thus emphatically repudiating it.

New data closes loopholes

The experimenter also accurately measured the total amounts of Helium in both the zircons and in the surrounding flakes of biotite. This ties up some loose ends for our case: (1) The total amount of Helium in the zircons confirms Gentry's retention measurements very well. (2) Our measurements show that the Helium concentration was about 300 times higher in the zircons than in the surrounding biotite. This confirms that Helium was diffusing out of the zircons into the biotite, not the other way around. (3) The total amount of Helium in the biotite flakes (which are much larger than the zircons) is roughly equal to the amount the zircons lost.

Compare this situation to an hourglass whose sand represents the Helium atoms: We have data (from Uranium and Lead) for the original amount in the top (zircon), the present amount in the top, the present amount in the bottom (biotite), and the rate of trickling (diffusion) between them. That makes our case very strong that we are reading the Helium "hourglass" correctly.

The zircons are young

The new data allow us to calculate more exactly how long diffusion has been taking place. The result is 6000 (± 2000) years—about 250,000 times smaller than the alleged 1.5 billion year Uranium-Lead age. This and other exciting new developments in RATE projects are confirming our basic hypothesis: that God drastically speeded up decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the Genesis Flood and other brief periods in the earth's short history. Such accelerated nuclear decay collapses the uniformitarian "ages" down to the Scriptural timescale of thousands of years.

Endnotes and References

1.RATE stands for "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth," a research initiative launched in 1997 jointly by the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, and Answers in Genesis. See book in ref. 4, and numerous pages about the RATE project at
2.D. R. Humphreys, "Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young World," ICR Impact No. 352, October 2002. Archived at /articles/imp/imp-352.htm.
3.D. R. Humphreys, S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, and A. A. Snelling, "Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003) pp. 175-195. Archived at
4.D. R. Humphreys, "Accelerated nuclear decay: A viable hypothesis?" in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A. Snelling, and E. Chaffin, editors (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, 2000)
p. 348, fig. 7. Book information at:
5.Uniformitarians assume that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (II Peter 3:4), without interventions by God which might drastically affect the rates of some physical processes.
6.R. E. Zartman, "Uranium, thorium, and lead isotopic composition of biotite granodiorite (Sample 9527-2b) from LASL Drill Hole GT-2," Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report LA-7923-MS, 1979.
7.The 1.5 billion year uranium-lead date was consistent with uniformitarian geological expectations for the age of the Precambrian "basement" rock from which the zircons came.
8.R. V. Gentry, G. J. Glish, and E. H. McBay, "Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management," Geophysical Research Letters 9(10): 1129-1130, October 1982.
9.Sh. A. Magomedov, "Migration of radiogenic products in zircon," Geokhimiya, 1970, No. 2, pp. 263-267 (in Russian). English abstract in Geochemistry International 7(1): 203, 1970. English translation available from D. R. Humphreys.
10.See ref. 4 for the prediction.
11.Conference website at
12.See ref. 3 for technical details.
13.We plan to report these new data in detail in future technical publications, particularly in a paper to be submitted to the Creation Research Society, and also in the final report of the RATE project two years from now.

*Dr. Humphreys is an Associate Professor of Physics at ICR.


This is just one set of initiatives being worked through by the Institute for Creation Research that were begun in 2005. There are now numerous groups of scientists working on various projects and all of them begin with the premises that:

1) There is a God.

2) God created the Universe.

3) Therefore the natural world should have evidence reflecting this creation.

4) The Bible gives us a time frame.

5) We can apply much of what is learned to operative science and improve our world therby.

New Research and Media Projects.
Project Brief Descriptions

Genomic studies to explore the true nature of human origins—theory of mutation and selection; statistical comparison of chimpanzee and human genomes; sequencing of mitochondrial human genomes to determine mutation rate in man; and estimation of the age of the human race from polymorphism rates, Y-chromosome diversity, linkage block size, and divergence of duplicate sequences.

Geological field research to discover, describe, and interpret catastrophic, Flood-activated sedimentation and tectonic processes.

Numerical simulations of catastrophic geophysical, geological, climatic, cosmological, and biological processes using a 40-processor computer cluster at ICR.

Geochemical studies to strengthen the concept of accelerated decay with additional data to address new issues.

Theoretical studies in relativity and quantum mechanics applied to the history of the cosmos using Biblical boundary conditions to resolve apparent paradoxes.

Sodom and Gomorrah, a geological survey of the Biblical Cities of the Plain, Butterfly, a continuation of metamorphosis studies, Biblical Word Studies, a continuation of Dr. Steven Boyd’s evidence for understanding the Bible literally, and the Column Project, a global analysis and visualization of the Genesis Flood using geological data.

Video documentary about the results and significance of Dr. Austin’s Nautiloid research in Grand Canyon.

Video documentary about the results and significance of Dr. Criswell’s genetics research.


Consider all the other scientific groups such as AIG and Creation Research Institute that have people and teams working on various fields of study.

These findings are becoming increasingly hard for naturalistic materialistic atheistic evolutionists to hide or stifle and certainly to refute.


Saturday UPDATE!!!! This is what the Smithsonian wants to label a Rhino???!!! Give me a break!


Anonymous said...

For some more background on Radar's cut and paste articles see:

This whole debate devolves into my expert is better than your expert. I'm glad people like talkorigins spend their time refuting this stuff, but, man, it seems like such a waste of their time.

Radar, with your genius level high school exam results, you may understand all the science behind this stuff. Maybe you don't and are just more willing to accept things that fit into the confines of a literal reading of the bible. Maybe I'm just accepting things that fit into my world view.

