Are there “incontrovertible” reasons to affirm a young Earth? What does it mean to be incontrovertible? Some YEC seem to believe that this means that it is claimed by any YEC author that they appreciate. It is easy to list claims that might sound impressive. What happens if we dig into those claims? Can they stand up to analysis?
Helium is known as a “noble” gas. It is light and doesn’t really chemically interact with other elements or compounds. You are probably familiar with the floating of helium ballons. Why do we even have it on Earth? Why hasn’t it all just floated away. Scientists believe that it is being constantly formed by radiometric decay or elements like uranium, thorium, and some potassium often found in igneous rocks like granite. Some YEC claim that this process is to slow to account for the concentration found in some places. This is another one the “incontrovertible” evidences from Paul Humber’s “Reasons to Affirm a Young Earth”. (Humber 2013)
The reason given in this case is:
21. Helium Challenges Goliath
The reason was stated this way:
“Helium in deep granite challenges the conventional radiometric dating of rocks. Its leak-rate from zircon crystals points to an earth only thousands of years old, not billions. The nuclear decay products in the very same rock, therefore, must have devolved much more rapidly than conventionally assumed.” (Humber 2013)
Origin of this reason:
Dr. Russell Humphreys and the YEC R.A.T.E. study (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) had cores from near Los Alamos, New Mexico identified as from the Jemez Granodiorite processed and analyzed for radiometric measurements. The R.A.T.E. study was a well-funded study by top YEC geoscientists that set out to prove a young Earth and to support flood geology. Its RATE1 results were published in 2000. (Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin 2000)
Here are some key points from Humphreys’ paper: (Humphreys 2005)
- Uranium/Lead dating confirmed. Their analysis gave equivalent numbers to the accepted age of approximately 1.5 billion years. This points out that the R.A.T.E. recognized that this decay occurred, regardless of how much time it represents.
- Significant amounts of radiometric helium (He4) are present.
a. Everyone recognizes that helium escapes or diffuses from zircon and other minerals with uranium in them, such as are present in granites and granodiorites. Everyone agrees that the rate of diffusion increases as the temperature increases and Humphreys’ data confirms this.
b. Humphreys interprets his data as indicating that the amount of helium present in zircons should have diffused away if it had been generated over 1.5 billion years, the age that uranium-lead radiometric dating indicates for the rocks.
Humber and Humphrey propose that the helium in the zircons prove that the rocks are not as old as the uranium-lead data and in fact are actually consistent with an age of about 6,000 years. In order to make this case, they try to make the case that no alternative explanation could explain the concentration of helium in the zircons. If a reasonable alterative is found, then this reason would fail.
It is probably worth pointing out that I am not a nuclear physicist. My only nuclear physics class was a long time ago and it did not deal much with radiometric dating. Nevertheless, I can read the reports and try to assess the conclusions.
Here are some observations that I think are relevant:
- The cores are from a supervolcano with a very complex geologic history. (Budge 2014)
- Anomalously high helium concentrations are present in New Mexico, though not at the economic concentrations that are found in the Panhandle of Texas. (Lang et al. 2024)
- Helium measurements in zircon (and apatite, if available) are considered useful in reconstructing the thermal history of an area, not age dating. (Reiners 2005) The mobility or diffusion of helium means that there is always some loss of helium. Helium loss is sensitive to the temperature and pressure history of the minerals. As a result, an age calculated must be considered a minimum age estimate.
- Helium concentration varies widely within zircons from a single area (Zhang et al. 2020). It will be highest in areas within the crystals that have more uranium. The main reservoirs in crystals are fluid inclusions. We don’t know how common they were in the zircons that were tested or what type of fracturing may have been present.
- Helium diffusion is not considered anomalous in other parts of the world but considered consistent with uranium dating. (Zhang et al. 2020)
- While Humphreys (and his colleague, John Baumgardner who actually selected the samples from the core), characterized the cores as all basically the same granodiorite, apparently consistent with the early descriptions of the cores, later more detailed work describes the cored interval as metamorphic rocks, gneisses and schists, and some granodiorites. (Henke 2010) Variability in the types of rocks sampled raises questions about the validity of the work.
