Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Happy birthday, Earth - Creation occurred 6,010 years
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 24, 2006

Posted on 10/24/2006 1:33:25 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan


How old is the world?

Most people would say: "Nobody knows."

But the author of the book frequently described as the greatest history book ever written, said the world was created Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. – making it 6,010 yesterday.

In the 1650s, an Anglican bishop named James Ussher published his "Annals of the World," subtitled, "The Origin of Time, and Continued to the Beginning of the Emperor Vespasian's Reign and the Total Destruction and Abolition of the Temple and Commonwealth of the Jews." First published in Latin, it consisted of more than 1,600 pages.

The book, now published in English for the first time, is a favorite of homeschoolers and those who take ancient history seriously. It's the history of the world from the Garden of Eden to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Of course, there will be those who disagree with Ussher's calculations of time – especially evolutionists who need billions of years to explain their theory of how life sprang from non-life and mutated from one-celled animals into human beings.


Ussher's arrival at the date of Oct. 23 was determined based on the fact that most peoples of antiquity, especially the Jews, started their calendar at harvest time. Ussher concluded there must be good reason for this, so he chose the first Sunday following autumnal equinox.

Although the autumnal equinox is Sept. 21 today, that is only because of historical calendar-juggling to make the years come out right.

If you think this is a startling fact – an actual date for Creation – you haven't seen anything until you've pored through the rest of Ussher's "Annals of the World." It's a classic history book for those who believe in the Bible – and a compelling challenge for those who don't.

The new edition of "Annals" is one of the most significant publishing events of the 21st century.

In this masterful and legendary volume, commissioned by Master Books to be updated from the 17th-century original Latin manuscript to modern English and made available to the general public, is the fascinating history of the ancient world from the Genesis creation through the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.

Find out:

Ussher traveled throughout Europe, gathering much information from the actual historical documents. Many of these documents are no longer available, having been destroyed since the time of his research.

Integrating biblical history (around 15 percent of the text is from the Bible) with secular sources, Ussher wrote this masterpiece. Considered not only a literary classic, but also an accurate reference, "The Annals of the World" was so highly regarded for its preciseness that the timeline from it was included in the margins of many King James Version Bibles throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

"The Annals of the World" is a necessary addition to any church library, pastor's library, or any library – public or personal. The entire text has been updated from 17th-century English to present-day vernacular in a five-year project commissioned by Master Books. Containing many human-interest stories from the original historical documents collected by Ussher, this is more than just a history book – it's a work of history.

Special features:

About the book:



TOPICS: Books/Literature; History; Religion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 next last
To: gb63

>>I think you are right...but after all, those first six days were really frantic...didn't have time to make many notes...<<

He had a guy write it down later. I just dictated from memory. I am of the impression that He has a pretty good memory though.


51 posted on 10/24/2006 2:03:31 PM PDT by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

One has to consider the possibility that the Earth could have been created with the appearance of age. "Science" could not account for that now could it. Observing such a thing is not possible at this point.


52 posted on 10/24/2006 2:03:48 PM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hoodlum91

Were you in Ohio this past weekend?

:)


53 posted on 10/24/2006 2:04:34 PM PDT by Toby06 (Diesel smoke makes me horny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

This photograph is of the neolithic megalith at Nabta, Egypt, a Stonehenge-like observatory built, um, 1000 years before the creation of the universe. Bishop Ussher, please come to the front desk...

54 posted on 10/24/2006 2:04:41 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

And maybe a Big movie, like Big Trouble in little China.


55 posted on 10/24/2006 2:05:13 PM PDT by MPJackal ("If you are not with us, you are against us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Clump
One has to consider the possibility that the Earth could have been created with the appearance of age.

So God hid fossils and archaeological artifacts to trick us? My God isn't a liar.

56 posted on 10/24/2006 2:05:36 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
This photograph is of the neolithic megalith at Nabta, Egypt, a Stonehenge-like observatory built, um, 1000 years before the creation of the universe.

Shouldn't it look newer?

57 posted on 10/24/2006 2:05:57 PM PDT by Tijeras_Slim (Dancing through life like a street mime with tourettes syndrome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Toby06

maybe.....


58 posted on 10/24/2006 2:06:48 PM PDT by Hoodlum91 (Staying home on Nov. 7 isn't a punishment for the GOP, its a reward for the Dems.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares
Radiocarbon Assumptions and Problems

Like other radiometric methods, radiocarbon dating faces technical problems and operates under some questionable assumptions.