But if I am, I am OK with that. Knowing a human can't be an expert on everything, I feel like I can put my trust into the science world and the tons of scientists, of all different faiths and who have arrived at the same answer through different means time and time again, and I can pretty much know that the world is more than 6000 years old. I don't believe science is trying to dupe/brainwash/indoctrinate me because science is run by a bunch of atheists who want to take Jesus out of society because they want everyone damned to hell because, after all, those atheists are really being controlled by the devil.


radar said...

First, the RATE people sent the data to an expert who is a pro-evolutionist through a third party so that there was no bias one way or the other. The expert, based in California, is considered at the top of his field. He is NOT a YEC.

Secondly, since we have already shown that talkorigins deliberately posts and defends disproven data as a matter of course, nothing they say counts for anything with me or with any serious person. Remember, I promised not to ever use Dr. Dino as evidence and I told everyone that using talkorigins was just as bad? You might as well post something from Bozo the Clown as talkorigins! They do not care about whether anything they say is true.

You are being indoctrinated constantly by people who are themselves indoctrinated. The scientific community takes the matter of evolution and long ages as a given despite the evidence. They are not bothered in the least by the rock layers of the Grand Canyon, for instance, that put the lie to the idea of uniformitarianism. They pay no attention to the absurdity of the Big Bang, abiogenesis and the evidence of design in every living creature.

No devil is needed to inhabit the minds of people like Eugenie Scott, who are in the indoctrination and censorship business for their own selfish reasons. Since evolution is such a stinking heap of absolute crap, the true believers erect massive walls of misinformation to cover and hide it and yet the stink remains.

You will find no good evidence that something came from nothing unless God created. You will find no reasonable explanation for the process of photosynthesis unless God designed it. Evolution is for people who like fairy tales. As I have said often, when you look behind the curtain there is no Great and Powerful Oz of evolution, just a little powerless man pushing buttons on a machine that produces mountains of propaganda in the name of science.

radar said...

Now throw away talkorigins and try to address the actual article. Why is it that YEC made a prediction, then did the experiment/test and found that the results were exactly as predicted? Why is it that no one in the long ages world can give a good reason for the results (one idea is that the granite below ground had to have been so cold that it was the temperature of dry ice for millions of years and then suddenly warmed up. Yeah, right).

highboy said...

I'd just like to say anyone who rejects Bozo the clown as a credible source are simply fools determined to live in ignorance. That clown has his act together.

Anonymous said...

Radar, this may look off-topic, but it is an important question: is it necessary to be a Young Earth Creationist in order to be saved?

radar said...

Radar, this may look off-topic, but it is an important question: is it necessary to be a Young Earth Creationist in order to be saved?

It is entirely irrelevant. One gets saved by believing in Jesus Christ as Savior, who is the answer to the problem of sin, and receiving Him.

Now, once you are born again and begin reading the Bible you find that it is completely illogical to believe what God says in the Book of John and ignore Him in Genesis in my opinion. But salvation and YEC are not directly linked.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for that quick and clear answer.

So, would you say that it's more important to believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour than to believe in Young Earth Creationism?

radar said...

Yes, belief in Christ as Savior is far more important than being a YEC. Jesus did not spend much time discussing Genesis (although clearly He and the disciples were YEC) and never made such a thing a point of emphasis. You can believe the world is eleventy-zillion years old and be born again.

I emphasize YEC because it is logical, it fits the evidence and because the number one reason young people turn away from God is a belief in evolution. If you are perfectly logical there is a disconnect between evolution and creation.

radar said...

Notice I added a couple of pictures to the end of the post...

Anonymous said...

...and because the number one reason young people turn away from God is a belief in evolution.

Radar, there are lots and lots of Christian people who believe in evolution and don't turn away from God.
See, the fact why people turn away from God because of evolution is because creationists make them choose between religion and evolution. They're the ones who state 'If you can't trust Genesis to be truthful, how can one trust anything else in the Bible'?
And, no surprise given the incredible amount of evidence available for the theory of evolution, people then choose evolution instead of God.

Has it ever occured to you, Radar, that you too might be instrumental in making people turning away from God?

As an atheist, I can only thank you for doing so (that's why I keep calling this blog an -unintentional- parody blog: you get the exact opposite of what you're trying to achieve), but for you that should be a real problem.

If salvation is more important than evolution, why not let people have their belief in evolution, if they'll at least be saved, instead of risking them turning away from God?

radar said...

Anonymous, I do not believe in lying to people for the reason that I believe lying is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. I deny the Jesuit idea of doing a small bad to produce a greater good. The Bible tells me that.

Christ Himself claimed to have made the Earth and He also discussed Moses and Noah and so if someone wants to depend on Christ for salvation but cannot trust even Christ to know about origins then in the end that person will dump Christ as a possible Savior anyway.

I will promote truth, intelligently present arguments for creation and swat aside the fleas and gnats like talkorigins, for they do not even try to be accurate and do not care if what they present is true. I will be true even if the readers do not care for that truth.

radar said...

Oh, and no matter what my intellectual capacity might be, I am a member of two creation science societies and regularly receive technical journals, magazines and other materials from such sources. I am acquainted with and have discussed various subjects with some of these creation scientists (Although I have yet to pin down Hartnett for those of you who remember or care) and I am overjoyed to say that many of the best of have moved their office to the USA. This includes the remarkable Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, a brilliant and personable guy with the wit to match his brainpower.

So I do present a lot of peer-reviewed materials and some relatively new information on this blog to the dismay, no doubt, of my ideological foes. If my information is right who cares whether I am smart or not? Right?