Are there alternative ways to look at the data? Humphreys prepared a comparison to what he claims is the Jemez data analyzed from an old earth perspective. This is important because if the data fits reasonably well with an old earth model, then at most Humphreys data could be said to show an alternative that would explain how some radiometric data could be modeled to fit a young earth model. It could not be said in any way to prove a young Earth.
Gary Loechelt’s 2008 article, “Fenton Hill Revisited: The Retention of Helium in Zircons and the Case for Accelerated Nuclear Decay” provides a careful look at Humphrey’s work. (Loechelt 2008) Although one can question the way the RATE team chose the samples and had them prepared, Loechelt focuses on 5 particular errors in the analysis of the data. One of the most significant of these regards the way Humphreys’ old earth model handled the temperature history of the core. This is very important because as noted earlier, all recognize that helium diffusion is partly a function of the temperature of the zircons. Attached is Loechelt’s figure showing with an orange line what Humphrey’s assumed as an actual old earth model of what the temperature history was (Figure 1). Loechelt demonstrated that when this factor and the other errors in Humphreys’ work are corrected, the old earth model matches the actual zircon data, while the proposal from Humphreys fails. Humphreys’ old earth model is basically a strawman that does not represent a real assessment from geology.
Humphreys has responded to Loechelt but not in a forum that I have access to.
Loechelt wrote in his conclusions:
“This paper provides an answer to the RATE research at Fenton Hill. Not only does it expose the technical flaws in the RATE study, it also demonstrates that a model consistent with a conventional geologic framework can account for the observed amount of helium contained within these zircon crystals. Accelerated nuclear decay is not required to explain any of the observed phenomena. Rather, through careful attention to details and by applying rigorous mathematical methods, an alternative was found without invoking any exotic physics.”
Regardless of the validity of Humphreys’ model, a model that is at best questionable, it is true that an old earth model has been shown that explains the helium content. Helium in zircon cannot be considered evidence for the accelerated radioactive decay that the RATE study used as their only explanation for all of the radiometric decay that is documented around the world.
Figure 1. from Loechelt (2000) showing that Humphrey’s assumption of a constant temperature does not at all represent a geologic understanding. The much lower temperatures of the geologic model would mean that helium would have been retained to much higher levels.
References
Budge, Kent G. 2014. “Supervolcano: Geology of the Jemez Area.” 2014. http://jemez.kgbudge.com/
Henke, Kevin R. 2010. “Humphreys’s Young Earth Helium Diffusion ‘Dates.’” Reports, 1–6
Humber, Paul G. 2013. Reasons to Affirm a Young Earth. Vol. e-book revision. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54235fb7e4b0dab08d8d81dd/t/57d6e6b3d482e999611d7888/1473701556828/ReasonsAffirmYE+CRS+e-book.pdf?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR0J_JCi_6zH1KuNlHYrgIJjTAhCgOm4zwio8ks44k5CGnJIAiETnqThXLI_aem_BA94GfB1gm5q86tQj_pW2w
Humphreys, D Russell. 2005. “Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay.” In RATE II: Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, (Volume II), 25–99. Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society.
Lang, Yue, Jiawei Li, Jinchuan Zhang, Jinyou Zhang, Li Fu, and Shichao Liu. 2024. “A Comprehensive Review of Helium Geology.” Gas Science and Engineering 130 (October):205423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgsce.2024.205423
Loechelt, Gary H. 2008. “Fenton Hill Revisited: The Retention of Helium in Zircons and the Case for Accelerated Nuclear Decay.” RTB. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/helium-gl3.pdf
Reiners, P. W. 2005. “Zircon (U-Th)/He Thermochronometry.” Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 58 (1): 151–79. https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2005.58.6
Vardiman, Larry, Andrew Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, eds. 2000. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, Calif. : St. Joseph, Mo: Institute for Creation Research ; Creation Research Society. https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf
Zhang, Wen, Yuhong Li, Fenghua Zhao, Zheng Zhou, Wei Han, Junlin Zhou, and Qiao Zhang. 2020. “Granite Is an Effective Helium Source Rock: Insights from the Helium Generation and Release Characteristics in Granites from the North Qinling Orogen, China.” Acta Geologica Sinica – English Edition 94 (1): 114–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-6724.14397
Recent Comments