  1. Perhaps the most critical assumption of radiocarbon dating is that the rates of carbon-14 production and decay are in a state of balance or equilibrium, and have been so for millions of years. If this were true, the carbon-12/carbon-14 ratio in living organisms will be the same as the ratio in an organism that lived thousands of years ago. However, we have reason to think that this is not true, as we will see in a later section.

  2. Radiocarbon dating assumes a constant decay rate for the breakdown of carbon-14. At present, we have no firm evidence for any systematic change in this rate.

  3. Contamination by groundwater, soil, or foreign matter is always a potential problem. However, people working with radiocarbon dating feel confident that good sample collection can overcome this problem.

  4. Some organisms may exclude the heavier carbon-14 isotopes preferentially, making them look too old (e.g., living shellfish that have a radiocarbon “age” of several hundred years). Comparison of carbon-12 and carbon-14 with the stable isotope carbon-13 is supposed to correct this problem (see Aitken, 1990, pp. 62-64). Environmental factors, such as forest fires and volcanic eruptions, which increase the local concentrations of carbon dioxide, may also have an effect on the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio.

  5. Looming over all these assumptions is the idea that cross-checking with other archaeological information will confirm whether the radiocarbon date is “reasonable.” This introduces the specter of subjectivity.

59 posted on 10/24/2006 2:06:58 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
You are assuming there is a gap in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2...he apparently did not make such an assumption..

Perhaps "gap" was the wrong word. But Genesis 1:1 covers a period of indeterminate length before the famous creative week. There's little reason to assume Gen 1:2 and the creative week (literal or otherwise) happened immediately after the creation of the universe ex nihilo.

60 posted on 10/24/2006 2:07:11 PM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
What comes before the Big Bang?

"Let there be light!"

61 posted on 10/24/2006 2:07:26 PM PDT by Doomonyou (Moderate Bumper Sticker: Bush Lied, Terrorists Died!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
You know, here I've been depressed about liberals who think that the Bible and creation are chr*stian (and so always attack chr*stianity) when they are to the contrary quite Jewish. Now we have the opposite problem: chr*stians who insist on ignoring the plain teaching of Jewish traditional chronology in order to go off calculating things on their own.

This is the 5767th year of human history. The anniversary of Creation Week each year runs from 25 'Elul (the anniversary of Day One) to 2 Tishrei (the anniversary of the first Shabbat). This is the beginning of the chronology of which we are now in the 5767th year, so why does anyone need to be trying to "discover" what is already known?

There are a few complications about whether the first year was 0, 1, or 2, but that is explained here (a vanity I posted on this topic last spring).

Now I'd better get out of here. I know that otherwise the carping between stupid atheists who think Biblical chronology was invented by chr*stians and ignorant chr*stians who can't seem to think to ask the people who know most about the subject for information will drive me to distraction.

62 posted on 10/24/2006 2:07:50 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ('Elleh toledot Noach, Noach 'ish tzaddiq tamim hayah bedorotayv; 'et Ha'Eloqim hithallekh Noach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

"Shouldn't it look newer?"


It's retro.


63 posted on 10/24/2006 2:08:20 PM PDT by Hoodlum91 (Staying home on Nov. 7 isn't a punishment for the GOP, its a reward for the Dems.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Of course, there will be those who disagree with Ussher's calculations of time – especially evolutionists who need billions of years to explain their theory of how life sprang from non-life and mutated from one-celled animals into human beings.

Evolutionists use the old earth dating framework because that is what all of the scientific evidence supports.

The young earth framework is not supported by scientific evidence.

64 posted on 10/24/2006 2:08:35 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
"Wow , the Earth and I have the same birthday!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Wow! And I thought I was older than dirt.;^)
65 posted on 10/24/2006 2:09:39 PM PDT by GunnyHartman (The DNC, misunderestimating Dubya's strategery since 2000.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
Yes, and virtually every scientists will tell you that human beings descended, as did all life, from a single-clled organism in a "primodial soup" based supported by the Miller-Urey experiment that managed to produce only two amino acids and tar!

Your English syntax needs serious help. The theory of common descent, which even (un?) Intelligent Designers admit, posits that all life is descended from single celled organisms. The evidence for Common Descent is overwhelming, regardless of whether or not you're personally incredulous.

