Replies

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

There is the big news, at least as considered by its authors.

It's the same nonsense we demolished about two months ago. It's based on the unfounded assumption that helium diffuses easily in zircons. It doesn't. A recent paper found a activation energy for helium diffusion of 44 kcal/mol., and a closure temperature of 190 C. (The closure temperature is the temperature below which diffusion is negligible). A zircon which has not been exposed to temperatures above 190C should retain its helium.

He diffusion and (U-Th)/He thermochronometry of zircon: initial results from Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte. Reiners, Peter W.; Farley, Kenneth A.; Hickes, Hunter J. Department of Geology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. Tectonophysics (2002), 349(1-4), 297-308.

And you can make all of these assumptions without even having read their paper. What if their work rebuts what you just posted? You don't know that it doesn't and apparently your demolition of the argument has not stopped them from pursuing it (they may not have read your specific case, but I am sure that they have read their critics), putting it to the test of peer review, and achieving results. Again, another example of the fact that if it comes from the creationist side, it is IMMEDIATELY discounted.

It's the same nonsense we demolished about two months ago. It's based on the unfounded assumption that helium diffuses easily in zircons. It doesn't. A recent paper found a activation energy for helium diffusion of 44 kcal/mol., and a closure temperature of 190 C. (The closure temperature is the temperature below which diffusion is negligible). A zircon which has not been exposed to temperatures above 190C should retain its helium.
He diffusion and (U-Th)/He thermochronometry of zircon: initial results from Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte. Reiners, Peter W.; Farley, Kenneth A.; Hickes, Hunter J. Department of Geology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. Tectonophysics (2002), 349(1-4), 297-308.

Is this true? The last I had heard, Humphreys had defended himself against Joe Meert's claim that he had gotten the closure temperature horribly wrong. I hadn't heard about this 2002 paper you mention.

Did I miss a thread somewhere? I thought this issue hadn't been resolved yet. I certainly haven't seen any resolution posted anywhere on the Net (that I have looked).