Radiometric Helium dating proves YOUNG EARTH

[Golden Star]

Here's the breaking news from the Answers in Genesis website....looks like "science" has more to explain now:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp

C-14 labs have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’ specimens they measure still have C-14. Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ‘contamination’ and ‘background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown. But it is no problem or mystery at all if the uniformitarian/long-age assumptions are laid to one side and the real history of the world, given in Scripture, is taken seriously. The C-14 is there, quite simply, because it hasn’t had time to decay yet. The world just isn’t that old!

The C-14 results are an independent but powerful confirmation of the stunning helium-diffusion results. 2003 looks like going down as a bad year for megachronophiles (lovers of long ages), but a good year for lovers of the Word of God.

[Cut down to size by pz -- please, if you give a link, don't just copy and paste the entire contents of a web page]

[Joe Meert]

Since, from the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place, it was clear that the assumption of a constant slow decay process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.

JM: This pretty much sums up their methodology. Another thread was started a couple of days ago dealing with ICR's nonsense. See below.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60848&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Roland98]

You're a little late. That was already debunked yesterday.

:boohoo:

[Mageth]

For copyright reasons, I'd recommend posting the link and not reproducing the contents of the article in its entirity without comment or criticism. (Copying the content is not necessary, anyway, as you posted the link!)

[Heathen Dawn]

A small reminder: this person believes the sun is not a star. His proof here (http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/thesun.htm).

[Xixax]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
A small reminder: this person believes the sun is not a star. His proof here (http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/thesun.htm).

This person is hilarious. They created a table full of details on the sun... did they notice the contradictions in that table??


The Sun will endure throughout all generations
The Sun will endure forever
------
The Sun will be turned to darkness



The Sun will be turned to darkness
------
The Sun will be seven times brighter in the future
------
One third part of the Sun will be darkened


*sighs*

How is this person able to tie their shoes in the morning, much less able to create a web page ( regardless of the low quality )?

[Duvenoy]

Mmmm. More spam!

I'll fetch the bread, mayo and Tabasco.

doov

[Donnmathan]

A small reminder: this person believes the sun is not a star. His proof here. (http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/thesun.htm)


I guess my response (to him) would be - please cite the scientific research and educational backgrounds of the authors of this book, if you wish to use it as a source for scientific theory. The statement was made that the sun is not a star - this is scientifically falsifiable. Every fact I've ever seen indicates that it most certainly is a star.

[Duvenoy]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
A small reminder: this person believes the sun is not a star. His proof here (http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/thesun.htm).

I do hope that Mr. Lowe's children are not home-schooled.

doov

[Bialar Crais]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
A small reminder: this person believes the sun is not a star. His proof here (http://www.geocities.com/rebornempowered/thesun.htm).

Just saw this in his profile:

Basic Beliefs: Jesus Christ is my only hope

I can see it now ... Jedi Christ... "Help us Jeebus-wan Kenobi. You are our only hope!"


*snort*

The sun is not a star, indeed....

[Donnmathan]

Just for fun, I sent him an email; would be interesting if he responds...

Please cite the scientific research and educational backgrounds of the authors of this book, if you wish to use it as a source for scientific theory. The statement was made that the sun is not a star - this is scientifically falsifiable. As science does not recognize supernatural inspiration as a source of evidence, I assume that the individuals who wrote the book you cite have some undisclosed scientific training we can use to evaluate the merits of their observations.

By the way, I should note - the 'missing neutrino' argument is invalid; even the Answers in Genesis site admits this! (It can be found on their "Arguments we think Creationists should not use" page, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

[Jack the Bodiless]

From the article:
This latter suggestion about primordial C-14 appears to have been somewhat spectacularly supported when Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.

This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.

The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of <58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth. And this age is brought down still further now that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past acceleration of radioactive decay.
The reason C14 dating becomes useless beyond 50,000 years or so is that the level of C14 remaining in such samples becomes too small to be reliably detected. Readings this low cannot be distinguished from natural background radiation.

So this date is baloney, even without the fact that C14 dating relies on C14 from atmospheric CO2 and cannot be applied to carbon from other sources at all.

This test would merely have shown that the diamond may have been slightly radioactive.

[JaeIsGod]

This hit and run YEC stuff is quite annoying. Golden Star , if your are anything of a man , you would reply to the comments in this tread =p

[Kosh]

There must have been speeded-up decay

Yeah, at the same time all the Flud waters was dryded up....

[caravelair]

just curious, but did anyone debunk this helium idea? seems to me it's probably a case of ignoring the facts that they don't like. to me, the "research" seems to indicate that there is some mechanism for trapping the helium that they don't know about. that seems like a much more logical conclusion than the one they came to.

anyways, if this has been explained already, please direct me to the post(s). thanks.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by caravelair
just curious, but did anyone debunk this helium idea? seems to me it's probably a case of ignoring the facts that they don't like. to me, the "research" seems to indicate that there is some mechanism for trapping the helium that they don't know about. that seems like a much more logical conclusion than the one they came to.

anyways, if this has been explained already, please direct me to the post(s). thanks.

Yes, Meert has an article on it.

[caravelair]

i'd love to read it. is it online?

[JonF]

Originally posted by caravelair
i'd love to read it. is it online?

He's probably referrring to What about Humphreys supposed excess helium argument? (http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm) (way down near the bottom of the page).

For some more technical discussion, before the most recent publications but probably still relevant, see Re: helium in zircons means young earth? (http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3dd06d62@news.qut.edu.au&lr=&hl=en) (note that he corrects an error in that posting, at Re: helium in zircons means young earth? (http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3dd0729a@news.qut.edu.au&lr=&hl=en)) and Humphreys' helium paper revisited (http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=784af960.0212081520.7a50c48c@posting.google.com&lr=&hl=en).