Where those first single celled organisms came from is not known at present and is a totally separate question. Some suspect that they evolved from complex organic molecules in a primordial soup, but no firm evidence exists.

66 posted on 10/24/2006 2:10:29 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
Eat your hearts out evomoonies!

Actually the moonies support creationism not evolution.

67 posted on 10/24/2006 2:10:35 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; All
The conference was attended by all eight RATE scientists, with four taking part in presenting the findings. The first RATE scientist to address the audience was Russell Humphreys, Professor of Physics. During his presentation, he shared highlights from his research on helium diffusion, strongly indicating that the age of the Earth is only about 6,000 years, explaining that the helium in radioactive crystals supports this conclusion. Humphrey’s and Dr. John Baumgardner built on the work of Dr. Robert Gentry, investigating helium retention in zircons.


In 2000, a group of scientists met and delineated a five year plan to investigate the apparent disparity between biblical dates and those reported from radiometric dating. The collective effort was identified as the Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE) project.
68 posted on 10/24/2006 2:11:15 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
I'd say it also compares well to those who ignore proven physics to assume a counting of begats by a scientifically illiterate churchman in a document written by scientifically illiterate villagers based upon the oral traditions of barbarian nomads is a valid method of determining the age of the earth. If radioactive decay and daughter products are only a "theory", then explain to me how nuclear reactors and bombs work.
69 posted on 10/24/2006 2:13:14 PM PDT by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Apparently they walked with Adam and Eve. Although they are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Hmm...


70 posted on 10/24/2006 2:13:39 PM PDT by RockinRight (Maintaining a Republican majority is MORE IMPORTANT than your temper tantrum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

One of the most exciting discoveries was presented by Dr. John Baumgardner, Professor of Geophysics. Baumgardner provided evidence that diamonds and coal possess large amounts of radioactive carbon (carbon-14). Carbon-14 is believed to be a short-lived isotope and is commonly used for dating organic materials like fossils. This radioactive form of carbon is believed to have a half-life of only 5,730 years, so finding C-14 in diamonds (as much as one hundred times the detection threshold) is very compelling evidence for a young Earth. Baumgardner indicated that their findings also supported the biblical account of the Noahic Flood.

RATE Project Manager Dr. Larry Vardiman summarized the results of the entire team. After years of scientific research, the team discovered:

  1. Conventional radioisotope dating methods are inconsistent and therefore not reliable.In dating the same rock layer, radioisotope dating showed four different ages.
  2. Substantial amounts of helium found in crystals within granite.If the Earth evolved over billions of years, the helium should have already escaped.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 (see “RATE News Release,” 2005).

The RATE team also released their newly-produced documentary film Thousands... Not Billions during the San Diego conference. The title of the new documentary is shared by a book written by Don DeYoung that examines the physical evidence for a young Earth. DeYoung’s non-technical book helps people understand what the RATE team discovered. (For those interested in reading about the scientific evidences of a young Earth in an easy-to-understand book, I recommend DeYoung’s work.) The dramatic findings reported by the RATE team support not only a young Earth, but they also confirm the reliability of Scriptures. The only question is what will an honest man do with the evidence?

71 posted on 10/24/2006 2:13:45 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Pets had to start somewhere.


72 posted on 10/24/2006 2:14:00 PM PDT by Hoodlum91 (Staying home on Nov. 7 isn't a punishment for the GOP, its a reward for the Dems.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Speed of light and doppler shift tell me the universe is very very old. And Hubbles images of still forming star sytems tell me how our solar system likely formed.

That pretty much settles it for me.


73 posted on 10/24/2006 2:14:30 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: wordsofearnest

ROFL!!!!


74 posted on 10/24/2006 2:14:34 PM PDT by RockinRight (Maintaining a Republican majority is MORE IMPORTANT than your temper tantrum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Ann would laugh her butt off at this.


75 posted on 10/24/2006 2:15:27 PM PDT by Glenn (Annoy a BushBot...Think for yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: Hoodlum91

77 posted on 10/24/2006 2:16:58 PM PDT by RockinRight (Maintaining a Republican majority is MORE IMPORTANT than your temper tantrum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
That was some good data on radiocarbon dating, but you missed one major thing.

Radiocarbon dating is not used to establish the age of the earth. It only goes back about 50,000 years!

I think you meant radiometric dating.

