|
A
few years ago, some leading creationist geologists and physicists
began a detailed research project into Radioactivity and the Age
of The Earth. This RATE project began as a cooperative venture
between the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Creation
Research Society of USA (CRS) and Answers in Genesis (AiG).1
With
the release of key peer-reviewed papers at the 2003 ICC (International
Conference on Creationism), it is clear that RATE has made some
fantastic progress, with real breakthroughs in this area.
A young age for ‘ancient’ granites
When
physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories
(he now works full-time for ICR), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still
with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that
they knew the direction in which to look for a definitive answer
to the puzzle of why radiometric dating consistently gives ages
of millions and billions of years.
Others
had tried to find an answer in geological processes—e.g. the pattern
was caused by the way the magma was emplaced or how it crystallized.
This is indeed the answer in some cases.2,3 But Drs Humphreys
and Baumgardner realized that in other cases there were many independent
lines of evidence that suggested that huge amounts of radioactive
decay had indeed taken place. (These include the variety of elements
used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos
and fission track dating.) It would be hard to imagine that geologic
processes alone could explain all these. Rather, there was likely
to be an answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.
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. So 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.
There
is now powerful confirmatory evidence that at least one episode
of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building
on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons.
The landmark RATE paper,4 though technical, can be summarized
as follows:
- When uranium
decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation
of helium, a very light, inert gas, which readily escapes from
rock.
- Certain
crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep
granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.
- By measuring
the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals,
one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant,
about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent
with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these
zircons are found.)
- However,
there is a significant proportion of helium from that ‘1.5 billion
years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is, at first
glance, surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with
which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive
atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure.
There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a
slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.
- Drawing
any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually
measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This
is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were
sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to
a world-class expert on helium diffusion from minerals to measure
these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep
out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the
results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons,
these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite,
by implication the whole earth) could not be older than 14,000
years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion
years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken
place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated
to give a date of 5,680 (± 2,000) years.
The paper
looks at the various avenues a long-ager might take by which to
wriggle out of these powerful implications, but there seems to
be little hope for them unless they can show that the techniques
used to obtain the results were seriously flawed.
More surprises
on radiocarbon
Another dramatic
breakthrough concerns radiocarbon. It’s long been known that radiocarbon
(i.e. carbon-14, or 14C) keeps popping up reliably in samples
(of coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of
years’ old. However, with the short half-life of 14C it should
decay to zero in only some tens of thousands of years at the most.5
For instance, AiG has, over the years, commissioned and funded
the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’
sites (e.g. samples with Jurassic fossils, samples inside Triassic
sandstone, and samples burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were
published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation
magazine and TJ—the in-depth journal of creation. In each case,
with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands
of years, i.e. 14C was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’.
These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate
14C further, building on the literature reviews of creationist
physician Dr Paul Giem.
In another
very important paper, scientists from the RATE group summarized
the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data.6
The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no
matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable 14C
levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to
less than (at most) 250,000 years. (When one takes into account
the probability that before the Flood the ratio of radioactive
to ‘normal’ carbon was much lower,7 the calculated age comes right
down into the biblical ‘ballpark’.) Interestingly, specimens which
appear to definitely be pre-Flood seem to have 14C present, too,
and importantly, these cluster around a lower relative amount
of 14C. This suggests that some 14C was primordial (existing from
the very beginning), and not produced by cosmic rays—thus limiting
the age of the entire earth to only a few thousand years.
This appears
to have been somewhat spectacularly supported when Dr Baumgardner
sent five diamonds to be analyzed for 14C. It was the first time
this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—14C
was present. The diamonds, formed deep inside the earth, are assumed
by evolutionists to be over a billion years old. Nevertheless
they contained radioactive carbon, even though, if the billion-year
age were correct, they ‘shouldn’t have’.
This is exceptionally
striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably strong lattice
bonds (that’s why it’s the hardest substance known), so subsequent
atmospheric or biological contamination should not find its way
into the interior. The diamonds’ carbon-dated ‘age’ of about 58,000
years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth. Again,
this is entirely consistent with helium diffusion results reported
above, which indicate the upper limit is in fact substantially
less.8,9
14C workers
have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’
specimens they measure still have 14C. Labelling this detectable
14C 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
14C is there, quite simply, because it hasn’t had time to decay
yet.
The world
just isn’t that old!
The 14C results
are an independent but powerful confirmation of the stunning helium-diffusion
results. It looks like 2003 was a bad year for megachronophiles
(lovers of long ages), but a good year for lovers of the Word
of God.
|