78 posted on 10/24/2006 2:17:03 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #79 Removed by Moderator

To: MPJackal
There you go. Or ...


80 posted on 10/24/2006 2:18:39 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

How about the speed of light and the distances to all stars, galaxies, etc that are over 6010light years from Earth?


81 posted on 10/24/2006 2:19:13 PM PDT by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

This stuff is about as accurate as the Book of Mormon. Just plain guesses and and supposition.


82 posted on 10/24/2006 2:20:21 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Blessed By His Noodly Appendage.

83 posted on 10/24/2006 2:21:15 PM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Sixty five bucks is a bit much for any book.

Can one get it w/out all the glazed paper stuff? I'd like to just read the thing while I'm not into collecting future museum pieces.


84 posted on 10/24/2006 2:21:21 PM PDT by Radix (This is my Tag Line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
You're full of it, and Ussher's full of it. It was September 30.

How do I know? Because that's my birthday.
85 posted on 10/24/2006 2:21:36 PM PDT by Cheburashka (World's only Spatula City certified spatula repair and maintenance specialist!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Try visiting http://www.themastersvoice.net/view/?pageID=52882 to see young earth theories that account for fossils and artifacts. If you are not open minded about examining different theories then just talk down to me, and proceed like all the liberal professors and science teachers I ever had.
86 posted on 10/24/2006 2:22:32 PM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

Silly, if the world revolves around you, it doesn't automatically mean that you have the same birthday!

I'm sticking with the Earth is a Scorpio.


87 posted on 10/24/2006 2:23:37 PM PDT by Hoodlum91 (Staying home on Nov. 7 isn't a punishment for the GOP, its a reward for the Dems.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Hmmmmmmmmmm........So much for a good "physicist". That boy sounds like a real idiot. He's got a lot of good company in the global warming crowd.


88 posted on 10/24/2006 2:23:47 PM PDT by nuke rocketeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Is there a Reader's Digest version of post 76?

;-)

89 posted on 10/24/2006 2:24:14 PM PDT by edpc (Violence is ALWAYS a solution. Maybe not the right one....but a solution nonetheless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

I think it's dinner time.


90 posted on 10/24/2006 2:24:14 PM PDT by Hoodlum91 (Staying home on Nov. 7 isn't a punishment for the GOP, its a reward for the Dems.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: edpc

LoL.

That was elementary.


91 posted on 10/24/2006 2:25:14 PM PDT by Radix (This is my Tag Line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

This is really good...I suppose you are going to withdraw your first claim that there is no evidence...given that in a ten second google search...turned up your article...and I suppose if I offer a rebuttal...you'll google something else...even though I'm an amitted layman though capable enough and you are the antagonist with a monopoly of googling "truth."


92 posted on 10/24/2006 2:25:35 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DesScorp
Your observation is a good one and it is hard to miss.

It is almost impossible to tell the difference between a hard core leftist democrat and a hard core Free Republic libertarian pretending to be a conservative while echoing the ACLU on the most important issues of law and culture.

93 posted on 10/24/2006 2:26:23 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU revision of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Somebody seems to have overlook the rules of FR:

Free Republic is a noncommerical site. Please do not post advertising, solicitations, spam or any other commercial messages.
[emphasis added]
94 posted on 10/24/2006 2:27:45 PM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: edpc

The Celts also started their year in the fall. Therefore, the Celts are the Lost Tribes. /sarcasm


95 posted on 10/24/2006 2:28:28 PM PDT by Pharmboy ("I have more guns than I need, but less than I want." Sen. Phil Gramm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

a good laugh was had by all.....

96 posted on 10/24/2006 2:29:07 PM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
I'm familiar with the RATE project. They have a specific goal in mind and only find evidence that supports that goal. They are not doing science.

I would be happy to answer any questions you have on radiocarbon dating.

97 posted on 10/24/2006 2:29:39 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

Helium Evidence for A Young
World Remains Crystal-Clear

D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Institute for Creation Research
April 27, 2005, Copyright © 2005.  All Rights Reserved.

ecently an anti-creationist geochemist, a part-time instructor at the University of Kentucky named Kevin Henke[1], posted on the Internet a 25,000-word rejection[2] of scientific evidence that the world is only about 6,000 years old, the helium-leak age of zircons (radioactive crystals) from deep underground.  In politics, his procedure would be called “mud-slinging,” which in this case tries to bury truth under a mountain of minutiae.  I normally don’t reply to Internet posts from skeptics because I want them to try to publish their criticisms in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the proper place to carry out scientific debates.

However, in this case I want to take the opportunity to share updated information about our research which will appear later this year in the RATE[3] “results” book[4] and in the accompanying book for laymen.[5]  I also plan to submit technical details of this reply to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ).  If Henke chooses to sling yet more mud, let him try to do so in a scientific journal.  The RATE helium research has been peer-reviewed and published in several different scientific venues.  Critics like Henke must gird up their loins and undergo the same kind of scientific discipline—if they want people to take them seriously.  If they refuse to do that, I plan not to reply to them further.

First I’ll point out what it is that the skeptics are trying to obscure.  Then I will go through Henke’s summary of his criticisms point-by-point.  Amazingly, in his entire fifty pages he specifies only two real errors of mine:  (a) I misspelled a name in one of my references, and (b) I was not precise enough in my geological description of a rock formation.  The only other possibly significant items are (1) a quibble about how much helium should have been deposited in the zircons, and (2) a minor mistake I made (which Henke failed to discover) in summarizing our results.  Last I’ll analyze Henke’s tactics and try to plumb his motives.

The Evidence Henke Wants to Hide

 

Figure 1. Microscopic zircons. Photo by R. V. Gentry.

I’ll try to keep this simple, so for the scientific details, please consult the two most relevant publications, which are also archived on the Internet.  I’ll call them ICC 2003[6] and CRSQ 2004.[7]  Decades ago, Robert Gentry analyzed tiny zircon (zirconium silicate) crystals recovered from hot Precambrian (over 545 million years old according to the geologic timescale) “basement” rock in New Mexico.[8]  Figure 1 shows some of the zircons he analyzed, between 50 and 75 microns (millionths of a meter) long.

Enough of the uranium in the zircons had decayed to lead to give them a radioisotope (radioactive element) age of “1.5 billion” years.  But Gentry found that up to 58% of the helium that the nuclear decay would deposit in the zircons was still in them.  This was surprising, because helium diffuses (leaks) rapidly out of most minerals.

Not knowing how fast helium leaks from zircon, I estimated what the leak rates would be when we measured them.  In essence (of course the math is more complicated), all I did to get the estimates was to divide the amount of helium lost from the crystal by the time (assumed by each model) during which it had been lost.  That gives us the leak rates for each of the two models.  The “1.5 billion year” model has rates over 100,000 times slower than the “6,000 year” model, because the former has to retain the helium for a much longer time.  Then in the year 2000, the RATE group published the estimates as numerical predictions for those two models.[9]

 

Figure 2. Model-predicted (red and magenta diamonds) and measured (blue dots) helium leak rates of zircons. The data fit the 6,000-year prediction very well.

Figure 2 shows the predictions as red and magenta diamond symbols.  The bottom axis shows the temperature (in °C) of each sample in situ, that is, while it was in the granitic rock unit.  (I have reversed the direction of temperature from what is traditional in such “Arrhenius” plots.) The vertical axis shows “diffusivity”, which is a measure of how fast helium leaks from a material.  The vertical axis is tremendously compressed, representing a factor of one trillion increase in leakage rates from bottom to top.  The black numbers under the diamonds are the percentages of helium retained in each sample.

The red and magenta vertical lines through the diamonds are the “two-sigma error bars”.  These statistical error bounds were implicit in our reports, but we had not shown them explicitly in our graphs before now.  The bars essentially show the 95% confidence limits I estimate for the accuracy of the predictions.  The forthcoming RATE “results” book gives details on how I estimated the error bounds.

In 2001 we commissioned one of the world’s most respected experimenters in this field to measure the diffusivity of helium in the same-size zircons from the same borehole in the same rock formation.  We used an existing mining company as an intermediary, and we asked it to not tell the experimenter about us or our goals.  The experimenter, being a uniformitarian (believer in long ages) and not having read our prediction, had no idea what results we were hoping for.  It was a truly “blind” experiment, and we (the RATE team) were eagerly awaiting the data.

Figure 2 shows the experimental results as blue dots with blue “2-sigma error bars” going vertically through them.  If we repeated the experiments hundreds of times, we estimate the data points would remain within the caps on the error bars over 95% of the time.  Again, the RATE “results” book (which has now passed through extensive peer review and is being proofread) will have the details on the error estimates.

To our great delight, the data fell right on the “6,000 year” prediction!  This alignment validates the young-age model even for readers who are not experts in this field, because the probability of such a lineup by accident is small.  The data resoundingly reject the “1.5 billion year” model.  The experimenter, whose name is in one of our articles, stands by his data, even though as a uniformitarian he does not like our interpretation of them.  (Even after several years, he has not offered an alternative interpretation.)

This sequence of events places the burden of disproof on the critics, because they must explain how, if there is no truth to our model, the data “accidentally by sheer coincidence just happened by blind chance” to fall right on the predictions of our model.

Rebutting Henke’s Charges

In his abstract, Henke summarized his fifteen principal charges.  I’ll number them and quote them, in bold maroon text.  I’ll answer each charge with no more detail than necessary to dispose of it.1. “invoking groundless miracles to explain away U/Pb dates on zircons”

This means he does not find RATE’s “accelerated nuclear decay” hypothesis to his taste.  But, as the ancient Romans said, “There’s no disputing about taste.”  In other words, Henke’s personal preference in theories means exactly nothing to the rest of us.  Moreover, it is beside the point.  The main subject of my articles is the experimental data, and I offered only a few paragraphs about our hypothesis simply to explain what we think really happened.  If Henke doesn’t like our explanation, let him offer his own.  I’d be very interested to hear (preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific journal) how he thinks the zircons suffered 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay but only 6,000 years worth of helium losses!2. “misidentifying samples as originating from the Jemez Granodiorite”

Henke means that I didn’t specify that the top 1000 meters or so of the Precambrian granitic rock unit in question might contain gneiss or schist instead of granodiorite.  What he doesn’t realize is that “Jemez Granodiorite” is a name I invented (since the literature had not previously named it) to apply to the whole unit from about 700 meters depth down to below 4,310 meters.  Our co-author John Baumgardner, a geophysicist, saw large portions of the GT-2 core at Los Alamos and picked our samples from it.  He says:

Yes, there are occasional veins of material other than the coarse-grained granodiorite that forms the vast majority of the core.  In making the selections I made of what samples to use, I purposely avoided these occasional veins.  In fact I tried to select sections of the core well removed from such veins.  So at least from my vantage point, the samples of core we used for the helium diffusion measurements were indeed coarse-grained granodiorite, not gneiss.

The important point is that, regardless of the name we put on the rock unit, the zircons throughout it have been measured to contain essentially the same amounts and ratios of lead isotopes,[10] and therefore have undergone the same amount of nuclear decay.  The uranium, helium, and lead levels in our samples are perfectly consistent with the corresponding levels Gentry reported for his.  The effect of variation from sample to sample is probably smaller than the 2-sigma error bars around our prediction.  So here Henke is making a distinction without a difference.3. “performing helium analyses on impure biotite separations”

That, of course, is a gratuitous slap at the quality of the ICR geological lab, which did that particular separation.  In the lab’s defense, I would point out that their separation of biotite from another rock unit, the Beartooth Gneiss, was excellent.  I’m judging that by the helium data from that unit in Appendix B of ICC 2003, which our experimenter called “remarkably linear”.  Henke’s allegation is also unproven.  Different localities, having different minerals, offer different degrees of difficulty with separation.  The only way to gauge quality in this case would be to have another lab work on the same rocks and try to get a yet higher purity.  I challenge Henke to procure his own samples of the same core from Los Alamos and to try to do a better separation himself!

However, haggling about the exact diffusivity of biotite is irrelevant, because as we pointed out in numerous parts of our articles, it is clear that that zircon has a diffusivity an order of magnitude lower than that of biotite in the low-temperature range of interest to us.  That makes the diffusivity of zircon much more important to know accurately.  Henke’s attack here is a good example of what I meant by “mud-slinging”—nasty, irrelevant, and intended to distract the readers from the important issues.Source


98 posted on 10/24/2006 2:29:51 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan (I am defiantly proud of being part of the Religious Right in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Clump

That site just links to AIG and the ICR. I'm familiar with both groups. Do you have a specific argument of your own? I'd rather not have to post a rebuttal to every claim both groups have ever made.


99 posted on 10/24/2006 2:30:21 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan

"Of course there will be those who disagree." Well, DUH!--Do you think so?! :)


100 posted on 10/24/2006 2:31:02 PM PDT by Continental Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-203 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson