Dating - Cmi

 

The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating …………………………………………………………3 Radioactive dating methods …………………………………………………………………………...……………………4

WHAT IS RADIOCARBON DATING? IS IT ACCURATE?

      

What about carbon dating? …………………………………………………………………………………………………..5 The dating game ……………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….11 Dating in conflict …………………………………………………………………………….………………………………..12 Geological conflict ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………13 Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend ………………………………………………………………………………………15 Oxidizable carbon ratio dating ………………………………………………………………………………………………16 Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone ………………………………………………………………………17

ARE THERE EXAMPLES OF INACCURATE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM POTASSIUM/ARGON DATING METHOD

    

Radioactive ‘dating’ failure …………………………………………………………………………………………………..18 Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano …………..20 Radio-dating in Rubble ………………………………………………………………………………………………………26 The pigs took it all …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….27 How do you date a New Zealand volcano? ……………………………………………………………………………….28

HOW CAN RADIOMETRIC DATES BE SO WRONG

     

The Failure of U-Th-Pb ‘Dating’ at Koongarra, Australia …………………………………………………………………28 Fossil Wood in “Ancient” Lava Flow Yields Radiocarbon ………………………………………………………………..46 The Oklo natural reactors in Precambrian rocks, Gabon, Africa ………………………………………………………..48 Trial balloons and the age of the earth ……………………………………………………………………………………..49 Flaws in dating the earth as ancient ………………………………………………………………………………………..50 National Geographic plays the dating game ……………………………………………………………………………….51

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN CONSTANT

    

Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory ……………………………………………………52 Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment ……………………………………………………………..53 Helium evidence for a young world continues to confound critics ……………………………………………………… 54 Argon diffusion data support RATE’s 6,000-year helium age of the earth ……………………………………………..57 RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs! ……………………………………………………………………………..59

WHAT IS THE CURRENT CREATIONIST THINKING ON RADIOHAOS

   

Radiohalos ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………60 The collapse of ‘geologic time’ ………………………………………………………………………………………………62 New radiohalo find challenges primordial granite claim …………………………………………………………………. 65 New record of polonium radiohalos, Stone Mountain granite, Georgia (USA) ………………………………………...66

TREE RING DATING (DENDROCHRONOLOGY)  Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) ………………………………………………………………………………………..68  Field studies in the ancient bristlecone pine forest ………………………………………………………………………..69  Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines ………………………………………………………...77  Patriarchs of the forest ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….83  The oldest living things ………………………………………………………………………………………………………85 DAYLI ARTICLES

   

Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth ……………………………………………………………………………….86 Variable radioactive decay rates and the changes in solar activity ……………………………………………………..88 The Oklo natural reactors in Precambrian rocks, Gabon, Africa ………………………………………………………..89 Helium-3 capture in lunar regolith and the age of the moon ……………………………………………………………..91

     

Argon from RATE site confirms the earth is young ……………………………………………………………………….92 Neutrinos—the not-so-neutral particles …………………………………………………………………………………….94 How potassium-argon dating works ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 95 Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray ………………………………………………………………………………96 Radiocarbon in dino bones ………………………………………………………………………………………………….99 Problem of short-lived radionuclides: design perspective ………………………………………………………………100

The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations. by Tas Walker Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct —i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.So, how do geologists know how to interpret their radiometric dates and what the ‘correct’ date should be? Field relationships A geologist works out the relative age of a rock by carefully studying where the rock is found in the field. The field relationships, as they are called, are of primary importance and all radiometric dates are evaluated against them. For example, a geologist may examine a cutting where the rocks appear as shown in Figure 1. Here he can see that some curved sedimentary rocks have been cut vertically by a sheet of volcanic rock called a dyke. It is clear that the sedimentary rock was deposited and folded before the dyke was squeezed into place. Figure 1 Figure 2. Cross-section By looking at other outcrops in the area, our geologist is able to draw a geological map which records how the rocks are related to each other in the field. From the mapped field relationships, it is a simple matter to work out a geological cross-section and the relative timing of the geologic events. His geological cross-section may look something like Figure 2. Clearly, Sedimentary Rocks A were deposited and deformed before the Volcanic Dyke intruded them. These were then eroded and Sedimentary Rocks B were deposited.The geologist may have found some fossils in Sedimentary Rocks A and discovered that they are similar to fossils found in some other rocks in the region. He assumes therefore that Sedimentary Rocks A are the same age as the other rocks in the region, which have already been dated by other geologists. In the same way, by identifying fossils, he may have related Sedimentary Rocks B with some other rocks. Creationists would generally agree with the above methods and use them in their geological work.From his research, our evolutionary geologist may have discovered that other geologists believe that Sedimentary Rocks A are 200 million years old and Sedimentary Rocks B are 30 million years old. Thus, he already ‘knows’ that the igneous dyke must be younger than 200 million years and older than 30 million years. (Creationists do not agree with these ages of millions of years because of the assumptions they are based on.2)Because of his interest in the volcanic dyke, he collects a sample, being careful to select rock that looks fresh and unaltered. On his return, he sends his sample to the

laboratory for dating, and after a few weeks receives the lab report.Let us imagine that the date reported by the lab was 150.7 ± 2.8 million years. Our geologist would be very happy with this result. He would say that the date represents the time when the volcanic lava solidified. Such an interpretation fits nicely into the range of what he already believes the age to be. In fact, he would have been equally happy with any date a bit less than 200 million years or a bit more than 30 million years. They would all have fitted nicely into the field relationships that he had observed and his interpretation of them. The field relationships are generally broad, and a wide range of ‘dates’ can be interpreted as the time when the lava solidified.What would our geologist have thought if the date from the lab had been greater than 200 million years, say 350.5 ± 4.3 million years? Would he have concluded that the fossil date for the sediments was wrong? Not likely. Would he have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? No. Instead of questioning the method, he would say that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified. He may suggest that the rock contained crystals (called xenocrysts) that formed long before the rock solidified and that these crystals gave an older date. 3 He may suggest that some other very old material had contaminated the lava as it passed through the earth. Or he may suggest that the result was due to a characteristic of the lava—that the dyke had inherited an old ‘age’. The error is not the real error The convention for reporting dates (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) implies that the calculated date of 200.4 million years is accurate to plus or minus 3.2 million years. In other words, the age should lie between 197.2 million years and 203.6 million years. However, this error is not the real error on the date. It relates only to the accuracy of the measuring equipment in the laboratory. Even different samples of rock collected from the same outcrop would give a larger scatter of results. And, of course, the reported error ignores the huge uncertainties in the assumptions behind the ‘age’ calculation. These include the assumption that decay rates have never changed. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by factors of billions of times.1 Creationist physicists point to several lines of evidence that decay rates have been faster in the past, and propose a pulse of accelerated decay during Creation, and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year.2 References .What would our geologist think if the date from the lab were less than 30 million years, say 10.1 ± 1.8 million years? No problem. Would he query the dating method, the chronometer? No. He would again say that the calculated age did not represent the time when the rock solidified. He may suggest that some of the chemicals in the rock had been disturbed by groundwater or weathering.4 Or he may decide that the rock had been affected by a localized heating event—one strong enough to disturb the chemicals, but not strong enough to be visible in the field.No matter what the radiometric date turned out to be, our geologist would always be able to ‘interpret’ it. He would simply change his assumptions about the history of the rock to explain the result in a plausible way. G. Wasserburg, who received the 1986 Crafoord Prize in Geosciences, said, ‘There are no bad chronometers, only bad interpretations of them!’ 5 In fact, there is a whole range of standard explanations that geologists use to ‘interpret’ radiometric dating results. Why use it? Someone may ask, ‘Why do geologists still use radiometric dating? Wouldn’t they have abandoned the method long ago if it was so unreliable?’ Just because the calculated results are not the true ages does not mean that the method is completely useless. The dates calculated are based on the isotopic composition of the rock. And the composition is a characteristic of the molten lava from which the rock solidified. Therefore, rocks in the same area which give similar ‘dates’ are likely to have formed from the same lava at about the same time during the Flood. So, although the assumptions behind the calculation are wrong and the dates are incorrect, there may be a pattern in the results that can help geologists understand the relationships between igneous rocks in a region.Contrary to the impression that we are given, radiometric dating does not prove that the Earth is millions of years old. The vast age has simply been assumed. 2 The calculated radiometric ‘ages’ depend on the assumptions that are made. The results are only accepted if they agree with what is already believed. The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. What if the rock ages are not ‘known’ in advance—does radio-dating give coherent results? Recently, I conducted a geological field trip in the Townsville area, North Queensland. A geological guidebook, 1 prepared by two geologists, was available from a government department.The guidebook’s appendix explains ‘geological time and the ages of rocks.’ It describes how geologists use field relationships to determine the relative ages of rocks. It also says that the ‘actual’ ages are measured by radiometric dating—an expensive technique performed in modern laboratories. The guide describes a number of radiometric methods and states that for ‘suitable specimens the errors involved in radiometric dating usually amount to several percent of the age result. Thus … a result of two hundred million years is expected to be quite close (within, say, 4 million) to the true age.’ Castle Hill (Townsville, Queensland, Australia) This gives the impression that radiometric dating is very precise and very reliable—the impression generally held by the public. However, the appendix concludes with this qualification: ‘Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. … if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable’.This is exactly what our main article explains. Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be.Townsville geology is dominated by a number of prominent granitic mountains and hills. However, these are isolated from each other, and the area lacks significant sedimentary strata. We therefore cannot determine the field relationships and thus cannot be sure which hills are older and which are younger. In fact, the constraints on the ages are such that there is a very large range possible.We would expect that radiometric dating, being allegedly so ‘accurate,’ would rescue the situation and provide exact ages for each of these hills. Apparently, this is not so.Concerning the basement volcanic rocks in the area, the guidebook says, ‘Their exact age remains uncertain.’ About Frederick Peak, a rhyolite ring dyke in the area, it says, ‘Their age of emplacement is not certain.’ And for Castle Hill, a prominent feature in the city of Townsville, the guidebook says, ‘The age of the granite is unconfirmed.’No doubt, radiometric dating has been carried out and precise ‘dates’ have been obtained. It seems they have not been accepted because they were not meaningful. Radioactive dating methods Ways they make conflicting results tell the same story

by Tas Walker When it comes to measuring the ages of things, we are told that there are a dozen different radioactive dating methods and that they all give the same answer. Do they?Fossil wood from a quarry near the town of Banbury, England, some 80 miles north-west of London, was dated using the carbon-14 method. 1 The ages calculated ranged from 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old. However, the limestone in which the wood was found was of Jurassic age, of 183 million years. Clearly the dating methods are in conflict.Diamonds analyzed from mines in South Africa and Botswana, and from alluvial deposits in Guinea, West Africa, found measurable carbon-14—over ten times the detection limit of the laboratory equipment. 2 The average ‘age’ calculated for the samples was 55,700 years. Yet the rocks that contained the diamonds ranged from 1,000 to 3,000 million years old. Dating methods are in conflict again.Rock samples from a lava dome within the Mount St Helens crater, USA, were dated using the potassium-argon method. Whole-rock samples gave an age of 350,000 years. 3 When some of the amphibole minerals in the rock sample were extracted and analyzed separately, their age was more than double at 900,000 years. Two mineral samples of a different mineral, pyroxene, gave an age of 1,700,000 and 2,800,000 years. Which age is right? None, actually. The lava dome formed after Mount St Helens exploded in 1980 and the samples were just 10 years old. Here are more conflicting results between dating methods.Creationist scientists have uncovered dozens of anomalies and conflicts like this. Surprisingly, these conflicting results do not unsettle mainstream geologists. They genuinely believe the world is billions of years old, and the conflicting results do not cause them to question their belief. In their minds, these conflicts are a little mystery that will be resolved with creative thinking and more research.In his well-known textbook on isotope geology, Gunter Faure explains the various radioactive dating methods, including the so-called isochron method. When the results for a number of rock samples are plotted on a graph and form a straight line, the researcher can calculate an age for the samples. But Faure warns his readers not to accept the calculated age without question.He gives an example of volcanic lava along the border of Uganda, Zaire and Rwanda, East Africa. That lava is known to be relatively young, possibly erupted within historical times,4 yet a rubidium-strontium straight-line isochron gave an age of 773 million years. Does this worry these scientists? No. They have total faith in the method. In their minds, the key is the way the results areinterpreted. Faure says that in this case we should interpret the line, not as an isochron, but a “mixing line”. So how can we tell the difference? We can’t. The only way we can know it is a mixing line is if the calculated age is wrong—and the only way one can ‘know’ if an age is right or wrong is to have a pre-existing belief about what the age should be.In another example, Okudaira et al. measured isochron ages of a rock called amphibolite sampled from south-east India. With the rubidium-strontium method they obtained an age of 481 million years but with samarium-neodymium the age was almost double at 824 million years. 5 Did the disagreement cause the researchers to doubt the dating methods? Not at all. They removed the disagreement by the way they ‘interpreted’ the results. They said the older age was the age the rocks underwent metamorphism, while the younger age was when the rocks were later heated. How did they know? No matter what the numbers are, a plausible story can always be invented after the results are obtained.Another example involves a volcanic region in Southern India, a pluton.6 Using the lead-lead method, a whole-rock sample gave an age of 508 million years. With the potassium-argon method, samples of mica gave an age of 450 million years. Zircons using the uranium-lead method gave an age of 572 million years. Three different samples; three different methods; three different results. Did this cause the researchers to doubt the radioactive dating methods? No. They just applied some creative interpretation. They said the different ages are because the huge pluton cooled slowly over millions of years and the different minerals were affected in different ways. Instead of a problem, the conflict became a new discovery.Conflicting radioactive dating results are reported all the time and, on their own, there is no way of knowing what they mean. So geologists research how other geologists have interpreted the other rocks in the area in order to find out what sort of dates they would expect. Then they invent a story to explain the numbers as part of the geological history of the area. WHAT IS RADIOCARBON DATING? IS IT ACCURATE? What about carbon dating? • How does the carbon ‘clock’ work? • Is it reliable? • What does carbon dating really show? • What about other radiometric dating methods? • Is there evidence that Earth is young? PEOPLE who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric dating1 methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the young age account of history. We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating Methods.

How the carbon ‘clock’ works Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on Earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and as the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon. Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing back into nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive. Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf of a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thingdecreases as time goes on (figure 1). In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies (figure 2). Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example. The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convertback to 14N in 5,730 ± 40 years. This is the ‘half-life’. So, in two halflives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old. However, things are not quite so simple. Firstly, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2 Secondly, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon dated from that time appear younger than their true age. Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g. seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historicalcalibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records. Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C ‘clock’ is not possible.4Other factors affecting carbon dating The number of cosmic rays penetrating Earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore the dating system. The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the Earth’s passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way Galaxy. The strength of Earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from Earth. Overall, the energy of Earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are. Also, the Flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The Flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the Flood absorb CO2 which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation).6 Total 14C is also proportionately lowered atthis time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore the 14C level relative to 12C increases after the Flood. So the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/ the atmosphere before the Flood had to be lower than what it is now. Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the Flood would give ages much older than the true ages. Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000–45,000 years should be recalibrated to the young date for the Flood.7 Such a recalibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground

sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7 Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the Flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Chapters 10, 11, 12, and 17), fossils formed in the early post-Flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are. In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the Flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of

millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the Flood (figure 3).

The hourglasses represent radiometric dating. It is assumed that we know the amount of parent and daughter elements in the original sample, the rate of decay is constant, and no parent or daughter material has been added or removed. Other radiometric dating methods There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to giveages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40, uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium, uranium-235 decays to lead-207, rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87, etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification. The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made (see hourglass diagram below) such as: 1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there). 2. Decay rates have always been constant. 3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added. Isotope concentrations, or ratios, can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations, or ratios, are not dates. There are patterns in the isotope data There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older ‘ages’. Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,8 points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay. ‘Bad’ dates?

When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain ‘bad’ dates.8 For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.9 Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata gave dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old’, according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated, and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age worldview that pervades academia today. A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.10 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’ from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus). However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old’. A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game. Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get the answers they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact’. So every observation must fit this paradigm.11 Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system. We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science; that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the ‘age’ is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven. Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc. Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the Earth at 4.6 billion years.12 John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods. He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few ‘good’ dates left after the ‘bad’ dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.What date would you like? The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information should not be necessary. Presumably the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a ‘good’ date. Testing radiometric dating methods If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another. Methods should work reliably on things of known age There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ ranged from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.13 Again, using hindsight, it is argued that ‘excess’ argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age.14 This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below Earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.15 If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age? Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons,16 make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such ‘fool-proof’ techniques can also give ‘bad’ dates. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock. Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon.17 By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility. Different dating techniques should consistently agree If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results. In the study of Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results (see Table below). Again all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the ‘bad’ dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don’t agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective. In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, because the wood was charred from contact with the hot lava. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!18

means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results. In the study of Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results (see Table below). Again all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the ‘bad’ dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don’t agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective. In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, because the wood was charred from contact with the hot lava. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon method at 45 million years old! 18 Isotope ratios of uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 ± 140 Ma.20 This contrasts with an age of 1,550–1,650 Ma based on other isotope ratios,21 and ages of 275, 61, 0, 0, and 0 Ma from thorium/ lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains.22 The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in the lead-lead system.23 The ‘zero’ ages in this case are consistent with the young age model. More evidence something is wrong 14C in fossils supposedly millions of years old Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little 14C to measure, but dating labs consistently find 14C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old.24,25 For example, no source of coal has been found that lacks 14C, yet this fossil fuel supposedly ranges up to hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils in rocks dated at 1–500 Ma by long-age radioisotope dating methods gave an average radiocarbon ‘age’ of about 50,000 years, much less than the limits of modern carbon dating26 (see earlier in this Chapter for why even these ages are inflated). Furthermore, there was no pattern of younger to older in the carbon dates that correlated with the evolutionary/uniformitarian ‘ages’.27 This evidence is consistent with the fossil-bearing rock layers being formed in the year-long global catastrophe of the Global Flood, as flood geologists since Nicholas Steno (1631–1687) have recognized. Even Precambrian (‘older than 545 Ma’) graphite, which is not of organic origin, contains 14C above background levels.28 This is consistent with Earth itself being young. It is an unsolved mystery to evolutionists as to why coal has 14C in it,29 or wood supposedly many millions of years old still has 14C present, but it makes perfect sense in a creationist worldview. Many physical evidences contradict the ‘billions of years’. Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of Earth, 90% point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them: • Evidence for rapid formation of geological strata, as in the Flood. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of ‘rock’ bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. See Chapter 15 and books by geologists Morris30 and Austin.31 • Red blood cells, proteins, DNA, and carbon-14 have been found in dinosaur bone. None of these should be present if the bones are over 65 million years old (according to evolutionary dating).32 • Earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the Flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.33,34 Cross-section of Grand Canyon geology showing the Kaibab upwarp. Plastic folding of strata shows that the layers were still soft when bent, consistent with them all being laid down quickly (after Morris35) —not over hundreds of millions of years. • A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. Supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to the physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for ‘young’ galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.36,37 • Continents erode so rapidly that they should have worn away completely many times over in billions of years.38 The problem is more acute in mountainous regions, and there are also huge plains that are supposedly very old with hardly any erosion. The average height reduction for all the continents of the world is

about 6.0 mm (0.24 inches) per 100 years.39 A height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years (the uniformitarian age of the cores of the continents). If erosion had been going on for billions of years, no continents would remain on Earth. For example, North America should have been levelled in just 10 million years if erosion has happened at the average rate. Note that this is an upper age limit, not an actual age. • Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, such as the sea having no salt to start with, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma old—far younger than the billions of years believed by evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.40,41 Dr Russell Humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the booklet Evidence for a Young World. However, creationists cannot prove the age of Earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admitted: “Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964–68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.”42 Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to ‘prove’ that Earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young Earth, rely on unprovable assumptions. Orphan radiohalos Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage in the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as uranium238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206.43 Viewed in crosssection with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.44 Some of the intermediate decay products—such as the polonium isotopes—have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, 214Po has a half-life of just 164 microseconds. Curiously, rings created by polonium decay are often found without the parent uranium halos. Now, the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. This suggests the rock formed very quickly.45 There possibly also had to be a period of rapid decay of uranium to produce the amount of polonium that is seen. Orphan halos speak of conditions in the past that do not fit with the uniformitarian view of Earth history, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Do radiometric ‘dates’ have any meaning? Geologist John Woodmorappe, after analyzing 500 papers published on radioisotope dating, concluded that isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning, and story telling to fit the preconceived ideas of the researchers.46 The isochron dating technique was once thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.47 Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling reported on ‘dating’ of the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the lead-lead isochron method.48 He found that even 113 highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems (leaching of parent and daughter isotopes would invalidate the ‘dates’), gave a very nice looking ‘isochron’ line with an ‘age’ of 1,445 ± 20 Ma. Other methods gave ‘ages’ ranging from even higher to all the way down to zero years. Such ‘false isochrons’ are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line and mixing isochron. Zheng wrote: “… some of the basic assumptions of the conventional RbSr [rubidium-strontium] isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr against 87Rb/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd [samarium-neodymium] and U-Pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods.”49 Even with ‘isochrons’, part of the isochron line is interpreted as not being due to age—how can one part of the line be attributed to age but the other part of the same line be ignored as irrelevant where it cannot be due to age? Furthermore, even non-radioactive elements will give nice straight lines when ratios of concentrations are plotted.50 Clearly, such patterns are not due to age at all. Another popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the curve have the same ‘age’ according to the two lead series and are called ‘concordant’. However, the results from zircons, for example, generally lie off the concordia curve —they are discordant (disagree). Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such inconsistent data.51 However, such story-telling is not objective science that proves an old Earth. Dr Snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten state in Earth’s mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations, which are interpreted as ages. This would also explain the prevalence of ‘false isochrons’. But how does a geologist tell a false isochron from a ‘good’ one? Results that agree with accepted ages are considered ‘good’. This is circular reasoning and very bad science. As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook, Professor of Metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay.52 Cook noted that in ores from the Katanga mine there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable isotope, but no thorium-232 as a source of lead-208. Thorium has a long half-life (decays very slowly) and is not easily leached out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. Cook suggested that perhaps the lead-208 came about by neutron capture conversion of lead-206 to lead-207 to lead-208.

However, a period of rapid radioactive decay could also explain the data (see below). In either case the data are consistent with an age of thousands of years, not millions of years. Helium and heat: evidence for non-constant decay rates Physicist Dr Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium (helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements, such as uranium) in zircons from deep (hot) bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 Ma for the granite rocks in which they are found.53 The amount of lead corresponds with current rates of decay of uranium acting over the assumed timescale, but almost all the helium formed should have diffused out of the crystals in that time. The diffusion rates of helium have now been measured and they are very high (100,000 times greater than evolutionary geologists had assumed), so the helium should not be there if the radioactive decay had been going on at present rates for the eons of time claimed by uniformitarians.54 Indeed, modelling of the diffusion indicates that the ‘1.5 billion years’ worth of radioactive decay occurred, but the rate of helium leakage dates these ‘billion-year-old’ zircons at 5,700 ± 2,000 years.55 Research on the concentration and diffusion rates of argon, another product of radioactive decay, agree with the helium data, giving independent confirmation.56 The only sensible explanation for this is that there has been a period of accelerated radioactive decay several thousand years ago. Whatever caused such elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope anomalies documented by Cook (above). A period of accelerated decay would also solve the puzzle of the amount of heat emanating from Earth—an amount consistent with the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred, but not with a billions of years timescale.57 So, evidence is mounting to suggest a period of rapid radioactive decay in the past, just thousands of years ago. Interestingly, the accelerated decay seems to have affected the longest half-life isotopes most, and particularly those involving alpha-decay.58 Conclusions There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old Earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. Although we don’t have all the answers, we have lots of answers. The dating game by Tas Walker Excavating the remains of ‘Mungo Man’ in 1974 in Lake Mungo, 1,000 km (600 miles) west of Sydney, Australia. In February 2003, scientists announced that a new suite of tests shows Mungo Man died 40,000 years ago, not 62,000 years as other scientists had claimed based on different dating tests. Both dates contradict the earliest carbon-14 dating results on the ancient remains.In western New South Wales, Australia, part of a semi-arid desert has been set aside as a World Heritage area.1 This may seem curious for such an inhospitable region. But there is a good reason. Evolutionists believe that the site represents an outstanding example of the major stages in man’s evolutionary history.It all centres on the discovery of human remains in sand dunes surrounding ancient Lake Mungo—now a dry, flat plain, vegetated by scraggly salttolerant bushes and grasses.The first major find, in 1969, was of crushed and burnt skeletal fragments, interpreted to be of a female called Lake Mungo 1, or more affectionately Mungo Woman.2,3 What made the find significant was the assigned date. Carbon-14 dating (see Dating methods) on bone apatite (the hard bone material) yielded an age of 19,000 years and on collagen (soft tissue) gave 24,700 years. 3 This excited the archaeologists, because that date made their find the oldest human burial in Australia. But carbon-14 dating on nearby charcoal produced an ‘age’ up to 26,500 years. This meant that the skeleton, buried slightly lower than the charcoal, must have been older. Not surprisingly, the older charcoal age was considered to be the ‘most reliable’ estimate 3 and launched Mungo Woman to national and international fame. Jane Balme, of the Centre for Archaeology at the University of Western Australia, put it succinctly, ‘There’s a general perception that there is a competition to get the oldest date and there’s kudos in it.’4Certainly, there was kudos in this date. At 26,000 years, Mungo Woman was nearly twice as old as the previous oldest date for Aboriginal settlement of Australia, and possibly the earliest human cremation in the world.Then, in 1974, Bowler and Thorne found a skeleton sprinkled with powdered red ochre in a grave only 450 metres away.5 This one was well preserved and similar to the skeletons of modern Aborigines. Because the new skeleton, Lake Mungo 3, was found in the same sand bed (technically the same stratigraphic horizon), ‘he’ was assigned the same age as Mungo Woman. Thus Mungo Man became famous too—one of the world’s earliest ritual burials (even though the sex of the individual is still in dispute6). The situation became even more exciting when a different dating method (thermoluminescence, see Dating methods) was used. In 1998, Bowler reported that sand from the Mungo 3 site gave an age of some 42,000 years. 5,7 Being older than the

carbon-14 dates, Mungo Man acquired a new stature on the world evolution scene. So, the earlier ‘reliable’ carbon-14 ages were abandoned in favour of the thermoluminescence ones. Evolution and the first Australians 1 Darwin considered the Australian Aborigines as primitive and not much evolved from the ‘anthropoid apes’. He anticipated that the ‘wilder races’ would become extinct because survival of the fittest meant they would be superseded by the evolutionarily-advanced ‘civilised’ races.2 An evolutionary view of human origins underlies the World Heritage listing of the Lake Mungo site. Such a view was not good for the first Australians. Many atrocities were perpetrated on Aboriginal communities because of these evolutionary beliefs.Incredibly, in the 1800s, it was not uncommon for Aboriginal people to be hunted and shot as specimens for science. 3 Their remains were sent to Europe to illustrate evolution displays in museums. Only now are these remains being returned to their communities. 4The first Aboriginal settlers to Australia were descended from people as intelligent and inventive as any other culture at that time. The Aborigines of Australia lost some of their technological know-how—it can happen in a generation if parents do not pass it on to their children. (Perhaps it was because of isolation and the pressure to cope with a worsening climate as the continent dried out after the Ice Age.) Then, in 1999, Thorne (not to be outdone) and other scientists from the Australian National University published a new comprehensive study on the age of Mungo Man. They used different samples of bone and sand and different dating methods—electron-spin resonance (ESR), optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL), thorium-uranium (Th/U) and protactinium-uranium (Pa/U). (Don’t worry about the big names. See Dating methods.) And the results from all the different methods agreed closely. Their conclusion? Mungo Man was 62,000 years old! Bowler and Magee described this 20,000-year stretch as ‘commendable in intent.’8There was just one small problem. The new date meant that the history of Australian occupation would have to be rewritten and it also affected the ideas of human evolution in other parts of the world. And Australian archaeologists were still embarrassed by the Jinmium rock shelter fiasco, where a claimed age of 116,000 years was later reduced to 5,000 years. 9So, Bowler stubbornly refused to accept the new dates. In his protest to Journal of Human Evolution, he said ‘For this complex, laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence.’8 In other words, you don’t just accept a laboratory date without question. It’s not the last word on the age of something. You only accept the date if it agrees with what you already think it should be.And that is what we have been saying all along.10 In short, the dates are wrong because they are based on wrongassumptions. For example, the carbon-14 method does not account for the disruption of the carbon balance during the Flood some 4,500 years ago. 11 The uranium methods do not make the correct assumptions about the initial conditions of the samples or about the effects of changing environmental conditions through time. The luminescence dates have the same problem. Dating methods1 Carbon-14 dates are determined from the measured ratio of radioactive carbon-14 to normal carbon-12 ( 14C/12C). Used on samples which were once alive, such as wood or bone, the measured 14C/12C ratio is compared with the ratio in living things today. The date is calculated by assuming the change of 14C in the sample is due entirely to radioactive decay. It is also assumed that carbon has been in equilibrium on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years. Wrong dates are usually caused by assuming a wrong initial 14C/12C ratio, contamination or leaching. Samples from before the Flood, or from the early post-Flood period, give ages that are too old by tens of thousands of years. This is because the Flood buried lots of 12C-rich plants and animals. This would result in a lower 14C/12C ratio, which is wrongly interpreted as great age. Thermoluminescence (TL) dates are obtained from individual grains of common minerals such as quartz. When such grains are heated, they emit light, and this is related to the radiation ‘stored’ in the crystal structure. It is assumed that the radiation was slowly absorbed from the environment, building up from zero at a certain time in the past (perhaps when the grain was last exposed to sunlight). A date is calculated by measuring the light emitted from the mineral grain when it is heated, and measuring the radiation in the environment where the grain was found. Unfortunately, there are many unknowns and many assumptions need to be made, including the amount of radiation ‘stored’ in the mineral at a certain time in the past, that the change in radiation has only been affected by the radiation in the environment, that the radiation in the environment has remained constant, and that the sensitivity of the crystal to radiation has not changed. All these factors can be affected by water, heat, sunlight, the accumulation or leaching of minerals in the environment, and many other causes. Optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates are based on exactly the same principle as TL. But instead of heating the grain, it is exposed to light to make it emit its ‘stored’ radiation. The calculated date is based on the same assumptions, and affected by the same uncertainties, as for TL. Electron-spin resonance (ESR) dates are based on the same principles as TL and OSL. However, the ‘stored’ radiation in the sample is measured by exposing it to gamma radiation and measuring the radiation emitted. The measuring technique does not destroy the ‘stored’ radiation (as does TL and OSL), so the measurement can be repeated on the same sample. The calculated date is based on the same assumptions, and affected by the same uncertainties, as for TL and OSL. Thorium-uranium (Th/U) dates are based on measuring the isotopes of uranium and thorium in a sample. It is known that uranium-238 decays radioactively to form thorium-230 (through a number of steps, including through uranium-234). The dating calculation assumes that the thorium and uranium in the sample are related to each other by radioactive decay. Furthermore, before a date can be calculated, the initial ratios of 230Th/238U and 234U/238U need to be assumed, and it is also assumed that there has been no gain or loss of uranium or thorium to/from the environment—i.e., that the system is ‘closed’. However, the bone and soil must have been ‘open’ to allow these elements to enter and accumulate. Protactinium-uranium (Pa/U) dates are based on similar principles as Th/U dating, but use uranium-235 and protactinium231 instead. The isotope 235U decays radioactively to form 231Pa. Again, it is assumed that the isotopes in the sample are related to each other by radioactive decay. Also, the initial ratio of 231Pa/235U has to be assumed, and it is assumed that there has been no gain or loss of uranium or protactinium to/from the environment—i.e., that the system is ‘closed’. Again, any bone sample containing uranium must have been ‘open’ to allow it to accumulate in the first place.

Dating in conflict Which ‘age’ will you trust? by Hansruedi Stutz In 1984, I was on a geological excursion in Mägenwil (Switzerland). I collected some sandstone samples with fossilized mussels in it. This rock is classified as belonging to the Upper Tertiary geological system. Evolutionary belief therefore maintains that this rock is around 20 million years old.In the same rock, right alongside the fossil mussels, are fragments of coalified wood.Some time after I took my samples, I discovered the same sandstone, appropriately described as coming from Mägenwil, exhibited in the ‘Geologisch-Mineralogische Austellung der ETH’ in Zürich—naturally, also labelled ‘20 million years old’.That means the wood must also be at least that old. Mainstream geologists would never think of trying to get a radiocarbon ( 14C) date for the coalified wood in this Mägenwil sandstone, because anything that old should not be datable by this method.This is because radiocarbon decays very rapidly compared to other radioactive elements such as uranium. So after, say, a theoretical 100,000 years at the most the amount of radiocarbon left in the wood would not be detectable anymore.So anything which really was millions of years old would have no detectable radiocarbon left, and would register as giving an ‘infinite radiocarbon age’. Carbon dating, as it is often called, is thus never used to date ‘old’ fossils (which usually have no organic carbon left anyway).However, I felt this wood probably would give a radiocarbon ‘date’, because I was convinced that this sandstone was the result of residual post-Flood catastrophism, just a few thousand years ago.Such dating wouldn’t show the wood’s true age, since creationists have long shown that the huge imbalance of carbon in the world due to the global Flood catastrophe would give artificially old radiocarbon dates, especially those from the early post-Flood era.1However, if it registered any age at all on the radiocarbon test (and all sources of potential contamination had been eliminated), it would mean that it could not possibly be millions of years old.So I arranged for this coalified wood to be radiocarbon ‘dated’ by the Physikalisches Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland. 2 I assumed that such a prestigious laboratory would take all necessary precautions to eliminate contamination, and allow for all other sources of error.3The result: 36,440 years BP ± 330 years. This discovery, that the 14C in the wood has not yet had time to disintegrate totally, is in line with what one would expect, based on the young age timelineThe real age is probably less than four thousand years.It seems that long-age believers are left with only three options: Accept the radiocarbon date. This would mean that the age of the Upper Tertiary shrinks from 20 million to 36,000 years, a factor of around 500 times. The whole geologic dating system would be thrown into disrepute.Arbitrarily reject the radiocarbon date. To be consistent, therefore, they would have to conclude that radiometric dates are not the absolute age indicators we are persistently told, which destroys the main plank in the old-age dogma to begin with. Ignore the result, and hope not too many get to know about it. Geological conflict Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating by Andrew A. Snelling Figure 1. Locality map showing the outcrop pattern of the Marlstone Rock Bed across southern and central England (ref. 1, main article). For most people, the discovery of fossilised wood in a quarry would not be newsworthy. However, some pieces recently found embedded in limestone alongside some well-known ‘index’ fossils (see aside below) for the ‘Jurassic period’ (supposedly 142– 205.7 million years ago) have proved highly significant.It is not generally realised that index fossils are still crucial to the millions-of-years geological dating, in spite of the advent of radioactive ‘dating’ techniques. Not all locations have rocks suitable for radioactive ‘dating’, but in any case, if a radioactive ‘date’ disagrees with a fossil ‘date’ then it is the latter which usually has precedence.Finding this fossil wood in Jurassic limestone suggested the possibility of testing for the presence of radiocarbon (14C). Most geologists, however, would not bother with such tests because they wouldn’t expect any 14C to still exist. With a half-life of only 5,570 years, no 14C should be detectable after about 50,000 years, let alone millions of years, even with the most sensitive equipment. So this fossilised wood from the Marlstone Rock Bed of Jurassic ‘age’ had potential for testing the validity of the fossil dating technique underpinning modern geology. The Marlstone Rock Bed Figure 2. Locality map showing the distribution of the Marlstone Rock Bed west of Banbury, and the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill near the village of Ratley.

The Marlstone Rock Bed is a distinctive limestone unit that outcrops from Lyme Regis on the Dorset coast of southern England, north-eastwards to just west of Hull near the North Sea coast (Figure 1). 1 In many places, the top 5–30 cm (2–12 inches) or more of this bed has been weathered and altered, the original green iron minerals 2 being oxidized to limonite (hydrous iron oxides), and also in a few areas the sand content is higher. In the past, the outcrop has been quarried frequently for iron ore or building stone.Evolutionary geologists consider that the top three metres (10 feet) of the Marlstone Rock Bed represent the whole of the Tenuicostatum Zone, the basal zone of the Toarcian Stage, 1 the last stage of the Early Jurassic. This ‘dating’ is based on the presence of the ammonite index fossil Dactylioceras tenuicostatum. 1Thus the bed is said to be about 189 million years old according to the geological time-scale. 3Amongst the remaining quarries still ‘working’ the top of the Marlstone Rock Bed are the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill near the village of Ratley, on the north-western edge of the Edge Hill plateau, some 10½ km (6½ miles) north-west of the town of Banbury (Figures 2 and 3). Building stone, known as ‘Hornton Stone’, has been quarried there since medieval times.4,5Figure 3(a) General view of the south wall of the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill near Ratley, north-west of Banbury. A ‘dating’ test at Hornton Quarries During two visits to the Hornton Quarries, it was established that fossil wood occurs alongside ammonite and belemnite index fossils (see aside below) in the ‘Hornton Stone’, the oxidized silty top of the Marlstone Rock Bed. The ammonite recovered in the quarries is Dactylioceras semicelatum (Figure 4), abundant in a subzone of the Tenuicostatum Zone.1 Fossil wood was actually found sitting on top of a fossilised belemnite (Figure 5), probably belonging to the genus Acrocoelites, a Toarcian Stage index fossil in north-west Europe.6 Many such belemnite fossils had been found during quarrying operations (Figure 6). Together these index fossils have, in evolutionary reckoning, established the rock containing them as being Early Jurassic and about 189 million years old. 1,3Logically, the fossil wood must be the same ‘age’. Figure 3(b) Closer view of the quarry face of the south wall showing the oxidized limestone of the top of the Marlstone Rock Bed which is quarried as ‘Hornton Brown’ building stone.Three samples of fossil wood were collected from the south wall of Hornton Quarries, one from immediately adjacent to the belemnite fossil (Figure 5) during the first visit, and two from locations nearby during the second visit. All the fossil wood samples were from short broken lengths of what were probably branches of trees fossilised in situ. The woody internal structure was clearly evident, thus the samples were not the remains of roots that had grown into this weathered rock from trees on the present land surface. When sampled, the fossil wood readily splintered, diagnostic of it still being ‘woody’ in spite of its impregnation with iron minerals during fossilisation.Pieces of all three samples were sent for radiocarbon (14C) analyses to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), while as a cross-check, a piece of the first sample was also sent to the Antares Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Lucas Heights near Sydney (Australia). Both laboratories are reputable and internationally recognised, the former a commercial laboratory and the latter a major research laboratory.The staff at these laboratories were not told exactly where the samples came from, or their supposed evolutionary age, to ensure that there would be no resultant bias.Both laboratories used the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique for radiocarbon analyses, recognised as producing reliable results even on samples with minute quantities of carbon. The results Figure 4. The ammonite index fossil Dactylioceras semicelatum recovered from the top section of the Marlstone Rock Bed in the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill. The radiocarbon (14C) results are listed in Table 1. Obviously, there was detectable radiocarbon in all the fossil wood samples, the calculated 14C ‘ages’ ranging from 20,700 ± 1,200 to 28,820 ± 350 years BP (Before Present).For sample UK-HB-1, collected from on top of the belemnite index fossil (Figure 5), the results from the two laboratories are reasonably close to one another within the error margins, and when averaged yield a 14C ‘age’ almost identical (within the error margins) to the 22,730 ± 170 years BP of sample UK-HB-2. Figure 5. Fossil wood in the top section of the Marlstone Rock Bed exposed in the south wall of the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill. The pen is not only for scale, but points to an end-on circular profile of a belemnite fossil sitting directly underneath the fossil wood (sampled as UK-HB-1).Alternatively, if all four results on the three samples are averaged, the 14C ‘age’ is almost identical (within the error margins) to the Geochron result for UK-HB-1 of 24,005 ± 600 years BP. This suggests that a reasonable estimate for the 14C ‘age’ of this fossil wood would be 23,000–23,500 years BP.Quite obviously this radiocarbon ‘age’ is drastically short of the ‘age’ of 189 million years for the index fossils found with the fossil wood, and thus for the host rock.Of course, uniformitarian geologists would not even test this fossil wood for radiocarbon. They don’t expect any to be in it, since they would regard it as about 189 million years old due to the ‘age’ of the index fossils. No detectable 14C would remain in wood older than about 50,000 years. Undoubtedly, they would thus suggest that the radiocarbon, which has been unequivocally demonstrated to be in this fossil wood, is due somehow to contamination. Such a criticism is totally unjustified Index fossils and geologic dating Figure 6. Four belemnite fossils, probably Acrocoelites, recovered from the top section of the Marlstone Rock Bed in the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill (pen for scale). These cylindrical skeletal shells of the belemnites which taper to apices are

called rostrums (ref. 2, of Index fossils and geologic dating, aside below).To evolutionary geologists, fossils are still crucial for dating strata, but not all fossils are equally useful. Those fossils that seem to work well for identifying and ‘dating’ rock strata are called ‘index’ fossils.To qualify as an index fossil, a particular fossil species must be found buried in rock layers over a very wide geographical area, preferably on several continents. On the other hand, the same fossil species must have a narrow vertical distribution, that is, only be buried in a few rock layers. The evolutionist interprets this as meaning that the species lived and died over a relatively short time (perhaps a few million years). Therefore, the rock layers containing these fossils supposedly only represent that relatively short period of time, and thus a ‘date’ can be assigned accordingly on every continent to the rock layers where these fossils are found. The ‘date’ relative to other index fossils and rock layers is, of course, determined by the species’ position in the evolutionary ‘tree of life’.1Among well-known index fossils are ammonites (extinct, coiled-shell cephalopods, marine molluscs similar to today’s Nautilus), and the belemnites (extinct, straight-shell cephalopods). 2 Both are fossils of squid-like creatures, common to abundant in so-called Mesozoic rocks. They are very important index fossils for ‘dating’ and correlation of rock layers, for example, across Europe, particularly for the so-called Cretaceous and Jurassic periods of the geological time-scale,2,3 which are claimed to span 65–142 and 142–205.7 million years ago respectively.4 However, these index fossils have not been ‘dated’ directly by radioactive techniques. Could the radiocarbon be due to contamination? Four reasons why not Pieces of the same sample were sent to the two laboratories and they both independently obtained similar results. Furthermore, three separate samples were sent to the same laboratory in two batches and again similar results were obtained. This rules out contamination.The radiocarbon ‘dates’ depend on the amounts of radiocarbon, originally in the living plants, now left in the fossil wood samples. In these samples, the 14C left was between about 2.5% and 7.5% of the amount in living plants today. Any unavoidable contamination (e.g., dust, fungal spores) would be minuscule and would amount to at most 0.2%, which would have a negligible effect on these radiocarbon ‘dates’.1The last column in Table 1 lists the d13CPDB results,2 which are consistent with the analysed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the wood of land plants.3Such a claim would, by implication, cast a slur on the Ph.D. scientific staff of two radiocarbon laboratories, who, as qualified routine practitioners, understand the potential for contamination and how to avoid it in sample processing. SAMPLE

LAB

LAB CODE

14

UK-HB-1

Geochron ANSTO

GX-21666-AMSOZC201

24,005 ± 20,700 ± 1,200

UK-HB-2

Geochron

GX-21611-AMS

22,730 ± 170

-24.0

UK-HB-3

Geochron

GX-21612-AMS

28,820 ± 350

-25.3

C ‘AGE’ (YEARS BP)

δ13CPDB ‰ 600 -22.9 -16.6

Table 1. Radiocarbon (14C) analytical results for fossil wood samples, Marlstone Rock Bed, Hornton Quarries, England. Conclusions The fossil wood in the top three metres of the Marlstone Rock Bed near Banbury, England, has been 14C ‘dated’ at 23,000– 23,500 years BP. However, based on evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions, the ammonite and belemnite index fossils in this rock ‘date’ it at about 189 million years. Obviously, both ‘dates’ can’t be right!Furthermore, it is somewhat enigmatic that broken pieces of wood from land plants were buried and fossilised in a limestone alongside marine ammonite and belemnite fossils. Uniformitarians consider limestone to have been slowly deposited over countless thousands of years on a shallow ocean floor where wood from trees is not usually found.However, the radiocarbon ‘dating’ of the fossil wood has emphatically demonstrated the complete failure of the evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions underpinning geological ‘dating’.A far superior explanation for this limestone and the mixture of terrestrial wood and marine shellfish fossils it contains is extremely rapid burial in a turbulent watery catastrophe that affected both the land and ocean floor, such as the recent global Flood.The 23,000–23,500 year BP 14C ‘date’ for this fossil wood is not inconsistent with it being buried about 4,500 years ago during the Flood, the original plants having grown before the Flood. A stronger magnetic field before, and during, the Flood would have shielded the earth more effectively from incoming cosmic rays, 7 so there would have been much less radiocarbon in the atmosphere then, and thus much less in the vegetation. Since the laboratories calculated the 14C ‘ages’ assuming that the level of atmospheric radiocarbon in the past has been roughly the same as the level in 1950, the resultant radiocarbon ‘ages’ are much greater than the true age.8,9 Thus, correctly understood, this fossil wood and its 14C analyses cast grave doubts upon the index fossil ‘dating’ method and its uniformitarian and evolutionary presuppositions. On the other hand, these results are totally consistent with the details of the recent global Flood. Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years by Jonathan Sarfati Carbon What do hard sparkling diamonds and dull soft pencil ‘lead’ have in common? They are both forms (allotropes) of carbon. Most carbon atoms are 12 times heavier than hydrogen (12C), about one in 100 is 13 times heavier ( 13C), and one in a trillion (10 12) is 14 times heavier (14C). Of these different types (isotopes) of carbon, 14C is called radiocarbon, because it is radioactive—it breaks down over time. Radiocarbon dating

Some try to measure age by how much 14C has decayed. Many people think that radiocarbon dating proves billions of years.1 But evolutionists know it can’t, because 14C decays too fast. Its half-life (t ½) is only 5,730 years—that is, every 5,730 years, half of it decays away. After two half lives, a quarter is left; after three half lives, only an eighth; after 10 half lives, less than a thousandth is left.2 In fact, a lump of 14C as massive as the earth would have all decayed in less than a million years.3So if samples were really over a million years old, there would be no radiocarbon left. But this is not what we find, even with very sensitive 14C detectors.4 Diamonds Diamond is the hardest substance known, so its interior should be very resistant to contamination. Diamond requires very high pressure to form—pressure found naturally on earth only deep below the surface. Thus they probably formed at a depth of 100–200 km. Geologists believe that the ones we find must have been transported supersonically5 to the surface, in extremely violent eruptions through volcanic pipes. Some are found in these pipes, such as kimberlites, while other diamonds were liberated by water erosion and deposited elsewhere (called alluvial diamonds). According to evolutionists, the diamonds formed about 1–3 billion years ago.5 .Dating diamonds Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds. 7 There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon.The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world. Objections (technical) and answers The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC).The 14C was produced by U-fission (actually it’s cluster decay of radium isotopes that are in the uranium decay chain). This was an excuse proposed for 14C in coal, also analysed in Dr Baumgardner’s paper, but not possible for diamonds. But to explain the observed 14C, then the coal would have to contain 99% uranium, so colloquial parlance would term the sample ‘uranium’ rather than ‘coal’.1The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds. But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out:‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen creates carbon-14 from neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis in situ.’2 Also, if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.1 Dr Baumgardner thus first thought that the 14C must have been there right from the beginning. But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of 500 million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating.The 14C ‘dates’ for the diamonds of 55,700 years were still much older than the young age timescale. This misses the point: we are not claiming that this ‘date’ is the actual age; rather, if the earth were just a million years old, let alone 4.6 billion years old, there should be no 14C at all! Another point is that the 55,700 years is based on an assumed 14C level in the atmosphere. Since no one, creationist or evolutionist, thinks there has been an exchange of carbon in the diamond with the atmosphere, using the standard formula for 14C dating to work out the age of a diamond is meaningless. Also, 14C dating assumes that the 14C/C ratio has been constant. But the Flood must have buried huge numbers of carbon-containing living creatures, and some of them likely formed today’s coal, oil, natural gas and some of today’s fossilcontaining limestone. Studies of the ancient biosphere indicate that there was several hundred times as much carbon in the past, so the 14C/C ratio would have been several hundred times smaller. This would explain the observed small amounts of 14C found in ‘old’ samples that were likely buried in the Flood.

Oxidizable carbon ratio dating by Tas Walker MM from Australia asked about a new dating method called “oxidizable carbon ratio” (OCR) dating, which was brought to his attention by a friend. 1It is important to understand the simple, fundamental principle behind all dating methods, and why they are not able to produce objective, absolute dates (see article How dating methods work). The fatal flaw is that all scientific measurements are made in the present, whereas a date relates to a time in the past. We cannot go back into the past to measure all the parameters we need in order to do the dating calculation.Hence, all these parameters must be assumed—always. There is no other way. Further it must be assumed that the parameters have not varied over the ‘life’ of the sample. Because these are assumed, we cannot have any confidence that the calculated age is correct. Thus, scientists always compare their calculated result with what they think the

answer should be. If their calculated age does not agree with expectations they will explain it away and look for something else to give them the age they need. The article How dating methods work gives one example of how unwanted dates are explained away. Radioactive dating anomalies gives other examples. All dating methods depend on something that is changing with time, plus they need a plausible initial condition. In the case of OCR dating, the variable that is changing with time is the ratio of oxidizable carbon to organic carbon.2 On earth, carbon is continually recycled by biological processes. Some forms, such as fresh organic matter, are quickly recycled, but more resistant forms, such as charcoal, are recycled more slowly. The assumption is that when a sample is freshly burned, there will be no oxidizable carbon because it has been removed by the combustion process. Over time biological activity will cause the amount of oxidizable carbon to increase.As you can imagine, the rate of change of carbon ratio due to biological activity will depend on many factors including the location of the sample and the environmental conditions. The OCR dating method was developed by Douglas Frink, who included six significant variables which he considered would affect the carbon ratio: oxygen, moisture, temperature, carbon concentration, and the soil reactivity (by means of texture and pH). However, there would be many more variables that affect biological activity that these parameters do not account for.Frink analysed dozens of archaeological samples from North America and East Africa. He developed a statistical relationship between a sample’s OCR and its published age based on cultural or carbon-14 dates. The following is the equation he developed: 3OCRAge = OCR x (depth x mean temperature x mean rainfall) / (mean texture x pH 0.5 x %C0.5 x 14.4888)Frink warns in his paper that you can’t accept a calculated OCR date without question, but that each date had to be examined to see if it is acceptable. He presents this word of caution:“While the OCR procedure provides good age estimates for many archaeological samples, it cannot be applied to all situations. Specific environmental conditions must be met before meaningful age estimates are possible. The change in the oxidizable C ratio through time and the formulation of the OCR-date equation, were derived from samples obtained from moderately to well drained aerobic soils. Results from the analyses conducted on samples obtained from poorly drained anaerobic soils yielded spurious data, suggesting that OCR-date equation pertains to an O2 dependent system. Soil samples affected by long-term saturation (reducing conditions) returned age estimates much older than expected.” 4In other words, you have to know what the conditions were in the past before you can be sure that the method is likely to work. How can you know what the conditions were unless you were there? Further, what other factors are likely to upset the result that are not included in the formula and are not known about.The paper discusses four samples from Connecticut and West Virginia that gave results that were spurious. On further investigation it was found from people involved who witnessed the procedures that there was a problem with the storage of the samples after they were collected. The reason the results were considered spurious was that they contradicted the dates obtained by other methods. The reason they identified the cause was because people had observed what had happened.Also mentioned in the paper is one soil sample from Somalia that deviated significantly from its expected age based on its stratigraphic position (and not on radiocarbon dating). The reason suggested for this discrepancy was that rodent activity may have disturbed the soil, or the sample’s low carbon content may have distorted the result. Without eyewitnesses the suggested cause can only be “may have”.OCR dating was critiqued in the Society for American Archaeology Bulletin in 1999 by Killick, Jull, and Burr. 5 They questioned the accuracy and precision of the method as well as highlighting the problems with site-specific environmental factors. Frink in his reply6 discussed these criticisms as well as acknowledging that much work was needed to improve and develop the method.Since it was developed, the OCR method has been used in many studies of archaeological and geomorphological situations. However, every calculated date must be evaluated to decide whether it fits within the accepted chronological framework, or whether it needs to be explained away. Consequently, the OCR method still needs careful stratigraphic observations and separate carbon-14 ‘dates’ as a check. One example of the method in use is on cultural artefacts at a site in Australia.7 The method was checked independently against other methods before concluding that it seemed to be giving consistent results at this particular site.The other important point is that the OCR method is calibrated against carbon-14 dating. In other words, OCR dating does not provide objective evidence for long ages. Its long ages are derived from the long ages of carbon-14 results. Carbon-14 dating assumes that the ratio of 14C to 12C has been constant for hundreds of thousands of years. The problem with that assumption is that the 14C to 12C ratio was disrupted by the global Flood, so all carbon-14 ages need to be corrected for the resultant atmospheric carbon imbalance (see What about carbon dating?).In summary, the OCR dating method is neither independent nor objective. It may have a limited application in certain situations but the results will always need to be checked with other dating information. Because it is tied to mainstream carbon-14 procedures OCT dating does not provide fundamental evidence for long ages for the earth. Any age result over 3000 or 4000 years will require downward correction to take account of the effects of the Flood. Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ‘ancient’ sandstone by Andrew Snelling Every major, world-recognized city has its unique landmarks and features. Sydney, Australia’s oldest city (settled in 1788) and largest (more than 3.5 million people), and soon to host the 2000 Summer Olympics, is no exception. It has its beautiful harbour and famous bridge, its Opera House and golden beaches, but it also has some unique and characteristic rock formations. The Hawkesbury Sandstone The Hawkesbury Sandstone, named after the Hawkesbury River just north of Sydney, dominates the landscape within a 100 km (60 mile) radius of downtown Sydney. It is a flat-lying layer of sandstone, some 20,000 sq. km (7,700 sq. miles) in area and up to 250 metres (820 feet) thick.1 Dominated by grains of the mineral quartz2 (which is chemically very similar to window glass, and harder than a steel file), the sandstone is a hard, durable rock which forms prominent cliffs, such as at the entrance to Sydney Harbour and along the nearby coastline.Despite the widespread, spectacular exposures of the Hawkesbury Sandstone, there is a long history of speculation about its origins, going back to Charles Darwin.3 Rather than consisting of just one sandstone bed encompassing its total thickness, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is made up of three principal rock types—sheet sandstone, massive sandstone and relatively thin mudstone.1 Each has internal features that indicate deposition in fast-flowing currents, such as in a violent flood. 4 For example, thin repetitive bands sloping at around 20° within the flat-lying sandstone beds (technically known as cross-beds), sometimes up to 6 metres (20 feet) high, would have been produced by huge

sandwaves (like sand dunes) swept along by raging water.Fossils in the sandstone itself are rare. However, spectacular fossil graveyards have been found in several lenses (lenticular bodies of only limited extent) of mudstone. 5 Many varieties of fish and even sharks have been discovered in patterns consistent with sudden burial in a catastrophe. Some such graveyards contain many plant fossils.The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a Middle Triassic ‘age’ of around 225–230 million years by most geologists.1,6,7 This is based on its fossil content, and on its relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the region (the Sydney Basin). All of these are placed in the context of the long ages timescale commonly assumed by geologists. Fossil wood sample Because of its hardness and durability, the Hawkesbury Sandstone not only provides a solid foundation for downtown Sydney’s skyscrapers, but is an excellent building material. A number of Sydney’s old buildings have walls of sandstone blocks. Today, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is mainly used for ornamental purposes.To obtain fresh sandstone, slabs and blocks have to be carefully quarried. Several quarries still operate in the Gosford area just north of Sydney, and one near Bundanoon to the south-west.In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon (see photo, right). 8 Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character of the wood was still evident. Identification of the genus is not certain, but more than likely it was the forked-frond seed-fern Dicroidium, well known from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.2,7 The fossil was probably the wood from the stem of a frond. Radiocarbon (14C) analysis Because this fossil wood now appears impregnated with silica and hematite, it was uncertain whether any original organic carbon remained, especially since it is supposed to be 225–230 million years old. Nevertheless, a piece of the fossil wood was sent for radiocarbon (14C) analysis to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable internationallyrecognized commercial laboratory. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique, recognized as producing the most reliable radiocarbon results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the fossil wood came from, or its supposed evolutionary age, to ensure there would be no resultant bias. Following routine lab procedure, the sample (their lab code GX–23644) was treated first with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove any carbonates, and then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminants. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover any carbon dioxide for the radiocarbon analysis.The analytical report from the laboratory indicated detectable radiocarbon had been found in the fossil wood, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,720 ± 430 years BP (before present). This result had been ‘ 13C corrected’ by the lab staff, after they had obtained a d13CPDB value of –24.0‰.9 This value is consistent with the analyzed carbon in the fossil wood representing organic carbon from the original wood, and not from any contamination. Of course, if this fossil wood really were 225–230 million years old as is supposed, it should be impossible to obtain a finite radiocarbon age, because all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time—a few tens of thousands of years.Anticipating objections that the minute quantity of detected radiocarbon in this fossil wood might still be due to contamination, the question of contamination by recent microbial and fungal activity, long after the wood was buried, was raised with the staff at this, and another, radiocarbon laboratory. Both labs unhesitatingly replied that there would be no such contamination problem. Modern fungi or bacteria derive their carbon from the organic material they live on and don’t get it from the atmosphere, so they have the same ‘age’ as their host. Furthermore, the lab procedure followed (as already outlined) would remove the cellular tissues and any waste products from either fungi or bacteria. Conclusions This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon ‘age.’ However, a 33,720 ± 430 years BP radiocarbon ‘age’ emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary ‘age’ of 225–230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not provided its true age. However, a finite radiocarbon ‘age’ for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected within a Creation/Flood framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging Flood waters only about 4,500 years ago, this fossil wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger magnetic field back then shielding the Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The Flood also buried a lot of carbon, so that the laboratory’s calculated 14C ‘age’ (based on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true age.10

ARE THERE EXAMPLES OF INACCURATE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM POTASSIUM/ARGON DATING METHOD Radioactive ‘dating’ failure Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years by Andrew Snelling Figure 1. The location of Mt Ngauruhoe, central North Island, New Zealand. (click image for larger view Standing roughly in the centre of New Zealand’s North Island, Mt Ngauruhoe is New Zealand’s newest volcano and one of the most active (Figures 1 and 2). It is not as well publicized as its larger close neighbour MT Ruapehu, which has erupted briefly several times in the last five years.However, Mt Ngauruhoe is an imposing, almost perfect cone that rises more than 1,000 metres (3,300 feet) above the surrounding landscape to an elevation of 2,291 m (7,500 feet) above sea level 1 (Figure 3). Eruptions from a central 400 m (1,300 foot) wide crater have constructed the cone’s steep (33°) outer slopes.Mt Ngauruhoe is thought to have been active for at least 2,500 years, with more than 70 eruptive periods since 1839, when European settlers first recorded a steam eruption. 2 Of course, before that, the Maoris witnessed many eruptions from the mountain. The first lava eruption seen by Europeans occurred in 1870.3 Then there were ash eruptions every few years until a major explosive eruption in April–May 1948, followed by lava flowing down the northwestern slopes in February 1949.2,3 The estimated lava volume was about 575,000 cubic metres (20 million cubic feet).

Figure 2. Aerial view, looking south at sunrise, of volcanoes Mt Ngauruhoe (foreground) and Mt Ruapehu (background). The eruption lasting from 13 May 1954 to 10 March 1955 began with an explosive ejection of ash and blocks.2,3 Then almost 8 million cubic metres (280 million cubic feet) of lava flowed from the crater in a series of 17 distinct flows on the following 1954 dates: June 4, 30 July 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 23, 28, 29, 30 August 15(?), 18 September 16, 18, 26 These flows are still distinguishable today on the northwestern and western slopes of Ngauruhoe (Figure 4). The 18 August flow was more than 18 m (55 feet) thick and still warm almost a year after congealing. Explosions of ash completed this long eruptive period. Figure 3. Mt Ngauruhoe as seen looking north from near MT Ruapehu. Afterwards, Ngauruhoe steamed almost continuously, with many small ash eruptions2 (Figure 5). Cannon-like, highly explosive eruptions in January and March 1974 threw out large quantities of ash as a column into the atmosphere, and as avalanches flowing down the cone’s sides. Blocks weighing up to 1,000 tonnes were hurled 100 m (330 feet). However, the most violent explosions occurred on 19 February 1975, accompanied by what eye-witnesses described as atmospheric shock waves.4 Blocks up to 30m (100 ft) across were catapulted up to 3km (almost 2 miles). The eruption plume was 11–13km (7–8 miles) high.Turbulent avalanches of ash and blocks swept down Ngauruhoe’s sides at about 60km (35 miles) per hour.2 It is estimated that at least 3.4 million cubic metres (120 million cubic feet) of ash and blocks were ejected in 7 hours. 4 No further eruptions have occurred since. Photo by Andrew Snelling Figure 4. View from the Mangateopopo Valley at the base of Mt Ngauruhoe, showing the darker-coloured recent lava flows on its northwestern slopes. Dating the rocks Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;5After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters; and The radioactive decay rate must remain constant. If any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any ‘dates’ are false.The potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating method is often used to date volcanic rocks (and by extension, nearby fossils). In using this method, it is assumed that there was no daughter radiogenic argon ( 40Ar*) in rocks when they formed. 6 For volcanic rocks which cool from molten lavas, this would seem to be a reasonable assumption. Because argon is a gas, it should escape to the atmosphere due to the intense heat of the lavas. Of course, no geologist was present to test this assumption by observing ancient lavas when they cooled, but we can study modern lava flows. Potassium-argon ‘dates’ Figure 5. Small ash eruption, Mt Ngauruhoe. Figure 6. Inset: Andesite of the June 30, 1954 flow, Mt Ngauruhoe, seen at 60 times magnification under a geological microscope. Different minerals have different colours. All are embedded in a fine-grained matrix.Eleven samples were collected from five recent lava flows during field work in January 1996—two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow7 (Figure 6). The darker recent lavas were clearly visible and each one easily identified (with the aid of maps) on the northwestern slopes against the lighter-coloured older portions of the cone (Figures 4 and 7). All flows were typically made up of jumbled blocks of congealed lava, resulting in rough, jagged, clinkery surfaces (Figure 8).The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), for whole-rock potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating—first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow.7 To also test the consistency of results within samples, second pieces of two of the 30 June 1954 lava samples were also sent for analysis.Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K–Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K–Ar dating. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work. Figure 7. Map of the northwestern slopes of Mt Ngauruhoe showing the lava flows of 1949 and 1954, and the 1975 avalanche deposits.3,4 (Click image for larger view) The ‘dates’ obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1.7 The ‘ages’ range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2)million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ‘ages’ of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ‘ages’ of millions of years. The low ‘age’ samples were all processed by the laboratory in the same batch, suggesting a systematic lab problem. So the lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real. Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analyzed (A#2 and B#2 in Table 1) did

not reproduce the same results, but this was not surprising given the analytical uncertainties at such low levels of argon. Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these rocks. Some geochronologists would say <0.27 million years is actually the correct ‘date’, but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct ‘age’ if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?!Because these rocks are known to be less than 50 years old, it is apparent from the analytical data that these K–Ar ‘ages’ are due to ‘excess’ argon inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth. 7 Thus, when the lavas cooled, they contained appreciable (non-zero) concentrations of ‘normal’ 40Ar, which is indistinguishable from daughter radiogenic 40Ar* derived by radioactive decay of parent 40K. This violates assumption (1) of radioactive dating, and so the K–Ar method fails the test. This same failure is also known to occur in many other rocks, including both recent volcanics8and ancient crustal rocks.9 Conclusions Figure 8. The June 30, 1954 lava flow, showing the jumbled blocks of congealed lava which give it a rough, jagged, clinkery surface. The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield ‘ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks? The K–Ar (potassium-argon) dating method Fossils are almost never dated by radiometric methods, since they rarely contain suitable radioactive elements. A common way of dating fossils (and rocks which do not contain radioactive elements) is by ‘dating’ an associated volcanic rock. This is commonly done using the K–Ar method. It depends on the rate at which radioactive potassium decays into the gas argon.The K– Ar method works on the assumption that the ‘clock’ begins to ‘tick’ the moment that the rock hardens. That is, it assumes that no argon derived by radioactive decay was present initially, but after the lava cooled and solidified, the argon from radioactive decay was unable to escape and started to accumulate. However, it is well-known that if a radiometric ‘date’ contradicts a fossil-derived (evolutionary) age, the date is discarded as erroneous. See Lubenow, M., The pigs took it all, Creation 17(3):36–38, 1995. FLOW DATE

SAMPLE

LAB CODE

K–Ar ‘AGE’ (million years)

11 February 1949

A

R-11714

<0.27

B

R-11511

1.0 ± 0.2

A

R-11715

<0.27

B

R-11512

1.5 ± 0.1

A #1

R-11718

<0.27

A #2

R-12106

1.3 ± 0.3

B #1

R-12003

3.5 ± 0.2

B #2

R-12107

0.8 ± 0.2

C

R-11513

1.2 ± 0.2

A

R-11509

1.0 ± 0.2

B

R-11716

<0.29

A

R-11510

1.0 ± 0.2

B

R-11717

<0.27

4 June 1954

30 June 30, 1954

14 July 1954

19 February 1975

Table 1. Potassium-argon ‘dates’ of recent Mt Ngauruhoe (New Zealand) lava flows.7 Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano by Steven A. Austin Summary The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar ‘age’ of 0.35 ± 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from the dacite which formed in 1986 give K-Ar ‘ages’ from 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma

(feldspar-glass concentrate) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma (pyroxene concentrate). These ‘ages’ are, of course, preposterous. The fundamental dating assumption (‘no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed’) is questioned by these data. Instead, data from this Mount St Helens dacite argue that significant ‘excess argon’ was present when the lava solidified in 1986. Phenocrysts of orthopyroxene, hornblende and plagioclase are interpreted to have occluded argon within their mineral structures deep in the magma chamber and to have retained this argon after emplacement and solidification of the dacite. The amount of argon occluded is probably a function of the argon pressure when mineral crystallization occurred at depth and/or the tightness of the mineral structure. Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase. The lava dome at Mount St Helens dates very much older than its true age because phenocryst minerals inherit argon from the magma. The study of this Mount St Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar ‘ages’ from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide? Introduction Figure 1. The newest lava dome within the horseshoe-shaped crater at Mount St Helens during its building process in August 1984. Dacite magma at Mount St Helens in Washington State expressed itself directly during six explosive magmatic eruptions in 1980 (18 May, 25 May, 12 June, 22 July, 7 August and 17 October 1980). This magma produced the distinctive plinian, explosive eruptions for which the volcano is famous. After three of these explosive eruptions (12 June, 7 August and 17 October), near-surface magma had low enough steam pressures so that viscous lava flows formed three consecutive, dome-shaped structures within the crater. The first two dacite lava domes built within the crater (late June and early August 1980) were destroyed by subsequent explosive eruptions (22 July and 17 October). The third dacite lava dome began to appear on 18 October 1980 above the lip of a 25-metre-diameter feeding conduit. The new dacite lava dome After 18 October 1980, this third and newest composite dome of dacite began to appear. By October 1986 this newest lava dome had grown within the horseshoe-shaped crater to be an immense structure up to 350 m high and up to 1,060 m in diameter (see Figures 1 and 2). The lava dome formed by a complex series of lava extrusions, supplemented occasionally by internal inflation of the dome by shallow intrusions of dacite magma into its molten core. Extrusions of lava produced short (200-400 m) and thick (20-40 m) flows piled on top of one another.2Most dacite flows extended as lobes away from the top-centre of the dome, generally crumbling to very blocky talus on the flanks of the dome before reaching the crater floor (see Figure 3). Figure 2. Mount St Helens’ new lava dome is composed of 74 million cubic meters of dacite flows and intrusions built up within the crater between 18 October 1980, and 26 October 1986 The view is toward the north looking over the lava dome into the 1980 blast zone.Between 18 October 1980 and 26 October 1986, seventeen episodes of dome growth added 74 million cubic meters of dacite to this third and newest dome.3 During these eruptions magma viscosity was high and steam pressure was low so that the magma did not express itself explosively as it had during the six earlier events of 1980. The structure produced within the crater during the six-year period was an elliptical dome of dacite lava flows and intrusions 860 m (diameter east-west), by 1,060 m (diameter north-south), by 350 m (height above northern base). During the six-year period of building of the dacite dome, there was a steady decrease with time in the volume of magma extruded. On 26 October 1986, magma movement into the dome ceased and solidification of magma began within the neck of the volcano beneath the lava dome. Eruptions after 26 October 1986 were phreatic steam explosions, not direct expressions of magma. The stability of this third dome, along with decrease in the frequency of earthquakes and phreatic steam eruptions in the ten years after October 1986, indicate that the volcano, again, may be approaching a period of dormancy.The SiO2 content of 69 samples of the 1980 to 1986 lava dome at Mount St Helens is 63.0 ± 0.4 percent.4 Called a ‘porphyritic dacite’,5 the rock averages about 55 percent fine-grained, grey groundmass and 45 percent phenocrysts and lithic inclusions (see Figure 4). The groundmass of the rock is composed of microphenocrysts of plagioclase, orthopyroxene, and Fe-Ti oxides within a glass matrix.6 Later flows on the lava dome showed a tendency toward higher crystallinity of the groundmass 7 and about 1 percent greater SiO2.8 Phenocrysts of plagioclase (30–35 percent), orthopyroxene (5 percent), hornblende (1–2 percent), Fe-Ti oxides (1 to 2 percent), and clinopyroxene (less than 0.5 percent) together comprise almost half of the lava dome.9 Lithic inclusions of gabbro, quartz diorite, hornfelsic basalt, dacite, andesite and vein quartz together compose 3.5 percent of the dome dacite.10 Of the lithic inclusions 85 percent are medium grained gabbros with an average diameter of 6 cm. 11 The high mafic mineral content of gabbroic inclusions makes a small but significant decrease in the overall SiO2content of the dacite lava dome.12 Helicopter photo by S.A. Austin, October 1989

Oxide or Element Abundance Figure 3. Blocky surface texture of the east side of the dacite lava dome above prominent talus slope. SiO2 67.50% Geologists are in general agreement concerning the crustal source of the dacitic magma beneath Mount St Helens. Experimental data from Al2O3 16.10% the assemblage of minerals in the dacite indicate that just prior to the 18 May 1980 eruption the upper part of the magma chamber was at a temperature of 930°C and at a depth of about 7.2 km. 13 That magma is TiO2 0.61% believed to have contained about 4.6 weight% total volatiles, mostly 14 H2O. The last dome-building intrusion event of 1986 delineated two Fe2O3 3.97% aseismic zones (from 7–12 km and from 3–4.5 km depth) indicating that the deep magma chamber has a shallow magma-storage region.15 Fe-Ti oxide pairs indicated magmatic temperatures MnO 0.06% decreasing to about 870°C in 1986 when flows into the lava dome stopped.16 CaO 4.18% Sample collection and preparation In June 1992, a seven-kilogram sample of dacite was collected from just above the talus apron on the farthest-north slope of the lava dome. MgO 1.27% Because the sample comes from the sloping surface of the dome, it most likely represents the upper surface of a flow lobe. The flow K2 O 1.69% interpretation of the sample is corroborated by the ‘breadcrust appearance’ of dacite at the sample location, the blocky fracture pattern which suggests the toe of a lava flow, and the presence of Na2O 4.78% dacite scoria just above the sample. The position on the dome suggests that the sample represents the surface of one of the last lava P2 O5 0.17% flows, probably from the year 1986. The composition of the sample matches closely the published Cr2O3 < 0.01% mineralogic, petrographic and chemical descriptions of ‘porphyritic dacite’.17 Phenocrysts of the sample are of the kind and abundance representative of the entire lava dome. The sample even has several Rb 44 ppm gabbroic inclusions of the composition and size representative of the 18 whole lava dome. The chemical analysis of the sample’s groundmass Sr 450 ppm with phenocrysts (without gabbroic inclusions) gave 67.5 percent SiO2by the X-ray fluorescence method (see Table 1). If the gabbroic inclusions were included in the whole rock analysis, the dacite would Y 13 ppm be about 64 percent SiO2, the average composition of the 1986 flows on the lava dome. Normative minerals were calculated in Table 2, with Zr 190 ppm the assemblage representative of dacite. Thus, this seven-kilogram sample of dacite is representative of the whole lava dome.One kilogram of dacite groundmass with phenocrysts (without gabbroic Nb 30 ppm inclusions) was removed from the sample for potassium-argon analysis. The technique began by crushing and milling the dacite in an Ba 411 ppm iron mortar. Particles were sieved through the 80 mesh (0.18 mm) screen and collected on top of the 200 mesh (0.075 mm) screen. The 80–200 mesh (0.18–0.075 mm) particles were specified by the argon Loss on Ignition 0.05% lab to be the optimum for the argon analysis. A second, one-kilogram sample of dacite groundmass was TOTAL 100.5% subsequently processed to concentrate more of the pyroxene. This separate preparation utilized crushed particles sieved through a 170 Table 1. Major-element and trace-element mesh (0.090 mm) screen and collected on a 270 mesh (0.053 mm) abundances in the 1986 dacite lava flow at screen. These finer particles (0.053–0.090 mm) were found to allow Mount St Helens determined by X-ray more complete concentration of the mineral phases, even though these fluorescence. The analysis was performed on particles were finer than the optimum requested by the lab.Because of dacite groundmass and phenocrysts without the possibility of particles finer than 200 mesh absorbing or releasing a lithic inclusions. larger portion of argon, particles passing through the 200-mesh screen were rejected. The only exception was the single preparation made from particles passing through 170 mesh and collected on the 270mesh screen.Throughout the crushing, milling, sieving and separation processes, great care was taken to avoid contamination. The specific steps used to stop or discover contamination of the samples included:Sawing of rock from the interior of the collected block of dacite (used to remove particles adhering to the sample),Washing all surfaces and screens that were to contact directly the sample,Final wet sieving of particles on the 200-mesh screen (or 270-mesh screen) to insure removal of finer particles (including possible contaminant lab dust introduced during milling),Filtration of heavy liquids to remove contaminants,Microscopic scanning of particle concentrates for foreign particles,Preparation of the second concentrate from the raw dacite sample involving completely separate milling and screening (in order to discover if contamination had occurred in one of the concentrates), andSealing of samples in vials between preparation steps. Five concentrates included one whole-rock powder and four mineral preparations. The concentrate names and descriptions are: DOME-1 ‘Whole-rock preparation’ composed of representative particles from both the dacite groundmass and phenocrysts, without lithic inclusions; particles 80–200 mesh. DOME-1L ‘Feldspar-glass concentrate’ from the groundmass and phenocrysts; particles 80–200 mesh; mostly plagioclase, but also contains fragments from the glassy matrix. DOME-1M ‘Heavy-magnetic concentrate’ from the groundmass and phenocrysts; mostly hornblende with Fe-Ti oxides; particles 80–200 mesh.

Normative Mineral (Formula) % by Weight DOME-1H ‘Heavy-nonmagnetic concentrate’ from the groundmass and phenocrysts; mostly orthopyroxene; particles 80–200 mesh. Quartz (SiO2) 23.02 DOME-1P ‘Pyroxene concentrate’ from the groundmass and phenocrysts; particles 170–270 mesh; prepared from separate dacite Orthoclase (KAlSi3O8) 9.95 sample in fashion similar to DOME-1H, but with more complete concentration of orthopyroxene. The last four mineral concentrates were prepared from the whole rock Albite (NaAISi3O8) 40.24 by heavy liquid and magnetic separation. First, the representative particles from the groundmass and phenocrysts were dispersed in Anorthite (CaAI2Si2O8) 17.40 tribromomethane (CHBr3), a heavy liquid with a density of 2.85 g/cc at room temperature. These particles and heavy liquid were centrifuged in 250 ml bottles at 6,000 rpm. After ten minutes of centrifugation at 20°C, Diopside (CaMgSi2O6) 0.94 the float particles were collected, filtered, washed, dried and labeled. This float concentrate, ‘DOME-1L’, was more than 90 percent of the Hedenbergite (CaFeSi2O6) 0.82 original and became the ‘feldspar-glass concentrate’. The heavymineral residue that sank in the heavy liquid was collected, filtered, washed and dried. It was discovered that the heavy concentrate could Enstatite (MgSiO3) 1.53 be separated into ‘strongly magnetic’ and ‘weakly magnetic’ fractions, with about one-third of the heavy residue being strongly magnetic. The Ferrosilite (FeSiO3) 1.52 heavy concentrate was divided by a very strong hand magnet on a large piece of filter paper at a 45° slope angle. The ‘heavy magnetic’ fraction, later labeled ‘DOME-1M’, was composed of heavy particles Magnetite (Fe3O4) 3.04 which climbed up the paper at 45° slope above the influence of the magnet which was moved under the paper. The residue that did not Ilmenite (FeTiO3) 1.15 move up the filter paper was the ‘heavy-nonmagnetic’ fraction. It was labeled ‘DOME-1H’. A fourth mineral concentrate was prepared from a completely separate portion of the dacite sample and processed similar Apatite (Ca3P2O8) 0.39 to DOME-1H except from finer particles (170–270 mesh). This finer, heavy-nonmagnetic fraction separated from the dacite was labeled TOTAL 100.0 ‘DOME-1P’.Microscopic examination of the four mineral concentrates indicated the effectiveness of the separation technique. The ‘feldsparTable 2. Idealized normative mineral glass concentrate’ (DOME-1L) was dominated by plagioclase and assemblage for the Mount St Helens dacite glass, with only occasional mafic microphenocrysts visible in the calculated from the major-element abundances plagioclase and glass. Although not a complete separation of non-mafic of Table 1. minerals, this concentrate included plagioclase phenocrysts (andesine composition with a density of about 2.7 g/cc) and the major quantity of glass (density assumed to be about 2.4 g/cc). No attempt was made to separate plagioclase from glass, but further use of heavy liquids should be considered.The ‘heavy-magnetic concentrate’ (DOME-1M) was dominated by amphibole minerals, with hornblende assumed to be the most abundant magnetic mineral within the dacite. However, there was also a significant amount of Fe-Ti oxide minerals, probably magnetite and ilmenite. The ‘heavy-magnetic concentrate’ also had glassy particles (more abundant than in the ‘heavy-nonmagnetic concentrate’). Mafic microphenocrysts within these glassy particles were probably dominated by the strongly magnetic Fe-Ti oxide minerals. The microscopic examination of the ‘heavy-magnetic concentrate’ also revealed a trace quantity of iron fragments, obviously the magnetic contaminant unavoidably introduced from the milling of the dacite in the iron mortar. No attempt was made to separate the hornblende from the Fe-Ti oxides, but further finer milling and use of heavy liquids should be considered. Figure 4. Photomicrograph of Mount St Helens dacite flow of 1986. The most abundant phenocrysts are plagioclase which are embedded in a much finer-grained groundmass containing glass and microphenocrysts. Photographed in polarised light with 2 mm width of view. The ‘heavynonmagnetic concentrate’ (DOME-1H) was dominated by orthopyroxene with much less clinopyroxene, but had a significant quantity of glassy particles attached to mafic microphenocrysts and fragments of mafic phenocrysts along incompletely fractured grain boundaries. These mafic microphenocrysts and fragments of mafic phenocrysts evidently increased the density of the attached glass particles above the critical density of 2.85 g/cc, which allowed them to sink in the heavy liquid. This sample also had recognizable hornblende, evidently not completely isolated by magnetic separation.The ‘pyroxene concentrate’ (DOME-1P) was dominated by orthopyroxene and much less clinopyroxene. Because it was composed of finer particles (170–270 mesh), it contained far fewer mafic particles with attached glass fragments than DOME-1H. This preparation is the purest mineral concentrate. Microscopic examination of the orthopyroxene showed it to be a high-magnesium variety, explaining why it was nonmagnetic or only weakly magnetic.The first three mineral concentrates (DOME-1L, DOME-1M, and DOME-1H) are representative of three different assemblages within the dacite. Because only the finer than 200 mesh fraction was discarded during preparation, these three concentrates should approximately sum, according to their abundance, to make the whole rock. They may not exactly sum because of differences in grind ability of the minerals and their groundmass. K-Ar analysis Potassium and argon were measured in the five concentrates by Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, under the direction of Richard Reesman, the K-Ar laboratory manager. These preparations were submitted to Geochron Laboratories with the statement that they came from dacite, and that the lab should expect ‘low argon’. No information was given to the lab concerning where the dacite came from or that the rock has a historically known age (ten years old at the time of the argon analysis).The analytic data are reported in Table 3. The concentration of K (%) was measured by the flame photometry method, the reported value being the average of two readings from each concentrate. The 40K concentration

(ppm) was calculated from the terrestrial isotopic abundance using the concentration of K. The concentration in ppm of 40Ar*, the supposed ‘radiogenic argon-40’, was derived from isotope dilution measurements on a mass spectrometer by correcting for the presence of atmospheric argon whose isotopic composition is known. The reported concentration of 40Ar* is the average of two values. The ratio 40Ar/Total Ar is also derived from measurements on the mass spectrometer and is the average of two values. The ‘age’ of each concentrate is calculated by making use of what Faure19 calls the ‘general model-age equation’:

(1) where t is the ‘age’, λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, D t is the number of daughter atoms in the rock presently, Do is the number of daughter atoms initially in the rock, and P t is the number of atoms presently in the rock. Equation (1) can be used to date the rocks if measurements of Dt and Pt are made from the rock, and if an assumption concerning the original quantity of daughter (Do) is made. For the specific application to K-Ar dating, 20 equation (1) becomes equivalent to equation (2) when:

(2) where t is the ‘age’ in millions of years, 5.543 x 10 –10 yr–1 is the current estimate for the decay constant for 40K, 0.105 is the estimated fraction of 40K decays producing 40Ar, and 40Ar*/40K is the calculation by standard procedure of the mole ratio of radiogenic 40Ar to 40K in the concentrate. It should be noted that equation (1) becomes equivalent to collation (2) when (3) Thus, 40Ar* includes within it an assumption concerning the initial quantity of 40Ar in the rock. As a matter of practice, no radiogenic argon is supposed to have existed when the rock formed. That is, D o = 0 is supposed for equation (2) to give accurate ages. Thus, equation (2) yields a ‘model age’ assuming zero radiogenic argon in the rock when it formed. After the initial daughter assumption is made, 40Ar* is determined. Then, the mole ratio 40Ar*/40K is calculated in Table 3 from each concentrate’s 40Ar* (ppm) and 40K (ppm). Once the mole ratio is calculated (see Table 3), it is inserted into equation (2) to calculate the ‘model ages’ listed in Table 3. K (%)

40

Total Ar (ppm)

40

Ar*/40K

‘Age’ (Ma)

DOME-1 ‘whole rock’

0.924

1.102

0.0018

0.0000225

0.0125

0.000020

0.35 ± 0.05

DOME-1 feldspar, etc.

1.048

1.250

0.0024

0.000025

0.0105

0.000020

0.34 ± 0.06

DOME-1M amphibole, etc.

0.581

0.693

0.0027

0.000037

0.0135

0.000053

0.9 ± 0.2

DOME-1H pyroxene, etc.

0.466

0.555

0.0015

0.000054

0.0360

0.000096

1.7 ± 0.3

DOME-1P pyroxene

0.447

0.533

0.0025

0.000087

0.0345

0.000163

2.8 ± 0.6

K (ppm)

Ar* (ppm)

40

Ar*/Total 40Ar

40

Constants used: 40K/K = 1.193 x 10–4 g/g

Decay constant of 40K = 5.543 x 10–10 yr–1

Fraction of 40K decays to 40Ar = 0.1048

Atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar = 295.5

Table 3. Potassium-argon data from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens Volcano. Discussion The argon analyses of the dacite lava dome show, surprisingly, a non-zero concentration of ‘radiogenic argon’ ( 40Ar*) in all preparations from the dacite. K-Ar ‘ages’ using equation (2) range from 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (million years) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma (see Table 3). Because the sampled dacite at the time of the analyses was only ten years old, there was no time for measurable quantities of 40Ar* to accumulate within the rock due to the slow, radioactive decay of 40K. The conclusion seems inescapable that measurable 40Ar* in the dacite is not from radiogenic accumulation, but must have been resident already within the different mineral assemblages when the rock cooled from the lava in the year 1986. The lab has not measured ‘radiogenic argon’ but some other type of argon. Other historic lava flows have been recognized to have non-zero values for 40Ar*. Of 26 historic, subaerial lava flows studied by Dalrymple,21five gave ‘excess argon’ and, therefore, yielded excessively old K-Ar ‘ages’:

Dalrymple22 recognized that these anomalous ‘ages’ could be caused by ‘excess radiogenic 40Ar’ from natural contamination, or caused by isotopic fractionation of argon. Krummenacher23 offered similar explanations for unexpected argon isotope Mt Etna basalt (Sicily, 122 BC) 0.25 ± 0.08 Ma ratios from several modern lava flows. Olivine, pyroxene and plagioclase from basalts of the ZuniMt Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 0.35 ± 0.14 Ma Bandera volcanic field (Quaternary of New Mexico) showed very significant quantities of excess argon inherited from the magmatic sources.24 The same Mt Lassen plagioclase (California, AD 1915) 0.11 ± 0.3 Ma conclusion applies to olivine and clinopyroxene phenocrysts from Quaternary volcanoes of New Sunset Crater basalt (Arizona, AD 1064–1065) 0.27 ± 0.09 Ma Zealand.25 Significant excess argon was also found in 0.25 ± 0.15 Ma submarine basalts from two currently active Hawaiian volcanoes, Loihi Seamount and Kilauea.26What 40 caused the non-zero Ar* in the Mount St Helens dacite? Could contaminant 40Ar in the laboratory have been added to the Mount St Helens dacite giving the impression of great age? The possibility of contamination caused extreme care to be taken in cleaning the processing equipment, and the concentrates were sealed tightly in vials between preparation and analysis. Could the processing equipment itself be adding argon? For example, might the iron fragments produced during milling the sample in the mortar add argon? The heavy-liquid separation process strongly rejects heavy iron from the light feldspar-rich assemblage (preparation DOME-1L), but this concentrate also contains significant 40Ar. Other processes seem to exclude or isolate laboratory contamination. The wet sieving on the 200-mesh screen, for example, should remove any fine lab dust which could have fallen onto the concentrates. Because of these extraordinary considerations, laboratory contamination of the five concentrates is a very remote possibility.Could the magmatic process beneath the lava dome be adding a contaminant to the molten dacite as it ascends from great depth? This is a possibility needing consideration. Might an argon-rich mineral (‘xenocryst’) be added to the magma and impart an excessive age to the ‘whole rock’ dacite? The data of Table 3 seem to argue that very different mineral phases of the dacite each contain significant 40Ar. Although the mineral concentrates are not pure, and all contain some glass, an argument can be made that both mafic and non-mafic minerals of the dacite contain significant 40Ar. The lithic inclusions in the lava dome might be thought to be the contaminant, in which case they might add ‘old’ mafic and non-mafic minerals to the young magma. It could be argued that gabbroic clumps in the magma disaggregated as the fluidity of the magma decreased with time, thereby adding an assortment of ‘old’ mineral grains. However, Heliker27 argues that the gabbroic inclusions are not xenoliths from the aged country rock adjacent to the pluton, but cumulates formed by crystal segregation within a compositionally layered pluton. These inclusions are, therefore, regarded as a unique association within the recent magmatic system.Could the magmatic conditions at depth allow argon to be occluded within the minerals at the time of their formation? This last, and most interesting, explanation of the anomalous 40Ar suggests the different quantities of argon in different mineral assemblages are caused by variation in the partial pressure of the gas as crystallization progressed, or by different quantities of gas retained as pressure was released. Crystallization experiments by Karpinskaya 28 show that muscovite retains up to 0.5 percent by weight argon at 640°C and vapour pressure of 4,000 atmospheres. Phenocryst studies by Poths, Healey and Laughlin29 showed that olivine and clinopyroxene separated from young basalts from New Mexico and Nevada have ‘ubiquitous excess argon’. A magmatic source was postulated for the argon in phenocrysts of olivine and clinopyroxene in Quaternary volcanics of New Zealand.30 Presumably other minerals occlude argon in relation to the partial pressure of the gas in the magma source.Laboratory experiments have been conducted on the solubility of argon in synthetic basaltic melts and their associated minerals.31, 32 Minerals and melts were held near 1300°C at one atmosphere pressure in a gas stream containing argon. After the material was quenched, the researchers measured up to 0.34 ppm 40Ar within synthetic olivine. They noted, ‘The solubility of Ar in the minerals is surprisingly high’. 33 Their conclusion is that argon is held primarily in lattice vacancy defects within the minerals.Argon occlusion within mineral assemblages is supported by the data from the dacite at Mount St Helens. Table 3 indicates that although the mineral concentrates (rich in feldspar, amphibole or pyroxene) have about the same ‘Total Ar’ concentrations, the ‘pyroxene concentrate’ possesses the highest concentration of 40Ar* (over three times that of the ‘feldspar-glass concentrate’) and the highest proportion of 40Ar* (40Ar*/Total Ar is over three times that of the ‘feldspar-glass concentrate’). These data suggest that whereas the orthopyroxene mineral structure has about the same or slightly less gas retention sites as does the associated plagioclase, orthopyroxene has a tighter structure and is able to retain more of the magmatic 40Ar. Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase. According to this interpretation, the concentration of 40Ar* of a mineral assemblage is a measure of its argon occlusion and retention characteristics. Therefore, the 2.8 Ma ‘age’ of the ‘pyroxene concentrate’ has nothing to do with the time of crystallization.Where does the argon in the magma come from? Could it be from outgassing of the lower crust and upper mantle? More study is needed.To test further the hypothesis of argon occlusion in mineral assemblages, higher purity mineral concentrates could be prepared from the dacite at Mount St Helens. Finer-grained concentrates should be processed more completely with heavy liquids and magnetic separation. The preparation of DOME-1P, a finer-grained and purer pyroxene concentrate than DOME-1H, has, as expected, a higher concentration of 40Ar* and lower concentration of 40K. Acid-solution techniques or further use of heavy liquids could also help to remove undesirable glass. The glass itself should be concentrated for analysis of argon. Applications to other K-Ar ages Do other volcanic rocks with phenocrysts have mineral assemblages with generally occluded argon? Phenocrysts are very common in volcanic rocks, so a general test of the hypothesis could be devised. In addition to testing other historic lava flows, phenocrysts from some ancient flows might be tested for phenocrysts which greatly exceed the ‘whole rock’ age. Three possible applications are suggested here. Basalt of Devils Postpile (Devils Postpile National Monument, California)Plagioclase separated from the Devils Postpile basalt gave a K-Ar ‘age’ of 0.94 ± 0.16 million years. 34 The basalt has been reassigned recently an age of less than 100,000 years based on new geologic mapping and detailed stratigraphic study.35 What was the cause of the excessively old age? It could be argon occluded within the plagioclase.Basalt of Toroweap Dam (western Grand Canyon, Arizona)The basalt of Toroweap Dam lies at the bottom of Grand Canyon very near the present channel of the Colorado River. The basalt has been dated twice by the K-Ar method at 1.16 ± 0.18 Ma and 1.25 ± 0.2 Ma.36 The original researchers qualified their statements concerning the basalt date by saying, ‘There is the possibility Hualalai basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800–1801)

1.6 ± 0.16 Ma 1.41 ± 0.08 Ma

that pre-eruption argon was retained in the basalt’.37 Many other basalts of western Grand Canyon have been shown to contain ‘excess argon’.38 Although the original researchers do not express certainty concerning the K-Ar age of the basalt at Toroweap Dam, other geologists have assigned much greater certainty and use the K-Ar age to argue that Grand Canyon has existed for a very long time (see especially D.A. Young 39).Keramim basalt (northern Golan Heights, Israel) ‘Stone Age’ artifacts occur beneath Keramim basalt dated at 0.25 Ma by the K-Ar method. 40 However, human occupation is not thought to have occurred in Israel during the Lower Palaeolithic,40 so this and other K-Ar ‘ages’ should be checked. Because the K-Ar method has been used elsewhere to date Neanderthal Man, we might ask if other Neanderthal ‘ages’ need careful scrutiny. Conclusion Argon analyses of the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens raise more questions than answers. The primary assumption upon which K-Ar model-age dating is based assumes zero 40Ar* in the mineral phases of a rock when it solidifies. This assumption has been shown to be faulty. Argon occlusion in mineral phases of dacite at Mount St Helens is a reasonable alternate assumption. This study raises more fundamental questions—do other phenocryst-containing volcanic rocks give reliable K-Ar ages? Radio-dating in Rubble The lava dome at Mount St Helens debunks dating methods by Keith Swenson Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. In most people’s minds it is the best ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. But is the method all it’s cracked up to be? Can we really trust it? The lava dome at Mount St Helens provides a rare opportunity for putting radioisotope dating to the test. New lava dome Mt St Helens erupting, 1980. In August of 1993, with geologist Dr Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research, I climbed into the crater of Mount St Helens to view the lava dome. It was one of those experiences that was well worth every exhausting moment! The dome (see picture below), looks like a small mountain, roughly 1.1 km (¾ mile) long and 350 m (1,100 ft) high. It sits directly over the volcanic vent at the south end of the huge horseshoe-shaped crater that was blasted out of the mountain by the spectacular eruption on 18 May 1980. 1 From the crater, the dome appears as a huge steaming mound of dark, block-like rubble. It is made of dacite, a fine-grained volcanic rock that contains a sprinkling of larger, visible crystals, like chopped fruit in a cake.Actually, the present lava dome at Mount St Helens is the third dome to form since the 1980 eruption, the previous two having been blasted away by the subsequent eruptions.The current dome started growing after the volcano’s last explosive eruption on 17 October 1980. During 17 so-called dome-building eruptions, from 18 October 1980 to 26 October 1986, thick pasty lava oozed out of the volcanic vent like toothpaste from a tube. 1Dacite lava is too thick to flow very far, so it simply piled up around the vent, forming the mountain-like dome, which now plugs the volcanic orifice. How radioactive ‘dating’ really works Why does the lava dome provide an opportunity to test the accuracy of radioisotope dating? There are two reasons. First, radioisotope-dating methods are used on igneous rocks—those formed from molten rock material. Dacite fits this bill. Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically. Second, and most importantly, we know exactly when the lava dome formed. This is one of the rare instances in which, to the question, ‘Were you there?’ we can answer, ’Yes, we were!’ Mt St Helens lava dome. The dating method Dr Austin used at Mount St Helens was the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in geological circles. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or ‘variety’ of the element potassium) spontaneously ‘decays’ into argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon). 2 This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. 1 In other words, 1.0 g of potassium-40 would, in 1.3 billion years, theoretically decay to the point that only 0.5 g was left.Contrary to what is generally believed, it is not just a matter of measuring the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample of unknown age, and calculating a date. Unfortunately, before that can be done, we need to know the history of the rock. For example, we need to know how much ‘daughter’ was present in the rock when it formed. In most situations we don’t know since we didn’t measure it, so we need to make an assumption—a guess. It is routinely assumed that there was no argon initially. We also need to know whether potassium-40 or argon-40 have leaked into, or out of, the rock since it formed. Again, we do not know, so we need to make an assumption. It is routinely assumed that no leakage occurred. It is only after we have made these assumptions that we can calculate an ‘age’ for the rock. And when this is done, the ‘age’ of most rocks calculated in this way is usually very great, often millions of years. The Mount St Helens lava dome gives us the opportunity to check these assumptions, because we know it formed just a handful of years ago, between 1980 and 1986. The dating test In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron

Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating. Table 1. Potassium-argon ‘ages’ for whole rock and mineral concentrate samples from the lava dome at Mount St Helens (from Austin1). Sample Age / millions of years 1Whole rock 0.35 ± 0.05 2Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06 3Amphibole, 0.9 ± 0.2 etc. 4Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3 5Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6 The pigs took it all by Marvin L. Lubenow A popular myth is that radioactive dating methods confirm the geologic time-scale and the concept of human evolution. The methods appear so impressive that many creationists accept them as evidence that the earth is very old. The best way to expose this myth is to study the dating of the East African KBS Tuff strata and the famous fossil KNM-ER 1470. 1Richard Leakey, son of famed palaeoanthropologists Louis and Mary Leakey, visited the fossil deposits east of Lake Rudolf (now Lake Turkana) in northern Kenya in 1967. He immediately organized an expedition to search for hominid fossils.The most important fossil discovered there is KNM-ER 1470. Skull 1470 is modern in appearance, but was originally estimated by Richard Leakey to be about 2.9 million years old.One early geologist with Richard Leakey at East Rudolf was Kay Behrensmeyer. Seeking to unravel the geology of the area, she discovered a layer of volcanic ash or tuff that became known as the Kay Behrensmeyer Site (the KBS Tuff).if the KBS Tuff were anywhere else, no one would give it a second thought. At East Rudolf it is of utmost importance. First, although human fossils and artefacts (tools) cannot usually be dated radiometrically, the KBS Tuff can. It contains radioactive potassium 40, which decays to argon 40. Second, artefacts have been found in association with the KBS Tuff. The assumption is that the tuff gives an estimate of the age of the stone tools. Third, hundreds of Homo and australopithecine fossils have been found above and below the KBS Tuff. The date of the tuff thus becomes a maximum age for fossils found above it and a minimum for fossils below it.The first attempt to date the KBS Tuff was in 1969, well before the discovery of skull 1470. Richard Leakey supplied rock samples to F.J. Fitch (Birkbeck College, University of London) and J.A. Miller (Cambridge University)—recognized authorities in potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating.Fitch and Miller’s first analysis gave evolutionary dates from 212 million to 230 million years of age. Concerning this they said, ‘From these results it was clear that an extraneous argon age discrepancy was present …’.2 How did they know? The associated fossils told them. In spite of our being assured that dating methods constitute independent confirmation of evolutionary dates, associated fossils had already determined the ‘acceptable’ dates. Based on their alleged evolution, the australopithecine and other mammalian fossils found beneath the KBS Tuff had determined that the rocks should be between 2 and 5 million years old.Dates of 212 to 230 million years old were far off. Without the associated fossils, however, there would be no way for an evolutionary geologist to know if these were ‘good’ or ‘bad’ dates. Under other circumstances, and without fossils to guide them, evolutionary geologists could have accepted these dates as ‘good’.Fitch and Miller requested new samples. From these they concluded from pumice lumps and feldspar crystals that the age of the KBS Tuff was 2.61 million years. 3 It was because Leakey found skull 1470 below this tuff after it had been dated at 2.61 million years and above rock dated at 3.18 million years that he estimated the skull to be 2.9 million years old. Dating pigs and elephants In 1972, before skull 1470 was announced, Vincent Maglio (Princeton University) published in Nature a chronology of the hominid-bearing sediments east of Lake Rudolf, which included the KBS Tuff.4 His work was based on lineages of two species of pig and one of elephant. Maglio’s dates were compatible with the radiometric date arrived at by Fitch and Miller, and were considered to confirm their date.In 1974, a third chronology of the area was published in Nature, based on palaeomagnetism.5 The conclusion of 2.7 to 3.0 million years seemed to represent a ‘bulls-eye’ for the correlation of the various dating methods.6By late 1974, the KBS Tuff had been dated five different times by four different dating methods. The alleged compatibility of the different methods would seem to be a geologist’s dream.However, under the surface, skull 1470 with its estimated date of 2.9 million years presented the evolutionary world with an intolerable situation. The theory of human evolution did not allow a skull so modern to be that old. Nevertheless Richard Leakey continued to fight for this original date. If skull 1470 was 2.9 million years old, he had discovered the oldest member of the genus Homo; if it wasn’t, he hadn’t! Hence, he resisted lowering the age of the skull.Meanwhile, another study by G.H. Curtis and his associates (University of California, Berkeley) claimed to distinguish two tuff units. One gave an age of 1.6 million years and the other, where skull 1470 was found, gave 1.82 million years—both considerably younger than the five previous studies had reported.All of the above-cited articles spoke of the great difficulty in getting rock or crystal samples that were not altered, weathered, or derived from older rock. The question arises, How does one know when one has good samples for dating? The answer is that ‘good’ samples give dates in accord with evolutionary presuppositions. ‘Bad’ samples give dates not in conformity with evolution—a classic illustration of circular reasoning.On March 20, 1980, two more dating studies in Nature criticized the earlier work and claimed that the age of the KBS Tuff was 1.87 or 1.89 million years. Then in late 1981, Ian McDougall published his study of the KBS Tuff, giving a date of 1.88 million years. At that point, the 10-year controversy over the date of the KBS Tuff came to a close with agreement on the more recent date. The power of the pigs

Although the dating of the KBS Tuff appeared to be settled in 1980 and 1981 by the conformity of different dating methods, the controversy was actually settled in 1975 by the pigs.Donald Johanson tells of attending the 1975 Bishop Conference on anthropology and geology in London. A major paper was presented by Basil Cooke (Dalhousie University, Halifax), who had studied the pig sequences in southern Ethiopia, at Hadar (Ethiopia), and at Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania). According to Cooke, the dating at Lake Turkana (formerly Lake Rudolf) was too high by about 800,000 years. The pigs at Turkana told him so.Johanson wrote of this conference: ‘Nearly everyone but the Lake Turkana team [Richard Leakey and his associates] went away convinced that the KBS tuff and the skull-1470 dates would have to be corrected.’ 7Astounding about the whole affair was that the anthropologists were rejecting the same objective, scientific data they universally appeal to. There was internal consistency within the studies, and high conformity by five different dating techniques. The main thing the dates did not conform to was the concept of the evolution of pigs and humans.The evolution of the pigs is said to be the clear-cut answer to the dating problems in east Africa, but the evidence is less than impressive. In his phylogeny of the pigs (bush-pig, forest hog, warthog, etc.), Basil Cooke presented family trees for three taxonomic groups. Two of the groups have at their bases the phrase hypothetical Sus-like ancestor. The 20 species that make up these three groups are shown in parallel lines connected only by dotted lines, indicating that there is no known relationship between any of the species. The chart could just as well have been drawn by a creationist.Most of the fossil-pig evidence consists of teeth. Several species are based on the skimpiest evidence (‘imperfectly known’, ‘rare’, ‘scarce’) and the various relationships are largely guesses.The 1980 and 1981 studies on the date of the KBS Tuff contained so many criticisms of all of the earlier studies that they called into question the objectivity and validity of the dating methods themselves. Radioactive dating myth The above account highlights two major fallacies of radioactive dating. First, the history of the dating of the KBS Tuff reveals that no matter how careful a scientist is in selecting his rock samples and in performing his laboratory work, if he gets the wrong date for his rocks he is open to the charge of using contaminated material and defective methodology. The charges need not be proved. The literature suggests that even if radiometric dating were valid in concept (which it is not), the practical matter of selecting rock samples that can be proved pure and uncontaminated requires an omniscience beyond humans. The radioactive dating methods are a classic example of self-deception and circular reasoning. It is another of the myths of evolution.Second, what normally happens in a fossil discovery is that the fossils are discovered first. Then attempts are made to date the rock strata in which they are found. Under these conditions, a palaeoanthropologist has a degree of control over the results. He is free to reject dates that do not fit the evolution scenario of the fossils. He is not even required to publish those ‘obviously anomalous’ dates. The result is a very sanguine and misleading picture of the conformity of the human fossil record with the concept of human evolution.It is entirely possible that if skull 1470 had never been found, the KBS Tuff would still be dated at 2.61 million years. We would continue to be told that it was a ‘secure date’ based on the precision of radiometric dating and the ‘independent’ confirmation of other dating techniques that acted as controls. It was the shocking discovery of the morphologically modern skull 1470, located well below the KBS Tuff, that precipitated the 10year controversy.In the 10-year controversy over the dating of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered, the pigs won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won over potassium-argon dating. The pigs won over argon40/argon39 dating. The pigs won over fission-track dating. They won over palaeomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn’t the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins. How do you date a New Zealand volcano? by Robert Doolan Among impressive volcanic scenery in northern New Zealand lies the city of Auckland. The district is known for its volcanic cones. In fact, there are more than 50 recognized small volcanoes in the city and surrounding areas. But the largest volcano by far in Auckland is also the youngest. It is called Rangitoto. How young is this youngest volcano? Now your problem starts. Rangitoto is generally regarded as young for several reasons. Evidence based on botany and geomorphology, and a hint from Maori legend that the name can mean ‘red sky’, contribute to a common acceptance that Rangitoto is youthful. Some of the lavas (scoria) have no vegetation, and seem to be no more than a few hundred years old. Conflicting dates In the late 1960s, scientists from the Australian National University in Canberra dated numerous volcanoes in Auckland using the potassium-argon method.1 Ten samples from both vegetated and unvegetated lava on Rangitoto were dated. Results seemed to show that Rangitoto was not a few hundred years old as it appeared to be. Ages from the 10 samples ranged from 146,000 years up to almost half a million years! So how old is Rangitoto? A couple of hundred years? Or half a million? The scientists took a sample of wood from beneath some Rangitoto lava and dated it by the carbon- 14 method.2 The wood gave an age of only 225 years (plus or minus 110 years)—which potentially puts it in the lifetime of George Washington and German composer Johann Sebastian Bach. This is about the age all evidence points to except potassium-argon dating. If lava which is little more than 200 years old can be wrongly dated at up to 465,000 years by the potassium-argon method, could potassium-argon dating always be wrong? Wrong every time The scientists who did the Rangitoto tests dated 16 volcanoes in all. Eleven of these were able to be compared with carbon14 dates. In every case the potassium-argon dates were clearly wrong to a huge extent. Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old.3If the real dates were not fairly well established by other means, who could have proved that the potassium-argon dates were so wrong? So how do you date a volcano? The lesson seems to be that how ever you date it, don’t count on the potassium-argon method. HOW CAN RADIOMETRIC DATES BE SO WRONG The Failure of U-Th-Pb ‘Dating’ at Koongarra, Australia by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on April 1, 1995 Originally published in Journal of Creation 9, no 1: 71-92. Abstract As with other radiometric “dating” methods, the U-Pb and Pb-Pb isochron methods have been questioned in the open literature, because often an excellent line of best fit between ratios obtained from a set of good cogenetic samples gives a resultant “isochron” and yields a derived “age” that has no geological meaning. At the Koongarra uranium deposit, Australia,

there is ample evidence of open system behaviour, or repeated migration, of U and Pb — ore textures, mineral chemistry, supergene alteration, uranium/daughter disequilibrium, and groundwater and soil geochemistry. Yet U-Th-Pb isotopic studies of the uranium ore, host rocks and soils have produced an array of false “isochrons” that yield “ages” which are geologically meaningless. Even a claimed near-concordant U- Pb “age” of 862 Ma (million years) on one uraninite grain is identical to a false Pb-Pb isochron “age” but neither can be connected to any geological event. The open system behaviour of the U-ThPb system is clearly the norm, as is the resultant mixing of radiogenic Pb with “common” or background Pb, even in soils in the surrounding region, apparently even up to 17 km away! Because no geologically meaningful results can be interpreted from the U-Th-Pb data at Koongarra (three uraninite grains even yield a 232Th/208Pb “age” of 0 Ma), serious questions must be asked about the validity of the fundamental/foundational basis of the U-Th-Pb “dating” method. This makes the task of creationists building their model for the geological record much easier, since claims of U-Th-Pb radiometric “dating” having “proven” the claimed great antiquity of the earth, its strata and fossils can be justifiably ignored. Introduction Radiometric dating has now been used for almost 50 years to establish “beyond doubt” the multi-billion year age of the earth’s geological column. Although this column and its “age” was firmly settled well before the advent of radiometric dating, the latter has been used to quantify the, “ages” of the strata and the fossils in the column, so that in many people’s minds today radiometric dating has “proved” the presumed antiquity of the earth.However, it is important to remember that all radiometric dating methods are based on three main assumptions:-The physico-chemical system must have always been closed. Thus no parent, daughter or other decay products within the system can have been removed, and no parent, daughter or other decay products from outside the system can have been added.The system must initially have contained none of its daughter elements or decay products, or at the very least we need to know the starting conditions/state of the decay system.The decay rate, referred to as the half-life of the radioactive parent element, must have always been the same, that is, constant.The highly speculative nature of all radiometric dating methods becomes apparent when one realizes that none of the above assumptions is either valid or provable. Put simply, none of these assumptions can have been observed to have always been true throughout the supposed millions of years the radioactive elements have presumed to have been decaying.Of the various radiometric methods, uranium-thorium- lead (U-Th-Pb) was the first used and it is still widely employed today, particularly when zircons are present in the rocks to be dated. But the method does not always give the “expected” results, leading to fundamental questions about its validity. Indeed, the U- Th-Pb system is well known to be prone to open system behaviour, with U being particularly geochemically mobile, meaning that U is readily lost from the crystal lattices of the minerals used for “dating”, including zircons. Pb is also prone to diffusion from minerals. Thus it is questionable as to why this radiometric “dating” method is still used. Instead, it is increasingly being applied in more sophisticated ways to geological “dating” problems.In the conclusion to a recent paper exposing shortcomings and criticising the validity of the popular rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr) isochron method, Zheng wrote: “. . . some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr vs. 87Rb/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd and U-Pb isochron methods”1 Amongst the concerns voiced by Zheng were the problems being found with anomalous isochrons, that is, where there is an apparent linear relationship between 87Sr/86Sr and 87Rb/86Sr ratios, even an excellent line of best fit between ratios obtained from good cogenetic samples, and yet the resultant isochron and derived “age” have no distinct geological meaning. Zheng documented the copious reporting of this problem in the literature where various names had been given to these anomalous isochrons, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron and pseudoisochron; secondary isochron, inherited isochron, source isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line, and mixing isochron.Similar anomalous or false isochrons are commonly obtained from U- Th-Pb data, which is hardly surprising given the common open system behaviour of the U- Th-Pb system. Yet in the literature these problems are commonly glossed over or pushed aside, but their increasing occurrence from a variety of geological settings does seriously raise the question as to whether U-Th-Pb data ever yields any valid “age” information. One such geological setting that yields these false U -Th -Pb “ages” and “isochrons” is the Koongarra uranium deposit and the surrounding area (Northern Territory, Australia).

Figure 1. Regional geology map showing the location of the Koongarra uranium deposit Figure 2. Local geology map showing the location of the Koongarra No. 1 and No. 2 orebodies. Because of surficial cover the geological units and outline of the mineralisation are projected to the surface from the base of weathering. The Koongarra AreaThe Koongarra area is 250 km east of Darwin (Northern Territory, Australia) at latitude 12°52’S and longitude 132°50’E. The regional geology has been described in detail by Needham and Stuart-Smith 2 and by Needham3,4 (see Figure 1), while Snelling5 describes the Koongarra uranium deposit and the area’s local geology (see Figure 2).The Koongarra uranium deposit occurs in a metamorphic terrain that has an Archaean basement consisting of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north (see Figure 1). Some of the lowermost overlying Lower Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (estimated to represent conditions of 5-8 kb and 550-630° C) at 1800- 1870 Ma (million years ago, according to conventional evolutionary dating). Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism. The Lower Proterozoic Cahill Formation flanking the Nanambu Complex has been divided into two members. The lower member is dominated by a thick basal dolomite and passes transitionally upwards into the psammitic upper member, which is largely feldspathic schist and quartzite. The uranium mineralisation at Koongarra is associated with graphitic horizons within chloritised quartz-mica (±feldspar ±garnet) schists overlying the basal dolomite in the lower member (see Figures 2 and 3). A 150 Ma period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism. A thick sequence of essentially flat-lying sandstones (the Middle Proterozoic Kombolgie Formation) was then deposited unconformably on the Archaean-Lower Proterozoic basement and metasediments. At Koongarra subsequent reverse faulting has juxtaposed the lower Cahill Formation schists and Kombolgie Formation sandstone.

Figure 3. Simplified cross section through the No. 1 orebody, Koongarra, showing geology, distribution of uranium minerals and alteration, and present groundwater flow.Owing to the isoclinal recumbent folding of metasedimentary units of the Cahill Formation, the typical rock sequence encountered at Koongarra is probably a tectono-stratigraphy (see Figure 3):Hanging Wall

-muscovite-biotite-quartz-feldspar schist (at least 180m thick) -garnet-muscovite-biotite-quartz schist (9-100 m thick) -sulphide-rich graphite-mica-quartz schist (±garnet) (about 25 m thick) -distinctive graphite-quartz-chlorite schist marker unit (5-8 m thick)

Mineralised Zone

-quartz-chlorite schist (±illite, garnet, sillimanite, muscovite) (50 m thick)

Footwall

-reverse fault breccia (5-7m thick) -sandstone of the Kombolgie Formation

Polyphase deformation accompanied metamorphism of the original sediments, that were probably dolomite, shales and siltstones. Johnston6 identified a D2 event as responsible for the dominant S2 foliation of the schist sequence, which at Koongarra dips at 55° to the south-east The dominant structural feature, however, is the reverse fault system that dips at about 60° to the south-east, sub-parallel to the dominant S 2 foliation and lithological boundaries, just below the mineralised zone. The Uranium Deposit There are two discrete uranium orebodies at Koongarra, separated by a 100 m wide barren zone (see Figure 2). The main (No.1) orebody has a strike length of 450 m and persists to 100 m depth. Secondary uranium mineralisation is present in the weathered schists, from below the surficial sand cover to the base of weathering at depths varying between 25 and 30 m (see Figure 3). This secondary mineralisation has been derived from decomposition and leaching of the primary mineralised zone, and forms a tongue-like fan of ore-grade material dispersed down-slope for about 80 m to the southeast. The primary uranium mineralised zone in cross-section is a series of partially coalescing lenses, which together form an elongated wedge dipping at 55° to the southeast within the host quartz-chlorite schist unit, sub-parallel to the reverse fault. True widths average 30 m at the top of the primary mineralised zone but taper out at about 100 m below the surface and along strike.Superimposed on the primary prograde metamorphic mineral assemblages of the host schist units is a distinct and extensive primary alteration halo associated, and cogenetic, with the uranium mineralisation (see Figure 3). This alteration extends for up to 1.5 km from the ore in a direction perpendicular to the host quartz-chlorite schist unit, because the mineralisation is essentially stratabound. The outer zone of the alteration halo is most extensively developed in the semipelitic schists, and is manifested by the pseudomorphous replacement of biotite by chlorite, rutile and quartz, and feldspar by sericite. Silicification has also occurred in fault planes and within the Kombolgie Formation sandstone beneath the mineralisation, particularly adjacent to the reverse fault. Association of this outer halo alteration with the mineralisation is demonstrated by the apparent symmetrical distribution of this alteration about the orebody. In the inner alteration zone, less than 50 m from ore; the metamorphic rock fabric is disrupted, and quartz is replaced by pervasive chlorite and phengitic mica, and garnet by chlorite. Uranium mineralisation is only present where this alteration has taken place.The primary ore consists of uraninite veins and veinlets (1-10 mm thick) that cross-cut the S 2 foliation of the brecciated and hydrothermally altered quartz-chlorite schist host. Groups of uraninite veinlets are intimately intergrown with chlorite, which forms the matrix to the host breccias. Small (10-100 mm) euhedral and subhedral uraninite grains are finely disseminated in the chloritic alteration adjacent to veins, but these grains may coalesce to form clusters, strings and massive uraninite. Coarse colloform and botryoidal uraninite masses and uraninite spherules with internal lacework textures have also been noted, but the bulk of the ore appears to be of the disseminated type, with thin (< 0.5 mm) discontinuous wisps and streaks of uraninite, and continuous strings both parallel and discordant to the foliation (S 2), and parallel to phyllosilicate (001) cleavage planes.Associated with the ore are minor volumes (up to 5%) of sulphides, which include galena and lesser chalcopyrite, bornite and pyrite, with rare grains of native gold, clausthalite (PbSe), gersdorffite-cobaltite (NiAsS-CoAsS) and mackinawite (Fe, Ni)1.1S. Galena is the most abundant, commonly occurring as cubes (5-10 mm wide) disseminated in uraninite or gangue, and as stringers and veinlets particularly filling thin fractures within uraninite. Galena may also overgrow clausthalite, and replace pyrite and chalcopyrite. Chlorite, predominantly magnesium chlorite, is the principal gangue, and its intimate association with the uraninite indicates that the two minerals formed together.Oxidation and alteration of uraninite within the primary ore zone has produced a variety of secondary uranium minerals, principally uranyl silicates. 7 Uraninite veins, even veins over 1 cm wide, have been completely altered in situ. Within the primary ore zone this in situ replacement of uraninite is most pronounced immediately above the reverse fault breccia, and this alteration and oxidation diminish upwards stratigraphically. It is accompanied by hematite staining of the schists, the more intense hematite alteration in and near the reverse fault breccia being due to hematite replacement of chlorite. The secondary mineralisation of the dispersion fan in the weathered schist above the No.1 orebody is characterised by uranyl phosphates found exclusively in the “tail” of the fan. Away from the tail uranium is dispersed in the weathered schists and adsorbed onto clays and iron oxides.The “age” of the uranium mineralisation is problematical. The mineralisation, however, must post-date both the Kombolgie Formation sandstone and the Koongarra reverse fault, since it occupies the breccia zones generated by the post Kombolgie reverse faulting. The pattern of alteration which is intimately associated with the ore also crosses the reverse fault into the Kombolgie sandstone beneath the ore zone, so this again implies that the ore was formed after the reverse fault and therefore is younger than both the Kombolgie sandstone and the reverse fault. Because of these geological constraints, Page et al.8 suggested the mineralisation was younger than 1600-1688 Ma because of their determination of the timing of the Kombolgie Formation deposition to that period. Sm-Nd isotopic data obtained on Koongarra uraninites 9,10 appears to narrow down the timing of mineralisation to 1550-1650 Ma. It is unclear as to when deep groundwater circulation began to cause oxidation and alteration of the primary uraninite ore at depth, but Airey et al.11 suggest that the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan in the weathered schists above the No.1 orebody seems to have begun “only” in the last 1- 3Ma. Evidence Of An Open System

There are five main lines of independent evidence that the mineral-rock systems at Koongarra have been open to diffusion and migration of U, Th and daughter isotopes including Pb. Such behaviour of these isotopes has crucial implications to all attempts to “date” the Koongarra uranium ore using the U- Th-Pb isotopic systems.(1) Ore TexturesMineralogical and textural studies of the ore under both optical and scanning electron microscopes12,13 indicate that there have been as many as three remobilisations of the uranium during the history of the ore. Pb has likewise been mobile. That is, both the primary U and Pb minerals, uraninite and galena respectively, have been dissolved and redeposited/recrystallised, often some distance away from their original locations. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 4 as several generations of uraninite and galena.

Figure 4. Paragenesis diagram showing the stages of formation and development of the minerals comprising the Koongarra uranium deposit. Figures 5-10 illustrate examples of the ore textures under the microscopes, the accompanying descriptions indicating how the textures have been interpreted.

Figure 5. Remobilisation and redeposition of uraninite (white mineral). Photomicrograph shows uraninite veins (left and right) partially destroyed by dissolution of uranium which has been redeposited as scattered veinlets and shapeless masses of a new generation of uraninite (middle). (Magnification 10X). Figure 6. Uraninite (light grey) has been dissolved and redeposited as thin veinlets and shapeless masses within a chlorite (dark grey) matrix which is also replacing the main uraninite grain. (Magnification 120X). Figure 7. Two generations of uraninite grains (lighter grey), and more oxidised supergene veins and patches (darker grey). The small scattered white grains are galena. (Magnification 200X). Figure 8. Two generations of uraninite grains (white, left of photomicrograph) and later thin supergene encrustations (mid grey) around quartz grains (dark grey). The very bright mineral (right) is galena which has similarly dissolved and redeposited. (Magnification 200X). Figure 9. Remobilised uraninite (light grey) deposited as scattered grains with a chlorite (dark grey) matrix. A remobilised galena vein (white-grey) cuts across the uraninite-chlorite association. (Magnification 50X).

Figure 10. An enlarged view of uraninite (dark grey) sub-grains within a larger vein. Galena (light grey) veinlets which both cross-cut and separate the uraninite sub-grains. The Pb in the galena is supposed to have migrated from the uraninite where it was supposedly produced by radioactive decay. (Magnification 50X). PS 17860/1

PS 17863/4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

UO2

89.17

89.43

89.65

89.86

90.70

91.14

91.27

91.29

92.20

89.77

88.91

PbO

7.67

7.22

6.67

6.14

5.93

5.31

4.92

4.57

5.70

5.65

4.66

CaO

1.64

1.77

1.73

1.82

1.83

1.79

1.80

2.13

0.38

0.38

0.27

SiO2

0.39

0.42

0.43

0.46

0.53

0.57

0.56

0.50

0.24

1.00

2.34

SFe(FeO) 0.45

0.44

0.46

0.49

0.44

0.46

0.45

0.46

l.d.

0.11

0.46

MnO

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

MgO

l.d.

0.11

l.d.

l.d.

0.11

0.11

l.d.

0.12

0.39

0.94

1.86

P2 O5

0.21

0.21

0.19

0.16

0.23

0.18

0.23

0.30

0.13

0.17

0.13

Total

99.53

99.60

99.13

98.93

99.77

99.56

99.23

99.37

99.04

98.02

98.91

PS 17862/3 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

UO2

85.58

86.35

86.45

86.96

87.26

88.04

88.48

89.63

89.81

86.64

PbO

11.29

10.69

10.25

9.86

9.24

8.48

7.93

6.73

6.27

6.79

CaO

1.68

1.51

1.56

1.58

1.64

1.74

1.86

1.83

2.09

1.81

SiO2

0.50

0.41

0.46

0.47

0.45

0.46

0.53

0.60

0.63

0.78

SFe(FeO) 0.56

0.48

0.52

0.49

0.50

0.46

0.45

0.47

0.58

2.09

MnO

0.38

0.35

0.38

0.36

0.36

0.40

0.36

0.30

0.35

0.29

MgO

0.24

0.17

0.13

0.13

0.12

0.10

0.15

0.15

l.d.

0.18

P2 O5

0.16

0.14

0.17

0.13

0.14

0.17

0.12

0.17

0.19

1.14

Total

100.39

100.10

99.92

99.98

99.71

99.85

99.80

99.88

99.92

99.72

PS 17865/6 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

UO2

85.40

85.97

86.47

86.46

87.07

87.79

88.53

89.14

89.30

90.24

90.52

PbO

12.22

11.21

10.73

10.14

9.43

8.79

8.31

7.83

7.20

6.24

5.93

CaO

1.17

1.45

1.33

1.90

1.79

1.79

1.81

1.99

2.02

2.01

1.95

SiO2

0.33

0.36

0.36

0.49

0.51

0.47

0.52

0.49

0.43

0.58

0.48

SFe(FeO) 0.37

0.39

0.36

0.48

0.53

0.49

0.51

0.47

0.56

0.47

0.45

MnO

0.27

0.31

0.31

0.34

0.37

0.32

0.30

0.35

0.34

0.38

0.35

MgO

0.34

0.26

0.28

0.23

0.16

0.18

0.18

0.13

0.28

0.13

0.18

P2 O5

0.13

0.12

0.15

0.15

0.16

0.14

0.15

0.14

0.16

l.d.

0.16

Total

100.23

100.07

99.63

100.19

99.89

99.97

100.31

100.54

100.29

100.05

100.02

PS 17867/8

UO2

PS 17868/9

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

84.81

85.13

86.24

89.03

89.54

85.12

86.77

81.34

82.41

PbO

10.49

9.11

8.30

5.19

5.14

8.34

9.36

11.46

10.29

CaO

1.37

1.89

1.86

2.70

3.15

4.68

2.17

3.77

4.06

SiO2

2.38

1.35

1.54

1.20

0.85

0.83

0.70

1.20

0.99

SFe(FeO) 0.33

0.44

0.34

0.43

0.52

l.d.

0.53

l.d.

ll.d.

MnO

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

MgO

0.54

0.17

0.20

0.10

l.d.

0.19

0.11

0.12

0.16

P2 O5

l.d.

l.d.

0.14

0.14

0.11

0.56

l.d.

0.43

0.50

Total

99.92

98.09

98.62

98.79

99.31

99.72

99.64

98.32

98.41

_

[ denotes not measured; l.d. denotes less than detection limits] Table 1. Analyses of some representative Koongarra uraninites. (2) Mineral Chemistry Uraninite compositions in the ore are never uniform. Electron microprobe analyses of uraninite grains and veins, 13 that is, micro-analyses of volumes of uraninite between 5 and 10 mm in diameter (see Table 1), reveal that uraninite compositions, particularly U, Pb and Ca contents, vary not only from grain to grain within anyone sample regardless of which generation of uraninite it is, but even at the microscopic level within uraninite grains themselves. Figure 11 illustrates how Pb and Ca have both substituted for U in the UO2 cubic lattice in varying amounts across the uraninite veins and grains.

Figure 11. Compositional traverse across a uraninite grain similar to those in Figure 10. Uranium - Lead Oxides Curite

2PbO.5UO3.4H2O

Fourmarierite

PbO.4UO3.4H2O

Vandendriesscheite

PbO.7UO3.12H2O

Uranyl Silicates Kasolite

Pb(UO2)SiO4.H2O

Sklodowskite

Mg(UO2)2Si2O7.6H2O

Uranophane

Ca(UO2)2Si2O7.6H2O

Uranyl Phosphates Saleeite

Mg(UO2)2(PO4)2.8-10H2O

Sabugalite

HAl(UO2)4(PO4)4.16H2O

Metatorbernite

Cu(UO2)2(PO4)4.8H2O

Torbernite

Cu(UO2)2(PO4)2.8-12H2O

Renardite

Pb(UO2)4(PO4)2(OH)4.7H2O

Dewindtite

Pb(UO2)2(PO4)2.3H2O

Uranyl Sulphate Johannite

Cu(UO2)4(SO4)2(OH)2.6H2O

Uranyl Vanadates Carnotite - Tyuamunite

K2(UO2)2(VO4)2.3H2O-Ca(UO2)2(VO4)2.5-8H2O

Table 2. The secondary uranium minerals at Koongarra. (3) Supergene Alteration As has already been briefly noted, supergene alteration (principally oxidation) of uraninite has not only occurred where the zone of surficial weathering has intersected the top of the No.1 orebody, but at depth within the primary ore. Uraninite grains and veins have been replaced by colourful secondary uranium minerals (see Table 2), their occurrence and compositions depending on the chemistries of the immediate rock/mineral environments and the circulating ground waters (see Figures 3 and 12). The net result has been the complete destruction of the uraninite in what was the top of the No.1 orebody, with its replacement (sometimes in situ) by uranyl silicate or uranyl phosphate minerals (usually the latter), and the dispersion of the rest of the U over distances of up to 50 m or more down-slope by ground waters in the weathered zone. Additionally, at the same time there has been yet another remobilisation of both U and Pb in the primary ore zones, with in situ replacement of uraninite (see Figures 13-15) and deposition of supergene uraninite (see Figure 16) and the uranyl silicate minerals sklodowskite and uranophane (see Figures 17 and 18) from the U in solution from circulating ground waters (see Figure 3 again).7 Electron microprobe analyses (see Table 3) show that the U and Pb contents have decreased as uraninites were altered to uranyl silicates, while the iron and manganese oxides lining fractures in the host rocks have absorbed the U and Pb that had been dissolved during the oxidation of the uraninites and migrated in the circulating ground waters (see Table 4). Figure 12. Schematic diagram showing the paths of secondary uranium mineral from uraninite in the Koongarra uranium deposit. Figure 13. Kasolite (white) and uranophane (grey) replacing a former uraninite vein. Note that the former vein shape, even the subgrains, have essentially been preserved. (SEM magnification 210X; scale bar microns.)

Figure 14. Globular uraninite mass (black shape just to the left of center) being altered marginally to sklowdowskite (grey concentric sheath). (Magnification 2X; scale bar 3 mm.) Figure 15. Kasolite (light grey) and sklodowskite (dark grey) replacing a former uraninite vein. (SEM magnification 210X.) Figure 16. Supergene colloform banded uraninite (grey) deposited in what was originally a void. The banding is produced by a time sequence of uraninite deposition. (SEM magnification 840X.) Figure 17. A sklodowskite (white) vein composed of radiating aggregates of needle-shaped crystals. (SEM magnification 220X; scale bar 50 microns.) Figure 18. Uranophane (white) veinlets deposited between quartz (grey) grain boundaries. (SEM magnification 220X; scale bar 50 microns.)

PS 17867/8: Uraninite Uranophane-Sklodowskite 1

2

3

4

5

6

UO2

84.81

85.13

86.24

76.74

69.58

66.45

PbO

10.49

9.11

8.30

8.99

1.05

0.15

CaO

1.37

1.89

1.86

2.89

4.89

3.86

SiO2

2.38

1.35

1.54

5.53

12.06

14.83

SFe(FeO) 0.33

0.44

0.34

0.29

0.70

l.d.

MgO

0.54

0.17

0.20

0.75

1.16

4.76

Al2O3

0.11

l.d.

l.d.

0.75

l.d.

0.31

P2 O5

l.d.

l.d.

0.14

0.36

0.35

0.34

V2 O3

l.d.

l.d.

l.d.

0.24

0.31

l.d.

Total

100.03

98.09

98.62

96.54

90.10

90.70

12.00 CAS 195: Uraninite Uranophane-Sklodowskite 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UO2

82.18

85.49

86.22

88.27

90.53

63.74

68.76

66.50

66.44

PbO

11.55

9.34

7.93

6.39

4.65

9.83

4.48

3.55

1.60

CaO

3.08

2.80

3.15

3.13

3.06

2.34

2.98

2.77

2.86

SiO2

1.48

1.66

1.64

1.50

1.14

11.58

9.95

12.30

SFe(FeO) 0.80

0.40

0.88

0.39

0.41

0.87

0.20

0.23

l.d.

MgO

l.d.

l.d.

l.d.

l.d.

l.d.

0.39

0.19

0.20

1.13

Al2O3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

P2 O5

l.d.

0.13

l.d.

l.d.

l.d.

2.38

2.15

2.86

2.11

V2 O3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

99.09

99.82

99.82

99.68

99.79

91.13

88.71

88.11

86.44

[- denotes not measured; l.d. denotes less than detection limits] Table 3. Analyses of alteration sequences of uraninites to uranyl silicates at Koongarra. CAS 165

CAS 114/1

CAS 114/2

CAS 95/1

CAS 95/2

CAS 95/3

UO2

2.81

1.63

1.05

0.36

2.83

1.91

PbO

12.42

4.41

0.30

5.03

8.16

3.34

CaO

0.20

0.09

l.d.

0.04

0.15

0.12

SiO2

2.49

3.11

6.28

2.87

2.54

3.20

SFe(FeO) 5.50

8.71

81.46

0.47

11.09

58.16

MnO2

77.48

80.35

1.96

88.52

73.53

27.70

MgO

0.12

0.37

2.09

0.29

0.52

0.22

Al2O3

0.15

1.23

-

2.70

0.82

1.75

P2 O5

0.33

l.d.

-

-

l.d.

l.d.

V2 O3

l.d.

-

-

0.31

0.65

0.26

Total

101.50

99.90

93.14

100.59

100.29

96.66

[- denotes not measured; l.d. denotes less than detection limits] Table 4. Analyses of iron and manganese oxides in fractures in the Koongarra primary ore. (4) Uranium/Daughter Disequilibrium There are two methods of measuring the grade of a uranium ore sample:-by assaying for U directly using standard chemical or related techniques, andby measuring the radioactivity given off by the ore sample, the quantity of such radioactivity being directly related, and proportional, to the U content.However, because the radioactivity measured is actually the gamma

radiation given off by the daughter element bismuth-214 (214Bi) far down the 238U decay chain, any addition or removal of daughter elements between 238U and214Bi will result in a discrepancy between the above two measurements of the U content of the ore sample. To assess this possibility the two measurements are compared:-Three possibilities arise:-Ratio = 1. The ore sample is said to be in equilibrium since the two measurements agree, implying that the U and its daughter elements are in equilibrium; neither have apparently migrated.Ratio > 1. The ore sample is said to be in disequilibrium, and since the U content is greater than the daughter element content either U has been added to the sample or daughter elements removed. Ratio < 1. Again the ore sample is aid to be in disequilibrium, but now the U content is less than the daughter element content implying either U removal or daughter element addition to the sample. No.

Group Description

No. of Samples

Average U3O8(%)

Average Ratio

sa

1

Weathered zone

13

0.275

0.914

0.160

2

Host wall rocks

19

0.025

0.792

0.151

3

Massive ore

11

8.074

0.959

0.069

4

Intermediate orebodies

2

0.171

0.971

0.132

9

1.608

0.925

0.102

Mean =

0.884

0.127

No. Orebody

No. Orebody 5

1

between

No.

1

2

2 Massive ore

Total number of samples a

and

54

Standard deviations of average ratio Table 5. Summary of disequilibrium patterns in the Koongarra orebodies. Measurements on ore samples from Koongarra indicate that the ore is in overall disequilibrium (Table 5 and Figure 19). 14 High resolution gamma-ray spectroscopy was then used to determine which daughter elements of 238U have been mobilised.15 These investigations showed that even though the high grade uraninite (massive) ore is near equilibrium, radium-226 (226Ra) and radon222 (222Rn), and the immediate host rocks being relatively enriched in U, having been precipitated from the circulating groundwaters that had dissolved it from the orebody. Figure 20 schematically illustrates these movements of isotopes caused by the present day circulation of groundwaters. Figure 19. Frequency histogram of disequilibrium ratios measured on Koongarra ore and host rock samples. Figure 20. Uranium (U) and (Ra) migration and precipitation (ppt) caused by present-day groundwater circulation and chemistry. (5) Groundwater and Soil Geochemistry Because of the tropical, monsoonal climate, the ground waters in the Koongarra area are fast moving, annually recharged and low in salinity, the water table rising and falling by as much as 10 m between the wet and the dry seasons. However, U is dissolved by the ground waters from the mineralised aquifer rocks, the level of dissolved U depending on the prevailing pH, Eh, salinity and degree of adsorption. A survey of the chemistry of the ground waters in open drill holes in and near the Koongarra orebodies revealed that a hydrogeochemical halo exists in and around the ore zones reflecting the alteration chemistry of the host rocks and ore, with U levels up to 4100   .16 Such measurements confirm the other observations already cited that indicate U is being dissolved from the ore minerals by present day circulating ground waters, dispersed and partly redeposited. Furthermore, the ground waters are also dispersing U- Th decay products such as helium (He) from the ore zone, with measured levels up to 14.2 ml/l.17 It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the soils overlying the ore zones and the immediate areas of host rocks carry anomalous U concentrations compared to background levels.18 That the ground waters have been responsible for dispersing U ( and Pb) into the surrounding soils is also clearly demonstrated by analyses down through the soil profile. Furthermore, Dickson et al.19,20 found the Pb isotopic signature of the U ore in the soils above the No.2 orebody, which is concealed by about 40 m of barren overburden, and in the soils to the south of the No.1 orebody within the hydrogeochemical halo. Concentration (Wt%)

Atomic Ratios

Ages

Lead Isotope Ratios

Sample No.

%U

%Pb

%Th

J804/1

62.38

8.07

0.30

0.142

1.312

0.0673

861

862

864

21330

1450

7.10

J804/b

38.21

4.45

0.28

0.126

1.264

0.0727

774

841

1025

9875

731.9

34.84

J801

55.07

3.64

0.34

0.071

0.810

0.0826

447

610

1282

16870

1408

54.20

J807

44.08

5.35

0.33

0.130

1.259

0.0703

796

838

954

12920

921.9

35.49

J809

52.61

5.45

0.39

0.114

1.061

0.0679

699

744

882

105800

7200

62.64

16.11

15.61

36.72

t206 m.y. t207 m.y.

Common lead correction Mt Isa lead

Table 6. U-Th-Pb concentrations and isotopic compositions of Koongarra uraninites. Table 7. Isotopic compositions of Koongarra galenas. “Dating” of the Primary Ore Sample No. Hills and Richards21,22 isotipically analysed individual grains of uraninite and galena that had been hand-picked from drill core (see Table 6 and 7). Only one of J801 10290 1016 55.81 the five uraninite samples gave a near-concordant “age” of 862 Ma, that is, the sample plotted almost on the standard concordia curve, and Hills and J803 41240 3258 143.9 Richards22 interpreted this as recording fresh formation of Pb-free uraninite at 870 Ma (see Figure 21). The other four uraninite samples all lay well below concordia J804 11530 883 8.539 and did not conform to any regular linear array. Hills and Richards were left with two possible interpretations. On the one hand, preferential loss of the intermediate J809 10540 1261 47.41 daughter products J820 4824 709.2 35.15 of 238U J821 3399 461.0 43.24 (that is, escape of radon, a gas) would cause vertical displacement of points below an episodic-loss line, but this would only produce a significant Pb isotopic effect if the loss had persisted for a very long proportion of the life of the uraninite (which is incidentally not only feasible but likely). Alternatively, they suggested that contamination by small amounts of an older (pre-900 Ma) Pb could cause such a pattern as on their concordia plot, to which they added mixing lines that they postulated arose from the restoration to each uraninite sample of the galena which separated from it (see Figure 21 again). Figure 21. Conventional 206Pb/238U concordia diagram of uraninites from Koongarra. The insert shows the hypothetical directional shift in uraninite data points supposedly explained by contamination from associated galena. This of course assumes that the Pb in the galenas was also derived predominantly from U decay. They plotted their Pb ratios in all their uraninite samples on a standard 207Pb/206Pb diagram, and contended that the pattern of data points did not conform to a simple age interpretation (see Figure 22). Instead, they contended that the scatter of points could be contained between two lines radiating from the diagram’s origin, lines that essentially represented isochrons for uraninites and galenas from the Ranger and Nabarlek uranium deposits, similar orebodies in the same geological region. From the positions of the Koongarra uraninites and galenas on these diagrams they claimed that the galenas contained left-over radiogenic Pb from earlier uraninites as old as 1700-1800 Ma (the “age” of the Ranger uranium mineralisation), these earlier uraninites being obliterated by the U having remobilised at 870 Ma, the “age” of the lone Pb-free uraninite sample. Figure 22. Conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb plots of galenas and uraninites from Koongarra. Limiting fields of anomalous-lead lines corresponding to “ages” of 1800 Ma and 860 Ma. In a separate study Carr and Dean23 isotopically analysed unweathered whole- rock samples from the Koongarra primary ore zone (see

Table 8). These were samples of drill core that had been crushed. Their isotopic data on four samples were plotted on a UPb isochron diagram and indicated a non-systematic relationship between the 238U parent and the 206Pb daughter. In other words, the quantities of 206Pb could not simply be accounted for by radioactive decay of 238U, implying open system behaviour. They also plotted their four results on a standard207Pb/206Pb isochron diagram (see Figure 23) and found that these samples fell on a poorly defined linear array whose apparent age they did not quantify.

Figure 23. Conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb plot of the weathered and unweathered whole-rock samples from Koongarra. The weathered and unweathered samples fall on separate “isochrons”. Sample

Pb (ppm)

U (ppm)

80

590.0

Primary Ore 1

0.0233

0.0752

2438.350

183.370

56.708

2

0.0682

0.0908

1162.990

105.594

79.351

3

0.0110

0.0692

6845.720

473.718

75.415

112

154.0

4

0.0346

0.0649

5719.990

371.474

198.191

19

17.0

168.0

Weathered Zone Ore 5

0.1785

0.1192

387.664

46.210

69.205

5

413.0

6

0.3804

0.2028

124.773

25.310

47.465

5

861.0

7

0.5029

0.2790

72.814

20.315

36.616

50

8

0.9277

0.4118

44.155

18.184

40.964

10

9

0.1608

0.1403

248.526

34.859

39.963

30

10

0.1650

0.1420

241.053

34.225

39.772

30

11

1.0477

0.3534

55.190

19.502

57.822

3

12

0.1213

0.1252

363.622

45.537

44.119

58

13

0.1233

0.1250

357.688

44.709

44.106

10

Table 8. Results of Pb isotopic, U concentration and Pb concentration analyses for Koongarra whole-rock samples. “Dating” of Weathered Rocks and Soils Carr and Dean23 also isotopically analysed a further nine whole-rock samples from the weathered schist zone at Koongarra (see Table 8). Some of these samples were again crushed drill core, but the majority were crushed percussion drill chips. When their isotopic data were plotted on a U-Pb isochron diagram, six of the nine samples plotted close to the reference 1000 Ma isochron, while the other three were widely scattered (see Figure 24). However, on the207Pb/206Pb diagram all nine weathered rock samples plotted on a linear array which gave an apparent isochron “age” of 1270 (see Figures 23 and 25).

50Ma

Figure 24. A U-Pb (238U/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb) isochron diagram with the weathered whole-rock samples plotted on it. Most fall on the 1000 Ma reference isochron while the 10 Ma reference iisochron is also drawn in as a guide to the two outliers. Figure 25. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb isochron diagram showing all the weathered whole-rock samples plotted as a linear array which gives an apparent isochron “age” of 1270 50Ma. (This diagram is an expansion of the lower left hand corner of Figure 23.) In unrelated investigations, Dickson et al.19,20 collected soil samples from above the mineralisation at Koongarra and from surrounding areas, and these were analysed for Pb isotopes to see if there was any Pb isotopic dispersion halo around the mineralisation sufficiently large enough to warrant the use of Pb isotopic analyses of soils as an exploration technique to find new uranium orebodies. The technique did in fact work, Pb isotopic traces of the deeply buried No.2 orebody mineralisation being found in the soils above, as mentioned earlier. This mineralisation, 40 m below the surface, is blind to other detection techniques.Dickson et al.20 found that all 113 soil samples from their two studies were highly correlated (r = 0.99986) on a standard 207Pb/206Pb diagram, yielding an apparent (false) isochron representing an “age” of 1445 20 Ma for the samples (see Figure 26). However, most of the soil samples consisted of detritus eroded from the Middle Proterozoic Kombolgie sandstone, so because the samples from near the mineralisation gave a radiogenic Pb signature Dickson et al. interpreted the false “isochron” as being due to mixing of radiogenic Pb from the uranium mineralisation with the “common” Pb from the sandstone. Figure 26. Plot of 207Pb/206Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb for all 113 soil samples from the Koongarra area analysed by Dickson et al., indicating the high correlation of r = 0.99986 between the two variables with a fitted regression line yielding anapparent isochron “age” of 1445 20 Ma. The insert shows the distribution of samples about a threshold dividing radiogenic Pb and country rock Pb along this proposed mixing line. Discussion Primary Ore Samples Snelling24 has already highlighted a telling omission by Hills and Richards.22 Having included all the Pb isotopic ratios they had obtained on their five uraninite samples, they tabulated also the derived “ages”, except for those obtainable from 208Pb (see Table 6 again). Since their data table lists the necessary ingredients for 208Pb “age” calculations - %Th,208Pb proportion, and 208Pb/207Pb and 208Pb/204Pb ratios - their omission of the 208Pb “ages” is both conspicuous and significant. These Th-derived “dates” should normally be regarded as the most reliable, since Th is less mobile in geochemical environments and therefore open system behaviour is less likely than for U. The 204Pb content of the uraninite is regarded as “common” or original Pb since it is not derived from any parent element via radioactive decay. Because this so-called “common” Pb is also believed to carry a significant quantity of the 206Pb, 207Pb and 208Pb isotopes, a “common” Pb correction has to be applied to the raw data before calculation of the U- Th-Pb “ages”. This, of course, is an admission that not all the quantities of these Pb isotopes are derived by radioactive decay, some being with the U and Th “in the beginning”. The standard used to correct the data in Table 6 was the Mt Isa Pb standard with an isotopic composition:1.44% 204Pb

23.20% 206Pb

22.48% 207Pb

52.88% 208Pb

It should be noted in passing also that the choice of this standard is based on one of several theories of element nucleogenesis and Pb isotopic evolution,25,26 making the whole “age” calculation procedure rather subjective, based on further assumptions.When this “common” Pb correction is applied to the data in Table 6,27 most of the 208Pb has resulted from “common” Pb contamination. In fact, in samples J804/1, J804/b and J807 all the 208Pb is due to contamination and none to 232Th decay, thus resulting in 208Pb “ages” of 0 Ma (within the experimental/analytical errors) for these samples. The remaining two samples yield 208Pb “ages”27 of 275 Ma (J801) and 61 Ma (J809), both considerably less than all other Pb “ages”. Since they are as valid as any of the other resultant “ages” calculated, these 232Th/208Pb “ages” should have been at least reported (one suspects they were left out of the tabulated results because of the uncomfortable implications). After all, the 232Th/208Pb “age” of 0 Ma is the only Pb isotopic “date” from that study supported directly by a majority of samples (three out of the five), and Th-derived , dates” should be reliable as the 232Th decay chain is a standard isotopic “clock”, but a 0 Ma “age” makes little more sense than their 870 Ma “age” from the U- Pb data. In any case, Hills and Richards” “age” of 17001800 Ma for the first generation of U mineralisation at Koongarra neither fits the geological criteria for an expected 15501600 Ma “age”, nor does their 870 Ma “date” correlate with any geological event capable of remobilising U and Pb to produce the presumed second generation of U mineralisation.Using the procedure of Ludwig, 28 standard 207Pb/206Pb

diagrams were prepared for the uraninite, galena and whole-rock data sets, and combinations thereof, to check the regression statistics and possible derived “isochrons” using the standard York 29 method. In each case the mean square of weighted deviates (MSWD), which tests the “goodness of fit” of data to a line, is large to extremely large, which reflects in the derived isochron “ages” of 841140 Ma (uraninites), 1008

420 Ma (galenas), 668

330 Ma (whole-rocks), 818

150

Ma (uraninites plus galenas) and 863 130 Ma (all three data sets combined), all “ages” being within the 95% confidence limits (see Figures 27-31). It is perhaps fortuitously significant that the combination of all three data sets yields an isochron “age” of 863 130 Ma, almost identical to Hills and Richards” near-concordant “age” of 862 Ma, although this was using a line-fitting routine of Ludwig 28 that assigns equal weights and zero error-correlations to each data point to avoid the mistake of weighting the points according to analytical errors when it is clear that some other cause of scatter is involved, which is clearly the case here. The normal York 29 algorithm assumes that the only cause for scatter from a straight line are the assigned errors, and for the combined data set here the amount of scatter calculated thereby yields an astronomical MSWD of 669000 and a bad line of fit that yields an isochron “age” of 1632 410 Ma (see Figure 32). This “result” may make more geological sense, but the regression statistics are such that derivation of any “age” information from these data is totally unjustified, even though it can be rightfully argued that these samples form a cogenetic set (they are all samples of U ore or its components from the same primary ore zone at Koongarra).

Figure 27. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with all Koongarra uraninites plotted on it using Ludwig’s ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent isochron with a model 2 “age” of 841

140 Ma.

Figure 28. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with all Koongarra galenas plotted on it using Ludwig’s ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent isochron with a model 2 “age” of 1008

420 Ma.

Figure 29. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with all the unweathered whole-rock samples from Koongarra plotted on it using Ludwig’s ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent isochron with a model 1 “age” of 668

330 Ma.

Figure 30. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with both Koongarra uraninites and galenas plotted on it using Ludwig’s ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent isochron with a model 2 “age” of 818

150 Ma.

Figure 31. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with all Koongarra uraninites, galenas and unweathered wholerock samples plotted on it using Ludwig’s ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent isochron with a model 2 “age” of 863 130 Ma. Figure 32. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with all Koongarra uraninites, galenas and unweathered whole-rock samples plotted on it using Ludwig’s ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent isochron with a model 1 “age” of 1632 410 Ma. It is not uncommon to find that “ages” derived from standard 207Pb/206Pb plots are erroneous, even though the data fit well-defined linear arrays (‘isochrons’). Ludwig et al.30 found that this was due to migration of both Pb and radioactive daughters of 238U yielding a 207Pb/206Pb “isochron” giving “superficially attractive results which would nonetheless be seriously misleading” because the derived “age” (in their example) was more than six times higher than the UPb isochron “age”. Similarly, Cunningham et al.31 obtained 207Pb/206Pb isochron “ages” up to 50 times higher than those derived from “more reliable” UPb isochrons for whole-rock U ore samples, even though “the apparent slight degree of scatter is almost entirely a misleading artifact”. Likewise, at Jabiluka, an almost identical style of uranium deposit in the identical geological setting only about 60 km due north of Koongarra, Gulson and Mizon 32 had considerable difficulty obtaining Pb-Pb and U-Pb isochron “ages” for the U mineralisation due to 238U daughter leakage and diffusion out of the U minerals and ore into the surrounding host rocks and constituent minerals, that therefore had gained excess radium (Ra) and 206Pb. Ironically, at Koongarra the U-Pb isochron using Ludwig 28 on Hills and Richards” uraninite data yields an “age” of 857 149 Ma (with an MSWD of 13400, tolerably large compared to that obtained with the Pb-Pb isochron) (see Figure 33), almost identical to the “fortuitous” Pb-Pb isochron “age” obtained using Ludwig’s modified algorithm on the combined three data sets (863 130 Ma), as well as Hills and Richards” single near-concordant 862 Ma “age”. Figure 33. A conventional 206Pb/238U vs. 207Pb/235U concordia diagram with all the Koongarra uraninites plotted on it using Ludwig’s ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent isochron that intersects concordia at 857 149 Ma. As has already been described, Snelling and Dickson14 have demonstrated that there is significant uranium/daughter disequilibrium in the primary ore and surrounding host rocks at Koongarra due to the redistribution of both U and its Ra decay product, just as Gulson and Mizon found at Jabiluka. That Ra mobility at depth in the primary ore zone is currently more significant than U migration has been confirmed by Dickson and Snelling, 15 which of course results ultimately in the redistribution of 206Pb, the end-member of the whole 238U decay chain. Dickson et al.33 have demonstrated that Ra is transported through the unweathered rocks in this area in the ground waters, while Davy et al.34 have determined the emanation rate of radon (Rn) gas from the Koongarra No.1 orebody, an ever present hazard in uranium ore mining operations. The Rn gas is known to migrate along fractures and rise through the ground over considerable distances to form a halo in the air above, while Rn is also transported in ground waters. Thus it is to be expected that the pattern of oxidation of uraninites and dispersion of U should reflect the present-day circulation of ground waters 7 and that present-day ground waters should be carrying U and He.16,17 Such groundwater dispersion of U and mobility of Ra has, of course, resulted in U and Pb dispersion into the surrounding soils,18 where the Pb isotopic signature of the U ore is clearly evident. 19,20These observations alone demonstrate the open system behaviour of the U- Th-Pb system that renders meaningless any “age” information derived. However, both Hills12 and Snelling13 have recognised that U and Pb also have migrated several times and on a considerable scale in the primary ore zone, with the latest redistribution having produced supergene uraninites, often with colloform banding, found as fracture and cavity infillings (see Figure 16 again), and between quartz and gangue grain boundaries. The unit cell dimensions of these uraninites, plus this textural evidence, supports the conclusion that these uraninites have precipitated after dissolution of earlier formed uraninite and transportation in low-temperature ground waters. With such wholesale repeated migrations of U also, all attempts at “dating” must be rendered useless, especially when whole-rock samples, in which different generations of uraninites are lumped together, are used. Indeed, it must surely be virtually impossible to be certain of the precise status and history of any particular piece of uraninite selected for “dating”. Even though every conceivable precaution is taken when selecting grains for “dating”, how can we be sure that the U and Pb isotopes and isotopic ratios measured represent the “original”, unaffected by the gross element movements for which there is such abundant evidence? The uraninite grains or ore samples “dated” always contain radiogenic Pb both within crystal lattices of

minerals, and as microscopic inclusions or grains and veins of galena, but how can we be sure all the Pb was generated by radioactive decay from U in situ? In any case, the uraninite grains and veins do not have uniform compositions - either between or within grains - so that “dating” of sub-sections of any grain or vein would be expected to yield widely divergent UPb and Pb-Pb ratios and therefore “ages” even within that single grain or vein. Thus it is logical to conclude, as others have already,35-37that U- Th-Pb ratios may have little to do with the “ages” of many minerals, rocks and ores. Weathered Rocks and Soils In contrast to the poor-fitting linear arrays produced from the Pb-Pb data of minerals and whole-rocks from the primary ore zone, that all appear to give an apparent (false) isochron “age” grouped around 857-863 Ma, both Carr and Dean 23 and Dickson et al.20 found that weathered schist whole-rock and soil samples produced good fitting linear arrays that would normally represent “isochrons” that yield “ages” of 1270 Ma and 1445 Ma respectively (see Figures 25 and 26 again). The weathered whole-rock samples all of course come from Koongarra itself, and consist of secondary ore samples from the weathered schist zone, plus weathered schist samples that contain U dispersed down-slope by ground waters moving through the weathered rock. Because these whole-rock samples come from a volume of rock through which U is known to be migrating, leading to redistribution not only of U but of its decay products, it is therefore very surprising to find that these whole-rock samples define a good enough linear array to yield an “isochron”. Even the observed scatter calculated using Ludwig28 is much less than that associated with fitting an “isochron” to the 207Pb-206Pb data from the primary ore zone samples, which is again surprising given U migration in the weathered zone, the data from which one would expect to show considerable scatter and thus no “age” consensus. Furthermore, it is baffling as to why the “isochron’-derived “age” (1270 Ma) of the weathered secondary ore zone should be so much “older” than the “isochron’-derived “age” (857-863 Ma) of the primary ore, which of course is ultimately the source through weathering and groundwater transport of the U, decay products and the stable Pb isotopes that are in the secondary and dispersed ore. Perhaps the only explanation is that the “isochron” represents the mixing of radiogenic Pb from the mineralisation with the “common” or background Pb in the surrounding schists, which are even in a relative sense older than the U mineralisation.The idea of such an “isochron” being a mixing line was suggested by Dickson et al.20 They were, however, dealing with the Pb isotopic data obtained from soil samples collected from depths of only about 30-40 cm, the majority of which represented sandy soils consisting of detritus eroded from the Kombolgie sandstone. For this mixing explanation to be feasible there should be some other evidence of mobilisation of Pb in the area. Dickson et al. found that not only were there high 206Pb/204Pb ratios in three of their soil samples from the near-surface (0-1 m) zone south of the No.1 orebody in the hydrogeochemical halo, but there was a lack of any other U-series daughter products in the same samples. This near-surface zone is inundated for approximately six months of the year as a result of the high monsoonal rainfall in this tropical area. Towards the end of the ensuing six-month dry season the water table has been known to drop in some cases more than ten metres from its wet season “high”. This means that the top of the weathered schist zone is regularly fluctuating between wet and dry conditions, so that any trace elements such as Pb leached from the weathered ore and transported by ground water in the weathered schist zone would also be dispersed vertically up into the thin surficial sand cover on top of the weathered schist - the sandy soils that were sampled by Dickson et al.19,20 Snelling18 found that Pb was a significant pathfinder element for uranium ore in the Koongarra environment, anomalous Pb being present in the surficial sand cover above the zone of weathered primary ore, and that there was even hydrodynamic dispersal of Pb at a depth of 0.5-1.5 m. Dickson et al.19 found a similarity between the isotopic ratios for Pb extracted from their soil samples by either a mild HCI-hydroxylamine (pH 1) or a strong 7M HCI- 7M HNO3 leach, which indicates that Pb is loosely attached to sand grain surfaces in the samples rather than tightly bound in silicate or resistate mineral lattices. This in turn suggests Pb is adsorbed from ground waters, meaning that radiogenic Pb is being added to the “common” or background Pb in the sand by both vertical and lateral groundwater dispersion.However, not all of Dickson et al.’s soil samples came from the area immediate to the Koongarra orebodies, nor were they all samples of Kombolgie sandstone detritus. That this mixing line explanation for the apparent “isochron” is clearly demonstrated for these samples from the immediate Koongarra area is not in question, although it is somewhat surprising that these soil samples should give an apparent isochron “age” (1445 Ma) somewhat older than that obtained from the weathered schist samples beneath (1270 Ma). Indeed, the “common” or background Pb in the respective samples should reflect an “older” apparent age in the schists compared to the sandstone, due to their relative ages based on the geological relationship between them. (Remember, the schists are supposed to be the product of regional metamorphism at 1800-1870 Ma, while the Kombolgie sandstone is regarded as having been deposited around 1600- 1680 Ma.) However, the apparent ages are the other way around, the sandy soils from the Kombolgie sandstone detritus yielding an “older” apparent age (1445 Ma) compared to that yielded by the weathered schists (1270 Ma). Perhaps this difference is a reflection of the extent of mixing in each type of sample at their respective levels in the weathering profile. Nevertheless, what is astounding is that Dickson et al.20 found that even though several of their soil samples consisted of weathered schist or basement granite (containing accessory zircon) up to 17km from the known U mineralisation, they still plotted on the same apparent “isochron”. Indeed, the “fit” is comparatively good (see Figure 34), as indicated by the MSWD of only 964 using Ludwig, 28 yet much of this observed scatter can be attributed to two samples out of the 113, one of which was subsequently found to be probably contaminated by cuttings from an adjacent drill hole.19 If that sample is removed from the regression analysis the MSWD drops to 505, indicating that almost half of the observed scatter is due to that one data point alone. If the data point that is the next worst for fitting to the apparent “isochron” is removed, then the MSWD drops by a further 315 to a mere 190. Yet in both cases the apparent “isochron” or “mixing line” still has lying on or close to it the samples from up to 17 km away from the known U mineralisation and the samples that are not Kombolgie sandstone detritus. The final “isochron” fitted to the remaining 111 samples still yields an “age” of 1420 18 Ma (see Figure 34 again). Figure 34. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with all Koongarra area soil samples plotted on it using Ludwig’s ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent

isochron with a model 1 “age” of 1428 33 Ma for all 113 samples and 1420 18 Ma for 111 samples (2 outliers removed).While Carr and Dean’s nine weathered schist whole- rock samples are not strictly cogenetic with Dickson et al.’s 113 soil samples, the two sample sets are obviously related because the source of the radiogenic Pb in the majority of the soil samples from the immediate Koongarra area is the same as that in the weathered schists. Not surprisingly, when the regression analysis was performed on Carr and Dean’s nine weathered schist whole-rock samples using Ludwig, 28the MSWD for the observed scatter was 24100, indicating a poor fit to an “isochron” which yielded an “age” of 1287 120 Ma (see Figure 35). Yet when these nine samples were added to the 113 soil samples the MSWD dropped substantially to 1210, and not surprisingly the fitted “isochron” yielded an “age” of 1346 27 Ma, an “isochron age” intermediate between those of the two data sets being combined (see Figure 36). However, when the two soil samples responsible for the majority of the scatter in that data set were removed the MSWD dropped to 430 and yielded an “isochron age” of 1336 Figure 36 again).

17 Ma (see

Figure 35. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with the weathered whole-rock samples from Koongarra plotted on it using Ludwig’s ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent isochron with a model 1 “age” of 1287

120 Ma.

Figure 36. A conventional 207Pb/204Pb vs. 206Pb/204Pb diagram with all Koongarra area weathered whole-rock and soil samples plotted on it using Ludwig’s ISOPLOT program and defining an apparent isochron with a model 1 “age” of 1346 2

7 Ma for all 122 samples and 1336 17 Ma for 120 samples (2 outliers removed). General Comments As with all the other apparent isochron “ages”, these results from the weathered rocks and soils have no apparent geological meaning, because there is no geological event to which these “ages” might correlate. Indeed, even in the evolutionary time-frame the weathering of the Koongarra U mineralisation is extremely recent, and in any case, these “ages” derived from Pb-Pb “isochrons” from the weathered rock and soil samples are much “older” than the supposedly more reliable U-Pb “isochron age” of the Koongarra primary ore. But since that latter result has no apparent geological meaning, because it also cannot be correlated with any known geological event, nothing then is certain at all from any of these U-Th-Pb isotopic studies of the Koongarra ores, rocks and surrounding soils. Indeed, it is just as certain that the primary ore is 0 Ma, based on three 232Th/208Pb single sample ages, as is the claim that one near-concordant result means that there was formation of Pb-free uraninite at 870 Ma. After all, this postulated formation of Pb-free uraninite is supposed to have occurred in an environment where there was Pb left over from an earlier 1700-1800 Ma original U mineralisation for which we no longer have any evidence, textural or otherwise, apart from a rather tenuous interpretation of Pb isotopic evidence that has otherwise shown itself to be devoid of any capability of providing any “age” information.All these results raise serious fundamental questions about the claimed validity of the U-Th-Pb “dating” method. It may seem reasonable to regard an apparent “isochron” as a “mixing line” within the restricted area close to the known source of radiogenic Pb, which can be shown by independent evidence to be migrating into rocks and soils that contain “common” or background Pb in the immediate environs. However, it strains all credulity to suggest that a false “isochron” through a data set derived from samples representing a variety of rock types, of significantly different evolutionary “ages”, over an area of up to 17 km lateral extent from the known radiogenic Pb source, can still represent mixing! One can only conclude that all assumptions used to derive the estimates of “common” or background Pb, including models for the supposed evolution of the stable Pb isotopes through earth history, from their presumed commencement on the protoearth with its claimed original Pb isotope content some 4.6 billion or so years ago, cannot be valid. Equally, we cannot be sure what the U-Th-Pb system’s isotopic ratios really mean, because the basic assumptions that are foundational to the interpretation of these isotopic ratios are fatally flawed. Not only has open system behaviour of these isotopes been demonstrated as the norm, but even where there is an apparent “isochron” with an excellent “goodness of fit” the derived “age” is invariably geologically meaningless.Thus creationists need not be hindered in building their Creation-Flood young-earth model for the geological record by the many claims in the open geological literature that U-Th-Pb radiometric “dating” has “proved” the presumed great antiquity of the earth, and the strata and fossils of the so-called geological column. Accordingly, all the apparent isochron and other “ages” that have been referred to here have been quoted as millions of years (Ma) purely in order to reveal the shortcomings of the U-Th-Pb “dating” method. Indeed, even the use of conventional geological era terms such as “Archaean” and “Lower Proterozoic” has been for convenient reference to the rock units under discussion, there being no absolute “age” significance attached to these terms here - only a relative position within the overall rock record. There is clearly a real sequence of rock units that comprise the total geological record, from the so-called Archaean to the Recent, the formation of which needs to be understood and coherently modelled within the framework of a recent Creation and global Flood. Much progress towards this goal has been, and is being, made within the relatively small creationist geological community. Thus the mounting evidence that the claimed “absolute dating” methods, such as U- Th-Pb radiometrics, are unreliable at best, and in reality produce many results that are impressive but geologically meaningless, can only assist in this quest. Conclusions

The concerns raised by Zheng1 regarding U-Pb isochrons are warranted. At Koongarra a 207Pb/206Pb “isochron” produced from 11 hand-picked uraninite and galena grains, plus four whole-rock samples, yields an “age” of 863 Ma, the same as a near-concordant “age” of 862 Ma from one of the uraninite grains. Nine weathered whole-rock samples yield an “isochron age” of 1270 Ma, while 113 soil samples produce an excellent “isochron” with an “age” of 1445 Ma. All of these “ages” are geologically meaningless. While the apparent isochron produced by the soil samples may be identified as a mixing line, produced by the mixing of radiogenic Pb with “common” or background Pb in the surrounding rocks and soils, even this explanation strains credulity because the samples come from up to 17 km away from known U mineralisation, and a few of the soil samples represent different rock types. Not only then has open system behaviour of these isotopes been demonstrated, as confirmed by the independent evidence of ore textures, mineral chemistry, supergene alteration, uranium/daughter disequilibrium, and groundwater and soil geochemistry, but apparent “isochrons” and their derived “ages” are invariably geologically meaningless. Thus none of the assumptions used to interpret the U- Th-Pb isotopic system to yield “ages” can be valid. If these assumptions were valid, then the 232Th/208Pb “age” of 0 Ma for three of the five uraninite samples should be taken seriously. Creationists should therefore not be intimidated by claims that U-Th-Pb radiometric “dating” has “proved” the presumed great antiquity of the earth, and the strata and fossils of the so-called geological column. Radioactive “Dating” in Conflict! Fossil Wood in “Ancient” Lava Flow Yields Radiocarbon by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on December 1, 1997 Originally published in Creation 20, no 1 (December 1997): 24-27. Shop Now When miners were sinking a ventilation shaft for the new Crinum Coal Mine in Central Queensland in 1993 (see map below) they unearthed a rare find. After digging through the thin surface sands and clays, followed by basalt, 21 metres (almost 69 feet) down they found pieces of wood entombed in the bottom basalt flow.1 Below the basalt were layers of claystone, siltstone, and sandstone with interbedded coal seams.2 Fossil wood in ‘ancient’ basalt The wood was in three states—ash, charred, and intact.1 Those on-site at the time speculated that there had been two distinct trees, partly standing, still organic in nature, and thus not petrified. The imprint of a leaf was also discovered within the basalt, which was also regarded as remarkable, remembering that the enclosing rock was once molten lava erupted at 1000–1200°C (about 1800–2200°F).So how could these tree trunks have survived being engulfed by molten lava? At approximately four metres (13 feet) thick, the basalt flow is relatively thin,1,3 and thus cooling would have been rapid (perhaps days, but a few weeks at most4). This is verified by the observed internal structure of the basalt flow.1,5 Since the tree trunks were engulfed at the bottom of the flow, cooling may have been immediate, with any water present in the wood aiding extremely rapid encapsulation and thus preservation.The local geological context makes the basalt flow approximately ‘30 million years old’,1,3 in keeping with other basalt flows in the region all regarded as of Tertiary age (in the conventional terminology). Since the tree trunks were entombed in the basalt lava, the wood is thus supposedly at least 30 million years old. Also, what looked like the tree roots were found in the siltstone below the basalt,3 suggesting the trees when alive were rooted into the siltstone and thus growing on a land surface that was then covered by basalt lava. This siltstone belongs to the Permian German Creek coal measures, conventionally believed to be around 255 million years old.6Collection of samplesSmall fragments of some of the wood samples were kindly sent to us, and a subsequent mine visit took place in late August 1994.7 The pieces of wood recovered by the miners were examined and photographed, as too was the leaf imprint, but access to the ventilation shaft was not possible, nor were samples of the enclosing basalt available, having long been dumped with all the other rubble and waste rock. However, an exploratory hole had been drilled close to where the shaft was eventually dug. In the relevant drill core, at the bottom of the lowermost basalt flow, pieces of fossil wood still containing organic carbon were present encased in the basalt, right at the boundary of the basalt flow with the siltstone below. This drill core was subsequently sent to us once permission was granted by the mining company.7After visiting the mine site, nearby outcrops of the same basalt flows were investigated and sampled. This was to make sure we at least had some samples of the basalt, just in case permission to have the drill core wasn’t forthcoming.

Charred fossil wood.

Intact fossil wood.

Basalt with holes from former gas bubbles.

Fossil tree with roots in siltstone.

Laboratory work

Tiny portions of the same piece of fossil wood encased in the basalt in the drill core were sent for radiocarbon ( 14C) analyses to two reputable laboratories—Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), and the Antares Mass Spectrometry laboratory at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Lucas Heights near Sydney (Australia). Neither laboratory was told exactly where the samples came from to ensure that there would be no resultant bias. Both laboratories use the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique for radiocarbon analyses, Geochron being a commercial laboratory and Antares being a major research laboratory. Also, tiny fragments of the initial wood samples provided to us, from the pieces of wood that had been found during sinking of the ventilation shaft, were sent off for radiocarbon analyses—one set of different fragments to each laboratory.Pieces of the basalt samples from the outcrop and the drill core were also sent to analytical laboratories, for major, minor, and trace element analyses to establish the character of these rocks, but mainly for radioactive ‘dating’ analyses. Potassium-argon (K-Ar) ‘dating’ was performed on the two outcrop samples by the AMDEL laboratory in Adelaide (Australia), while one of the two outcrop samples and two drill core samples, one being in contact with the fossil wood, were ‘dated’ by Geochron Laboratories. Results The radiocarbon (14C) results are listed in Table 1.8 It is immediately evident that there was detectable radiocarbon in all wood samples, so that the laboratories’ staff had neither hesitation nor difficulties in calculating 14C ‘ages’. When subsequently questioned regarding the limits of the analytical method for the radiocarbon and any possibility of contamination, staff at both laboratories (Ph.D. scientists) were readily insistent that the results, with one exception,9were within the detection limits and therefore provided quotable finite ‘ages’!8 Furthermore, they pointed to the almost identical δ13C results (last column in Table 1), consistent with the carbon being organic carbon from wood, and indicating no possibility of contamination. So the results in Table 1 are staunchly defended by the laboratories as valid, indicating an ‘age’ of perhaps 44,000–45,500 years for the wood encased in the basalt retrieved from the drill core.In stark contrast to the ‘age’ of the wood are the potassium-argon (K-AR) ‘ages’ of the basalt (see Table 2).8 It is readily apparent that there are significant variations in the results, as evident in the calculated ‘ages’ of the outcrop 2 sample provided by each laboratory. The problem of obtaining consistently ‘acceptable’ K-AR ‘ages’ is also highlighted by the observation that both outcrop and both drill core samples probably represent the same basalt flow in each respective location (hence the calculated average ‘ages’ in the last column of Table 2)10 The staff of both laboratories (again Ph.D. scientists) defended their analytical results,8,11 and did not hesitate to affirm that these basalt samples are, according to their radioactive K-AR ‘dating’, around 45 million years old. Lab code

14

δ13CPDB15

Geochron Wood in Drill Core ANSTO

GX-20798-AMS OZB472

>35,620 44,700±950

-25.7‰ -25.78‰

Other Wood

Geochron

GX-20087-AMS

29,544±759

-25.1‰

Other Wood

ANSTO

OZB473

37,800±3,450

-26.16‰

Sample

Lab

C ‘age’ (BP) years

Conclusions While the quality and accuracy of the analytical work undertaken by all the laboratories involved is unquestionably respected, all the calculated ‘ages’ are mere interpretations based on unproven assumptions about constancy of radioactive decay rates, and on the geochemical behaviour of these elements (and their isotopes) in the unobservable past. To youngearth creationists the geological context of these fossil wood fragments in the basalt lava flow clearly indicates that these represent post-Flood trees overwhelmed by a post-Flood volcanic eruption nearby, and thus both the fossil wood and the basalt are less than 4,500 years old.12 Nevertheless, within the conventional (uniformitarian) framework of interpretation, a clear-cut conflict can be seen between these two radioactive ‘dating’ methods. Normally fossil wood found in such an ‘ancient’ basalt would not be radiocarbon ‘dated’, because the wood would be considered far too old for any radiocarbon to be left in it.13 Yet here these radioactive ‘dating’ methods are again demonstrated to be unreliable and clearly useless at determining the true age of the wood and basalt.14 Therefore, any published results from these ‘dating’ methods should not be seen as casting any doubts whatsoever on the reliability of the creation chronology so carefully provided for us . Basalt sample

Lab

Lab code

K-Ar ‘age’ years)

Outcrop 1

AMDEL

G878300G/95

44.9 ±1.1

Outcrop 2

AMDEL Geochron

G878300G/95 R-11800

47.9 39.1 ±1.5

Drill Core

Geochron

R-11798

58.3 ±2.0

Drill Core Enclosing Wood Geochron

R-11799

36.7 ±1.2

(millionAverage years)

K-Ar

‘age’

(million

+4.0 ±1.6

43.9

–4.8

47.5±10.8

Table 2: Potassium-argon (K-AR) ‘dates’ on basalt samples. Return to text.

The Oklo natural reactors in Precambrian rocks, Gabon, Africa by Eugene Chaffin The reactor that began without human intervention Figure 1. The natural nuclear fission reactors of Oklo: (1) Nuclear reactor zones, (2) Sandstone, (3) Uranium ore layer, and (4) Granite. (Image courtesy of the US Department of Energy (DoE)).Can a uranium deposit begin self-sustaining nuclear reactions without human intervention? In

1972, while analyzing uranium which had been mined in Gabon, Africa, some French scientists discovered some uranium which had an abnormally small percentage of the isotope U-235 as compared to U-238. In most uranium 0.72% is U-235, and no natural uranium had ever previously been discovered which was more than 0.1% different from 0.72%. In trying to explain why the particular ore they were analyzing was different, the French scientists were led to the hypothesis that a fission chain reaction had occurred in this ore, hence a natural reactor had existed long before man ever discovered fission or built a nuclear reactor. Since they also hypothesized that the reactor was about 2 billion years old, it is of interest to creation scientists to find out whether the numerical data that were gathered could also be explained in a young time frame or whether it is evidence for accelerated nuclear decay.According to the Geologic Time Table, of conventional historic geology, the Oklo surface rocks are Precambrian strata. Thus, they would represent the rocks present before the Cambrian “explosion” which shows the sudden appearance of multi-celled plants and animals. In many creationist models, the Precambrian rocks at Oklo would be either the lowest lying sediments from the Flood, or else the pre-Flood rocks. Since the reactors were found in some steeply dipping sandstone sediments (figure 1), their exact time of placement is not certain, and the nuclear reactions could have occurred after the sandstone deposition, but they would represent an early stage of earth history in any credible scenario.At Oklo, the first reactor zones discovered were in a strip mine. In 1975 a scientific meeting was held in Gabon, which included some sessions on benches in the strip mine next to the reactor deposits. Participants observed the exposed rocks inside the strip mine including uranium oxide deposits. Since the conference, more than a dozen reactor zones have been discovered at Oklo, and others about 20 km south of Oklo (figure 2). Today, water fills the Oklo mine’s pit, which was permitted to flood, even covering the sites of the reactors, after the mine’s uranium ore had been exploited. The fission process Figure 2. One of the uranium concentrations at Oklo.Image courtesy of the US Department of Energy (DoE)Nuclear fission begins when a nucleus deforms. The deformation may be produced when a nucleus absorbs a neutron, resulting in an excited nucleus with extra energy. The situation is often compared to a charged liquid drop. As the drop oscillates it may assume a peanut shape, which, because of the positive charge on both ends, then splits in two. The nuclear force of attraction between nuclear particles is short ranged, hence after the drop is split apart the only force left is the repulsive electrical force, and the two parts must repel each other. The two fragments then emit neutrons and photons. The neutrons may go on to cause more fissions. If the number of neutrons is enough, a selfsustaining chain reaction will result, which we call a nuclear reactor. One result of all this fission is a lot of fission fragments, i.e. smaller nuclei produced when the uranium splits. Any viable theory explaining the Oklo deposits must therefore be able to explain and correlate two sets of data. One is the amount of different forms (isotopes) of the fission-product elements remaining in the reactor at Oklo at present, and the other is the amount of uranium found in the ore. Both of these sets of data, plus a theory, gives us estimates of the amount of fission that has occurred, and both sets of data must result in the same estimate if the theory is correct. Reactor geometry—can it work? Some of the natural reactors are very thin slab-like deposits. They are, in fact, too thin to support a self-sustained nuclear reaction. However, compactification of sedimentary deposits over time typically reduces the thicknesses of strata by 50% or more, especially as the sediments dry out and/or expel water from pores.1-4 Whether the deposits originally had the right configuration to support sustained nuclear reactions is thus a difficult question. The evidence from element abundances There are approximately thirty elements and many isotopes of these elements which are produced as a result of fission. A large fraction of these elements were found in the Oklo ore, still present and immobilized. In most of the reactor zones, another fraction of the fission products probably dissolved and moved away due to water percolating through the ore. Studies by several workers seem to indicate that elements susceptible to ground water action, such as rubidium, strontium, cesium, barium, and cadmium, have been carried away. One element which did not leach away and was particularly suitable for numerical studies is the rare earth element neodymium. 5From these studies of neodymium we can estimate the number of fissions which must have occurred to produce the neodymium. We can also calculate independently, from the percentage of the uranium left at present as U-235 and the actual concentration of uranium, the amount of uranium that must have fissioned. These two ways of calculating the number of fissions must agree. In both creationist and evolutionary (old-earth) models, the answer comes out wrong—the apparent amount of fission that should have occurred does not come out equal to the amount that should have occurred to produce the neodymium. Part of the discrepancy is due to fission of Pu-239, decay of Pu-239 to U-235, fast neutron induced fission of U-238, and possible changes in the size and shape of the ore. When these factors are taken into account, the data are consistent with the hypothesis that a reactor produced the elements at Oklo, but the actual, detailed numerical comparison depends on mostly unknown distributions and their changes over time.An examination of element abundances in the remnant rocks show that the reactors operated by using surface and ground waters to moderate and reflect fission neutrons in order to sustain the chain reaction. Relatively recent work by Meshik et al.6 indicates that the reactors may have cycled on and off as groundwater concentrations were changed by the heating caused by the reactor and then replenished after the reactor shut down. Meshik et al. thought that the reactors may have operated for a half hour until accumulated heat boiled away the water, then shutting down for a couple of hours.7 How much energy did the reactors produce? The reactor power production turns out to be a bit different in various models. The total amount of energy that the Oklo reactor produced may have been as small as 440 MW-years according to the creation model with a young-earth assumption, and 15,000 MW-years in the conventional model with a 2-billion-years-ago assumption. By comparison, modern electric-power reactors, rated at 2000 to 3000 MW of thermal power, would have produced these amounts of energy in 2 months and 5 to 6 years, respectively, operating at full power. The evolution model requires more energy to have been produced since 2 billion years ago the percentage of uranium that is U-235 would have been 3% instead of 0.72%, with the

result that more fission had to occur. If one assumes accelerated decay has altered the relative uranium isotope abundances, then one can accommodate a larger power level for the reactors.This also brings up another apparent discrepancy. It is commonly stated by nuclear engineers that an ordinary water reactor with 0.72% U-235 fuel would not be able to maintain a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. However, this is not really a restriction on the Oklo reactor since: 1) the reactor does not have to produce continuous electrical power, but can instead operate in spurts, with the time in between being used to allow fission product “poisons” to decay; and 2) the RATE project results indicate that decay constants are variable and hence the actual percentage of 0.72% U-235 may not have been the actual value of this percentage even at the relatively recent ages suggested by creationist models. Evidence for changing constants Whether self-sustaining nuclear reactions are possible is dependent on several factors, including the leakage rate of neutrons from the reactor and the possible presence of so-called poisons. The presence of small amounts of boron or vanadium in the Oklo ore would have absorbed neutrons and thus served to prevent the chain reactions from ever occurring. Steve Lamoreaux and his Los Alamos colleague Justin Torgerson reported that the Oklo data are consistent with a slightly different value of the fine structure constant than today’s value. 8,9 However, the amount they specified was very small, only 4.5 x 10-6 %, and subject to possible future refinements. The data also provide constraints on changes in the strong coupling constant of nuclear forces. Summary In summary, study of the isotope abundances in Oklo reactor zones is not easy but definitely provides constraints on models of the history of radioisotopes on Earth. Trial balloons and the age of the earth by Tas Walker Geologist John Woodmorappe in his book The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods describes every age estimate as a trial balloon. When a scientist publishes an ‘age’, it is like releasing a balloon. If other scientists like his answer they will let the balloon float, but if they don’t like it they will shoot it down. 1The great physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin, 1824–1907) is famous for his age estimates of the earth. In the late 1800s, he was saying the earth was between 20 and 40 million years old. Of course Kelvin had not measured this age but calculated it using complicated physics and mathematics.2 He assumed the earth was first a molten blob and guessed all the details, like its initial temperature and conductivity. Based on these assumptions, he calculated the time for the blob to cool.Like a balloon, Kelvin released his estimate, and it floated around for decades. Many scientists liked his answer. It was consistent with calculations of the age of the sun by Hermann von Helmholtz (1821– 1894).3But many scientists disliked Kelvin’s answer. Evolutionary geologists thought 20 million years was far too short because they believed geological processes have always operated slowly. Evolutionary biologists, like Charles Darwin, were not happy either—there was not enough time for evolution. Darwin described Kelvin as his “sorest trouble” and said, “I require for my theoretical views a very long period before the Cambrian formation.”4 Discovery of radioactivity Things changed dramatically after 1896 when Henri Becquerel (1852–1908) discovered radioactivity. Those who preferred an older earth claimed that heat from radioactive decay deep within the earth meant it took vastly longer to cool. Thus, radioactivity allowed a different history for the earth— one that could extend for as long as geologists and biologists might need.5Radioactivity also allowed age calculations for individual rocks, and geologist Arthur Holmes (1890–1965) became famous for this. At age 21 he published his first uranium-lead result and recalculated ages from other workers’ data. His oldest ‘age’ was 1,640 million years,6 which was a vast increase on 20 million—indeed on any numbers previously published. The scientific community was incredulous.Yet, for all the confidence of those early workers, their calculations were based on ignorance. In those days they did not know there were two different uranium decay chains or different isotopes of uranium and lead. In fact, they did not know isotopes existed until 1913.That’s why every published date is a trial balloon. Assumptions are always made in ignorance. Every age result is always tentative, waiting for a new finding to shoot it down.Then, as more and more rocks were ‘dated’, the oldest ages gradually crept up to 3,000 million years, and beyond. A curious complication emerged in the late 1940s—the earth became twice as old as the universe. 7The age of the universe is another trial balloon—calculated from the Hubble constant, assuming the big-bang history. Edwin Hubble (1889– 1953) had such standing that no-one seriously questioned his value for the constant. So the problem was blamed on radioactive dating. Some astronomers even suggested that the radioactive decay rate had changed with time. But the astronomers eventually gave in. In the 1950s new measurements of the Hubble constant made the universe safely older than the earth. Clearly, ages arenot objective scientific measurements but based on assumptions and beliefs. You based the age on what? Clair Patterson (1922–1995) is the man credited with dating the currently accepted age of the earth. But there is an ironic twist. Patterson did not use earth rocks. He used meteorites! That’s because, by Patterson’s time, it was widely believed that the earth had accumulated from particles and rocks called ‘planetesimals’, 8 and that meteorites were junk left over from the earth’s formation.The age Patterson calculated was 4.55 billion years, plus or minus 70 million years. 9 He also produced a graph of the composition of lead from four meteorites and lead from modern ocean-floor sediment. Because the ocean-floor sample plotted on the same line as the meteorites, Patterson argued that they all formed from the same cosmic material.Prominent geologists, such as Arthur Holmes, were not happy. To use iron meteorites, they claimed, was wrong. 10 How can we know that the earth and the meteorites formed at the same time? How can we know they are both from the same material? We can’t.Even so, the number Patterson calculated in 1956 is still accepted today and universally quoted. His trial balloon is still floating.Yet, as more ocean floor sediments have been analyzed, it has been found that they do not all fall on the straight line but plot all over the place. 11 Furthermore, geologists are now saying the lead isotopes of the earth

have been reset by the formation of the earth’s core, which means Patterson used the wrong history for the earth.In spite of these and other problems, long-age scientists are still happy to work with 4.55 billion years. Actually, any number between 3 billion and 7 billion years would probably be okay for them, so 4.55 billion is a happy choice—and it looks precise and authoritative. It is large enough for the geologists and small enough for the astronomers. Everyone has plenty of time to work with, so there is nothing to gain by changing the number.But it is worth remembering that all ages are trial balloons. They are not objective. Certainly the measurements are objective but they are not measuring age. To calculate an age the scientist needs to assume the history of his sample—something he cannot objectively check. And his assumptions are based on his naturalistic belief about the world. A meaningless tragedy? Beliefs have consequences. From Mozambique, in his early twenties, geologist Arthur Holmes wrote home about the stars: “I felt somehow what a fearful meaningless tragedy the whole Universe appeared to be.” 12If naturalism is true, then Holmes was right—there is no meaning to this universe.However, the only way that we can reliably know what happened in the past is by the historical method. I know my age to the nearest day by this method. My birth certificate has my date of birth as recorded by eyewitnesses. We know when Napoleon lived by the same method. Flaws in dating the earth as ancient by Alexander R. Williams In 1986 the world’s leading science journal, Nature, announced that the most ancient rock crystals on earth, according to isotope dating methods, are 4.3 billion years old and come from Jack Hills in Western Australia.W. Compston and R.T. Pidgeon (Nature 321:766–769, 1986) obtained 140 zircon crystals from a single rock unit and subjected them to uranium/uranium concordia (U/U)1 and uranium/thorium concordia (U/Th)2 dating methods. One crystal showed a U/U date of 4.3 billion years, and the authors therefore claimed it to be the oldest rock crystal yet discovered.A serious problem here is that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit gave statistically valid information about that rock unit. 3 No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all the other 139. In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data.A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable. An unbiased observer would be forced to admit that this contradiction prevents any conclusion as to the age of the crystal. But these authors reached their conclusion by ignoring the contradictory data! If a scientist in any other field did this he would never be allowed to publish it. Yet here we have it condoned by the top scientific journal in the world. This is not an isolated case. I selected it because it was identified by the journal editors as a significant advance in knowledge. Another example is the work of F.A. Podosek, J. Pier, O. Nitoh, S. Zashu, and M. Ozima (Nature334:607–609, 1988). They found what might have been the world’s oldest rock crystals, but unfortunately they were too old!They extracted diamonds from rocks in Zaire and found by the potassium-argon method that they (the diamonds) were six billion years old. But the earth is supposed to be only 4.5 billion years old. So Podosek and friends decided they must be wrong. They admitted, however, that if the date had not been contradicted by the ‘known’ age of the earth, they would have accepted it as valid.This clearly shows two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating. First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter. Such a practice is not acceptable in any other field of science because it destroys the objectivity upon which science has built its reputation. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be.Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.When I presented this and similar criticisms of isotope dating to a gathering of the Lucas Heights Scientific Society (Sydney, Australia) in 1989, the only response that came from the chief of the division responsible for isotope dating at the Australian Nuclear Science andTechnology Organization was the question, ‘Do you have a better dating method?’I said ‘No’, and he appeared to be satisfied that if there are no better methods of dating, then these are good enough. But can you ride a bicycle into the past simply because no one else has a better time-machine? Of course not. In the same way it is absurd to argue that an inadequate method is adequate because nothing better is available.4 National Geographic plays the dating game by John Woodmorappe Summary A recent National Geographic article fails to portray the commonly used age-determination methods either accurately or objectively. The fact that the readership largely consists of unsuspecting laypeople makes this all the more inexcusable. All dating methods related to the unobservable past rely on unverifiable assumptions, chief of which is the one about closed systems. Furthermore, all dating methods involve the subjective evaluation of data and results, so much so, that their veracity must seriously be questioned. Recent attempts to extend the radiocarbon ( 14C) dating method back in time provide an instructive example of how age determinations are manipulated.National Geographic magazine (NG), an American periodical, is well known worldwide for its beautiful photographs and outstanding depictions of nations and cultures.1 Owing to its usual excellence, it has been translated into several languages.Unfortunately, and especially so in recent years, National Geographic magazine has increasingly deviated from the subject of geography and become a virtual propaganda mouthpiece for evolutionary speculations. Its pro-evolutionary fanaticism has led to a severe lack of discernment, even extending to pushing frauds, such as the ‘Piltdown Bird’ it called Archaeoraptor, which they claimed (before publishing a far less prominent retraction) as ‘proof’ that dinosaurs evolved into birds—see Archaeoraptor — Phony ‘feathered’ fossil.Many years ago, its promotion of Zinjanthropus boisei as an ‘ape-man’ and even the ‘missing link’ had a great effect on the young (9-yr-old) Carl Wieland. Now even evolutionists have abandoned this creature, now calledParanthropus, as a missing link, but the effect was profound at the time. Later, as an adult and ex-evolutionist, Dr Wieland was determined to produce a magazine as high in outward quality but promoting the truth— hence Creationmagazine was born.A recent NG article2 has presented the unsuspecting reader with a totally one-sided and uncritical portrayal of the dating methods used by conventional (uniformitarian) geologists. Evidently, NG is now being pressed into service as a cheerleader for the dogmas of the old Earth and Universe. Dates: assumptions and data manipulation National Geographic hardly mentions a word about the many dubious assumptions of isotopic dating (see also Q&A: Radiometric Dating). To rectify this situation, I briefly outline here some of the many fallacies of isotopic dating 3 and discuss some recent developments in the field of age determination.The NG article lumps all dating methods together, regardless of

their assumptions or the span of time supposedly measured by the dating method. Implicitly, it seems there is a deceptive equating of different dating methods. That is, the article discusses forensic entomology, the use of certain insects’ life cycles to help determine how long a human corpse or skeleton had been buried. However, we can follow the insects’ life stages in their entirety. By contrast, dating methods that are alleged to measure geologic events of millions and billions of years clearly depend on unverified and unverifiable assumptions. Who was there when the universe or Earth formed?The Hubble Constant is highlighted in the National Geographic article, and conventionally accepted cosmogonies are presented as proof for the old age of the Universe. Alternate interpretations are not even hinted at, despite many flaws in conventional big bang cosmology. Similarly, the National Geographic article tells the reader that the oldest rock from Earth dates at 4.03 billion years. This is not true. There have been much ‘older’ dates obtained, by various dating methods and from different locations on Earth, some of which exceed 10 billionyears. Nevertheless, because the age of the Earth is conventionally accepted at 4.6 billion years, these older ‘dates’ have been ignored or explained away.All isotopic dating methods are based on the radioactive decay of certain nuclides and the associated production of daughter isotopes. How can we be certain that radioactive decay rates have not changed in the past? The NG article assures the reader that they have been constant for all time. Actually, it was once believed that external physical processes could only alter decay rates, at most, by a few percent. Now we realize that there are physical processes capable of hugely changing radioactive decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes. In fact, stripping an atom entirely of electrons has speeded up beta decay by a factor of a billion. If we assume a different history of the early Universe, it is possible that at least the Re-Os and Lu-Hf ‘clocks’ produced billions of years worth of radiogenic isotopes in only one day. Nuclear physicists Drs Eugene Chaffin and Russell Humphreys suggest that the nuclear decay rate was highly accelerated and possibly during the Flood year. They support this theoretically by applying quantum mechanics and the effect of the Universe’s expansion, and evidentially by the amount of helium still retained in minerals, and radiohalos.4All dating methods assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. There is no way of knowing if this was the case. Moreover, whenever dates obtained from rocks are not acceptable to existing geologic theories, the assumptions are suddenly reversed, and we are told that those particular rocks must have become open systems! Obviously, uniformitarian geologists want to have it both ways.Open system behavior has been investigated experimentally by heating igneous rocks. The results have been used to argue that, apart from exceptional situations (where rocks are heated up to at least several hundred degrees Centigrade), it is very difficult for rocks to become open systems. However, we now realize that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can readily move chemical species from one rock system to another.5 Even rocks which show no microscopic evidence of alteration often give ‘impossible’ dates, so uniformitarian geologists tell us that these rocks have become open systems—even when independent evidence is completely absent.Conventional (uniformitarian) geologists usually claim that, if dates are consistent, this proves closed systems. But, to begin with, the majority of dates are not consistent for the same rock. Second, the claims about consistency, despite their intuitive appeal, are themselves assumptions, and some of these assumptions have already been proved incorrect. For instance, it had long been supposed that if the data points formed a straight line on an ‘isochron graph’ then the resultant ‘date’ was valid. But now we know that meaningless isochrons can be ‘inherited’ from pre-existing rocks. Furthermore, the points on an isochron can be rotated during subtle open-system events yet still maintaina straight line on the graph. Third, uniformitarian geologists violate their own principle when they reject ‘impossible’ dates even if they are consistent with each other.It is not generally realised that most dates obtained from rocks are thrown out for one reason or another. This sobering fact is not even vaguely hinted at in the NG article. Sometimes it is claimed that geologists know which date is valid and which is not, but there are many situations when there are conflicting dates. Even uniformitarian geologists themselves cannot agree which date to accept and which to reject. So much for that claim! Some examples of conflicting dates are:Charred wood, buried by a basalt lava flow, was 14C-‘dated’ at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was K-Ar ‘dated’ at 37 million years old. See Radioactive ‘Dating’ in Conflict!The Hawkesbury Sandstone is assigned a Middle Triassic ‘age’ of around 225–230 million, yet it contained fossil wood with 14C activity, although this should be non-existent if the wood were truly more than about 100,000 years old. See Dating Dilemma.Isotopic dates carry a great deal of self-congratulatory baggage. For instance, the NG article mentions uranium-lead dates from zircons as having survived multiple cycles of igneous processes (like bricks can be reused to construct more than one building). But there is usually no independent way of knowing this, and the inheritedzircon rationalization is invoked, after-the-fact, whenever zircons give U-Pb dates that are older than expected for the rock. In other words, instead of questioning the validity of the dating method, uniformitarians tell us that the zircon minerals originally crystallized in some older rock, but had become freed and entrapped in the younger magma, which eventually became their present host igneous rock!We sometimes hear the claim that the dates must be valid because they give dates in the millions and billions of years. But modern lavas frequently give anomalously old dates in the millions to billions of years. For example:Several 20th century andesite lava flows from Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand gave potassium-argon (K-Ar) ‘dates’ from <0.27 to 3.5 million years. See Radioactive dating failure.A 1986 dacite lava dome at Mt St Helens volcano gave a (K-Ar) ‘date’ of method as 0.35 ± 0.5 million years old. See Radio-dating in rubble.I have yet to hear a uniformitarian suggest that this proves that modern lava flows are actually millions to billions of years old!Nor has it been proved that there is a consistent trend between isotopic dates and the relative dates of the fossil-bearing rocks. To evaluate this claim, we would have to see all of the dates obtained (note that most discrepant dates are not published) and these would have to be weighted for the size of the igneous outcrop. Only then could we say whether there is a ‘younging-up’ trend of isotopic dates relative to the claimed progressively younger fossils. And even if such a trend actually exists, it could potentially be explained through geochemical processes without any of the dates themselves being valid age-indicators at all. Some Recent Developments in ‘Age Determination’ I now focus on those dating methods which are claimed to give dates from several thousand years to about 1 million years, as these are cited in the National Geographic article, particularly with reference to presumed human evolution.Let us consider attempts to check carbon-14 dates with other supposed indicators of time. It was recently claimed that a count of presumably annual varves at Lake Suigetsu, Japan, agreed with 14C dates to at least 38,000 years before the present.6 Conventional uniformitarian thinking would maintain that this agreement is powerful evidence for the accuracy of the dates: After all, we have agreement between two completely independent dating systems. Furthermore, one of the dating methods does not even require radioactive decay.Well, not so fast, as it recently has turned out. As dates from other ‘time indicators’ became available, the majority of them strongly disagreed with 14C. These new dates typically gave values as much as 10,000 years older than carbon-14 (within the 14C range of dates spanning 30,000 to 40,000 years before the present).7 Note that these dates are published, and so are presumably the ‘good’ dates. So what is to be done with the data from Lake Suigetsu? As always, whenever an age determination falls out of favor, a rationalization must be invoked to justify

its rejection. As documented in my earlier-cited works, 3 there exists an elaborate Orwellian language for routinely dealing with unwanted dates. In the case of Lake Suigetsu, a set of ‘missing varves’ was invoked. 8But what if the Lake Suigetsu data remains favored, for one reason or another? Never fear. Other rationalizations are available, just in case, for the data that disagrees with the Lake Suigetsu 14C chronology. These include incorrect initial- 230Th correction for the 230Th dates, unsupported gain or loss of uranium or thorium, a variety of possible errors in the correlation of deep-sea cores, etc.9 Conclusion National Geographic magazine has only presented the positive spin about the dating methods. Of course, it is hardly alone in its rosy portrayal of age-determination methods. Owing to the centrality of the old-Earth dogma in our culture, the maintenance of public belief in dating methods is of the utmost priority. On this basis, it is hardly surprising that the unsuspecting layperson, as well as the innocent child in the classroom, is taught that the dates that are determined by the dating methods are Gospel truth. It is all the more important for creationist scientists to expose the flawed claims of all the presumed methods of age determination, and to get the word out to the general public about this misinformation.

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE RADIOACTIVE DECAY RATE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN CONSTANT Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory by John Woodmorappe (a) Atom showing the 1s electron orbital. The orbital is full. (b) The same atom in a completely ionised state. The atom has been stripped of its electrons. The energy required to escape an atom when the electron shell is filled (a) is greater than the energy required for the electron to jump to a vacant spot in an electron shell (b). r* is the distance from nucleus where finding an electron is most probable. For a 1s orbital r*=a0/Z where a0 = Bohr radius @ 52.9 pm; Z=atomic number.Our understanding of ostensibly long-lived radioactive ‘clocks’, in the light of the CreationistDiluvialist paradigm, must necessarily consider both geologic and physical factors. Among the latter are decay-rate changes, and these may include a variety of superimposed processes occurring at the same or at different times in the several-thousand year history of the universe. Up to now, creationist research has summarized evidences of small decay-rate changes, as well as theoretical analyses suggestive of the possibility of more extreme changes in radioactive decay rates (the latter usually dependent upon corresponding changes in fundamental physical constants1). Here I report the experimental demonstration of radioactive decay-rate acceleration by an astonishing nine orders of magnitude. It requires special conditions but, in and of itself, no alteration of known physical constants.This acceleration can occur under beta (negatron) decay. During β decay itself, a neutron changes into a proton, electron and electron-antineutrino, and the electron is expelled as a negative beta particle (β– —often written without the negative sign, but sometimes it is necessary to distinguish it from the rarer positive beta or positron decay β+). Because the protons in the nucleus and the β particles have opposite charges, they attract each other, and the β– must therefore acquire sufficient kinetic energy to overcome this attraction in order to escape the nucleus. This has been likened to a particle having sufficient energy to crash through the walls of a well. 2 In some β– emitters, the successful escape of a β– particle into the continuum is a relatively infrequent occurrence—hence the inferred long half life (t½) of the nuclide. Accelerated β decay The foregoing discussion assumes that electrons surround the nucleus, which of course is nearly always the case. For over 50 years, however, some theoreticians had suggested that negatron decay could be altered in the case of a nucleus bereft of its electrons (as occurs in a plasma state). Perhaps the β – particle attempting to leave a bare nucleus would have to overcome a much lower threshold of kinetic energy than if the electrons were present. The fleeing β – particle could take refuge in a vacant electron orbital around the nucleus instead of attempting to escape all the way into the continuum. This process is called bound-state β – decay (or βb decay). Subsequently, theoretical analyses 3 suggested that a significant perturbation of radioactive decay rates could occur in the nuclides of 25 different elements as a consequence of βb decay. Experimental demonstration of the actual existence of βb decay, however, did not occur until the 1990s. 163Dy, a stable nuclide under normal-Earth conditions, was found to decay to 163Ho, with t½ = 47 days, under the bare-nucleus conditions of the completely ionized state.4 More recently, βb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the rhenium-osmium (187Re187 Os) system. (The Re-Os method is one of the isotopic ‘clocks’ used by uniformitarian geologists 5 to supposedly date rocks.) The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of only 33 years. 6 This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga = giga-annum = a billion (109) years). A Creation scenario The atoms which will subsequently be assembled into all of the matter that will constitute all of the objects in the physical universe, He first creates them all in a completely ionised state (i.e. nuclei alone). This plasma persists for several hours on the First Day, during which time bb decay freely takes place under the bare-nucleus conditions of all of the atoms. This process, though, is insufficient by itself to generate billions of years’ worth of excess 187Os.7 However, if there were a simultaneous weakening of the presently-existing nuclear force, as suggested by Humphreys, 8 the Re-Os ‘clock’ would be accelerated another few orders of magnitude. Not only the Re-Os clock, but probably many other radioactive (and even stable) nuclides would experience appreciable amounts of bb decay under the bare-nucleus conditions of the plasma. We note that the potential or actual βb decay gives a large ‘head start’ to extreme accelerations of radioactive decay. Thus the postulated weakening of the nuclear force7 may need to be far less drastic than originally supposed (when assumed to be acting upon non-ionized atoms) to generate billions of years’ worth of decay products in several hours.It turns out that βb decay is not the only mechanism by which some ostensibly long-age ‘clocks’ can experience major accelerations in radioactive decay rate. Consider the lutetium-hafnium (176Lu-176Hf) system, which is relatively new, and which is infrequently

used by uniformitarian geologists to supposedly date rocks. 9 At very high temperatures, part of the 176Lu decay to 176Hf bypasses the conventional slow route, and goes into an isomeric state which has a half-life of only 3.68 hours. 10 In other words, part of the 176Lu decay experiences an alternative decay mode to 176Hf which represents, in effect, a shortcut that is 14 orders of magnitude faster than the conventional 176Lu decay (t½ = 41 Ga). Moreover, in this particular instance, no changes in the nuclear force are necessary. Extreme temperatures suffice, and the greater they are, the shorter the effective half life of 176Lu decay to 176Hf. In terms of specifics, at temperatures below about 200 million K, t ½ remains unperturbed at about 41 Ga. But, over the interval of 200 to 300 MK, the effective t ½ drops precipitously (by nearly 10 orders of magnitude), then begins to level off asymptotically at still higher temperatures. Thus, at 600 MK, the effective t ½ of 176Lu is only about 8 days! 11 This is short enough that if, as discussed earlier, all of the atoms in the universe had been created in a very hot state —which just means very high kinetic energies—(and maintained that way for several hours on the First Day), all the excess 176Hf in existence would have been generated within that short period.The rapidly-accumulated products of the accelerated radioactive decay subsequently became part of every object in the created universe, albeit at differing concentrations.The modern uniformitarian geologist misreads this deployment of the radiogenic isotopes as isochrons indicative of up to billions of years to time. This span of time never happened. Conclusion This exciting demonstration that isotopic ‘clocks’ can be accelerated at least a billion-fold is good news to creationist scholars. It raises fundamental questions about the temporal stability of isotopic ‘clocks’. What else have we failed to consider in terms of the physics of radioactive decay? The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open. Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment by Tas Walker Fig 1: The radioactive isotope, 7Be, decays when a proton captures an electron from one of the shells and becomes a neutron. The new isotope, 7Li, has the same mass number but one less proton. After the electron is captured from the inner shell, one of the electrons in the outer shells will move to fill the vacancy and produce the most stable configuration. (Legend for particles: proton +, electron -, neutron blank.)Radioactive dating is claimed to prove that the earth is billions of years old, but the methods are based on a number of unprovable assumptions. For example, it is assumed that radioactive decay rates have not changed in the past. Specifically, geochronologists assume that radioactive decay rates are unaffected by physical conditions like temperature and pressure. They also assume they are independent of the chemical environment. The atomic nucleus is extremely tiny compared with the overall size of the atom—about 100,000 times smaller in diameter. Since the nucleus is located at the centre of the atom, it is well shielded by the surrounding electrons from external physical and chemical conditions. Radioactive decay, being a nuclear process, is thus considered to be independent of external conditions. The constancy of decay rate is a foundational assumption of the whole radioactive dating methodology. Faure states:‘ … there is no reason to doubt that the decay constants of the naturally occurring long-lived radioactive isotopes used for dating are invariant and independent of the physical and chemical conditions to which they have been subjected …’1 One of the modes of radioactive decay, electron capture, occurs when a proton in the nucleus of an atom spontaneously captures an electron from one of the shells 2 and becomes a neutron.3 The mass of the atom remains the same but the atomic number decreases by one. Electron capture is the only radioactive decay mode that is recognised as possibly being affected by physical conditions such as pressure, but the effect is considered insignificant and is ignored. 1However, a recent paper about the decay of beryllium-7 ( 7Be) has found that, contrary to previous thinking, the chemical environment noticeably affects the half-life of radioactive decay by electron capture. 4 Beryllium is a rare, hard, light metallic element in the second column of the periodic table—an alkaline earth element. Its nucleus contains four protons, and the usual stable form also contains five neutrons, and thus has a mass number of nine. There is a lighter isotope of beryllium with a mass number of seven, with only three neutrons in its nucleus. The lighter isotope is unstable and decays to Lithium-7 ( 7Li) by electron capture (Figure 1). The energy released in this process is mostly emitted as a gamma ray. The half life of 7Be is about 53 days.In the recent paper, geochemist Chih-An Huh reported that the decay rate of 7Be depends on its chemical form.4The measurements were done at the unprecedented high precision of ±0.01%, some ten times better than any reported previously. An extremely sensitive and stable spectrometer was used to monitor gamma rays from the decay of 7Be. Three different chemical forms of 7Be were measured, the hydrated Be2+ ion in solution surrounded by four water molecules ([Be(H2O)4]2+), the hydroxide (Be(OH)2), and the oxide (BeO). The measured half lives were 53.69 days, 53.42 days and 54.23 days respectively—a 1.5% variation from the shortest to the longest. The variation is much greater than previously considered.Creationists, for many years, have disputed the billions of years from radioactive dating calculations because they conflict with the young time-scale. One assumption they have challenged is the constancy of decay rates. Curiously, Richard Kerr has picked up this scepticism in his report of Huh’s findings, and makes a particular point of addressing creationists:‘Creationists hoping to trim geologic history to young age proportions will be disappointed—the variations seen so far are much too small, just a percent or so, to affect the Earth’s overall time scale.’ 5Despite these comments, the 1.5% variation in the half-life of 7Be due to chemical environment was a surprise, and shows that the previous assumption that rates are constant is not correct. One of the most widely used geological dating methods, the radioactive decay of 40K to 40Ar, nearly always occurs by electron capture.6 The effect of chemical environment on the decay rate for 40K should be less than for 7Be because potassium has extra electrons in outer shells. These electrons would shield those inner electrons that are more vulnerable to electron capture from the external chemical environment. The important question, though, is what factors may have controlled the distribution of radioactive isotopes within the rocks of the earth.Creationists have good reason to believe there is something wrong with the explanation that isotopes are due to billions of years of radioactive decay.7 This is not a blind faith—there are scores of geological evidences indicating that the earth is young. 8 Changes in decay rates are only one possible explanation and will probably not be the complete answer. Many other factors need to be investigated. For

example, we need to explore how isotopes behave deep within the earth during partial melting, and also in magma-rock systems during crystallisation. Creationists are actively investigating these and other pertinent areas as time and funds allow.9 Helium evidence for a young world continues to confound critics Published: 29 November 2008(GMT+10) This week we feature a response by CMI scientist-speaker Russ Humphreys to six years of criticism of one part of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) creationist research initiative (1997–2005): Figure 1. Drilling rig at Fenton Hill, New Mexico, USA. My part of the RATE initiative, in collaboration with fellow RATE researchers Steve Austin, John Baumgardner, and Andrew Snelling, was to explain the remarkable retention of helium observed in radioactive crystals in granitic rocks. I showed that the retention is evidence that the usual radioactivity-based billion-year ages for such rocks are grossly wrong, and that the rocks are only 6000 (± 2000) years old. Even before I finished the project, critics began sniping at it. The critics are usually atheists or professing Christians with various old-earth views. They are very disturbed about the project’s strong support of the young age of the earth. Table 1 lists their criticisms and my responses. In September, 2008, another such criticism appeared on a ‘progressive creation’ website, and I’ll discuss it below.The criticisms show the attackers think the research is good enough to be a threat to them.He apparently uses the criticisms to help believers evaluate our research, just as an assayer uses acid (and a bright light) to show there is gold in a sample.None of the critics listed below have published their denunciations in peer-reviewed scientific publications. Instead they are ‘lone-ranger’ opinions in un-reviewed venues such as Internet sites and seminars. This contrasts starkly with the RATE helium project. It was a multi-author effort, and it had more than seventeen reviewers and editors as it appeared in five technical publications, one of which is non-creationist.1–5 The evidence the critics want to hide Figure 2. Microscopic zircons used in this research. Here’s what the nay-sayers are trying to obscure. (For details, see the technical resources referenced above, or several non-technical resources.6,7) Decades ago, Robert Gentry analyzed tiny zircon (zirconium silicate) crystals recovered by drilling in hot Precambrian (over 545 million years old according to the geologic timescale) ‘basement’ rock in New Mexico.8 Figure 1 shows the drilling rig and site. Figure 2 shows some of the zircons Gentry 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 produce was still in the zircons. 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 mathematics 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 of two models) during which it had been lost. That gives us the leak rates for each model. 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 3. Model-predicted (red and magenta diamonds) and measured (blue dots) helium leak rates (‘Diffusivity’) of zircons. The data fit the 6,000-year prediction very well. Figure 3 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 in the earth. 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’. They show the 95% confidence limits I estimated for the accuracy of the predictions. 10In 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 the company 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 were eagerly awaiting the data, which we received in 2003. Figure 3 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.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 five 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 happened to fall right on our prediction, despite a low probability of doing so by accident. All the critics have avoided dealing with that issue. List of critics and my responses Here is a table summarizing all the criticisms (plus two friendly questions) of the RATE helium research I know of since 2002, along with my answers. See references for venues of criticisms and replies. No.

Date

Critic (or Main Criticisms commenter)

1

10/2002

Joe Meert11

Mistook ‘–196°C’12 for ‘closure It was not closure temperature, sign was temperature’ with wrong sign. correct, and Meert totally misunderstood its significance.13

2

9/2003

Hugh Ross14

Said, ‘Helium is slippery.’

3

12/2003

*****16

Alleged that interface Analysis of interface phenomena shows phenomena are significant. they are insignificant.17

4

1/2004

Keith Wanser18

Similar to above, but from a Same as above. YEC.

5

6/2004

Hugh Ross19

Asserted that helium came into Minerals surrounding the zircons have far the zircons from outside them. less helium and uranium than the zircons, showing the helium did not come from outside the zircons.20

6

12/2004

(George Drake)21

(Friendly) concern about Analysis of pressure differences shows possible differences of they are insignificant.22 pressure between biotite and zircon

7

12/2004

(Robert Brown)23 (Friendly) concern about lead Lead diffusion rates, while interesting, are diffusion from zircons irrelevant to helium diffusion rates.24

8

3/2005

Kevin Henke25

Disputed about % retention, Effects of all of these issues turn out to be source of helium, and minor vastly smaller than the factor of 100,000 issues discrepancy observed.26

9

3/2005

Roger Wiens27

Alleged that accumulation over Effect turns out to be only a factor of two, time of radiation defects in within our error bars, and again vastly zircons is significant smaller than the factor of 100,000 discrepancy observed.28

10

11/2005

Kevin Henke29

Alleged that in situ hydrostatic Zircons are so hard that pressure or pressure effect is significant. vacuum doesn’t affect helium diffusion significantly.30

11

3/2008

Randy Isaac31

Claimed that a detailed history of site temperature is necessary to understand leak rates.

12

9/2008

Gary Loechelt33

Claimed that during past eons, ‘Lower leak rate’ misunderstands leak rates were much slower, experiments; ‘cooler site’ misunderstands and site was very much cooler. published Los Alamos heat flow models.

Main Replies

Yes … ‘slippery’ is what we want, in order to date zircons by the rate with which helium slips out of them.15

We assumed lower temperatures than Los Alamos Ice Age heat flow models, thus giving uniformitarians their best possible case.32

Table 1. Criticisms and Responses My referenced responses to items 8 and 10 cover most of the criticisms that have been made. Many people do not realize that I have answered item 10, dealing with pressure/vacuum effects.Item 12 is the most recent criticism, and I will reply to it briefly here. In September 2008, Gary Loechelt, who has a Ph.D. in materials science and engineering, posted a two-part criticism on a ‘progressive creationist’ website, along with a technical article which apparently has been neither peerreviewed nor published (though perhaps rejected by a journal).34 His main claims were: (A) One or two percent of the helium in a zircon is not tightly bound in the crystal, but rather loosely attached in the crystal’s cracks and defects. This ‘loose’ helium can therefore diffuse out of the zircon very easily in a laboratory measurement.

(B) The loose helium, he claims, caused the laboratory measurements to make the zircons appear much more leaky than they actually are. Loechelt is right in claim (A), but wrong in claim (B). He overlooked part of one of his own quotes, in which an expert pointed out that loose helium would only affect the initial steps of the laboratory measurement, because after the initial steps the loose helium would be gone. That is one reason diffusion experts recommend ignoring the initial steps. Our experimenter recommended that, and that is exactly what we did. 35Thus he felt free to tell us that the rates he measured were accurate depictions of the leakiness for the other 98% of the helium. Ironically, our expert is one of those that Loechelt cites in his section about this issue. Loechelt either completely misunderstood the experts, or he deliberately distorted their meaning. If leak rates were really much lower than measured, the past temperature history of the zircons would become much more important. That’s because colder site temperatures would make Loechelt’s low leakages even lower, giving him a chance to retain the helium for billions of years. But even on temperatures, Loechelt shows a remarkable ability to misunderstand the experts. He fails to grasp the essence of the published Los Alamos heat flow models, which is that due to nearby volcanic activity in the past they imagine, temperatures in our borehole would have been higher than today for hundreds of millennia. Instead, Loechelt insists, temperatures were always lower. But even assuming (for the sake of argument) his lower temperatures, a few hundred thousand years of the laboratory leak rates would wipe out essentially all the helium from the zircons … in contrast to the high amounts observed. That is why, in addition to assuming a cooler site, Loechelt must deny the laboratory measurements and imagine much lower leak rates.Loechelt also whacks away at some of my calculations. If he were correct, my calculations might have to be adjusted by a factor of two or so. But that would still be within the error bars of the models. Worse for him, it would still be far short of explaining the factor of 100,000 discrepancy between the uniformitarian model and experiments! Help for non-experts in deciding Don’t forget that there is an easy way you can understand who is correct in all the arguments. Just take another look at Figure 3. We published the ‘6,000 year’ model (red diamonds) in the year 2000. The experimenter, not knowing what answer we wanted, produced the blue data dots in the graph in 2003. The close fit of the model and the experiment is strong evidence that both are essentially correct, because the probability of an accidental fit is low. You don’t need to be an expert to understand that.Another simple point is the number of critics and the long time they’ve been criticizing. Each one was unsatisfied enough with the previous criticisms (most are familiar enough with the others to borrow their arguments occasionally) to take the time to attack the helium data on their own.As for me, the critics have increased my confidence. My feeling after working through each criticism has been, ‘Is that the best they can do? They must not have been able to find a real error of any importance. Argon diffusion data support RATE’s 6,000-year helium age of the earth by D. Russell Humphreys Here I present a new analysis of old (1986) argon retention data from the same borehole that provided helium retention data for the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) research initiative. 1 The deepest part (4.56 km) of the borehole was hot enough to cause more than a 20% loss of radioactivity-generated argon-40 from feldspar in the granitic basement rock, conventionally dated to be 1.5 Ga old. Data and equations from the 1986 article show that at the present temperature (313°C) at that depth, it would take only 5,100 (+3,800/-2,100) years for the feldspar to lose that much argon. This supports the 6,000 (± 2,000) year helium diffusion age that RATE found for zircons in the same borehole.

Old article interprets argon data oddly Figure 1. Drilling rig for borehole GT-2 at Fenton Hill, New Mexico, USA, which provided the zircons used in the RATE helium project and the feldspar whose argon is the basis for this study.In a recent letter to this journal, 2 Gary Loechelt, a critic of the RATE helium project, focused my attention on a paper about past temperatures in the borehole (figure 1) that provided the helium data we used. In 1986 theJournal of Geophysical Research published the article,3 by T. Mark Harrison, Paul Morgan, and David D. Blackwell, three geoscientists at three U.S. universities. It was one of three articles I had cited about the temperature issue. Readers can see my detailed review of all three articles in my recent letter replying to Loechelt. 4 As I focused on the 1986 article, I saw that it appeared to ignore the heat that a nearby volcano would have provided to the borehole during the alleged one million years (1.04 Ma) since its last ash eruption. Instead, its authors thought (along with Loechelt) that the temperatures in the borehole were relatively low, e.g. at 2.9 km depth falling below 130°C 870 Ma ago and reaching 87°C more than a million years ago. Then only twenty thousand years ago, they claimed, the temperatures rose dramatically, by more than 100°C, up to the high values observed today.This seemed quite odd to me, especially since a 1978 study5 by the authors’ Los Alamos colleagues showed that the nearby volcano would heat the borehole up to within 50°C of today’s temperatures, maintaining that high temperature for (allegedly) the last 0.8 Ma. The temperature would have been a lot more if the magma body causing the volcano had been somewhat closer to the borehole than they assumed in that model. Confirming the latter, a 1989 study6 of fluid inclusions in the rock gave data (not theory) that past temperatures in the borehole had peaked at levels about 50°C higher than today’s levels. By conventional uniformitarian dating, the peak

would have been about 0.9 Ma ago. I would have thought that Harrison et al. would be quite aware of the possibility of such heating from the volcano. So why did they want the borehole to be relatively cool (e.g. 87°C at a depth of 2.9 km) until very recently? Why did they ignore the volcano?I will show below that it was probably because they knew borehole minerals could not have retained the observed large percentages of argon for hundreds of millennia at anywhere near today’s high borehole temperatures. Much more argon would have diffused out of the minerals. Here I will show that their argon diffusion data favor an age of only 5,100 (+3,800/-2,100) years. That strongly supports the helium diffusion age RATE found for zircons in the same borehole, 6,000 (± 2,000) years. 7 Experimenters measured leak rates of argon in feldspar from GT-2 Figure 2. Microcline feldspar from Colorado. Impurities in this variety (amazonite) color the normally-white crystals blue-green. Black crystals are smoky quartz.The deep Precambrian granitic ‘basement’ rock from borehole GT-2 contains not only zircons, but also a potassium-bearing feldspar called microcline (K Al Si3 O8, figure 2). The potassium is mostly the stable isotope 39K, but as with all natural potassium, about 0.01% of it is the radioactive isotope 40K. The latter decays (with a present half-life of 1.25 Ga) into two daughter atoms, one of which is the stable argon isotope 40Ar. So if a researcher finds out how much potassium is in the feldspar, he can use the 40Ar in it to try to estimate the age of the mineral.Harrison et al. took samples of feldspar from five depths (table 1) in the borehole. Then they put them into a nuclear reactor for a calibrated length of time. The neutrons in the reactor convert some of the stable 39K into 39Ar. The latter is not stable, but its 269-year half-life is long enough to allow researchers to use it to estimate the amount of 39K in the sample. Comparing that with the 40Ar in the sample is the basis of the ‘argon-argon’ variety of potassium-argon dating.8,9Then, in a vacuum chamber, they heated each sample in 50°C steps and measured how much of each argon isotope was released during each step. That gives the diffusivity D (‘leakiness’) of argon moving through and out of the Feldspar at that temperature. More specifically, the rate of outgassing (fraction of the eventual total lost per unit time) gives values of D/a2 directly as a ratio, where a is the average radius of the crystals (or ‘diffusion half width’, which the authors symbolized with an l). Harrison and his co-workers fit the values of D/a2 to the following equation: Figure 3. ‘Age spectrum’ for sample 5 (4.56 km), giving40Ar/39Ar ratio released from the sample during heating steps. Lightly-shaded area represents 40Ar lost from the feldspar due to heating in situ. The dark-shaded area represents 40Ar that remained in the sample until it was heated to higher temperatures in the laboratory.where R is the gas constant (1.986 calories per mole-Kelvin), T is the absolute temperature in Kelvin, D0 is the ‘frequency factor’, and E is the ‘activation energy’. The last two parameters are constant with temperature for any given sample, but are often different for samples from different locations. Here the authors got one set of values ofD0/a2 and E for depths 1, 2, and 3, and a different set of values for depths 4 and 5. I’ve shown both sets of values in table 1.The authors’ report of the argon diffusivities leaves something to be desired for my purpose of determining age. They show (in figure 3) only the diffusivity data for depths 1, 2, and 3, not for depths 4 and 5. They report error bars for the former set but not for the latter, saying only that the parameters of eq. (1) for the two deeper samples are “~ 8,000 s -1” and “~ 44 kcal mol-1”. That suggests the fit, normally to a straight line on a plot of ln(D/a2) versus 1/T, was not too good for samples 4 and 5. Perhaps that is because the slope of the fit starts to decrease at lower temperatures. Such a decrease is very common in naturally-occurring minerals.10 In support of that idea, their figure 3 does not show any diffusion data at lower temperatures, showing only a straight-line fit from 700°C down to 400°C. Therefore the values of D/a2 in table 1 for the three shallowest depths, being extrapolated beyond the data down to rather low temperatures, are probably lower than the real numbers. However, it turns out that I only need data for the fifth sample, at 313°C. That is not far below the low end of the temperature range of the fitted data, so the extrapolated value in the table should be good enough. Feldspar from hottest parts of borehole lost some argon In the laboratory, the first argon emerging from a sample comes from the outermost parts of the crystals. Argon emerging later comes from deeper within the crystals. The 39Ar, having been produced in the reactor from 39K, is uniformly distributed throughout the crystals. But the40Ar comes from 40K decaying in situ over a long time. If any 40Ar has leaked out of the crystals in situ, it will have come from the outer parts first. So any diffusion taking place down in the hot rock will leave the outer parts of the feldspar crystals depleted in 40Ar.Harrison et al. examined this issue by plotting ‘age spectra’ in their figure 2. Their graph showed, for each of the five samples, the 40Ar-based ‘age’ on the vertical axis and the percent (of the eventual total) 39Ar released on the horizontal axis. My figure 3 reproduces the curve for the deepest sample, number 5, adding the shading and annotation. The ‘age’ values of course depend on the assumption that nuclear decay rates have always been at their present slow rates. The peak of 1,160 Ma shows that over ‘one billion years’ worth’ of 40K to 40Ar decay occurred in situ. RATE hypothesized that occurred during several episodes of accelerated nuclear decay in the past, the more recent one being during the year of the Flood. We also hypothesized an accelerated cooling mechanism that would get rid of much of the resulting radiogenic heat.11Figure 2 by Harrison et al. shows that the curves for samples 1, 2, and 3 rose almost immediately to their maximum value. They estimated that sample 3 had lost less than 2% of its 40Ar, and that samples 1 and 2 lost even less than that. Sample 4 showed a somewhat slower rise, representing a nominal 5% loss. But the authors thought that value was small enough to have been greatly perturbed by other factors:

“The combination of the small amount of 40Ar* [asterisk indicates radiogenic] together with some absorbed excess 40Ar … results in poor resolution of the outgassing event.” However, the authors have more confidence in the estimate of the losses from the fifth sample (the one I show in my figure 3 above): “This sample has apparently lost about 20% 40Ar* in response to the recently elevated temperatures.” My figure 3 shows why I think ‘20%’ is a slight underestimate of the argon loss. The ratio of the areas in the lightly-shaded and dark-shaded regions should give the ratio of 40Ar lost to 40Ar retained. The intersection of the dashed ‘1/2 Max’ line with the dotted curve should specify the area ratio fairly well. The intersection occurs at 25%, not 20%. The 0.2 Max and 0.8 Max horizontal lines (not shown here) intersect the dotted curve at 19% and 33%. I will use these values below to estimate an error range for the age. I’ve included my estimated 25% loss as a fraction in the bottom of the right-hand column of table 1. I put the losses Harrison et al. estimated in the other rows of the column. I’ve put parentheses around the less accurate values. Table 1. Argon data from borehole GT-2. Values in parentheses have large errors. Reckoning the argon diffusion age Harrison et al. give an approximation,12 their eq. (1) relates the heating time t and the fractional loss f to the value of D/a2 at a particular temperature:

Turning this around gives the time t it would take at constant temperature to get a loss f:

Harrison et al. give an expanded form of this equation, their eq. (2), but it contains a typographical error (right-hand bracket in wrong place). I’ve included the resulting ages in the last column of table 1. The only age that is relatively accurate is that of sample 5. Assuming that the 0.2 Max and 0.8 Max points (not shown) on the dotted curve of my figure 3 cover a range of error larger than all the other errors, we can assign the borehole an argon diffusion age of After their eq. (2), Harrison et al. list similar results: “Results of these calculations yield maximum estimates of peak heating duration of between 3 and 60 ka. This dispersion is in part due to the near negligible, and therefore difficult to assume, 40Ar* loss from the four shallowest samples and the exponential dependence of temperature on heating duration.”Since their assumed ‘transient’ heating episode lasts until the present, the ‘heating durations’ above are really age estimates. Their 3 ka age (the result one gets for f = 0.2 on the fifth sample) is the same as the lower limit of my estimate. Their highest age, 60 ka, differs somewhat from my 44 ka calculation for the fourth sample, perhaps because they were able to use non-curve-fit values and error bars for D/a2. But it is noteworthy that they did not include the fifth sample, the deepest one, in their caveat about the argon loss estimates. So we can take the loss for that sample, and consequently its age, as better-founded. Discussion Taking the temperature as constant at about 313°C during most of the diffusion history of the sample is a good approximation, from either the uniformitarian or creation viewpoint. That is because the rock is dry, preventing water or other fluids from carrying heat by convection. That leaves only heat conduction to change the temperature. Since heat conduction is very slow in rock,13 the temperature should remain roughly constant for thousands of years. According to the two RATE hypotheses, accelerated nuclear decay and accelerated cooling during and a little after the year of the Flood, the rock temperature should have changed very little in the more than 4,300 years that have elapsed since the Flood ended. So there is every reason to believe that the argon age is roughly correct—that the deep Precambrian ‘basement’ rock is thousands, not billions, of years old.It is clear that the shortness of the argon age (relative to a million years, and certainly to a billion years) is the reason why Harrison et al. could not tolerate the idea that the volcano heated the borehole at any time earlier than about 20,000 years ago. (Even 20 millennia seems large in light of my diffusion age of only 5100 years.) With their low temperatures during the (alleged) 1.5 Ga before that, the argon losses would have been large even for the shallower samples.14 Yet if one grants the uniformitarian age of the nearby volcano, about 1 Ma, it would have heated the site more than enough15 to cause much greater losses just during that (alleged) megayear.16 In other words, the observed high argon retention conflict severely with the uniformitarian-assumed long ages. These data say that the feldspar generated over a billion years’ worth of 40Ar, and then retained it, during a period of time that began only thousands of years ago. The argon data thus support accelerated nuclear decay, RATE’s young helium age, and the youth of the world. RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs! Cooperation (and quality control) brings results by Carl Wieland, CMI–Australia 21 August 2003

A few years ago an initiative was undertaken to research thoroughly the whole area of Radioactivity and the Age ofThe Earth. The RATE project began as a cooperative venture between the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Creation Research Society (CRS) and Creation Ministries International (CMI). (Our contribution was mostly providing the expertise of geologist Dr Andrew Snelling; however, when he commenced work with ICR, the project rightly reverted to a joint project of ICR/CRS.)With the release of several key peer-reviewed papers at the recent ICC (International Conference on Creationism), it is clear that RATE has made some fantastic progress, with real breakthroughs in this area.The main ones of these will be described and summarized in this paper, but first I want to give congratulations and credit to ICR. Even though a substantial proportion of the scientists working on this project have not been actual ICR staff, ICR’s initiative and perseverance, and in particular the patient skilful coordination of their Dr Larry Vardiman had the major role in getting things to this point this quickly. Exciting news on ‘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 the definitive answer to the radiometric dating puzzle.Others had tried—and for some, the search went on for a while in the early RATE days—to find the answer in geological processes. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence (the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more) that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.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 and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.There is now powerful independent 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 paper1, 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.)There is a significant amount 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 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 between 4,000 and 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 5680 (+/- 2000) 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 (and mysteriously, having been performed by a world-class non-creationist expert) flawed. More great news on radiocarbon It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most 2) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels.3 This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years. (When one takes into account the likely much lower ratio of radioactive to ‘normal’ carbon pre-Flood 4,.)Interestingly, specimens which appear to definitely be pre-Flood seem to have C-14 present, too, and importantly, these cluster around a lower relative amount of C-14. This suggests that some C-14 was primordial, and not produced by cosmic rays—thus limiting the age of the entire earth to only a few thousand years.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.5C-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. 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).Postscript: In addition to the book expected in 2005 reporting the final results of the RATE project, the project expects to publish a book for laymen summarizing the project shortly thereafter. Dr Don DeYoung will be the author. He has written several popular books on creation science and has been on the RATE since its inception. His grasp of the details of the project and his excellent writing skills should combine to produce a highly readable book for creationist laymen.

WHAT IS THE CURRENT CREATIONIST THINKING ON RADIOHAOS Radiohalos Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes on a young earth by Andrew A. Snelling

Most people would be familiar with granites (figure 1) because they are a popular rock used for bench tops in many home kitchens. Their colourful interlocking crystals give them an aura of intrigue and elegance. As well as glassy, pink and cream crystals, granites are often sprinkled with flakes of a black, shiny mineral called biotite. Photo by Andrew A. Snelling Figure 1a : Typical granite. The black crystals are biotite flakes. Figure 1b: Another typical granite. To the unaided eye, the flat surfaces of biotite flakes look polished and smooth, but under the microscope they often can be seen to contain tiny crystals of other minerals, particularly zircon. Even more fascinating, such zircon crystals are typically surrounded by halos of dark, coloured rings. Resembling minuscule archery targets, these halos represent a fascinating story about the age of the earth. Uranium radiohalos It is known that the halos are formed by radioactive uranium inside the zircons. 1,2The radioactivity damages the biotite and changes its colour (figure 2). That’s why the spherical halos are called ‘radiohalos’ (short for radioactive halos), and their centres are called ‘radiocentres’.Furthermore, there is a simple reason why uranium halos have many rings. It’s that uranium decays in a series of steps, eight of which produce rings (figures 3 and 4).At today’s measured rates of radioactive decay, it has been estimated that uranium would have to decay for 100 million years to produce the uranium halos. 3 That is at today’s decay rates. Alongside the uranium halos within granites, there is powerful evidence that uranium once decayed much faster during a global geological catastrophe! Let’s see that evidence. Polonium radiohalos The last three rings of a uranium halo are produced by an element called polonium. Marie Curie (with her husband, Pierre) discovered it in 1898 and named it after her homeland, Poland.One of the important features of radioactive polonium is that it decays rapidly and thus is rarely found in nature. However, it is continually generated when uranium decays, and so radioactive polonium is always associated with uranium. Diagram by Andrew A. Snelling Photo by Mark Armitage Photo by Andrew A. Snelling

Figure 2: The radioactivity of the uraniumFigure 3: (a) A fully developed uraniumFigure 3: (b) An over-developed dark inside the zircon crystal shoots out in allradiohalo with all eight rings present. Itsuranium radiohalo in which there has directions into the surrounding biotitediameter is approximately 68 microns (abeen so much radiation damage that the flake, damaging it and producing amicron is a thousandth of a millimeter).distinct inner rings have been blurred. spherically coloured shell or halo Click here for larger view Click here for larger view Click here for larger view Diagram by Andrew A. Snelling Photo by Mark Armitage Photo by Andrew A. Snelling

Figure 4: Composite schematic drawing of the radiation rings in (a) a polonium-218

radiohalo (three rings), (b) a uraniumFigure 5: (a) A fully developedFigure 5: (b) Fully developed poloniumradiohalo (eight rings), (c)a polonium-214polonium-218 radiohalo with three rings218 radiohalos with three rings clearly radiohalo (two rings), and (d) a polonium-clearly visible.visible. 210 radiohalo (one ring). The different radiation energies (E) are listed.Click here for larger view Click here for larger view Click here for larger view It came as a great surprise, therefore, when researchers discovered radiohalos that were produced by polonium alone (figures 5–7). How did polonium come to exist on its own in the radiocentres of these halos? This question has puzzled scientists for many years, and has even been debated in the courtrooms of the USA.4 But how do we know that they really are polonium halos? Answer: the polonium halos are readily identified by the numbers of rings, and the sizes of those rings (figures 4–7). This has been confirmed by experiments.5,6 Furthermore, what does the existence of these polonium halos mean? Because polonium has such a fleeting existence, the polonium halos must have formed very rapidly, in only hours or days! 7 So there had to be a source of abundant polonium close by to create the radiocentres. Otherwise the polonium halos would not have formed. Photo by Andrew A. Snelling Photo by Mark Armitage Photo by Andrew A. Snelling

Figure 6: A fully developed polonium-Figure 7: A group of very clear single-ring 214 radiohalo with two rings, the outer polonium-210 radiohalos. Their diameters areFigure 8: Several dark poloniumring not being so visible.approximately 39 microns.210 radiohalos close to two dark uranium radiohalos. Click here for larger view Click here for larger view Click here for larger view Photo by Andrew A. Snelling Photo by Andrew A. Snelling Diagram by Andrew A. Snelling

Figure 11 : Diagrammatic cross-section through a biotite flake showing a uranium radiohalo (left) and a nearby polonium-210 (single ring) radiohalo (right). Hot waters flowing between the flake’s sheets carry polonium from the decaying uranium in the zircon radiocentre of the uranium Figure 10: A polonium-214radiohalo across to form the polonium-210 radiocentre and Figure 9: Overlapping darkradiohalo (with a faint outer ring)radiohalo. Click here for larger view polonium-210 and uraniumcentered on a crack and a dark radiohalos. uranium radiohalo nearby. Click here for larger view Click here for larger view Many of the polonium halos have uranium halos right next to them, often less than one millimetre away (figures 8–10). As the uranium in the centres of the uranium halos decayed and produced the halo rings, it also generated polonium. Hot water flowing inside the cooling granite was able to carry the polonium short distances and concentrate it into new radiocentres. These formed the polonium halos (figure 11). Astounding implications The implications are astounding. First, the polonium halos required an abundant supply of polonium, in fact, an amount equivalent to 100 million years of radioactive decay of uranium, at today’s rates. However, all this polonium had to be available quickly, before it could decay away. That is, it all had to concentrate within hours, or a few days at the most. Therefore, the polonium halos mean that 100 million years of radioactive decay of uranium (at today’s rates) occurred in just a few days! In other words, the radioactive decay of uranium was formerly up to a billion times faster than it is today!Second, if uranium decayed at such a super-fast rate, the other radioactive elements decayed much faster too. However, the radioactive methods used to ‘date’ rocks as billions of years old assume that radioactive decay rates have always been the same as what we measure today. Thus, the polonium halos are solid evidence that rocks ‘dated’ at billions of years old by the radioactive methods are in fact only a few thousand years old!Third, the radiohalos can only form after the granites hosting them have solidified and cooled. 8 So the radioactive decay of uranium, which generated the polonium, had to commence as soon as the granites started to solidify, and continue until the polonium halos had formed. It is usually claimed that granites take millions of years to solidify and cool. However, if that were true, there would be no polonium halos in the granites today. In such a long time, all

the uranium and polonium would have decayed away. Therefore, polonium halos mean that the granites solidified and cooled in just 6 to 10 days! Startling evidence Uranium and polonium radiohalos thus provide startling evidence of catastrophic geological processes on a young earth. During the year-long Flood (about 4,500 years ago) sediments were eroded and deposited catastrophically on a global scale. The catastrophe buried vast graveyards of plants and animals, producing fossil-bearing rock layers all over the earth. Rapid earth movements pushed up mountains,9 and formed granite bodies quickly. Inside these granites, super-fast radioactive decay generated uranium and polonium radiohalos. These are so microscopic they could be easily overlooked.4 But their presence in abundance in granites all around the world cannot be ignored. 10 They are exciting confirmation that the earth and its rocks are not millions and billions of years old as usually claimed. The collapse of ‘geologic time’ Tiny halos in coalified wood tell a story that demolishes ‘long age’. by Steve Taylor, Andy McIntosh, and Tas Walker Figure 1. A fully-developed uranium radiohalo in biotite (dark mica). Field of view is about 80 µm (0.08 mm). A uranium halo comprises eight rings, but some rings are of similar size and cannot easily be distinguished. Most methods that could be used for calculating the Earth’s age, even though still based on unprovable uniformitarian1 assumptions, give upper limits much less than the billions of years required for evolution.2 Evolutionists widely use radio–isotope (or radiometric) dating of rocks to support the ‘geologic time’ figure of 4.6 billion years. Notwithstanding the inherent unreliability and demonstrated inaccuracy of the radiometric dating techniques (see Radiometric dating), ages of rock formations in the millions (and billions) of years are presented as fact in schools, universities and the media.However, there is spectacular, but little-known, evidence that is completely inconsistent with the evolutionary timescale, but entirely consistent with the record of a young Earth and a catastrophic global Flood.The evidence is provided by radio–halos in coalified wood. This work has been published in some of the best peer-reviewed scientific journals, and its strong case against evolution’s millions of years is so far unanswered by the evolutionary community. What are radiohalos? Radiohalos are spherical, microscopic-sized discolourations in crystals. They are found abundantly in certain minerals in Earth’s rocks, especially micas from granites. In cross-section on a microscope slide, they appear as a series of tiny concentric rings, usually surrounding a central core (Figure 1).3This central core is (at least initially) radioactive. High energy alpha particles, emitted from the core during radioactive decay, damage the mineral and discolour it, with most of the damage occurring where the particle stops. How far this particle travels depends on its energy. Since all the alpha particles from a particular type of decay reaction have the same energy, and the particles are fired in all directions, a spherical shell of discolouration will form, appearing circular in cross-section.Imagine shooting a bullet into a huge lump of cork. Eventually, the bullet will stop, leaving behind a ‘trail’ of damage, the length of which depends on the speed of the bullet. Different radioactive substances shoot alpha particles (‘bullets’) at different (though specific) speeds, so we can identify the substance from the diameter of the ‘sphere of damage’. The higher the energy of decay, the faster the speed of the ‘bullet’. Uranium radiohalos Radioactive uranium generates a beautiful, multi-ringed halo (Figure 1) because it decays in a number of steps. Of the 15 isotopes (or varieties of elements) in this ‘decay chain’ (see Radioactive decay series), eight emit alpha particles when they decay, forming eight rings.5 It is a bit like a sequence of guns, each of different power, firing an eight-gun salute. When this salute or decay chain is fired millions of times in every direction, the bullets from the different guns make eight concentric rings.If, instead of radioactive uranium, the core was composed of an isotope along the chain, there would be fewer rings. Omitting the first few isotopes in the decay series would be like removing the first few guns in our ‘salute’. Thus it’s quite simple to work out which isotope was originally in the core by counting the rings. Polonium-218 forms three rings, polonium214 forms two, and polonium-210 forms only one. Radiohalos in coalified wood Figure 2. Elliptical polonium-210 halos in compressed coalified wood. Length of ellipse is about 50 µm (0.05 mm). Radiohalos have also been found in logs recovered from uranium mines on the Colorado Plateau of Western USA. The logs, partially turned to coal, were found in uranium-rich sedimentary rocks from three different geological formations.Some of these formations had previously been assigned radiometric ‘dates’ ranging from 55 to 80 million years. 6Scientists Jedwab7 and Breger8 described these halos, and Dr Robert Gentry, a world authority on radiohalos, revisited their work. Following extensive investigation, Gentry published his results in the prestigious journalScience,9 in a book10 and in a video.11Most of the halos found in the wood had only one ring, indicating that the radioactive cores once contained polonium210—the last radioactive isotope in the uranium-238 decay chain (see Radioactive decay series). Clearly, the wood had been saturated in uranium-rich solutions, and certain spots attracted polonium atoms (also present in these solutions), allowing small cores of polonium-210 to form. As they decayed, these cores left the characteristic polonium-210 halo. Figure 3. Combined circular and elliptical halos indicate that polonium-210 continued to decay after the wood was compressed. Diameter of halo is about 50 µm.

But the solutions must have penetrated the logs relatively quickly, certainly within a year or so. How do we know that? Because the half-life of polonium-210 is only 138 days. That is, within 138 days, half the polonium-210 present would have decayed into the next ‘daughter’ isotope in the chain. In other words, the solution had saturated the wood within two or three half-lives, about a year. It could not have taken very long, because in 10 half-lives (less than four years) virtually all of the polonium-210 would have gone.Only one of the three radioactive isotopes of polonium was deposited in the tiny radioactive specks in the logs. We know because only one ring formed. The other isotopes from the decay chain (polonium-214 and polonium-218) were missing. Why? Because they had already decayed away. Their half-lives are very short (164 millionths of a second and three minutes respectively). So all polonium-214 would have disappeared within a thousandth of a second, and all polonium-218 would have gone in an hour—long before the uranium-rich solutions could saturate the logs. Significantly, the halos were mainly elliptical, not circular (Figure 2). Obviously, after the halos formed, the wooden logs were compressed, squashing the originally-circular halos into ellipses.Sometimes a circular halo could be seen together with an elliptical halo (Figure 3). This indicated that radioactive polonium-210 continued to decay from the same core after the wood was compressed. Thus, because of the 138-day halflife of polonium-210 as discussed above, there was less than four years between when the solution first infiltrated the wood and when it was compressed. (The presence of the second halo at the same spot shows that much less than four years had passed before the compression event, as there was still time to produce anotherhalo afterwards.)12

An amazing event Figure 4. Different radiohalos have a different number of rings. Diameter of largest ring is about 70 µm (0.07 mm) in biotite. All four isotopes are from the uranium-238 decay series. The wood in which these tiny elliptical halos were found speaks of a devastating flood that uprooted and smashed huge trees, depositing the debris with an enormous volume of sediment over a large area. The halos themselves tell the story of an unusual geologic event. They speak of uranium-rich solutions saturating the logs in less than a year or so, forming tiny specks of polonium, which decayed to producecircular radio halos, which were, in much less than four years, compressed and deformed.The story is one of exceptional geological conditions—a highly unusual sequence of events. For one thing, in the usual ‘slow and gradual’ scenarios, it would take much longer for sufficient sediment to accumulate on top to deform the wood in this way. What is really amazing and significant, however, is the fact that this elliptical halo situation has been found in threedifferent geological formations in the same general region. Evolutionists say these formations represent three different geological periods ranging from 35 to 245 million years. 13 To believe this millions-of-years timescale, we would need to believe that this amazing sequence of events (with all its precise timing) occurred three different times, separated by more than 200 million years. Clearly this is an incredible scenario. It makes more sense to believe that the sequence occurred once and that all the sedimentary formations were deposited in the same catastrophe, followed by the same earth movement causing deformation. These polonium halos collapse the ‘long ages’ of geology, and point to the unique, catastrophic Flood. Also, by the same reasoning, these halos leave little room for numerous layers of post-flood sedimentation as suggested by some authors.14 More confirming evidence Figure 5. Many fossilized dinosaur track patterns suggest that the creatures who made them were fleeing from something; in some cases this may have been a predator. A soft surface capable of receiving foot imprints would be unlikely to retain those prints unless relatively quickly covered by further sediment, such as in a flood catastrophe.Further confirmation of this spectacular collapse of geologic time is provided by careful analysis of the tiny cores of some uranium halos found in the same wood samples. 15This revealed a large amount of uranium-238 but almost no lead-206. 16 If the halos were millions of years old, much more ‘daughter’ lead should have been present. The scarcity of the daughter element, using the same assumptions upon which radiometric dating is based, would indicate

that the halos are only several thousand years old, not millions. Similar results were obtained for halos from all three geological formations, indicating that all are approximately the same age. Again, the supposed millions of years of geologic time collapse into only a few thousand.17 Dinosaur tracks Fossilized dinosaur footprints have been found in these Colorado mines. In Cyprus Plateau Mine (Utah), a fossilized dinosaur footprint was found in the coal seam next to one of the many coalified logs of the plateau. In Kenilworth Mine, eight different types of dinosaur tracks were found.The pattern of tracks suggests that the animals were fleeing from an imminent catastrophe. Nearby, a huge dinosaur graveyard has been found at Dinosaur National Monument (Vernal, Utah) in Jurassic sediments.Obviously, the dinosaurs that made these tracks didn’t escape. The catastrophe got them. The collapse of geologic time and the young age for the rock formations confirm that these dinosaurs lived on Earth, at the same time as man, only a few thousand years ago. Figure 6. The uranium-238 decay (238U) series. Eight of the fifteen isotopes emit an alpha particle when they decay. Letters signify the name of the element (e.g. U for uranium and PO for polonium) and the numbers indicate the mass of the atoms (e.g. 238 atomic mass units). Radioactive decay series Radioactive isotopes have an intrinsically unstable atomic structure which makes them disintegrate so that particles fly out. One way that a parent radio–active atom can decay into a daughter atom is by ejecting an alpha particle from its nucleus. Sometimes the daughter element is also unstable and subsequently decays into another unstable isotope, and so on in a series of steps—a ‘decay chain’.The isotope uranium-238 starts a decay chain that disintegrates step-by-step into a stable form of lead. It involves fifteen isotopes and fourteen steps (diagram right). Different isotopes of the same element (e.g. uranium-238 and uranium-235) have a different mass but nearly identical chemical behaviour. An alpha particle is a helium nucleus with a mass of 4 atomic mass units. Thus, radioactive decay by emission of an alpha particle (e.g. uranium-238) produces a daughter isotope (thorium-234) which is 4 atomic mass units lighter.The half-life of a radioactive isotope is the time required for half its atoms to decay. Different isotopes have different half lives (e.g. the half-life of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years and of polonium-218 is 3 minutes). Radiometric dating relies on assumptions Radiometric dating relies on three unprovable assumptions about the past: The amount of ‘daughter’ isotope in the rock at the start is known. No loss of ‘parent’ or gain of ‘daughter’ since the rock formed (closed system conditions). Constant decay rate of ‘parent’ to ‘daughter’. If these conditions could be guaranteed, the radiometric dating method would be correct. However, unless eye–witnesses observed the rock when it formed, and checked it constantly thereafter, it is impossible to guarantee that these assumptions are correct. Indeed, there are many cases in the scientific literature where assumptions one and two, though made in good faith, have been shown to be unreliable.Constancy of decay rate (assumption three) implies that a parameter which scientists have been measuring for only a century has been constant for millions of alleged years of Earth’s history. This is of course not only unproven but also unprovable. Decay rates (which can vary greatly today under special conditions) may have been much faster in the past; evidence suggesting this is now being analyzed by a creationist consortium. 1 A good summary of the documented inconsistencies and inaccuracies of radiometric dating is given by Woodmorappe.2 Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A. and Chaffin, E.F. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, California, and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Mississippi, 2000. Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, California, 1999.

Conclusion This scientific evidence, presented in leading journals, is a major problem for the idea of ‘millions of years’. It is, however, consistent with the vast fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock deposits of the Colorado Plateau having been laid down rapidly by the catastrophic global Flood. The dinosaurs that left footprints on the plateau, and were then buried and fossilized in the nearby rocks, also lived then—at the same time as man. New radiohalo find challenges primordial granite claim by Tas Walker Although radiohalos are tiny, they have generated a big debate about, geology and granite. Radiohalos were first brought such prominence when Robert Gentry, the world’s leading researcher on halos, claimed they were evidence of an instantaneous, supernatural creation of granite.1 They were launched into international distinction when Gentry testified to this claim at the Arkansas Creation Trial in 1982. 2And they are still the cause of controversy with books, articles and web pages devoted to the pros and cons of Gentry’s original arguments. 3–6Now a new find of polonium radiohalos has major implications for the interpretation of their origin.7Radiohalos are concentric, discoloured circles observed under the microscope in translucent minerals such as biotite, muscovite, fluorite and diamond (Figure 1). 2,8 It is generally accepted that they were formed by the alpha decay of radioactive isotopes (Figure 2). The emitted alpha particles damage the mineral, especially at the end of their path when they finally run out of energy and grab electrons from nearby atoms. They leave a spherical, discoloured region, which in section appears circular. Radiohalos can be erased when the host mineral is heated, even at temperatures as low as 250°C.9

Radiohalo types Gentry describes four types of radiohalos, each with a different number of concentric rings (Figure 2).10 They have been related to the 238U decay series (Table 1) in which eight of the isotopes in the series liberate alpha particles when they decay. Each of the four types of radiohalos has been linked to a specific parent isotope in the series. The single-ringed halo corresponds to 210Po, the two-ringed halo to 214Po, the three-ringed halo to 218Po, and the eight-ringed halo to 238U. A few of the decay steps have similar energy and produce rings close together. These may not be easily distinguished.Each alpha particle has a characteristic energy that determines the distance it will travel—hence the spherical shape. Thus, the diameter of each ring can be related to the 218 Figure 1. A Po radiohalo (from decay of a specific parent 18 Gentry). isotope depending on the host mineral.11 The shorter the halflife, the greater the decay energy, hence the larger the halo.Although the uranium isotope has a very long half-life of 4.5 billion years, all the polonium isotopes have short half-lives, ranging from 138.4 days for 210Po, to 164 microseconds for 214Po.Polonium halos have been found abundantly in granites, and minerals from some 22 localities have so far been reported to contain polonium radiohalos. 3 Because polonium isotopes have very short half-lives, it has been argued that ‘granites with Po halos, regardless of their “geological age” are primordial rocks’, created supernaturally and instantaneously during the Creation. Indeed it has been contended that such granites cannot be duplicated by natural processes.12 This conclusion has been disputed because of the geological Figure 2. The four types of radiohalos (from relationships of the rocks in which polonium halos have been Gentry).19 3–5 found. For example, some samples containing radiohalos were from dikes cross-cutting host rocks which thus must be older.4 Rather than primordial, it has been suggested that the parent material of the radiohalo was part of a conventional uranium or thorium decay series segregated by some geological process. Stone Mountain granite halos This Journal of Creation reports that abundant radiohalos have been found in biotite flakes from granite from Stone Mountain, USA.7 The significance of this find is that the Stone Mountain granite has been interpreted to have formed not during Creation, but during the Flood. Stone Mountain is located about 30 km east of Atlanta, Georgia and some 200 km south of the southern end of the Appalachian Mountains. Grant describes Stone Mountain as an isolated granitic monolith rising some 238 m above the surrounding countryside.

New record of polonium radiohalos, Stone Mountain granite, Georgia (USA) by Mark Armitage Summary The Stone Mountain granite, Georgia, (USA) is shown to contain radiohalos of the single-ring type, probably 210Po. Xenoliths collected from the same site are devoid of radiohalos, but do contain crystalline inclusions (probably zircons) that are bordered by diffuse radiation stains. The granite samples in this study yielded no zircon crystals and no diffuse radiation stains. These data are insufficient to determine the timing and mode of formation of these radiohalos in the Stone Mountain granitic pluton, so further studies are warranted. Materials and methods Palm-sized granite and xenolith samples were collected on the south-west side of Stone Mountain, GA, adjacent to Howell Lake, at the 1,200 foot level above the main wildlife trail, on 20 May 2000 (Figures 1, 2, 3). Biotite schlieren were not Figure 1. Location of Stone collected.1 Samples were gently washed in distilled water to remove extraneous dirt Mountain, Georgia, USA. and debris, although microscopic pine and other pollen grains remained (see arrows, Figures 4,5). Water was shaken from the samples and then they were allowed to air dry.Samples of biotite flakes from the granite (see arrow, Figure 2), and surface biotite flakes on the xenoliths (all sides) were collected under a dissecting microscope using the ‘sticky-tape’ method.2 In this method, clear sticky tape was pressed firmly into sample areas and rapidly pulled away, removing thin flakes

of biotite with the tapes. Tapes with flakes of biotite were affixed to glass slides, examined under a compound microscope for the presence of radiohalos, and were subsequently photographed in brightfield at various magnifications. About 50 tapes of biotite flakes from the granite samples and 50 tapes of biotite flakes from the xenolith samples were examined.

Figure 3.Stone Mountain xenolith (7 cm long). Figure 2.Stone Mountain granite (6 cm long). Arrow shows typical sample area for biotite flakes.

F igure 4.210Po radiohalo in Stone Mountain granite (120X magnification). Black arrow indicates single-ring halo. White arrows indicate pollen grains. The darker areas of the biotite are due to increased thickness of the biotite. Horizontal field of view is 520 µm.

Figure 5. The same 210Po radiohalo as in Figure 4 (here 250X magnification). Black arrow indicates single-ring halo. White arrows indicate pollen grains. Scale is 1.9 µm per mark. Horizontal field of view is 230 µm.

Results Xenolith samples contained no identifiable, circular radiohalos with concentric rings. Radiation stains were observed in xenoliths, but only always associated with microscopic crystal inclusions (probably zircons) (Figure 6). These inclusions were found within the cleavage planes of the crystal structure of the biotites. Radiation stains around these large inclusions were never circular, and never demonstrated concentric rings, but mostly diffusely followed the peripheral contours of the zircons, probably because of the large sizes of the inclusions.On the other hand, 42% of the biotite flakes from the granite samples yielded single-ring radiohalos (Figures 4, 5, 7). Radiohalos never had more than one ring. Ring diameters of 19.2 µm (micrometers) were measured which correspond to diameters reported for 210Po radiohalos in biotites.3 Furthermore, the identity of the radiocenters within these 210Po halos could not be determined due to them being so tiny as to be virtually impossible to see.In some instances very dark and concentrated, essentially circular in cross-section, radiation stains were observed (Figure 8), but no zircons or other crystals surrounded by diffuse stains such as observed in the xenoliths were found. Discussion A review of the literature shows that of the 22 localities containing polonium radiohalos so far reported,4Stone Mountain granite has, to date, not been subjected to microscopic evaluation for the presence of polonium radiohalos. Diffuse radiohalos (radiation stains) have been reported surrounding microscopic zircon crystals in biotite in Stone Mountain granite,5 but this study is the first record of polonium radiohalos found in this granite.The radiation stains surrounding zircon inclusions in xenolith biotites are certainly the result of alpha-particle emissions from the zircons (and thus are from alpha-particle– producing daughters in the 238U and/or 232Th decay series), but they are not well-defined halos with concentric rings. The diffuse, oblong patterns of the stains are probably Figure 6. Zircon inclusion in Stone Mountain because of the large sizes and oblong shapes of the zircons.The xenoliths xenolith. Arrow indicates a zircon crystal. Note studied represent pieces of country rock which were incorporated into the diffuse radiation stain around the crystal. Stone Mountain granite during its formation.6 They are composed of biotiteHorizontal field of view is 230 µm. plagioclase gneiss. The metamorphic processes that produced the gneiss would have been responsible for the formation of the biotites, but the zircon inclusions within the biotites would have to have been already present in the protolith (parent sedimentary rock) due to the refractory nature of zircon. The metamorphic processes were, by definition, hot processes that would have annealed any radiohalos or radiation stains which may have been present within the protolith.7 Even after the metamorphism reached its peak, waning temperatures would have still been sufficiently high for

some time to immediately anneal any damage to the biotites by alphaemissions from the included zircons. Thus, the development of these diffuse radiohalos in the xenoliths must post-date the metamorphic processes. Hydrothermal fluids containing radioactive elements could have flowed through the biotite cleavage planes associated with zircons during the cooling of the granite after these xenoliths had been included in it, and thus could have supplied the zircons with the U and/or Th responsible for the diffuse stains. However, this scenario can also be excluded because radiation damage is not spread along the cleavage planes of the Figure 7. 210Po radiohalo in Stone Mountain biotite in areas which contain zircons. Instead, these stains are granite (see arrow). Scale is 1.9 µm per mark. restricted to areas surrounding the outer edges of zircons. Thus these Horizontal field of view is 230 µm. diffuse radiation stains around the zircon crystals in these Stone Mountain xenoliths are probably due to decay, after granite cooling, of U and/or Th in the zircons that was included in the zircon crystals when they originally formed.It is possible that the reason only diffuse radiohalos have been found in the Stone Mountain xenoliths to date is that only oblong zircons occur in the xenoliths studied, or perhaps because small zircons or other inclusions, around which well-defined halos would have formed, have not yet been found. It is also possible that not enough samples have yet been studied, and that well-defined halos may yet be found to exist in these xenoliths. The single-ring radiohalos found in the Stone Mountain granite appear to be identical to those that form by the alpha-decay of 210Po. Ion-microprobe mass spectrometry analyses of the radiocenters could potentially confirm that 210Po is the parent radioactive isotope responsible for these halos, assuming radiocenters large enough to be analysed can be found and identified. It is hoped that this technique can be employed in a future study.Previous published creationist studies1,6 have concluded that the Stone Mountain granite pluton formed rapidly as a result of remelting of primordial granite and mixing with melted country rocks during the late Flood Alleghanian orogenic event. Mineralogical, geochemical and field data,8,5 such as flow-banding, support a molten origin for the Stone Mountain granite pluton. Furthermore, the observed 210Po radiohalos in the granite and the Figure 8. Dark, concentrated radiation diffuse radiation stains in the xenoliths do not seem to support a primordial origin stains in Stone Mountain granite (see for the granite, so further work is required to determine if the single ring halos arrows). Horizontal field of view is 230 found in this granite (probably 210Po) are parentless or secondary halos. This µm. would include annealing experiments to help characterize the conditions under which these radiohalos in the Stone Mountain granite formed. Mark Armitage studied biology and plant pathology at the University of Florida. He holds an MS in Biology with emphasis in electron microscopy from the ICR Graduate School. His photomicrographs have been featured on the covers of seven scientific journals and he has published widely on parasitology. He is currently enrolled in a doctoral program at Azusa Pacific University, where he teaches fundamentals of biology, electron microscopy and does research. Mr Armitage is a Life Member of the Creation Research Society. TREE RING DATING (DENDROCHRONOLOGY) Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon14 dating. by Don Batten, Ph.D. Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to the young age chronology.However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such the notion. Creationists have shown that s kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’—see my article Ligers and wholphins? What next?.Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a

part with overlapping14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this. The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon ‘clock’ would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Creation Answers Book, chapter 4).The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood matches well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi1 recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be ‘incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 ‘age’). So the carbon ‘date’ is used to constrain just which match is acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system. 2The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies. According to David Rohl,3 the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates. Conclusion Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates, as has been claimed. Field studies in the ancient bristlecone pine forest John Woodmorappe The bristlecone pine is an atypical tree, the remains of which have been pieced together to form tree-ring chronologies that exceed young age limits. Distinctive features of this tree include the stripbark mode of growth and the great longevity of certain trees. The crossmatching of tree-ring sequences, upon which these chronologies rest, appears to be generally valid. Not enough is known about multiple rings per year, in this tree, for immediate consideration. An alternative model, proposed by the author, posits that successive disturbances are responsible for once having caused simultaneously living trees to crossmatch in an age-staggered manner. This al-lows the chronologies to be considerably shortened. The stony terrain must have facilitated the progres-sion of growth disturbances, notably earth-surface movements affecting the shallow-rooted bristlecone pines. Interestingly, remains of trees inferred to be exceptionally old (e.g. 8,000 years) do not consist-ently appear older than the remains of much younger trees (e.g. 4,000 years). This, at the very least, is consistent with the premise that the generally ac-cepted difference in age is fictitious.The bristlecone pine tree (Pinus longaeva, and, further east, Pinus aristata; hereafter BCP) is arguably one of the most unusual of trees. It is well known for its longevity that may exceed four millennia, based on tree-ring counts. It grows in many of the higher mountain ranges of the western United States. The oldest extant trees and remnants of once-living trees occur in the White Mountains (Inyo NationalForest) of eastcentral California, the location of this field study (Figs. 1 and 2). The BCP earns its name from the small projections found on its cones (Fig. 3).After death, BCP decomposes slowly. This fact has enabled the collection and crossmatching of both dead and living BCP trees into two long tree-ring chronologies. One of these (the Methuselah Walk chronology) is claimed to be over8,000 years long (with some still-older ‘floating’ samples), and the other (the Campito Mountain chronology) is officially 5,500 years long (actually two thousand years longer, but

119

Figure 3. The characteristic bristles found on the cone of this tree, whence the name bristlecone pine. (Discovery Trail) with an insufficient number of reciprocally-crossmatching samples for obstensible certainty). These long chronologies obviously raise questions about the correctness of the young age chronologies and the date of the Flood.The rocky terrain on which the BCP grows is the Precam-brian–Cambrian Reed Dolomite. Owing to the fact that it is fossiliferous in places, 1 it probably originates from the Flood. This means that the entire assemblage of live and dead BCP occurring in the White Mountains must be post-Flood in origin. Consequently, if the traditional date for the Flood (about 3,000 bc or later) is retained, as the present author does, the long BCP chronologies must be shortened or compressed.This report complements a paper 2 that was presented at the Fifth International Conference on Creationism in August 2003. The latter examined the correctness of the accepted crossmatches done on hundreds of archived BCP tree-ring widths, by means of statistical dendrochronological software, and then evaluated the feasibility of compressing the long chronologies. It was concluded that the crossmatches appear to be substantially sound, albeit with some ‘play’ in the data.It was also suggested that multiple rings per year, while oc-curring in young trees and remaining a possibility for older ones, are not consistent with the known growth habits of the BCP. For this reason, an alternative model was developed to explain the apparently robust crossmatching seen in the two multi-millennial chronologies. According to this new model, environmental factors were responsible for perturb-ing the incipient tree-rings in an age-staggered, non-climatic manner, eventually causing a series of nearly contemporane-ous trees to crossmatch in an artificial age-inflated sequence.Consequently, much of the long chronologies could consist of trees that, contrary to conventional dendrochronological opinion, had lived at the same time (soon after the Flood), thereby allowing the first 4,000 (or so) years of chronology to reduce to perhaps 1,000 years. In addition, the chronology collapse was shown to be fairly consistent with the rapidly increasing 14C dates apparent after the Flood. This all means that the Flood itself could have occurred as recently as ap-proximately 2400 bc.The field work, done by this author and the subject of this report, was undertaken to complement the computer-based analysis of my earlier work. 2 Its objective was to acquire hands-on experience with the BCP wood itself, to better understand the BCP tree in the context of its actual environment, and to identify the alternative (non-climatic) factors that could have been responsible for the generation of the apparently long tree-ring chronologies. The field trip was conducted in July 2002, and consisted of volunteers interested in furthering their knowledge of this venerable tree. Tree-ring specialists from the University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-ring Research provided guidance for the work. Direct field experience and extensive discussions with these specialists, some of whom have been studying the BCP for decades, proved invaluable.The author made numerous sketches and photos on this trip, and a selection of them (Figs. 1–22) is included in this report. Figs. 1–3 have been explained earlier. Figs. 4–6 show specifically named still-living ancient trees, while Figs. 7–12 illustrate some of the atypical growth habits of old BCP trees. Figs. 13–15 refer to a location that contains numer-ous still-living ancient trees, while Figs 16-19 are related to the process of crossmatching tree-ring sequences in the field. Figs. 20 and 21 show a location where a previously discovered, solitary, dead BCP sample of inferred great age was examined and sampled on this field trip. Finally, Fig. 22 illustrates the fluctuating treeline

dynamics that involve high-altitude BCP trees.With respect to geographic locations (Figs. 1 and 2), most of the time in the field was spent at Schulman Grove, which is the general location of the oldest known extant BCP, and from which the samples originated for the (conventionally believed) 8,000-year Methuselah Walk chronology. A signifi-cant portion of this trip was also spent on Campito Mountain. Samples of very old dead wood have been collected from this mountain, during this and earlier field trips, as part of a thus-far futile attempt at extending the (conventionally believed) 5,500-year Campito chronology, further back in time, to a meaningful sample depth. The great age of some BCP trees Some of the BCP trees are among the oldest known living objects on Earth. These include individual BCP trees in the Inyo National Forest, which are said to be over 4,000 years old. 3 Some of these very old trees have been given individual names, including Pine Delta (Fig. 4), Pine Alpha (Fig. 5) and Methuselah (Fig. 6). 4 The latter, however, is not individually identified in order to protect it from excessive tourist traffic and potential vandalism.The dynamics of BCP ageing and longevity are not well understood. It is interesting to note that the old BCP trees do not seem to show some typical biomarkers of aging. OlderBCP trees do not appear to differ significantly from younger ones in such things as the state of the vascular system, the viability of pollen, rates of seed germination, biomass of offspring seedlings, etc.5

Figure 4. ‘Pine Delta’, believed to be over 4,000 years old. The White Moun-tains are in the foreground. Further in the background is the Owens Valley. The rectangular area within the valley is the town of Bishop, California. Furthest in the background, and outlining the sky, are the snow-covered Sierra Nevada Mountains. The ski pole, used for scale in this photo and some successive ones, is 1.1 m long. (Silver Canyon)

Figure 5. ‘Pine Alpha’, also indicated to be over 4,000 years old. The author is pointing to the narrow strip of live bark that supports the entire live crown of the tree. Note the rocky, dolomitic terrain. (Discovery Trail)

Figure 6. The grove of very old BCPs that possibly includes the 4,600-year-old Methuselah tree (not individually identified, for protection), the oldest known living object on Earth. The white pathway is the Methuselah Walk Trail itself, having been excavated within the dolomitic soil and talus. (Methuselah Ridge)

With the exception of the fallen BCP shown in Fig. 12 (and then only by a few centuries since death), it appears that all known BCPs that have attained great ages are still alive today. Furthermore, analysis of the ring widths of the non-living trees used in the two long chronologies2 indicates a conspicuous absence of trees, anywhere near 4,000 years of age, from earlier supposed periods. There are, for instance, no known trees that are supposed to have grown from 6000 bc to 2000 bc or from 5000 bc to 1000 bc. Experts with whom I have discussed this matter are divided as to the potential significance of this trend. Some suggest that it is an artifact from collection, while others contend that this is real. In view of the fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of samples of once-living BCP have been collected in the last50 years, it seems difficult to envision a fortuitous failure to collect even a single 4,000-year-old sample of a BCP that died several thousand years ago. The absence of earlier long-living BCP trees, if valid, is very much in line with a Flood some five millennia ago. It also facilitates the construction of the model, discussed elsewhere,2 which compresses the early parts of the two long BCP chronologies (from the in-ferred period (of pre-6000 bc to 1000 bc) to a range of about 2000 bc to 1000 bc).Why do BCP trees, in addition to often living to great ages, also persist a long time after their demise? Part of the answer may lie with the resin ducts that are characteristic of the genus Pinus. Many samples of BCP wood have a strong pine smell due to the abundance of resins (which also make it difficult to perform densimetrics on the tree-rings).6,7 The concentrated resins are believed to play a role in the pres-ervation of dead BCP for thousands of years after death, as they tend to make the wood unpalatable to fungi. 8 However, normal pine timber (e.g. P. radiata or P. ellioti) is also full of resins, but does not last more than a few years out in the weather, unless treated with timber preservatives. Other in-vestigators9 contend that the prolonged survival of dead BCP is not the result of exceptional BCP resistance to wood-rotting fungi, but of the overall fungal-inhibiting effects of the cold and dry climate that exists for most of the year. The BCP: a hardy tree The BCP does not fit the usual profile of a tree. Apart from its potential great longevity, it differs from the vast majority of the other members of the Pinus by its manner of growth and its very ability to survive on very inhospitable Figure 7. Stripbark growth in the extreme: Small tufts of live crown are attached to otherwise-dead trees. (Sheep Mountain) stony mountain terrains.One would intuitively suppose that a long-living tree would flourish under ideal growth conditions. Paradoxically, the exact opposite is the case. In fact, it is those very trees that live in the most forbidding microenvironment, which are the most likely to grow to advanced ages. For instance, the Methuselah tree, said to be over 4,600 years old (and the oldest known individual living object on Earth) grows on a dolomitic scarp known as Methuselah Ridge (Fig. 13).Close-ups of this Ridge (Figs. 6 and 14) accentuate the stoniness of the terrain, making it almost seem, to the local observer, as if the BCP trees were growing out of rock! Compared with most other trees, the BCP usually grows very slowly. This shows in the very narrow growth rings(Fig. 19), which often makes crossmatching BCP quite challenging. Ironically, under more favourable conditions for growth (at lower mountain altitudes), the BCP ‘behaves’ more like a conventional pine, growing relatively rapidly and seldom living more than a few centuries. At still lower altitudes, the BCP does not thrive at all due to competition with faster-growing species (sagebrush is the main competitor in the White Mountains).The ecological zone of the BCP extends right up to the timberline. As regional (and possibly global) climate experi-ences cyclic changes, the altitude of the timberline fluctuates with time, as is evident in Fig. 22. One sees the snags of old BCPs and very young BCPs, but no BCPs of intermediate age. The young BCPs have only recently begun to regrow as part of the treeline’s ‘migration’ upward in response to warm-ing. Other ‘once-hospitable’ locations have been situated above the timberline for millennia, and have never, to this day, experienced a revival of BCP. For instance, the inferred very old logs found on Campito Mountain (Figs. 20 and 21) occur at widely separated intervals on a part of this mountain that has long been too cold to support BCP growth.There are many instances were the BCP trees grow in clusters (Fig. 9). These consist of BCPs that had begun their growth next to each other, possibly the consequence of bird droppings that had contained several BCP seeds.10 In time, the crowded BCP seedlings grew together to form a common trunk. However, most of the BCP trees grow as individuals. The stripbark mode of BCP growth Beyond the first few centuries of its life, the BCP in the White Mountains usually does not grow in a radially sym-metrical pattern. Instead, part of the bark and underlying cambial tissue undergo dieback. The bark around the dead cambium soon weathers away, leaving behind rather gaunt trunks and branches. At times, only a small fraction of the circumference of the BCP is left alive (Fig. 14). The reasons for the BCP (and some other trees) going into stripbark mode of growth, in harsh environments, are not fully understood. Some investigators believe that stripbarking is related to photosynthetic balance. 11 Perhaps the loss of crown volume is a strategy for survival in a nutrient-poor environment as a compensator for increasing

overall tree size.As a consequence of stripbark growth, the BCP typically adds only arcs (or crescents) of new annual cambial growth instead of monotonously adding new rings all around the trunk. With age, the BCP bole becomes more and more elliptical in shape. The asymmetry of growth is especially striking when BCP stumps themselves can be examined (Fig. 12). At times, the stripbark mode of growth leads to bizarre growth patterns at the bole itself. For instance, the living tissue may start to grow around the pre-existing trunk and stumps of once-living branches (Fig. 8).The characteristic stripbark mode of growth is especially pronounced in the oldest trees. For example, as measured by this author, the trunk of Pine Alpha is very eccentric (long Figure 8. A ‘wraparound’ pattern of growth around an area of stripped-off bark. Note the remnants of once-living branches in the dead wood sector. (Discovery Trail) Figure 9. An extreme example of several BCP trees growing together: The Patriarch Tree. (Patriarch Grove)

axis approximately 120 cm (facing the viewer in Fig. 5), and short axis approximately 25 cm). Yet the live cambial tissue and overlying bark, which support the entire living crown, measure only 15 centimetres wide! (Index finger, Fig. 5).Furthermore, this strip bifurcates, up the branches, into still smaller segments.The lack of symmetry of BCP growth is also true of the crown, as can be seen in most photos in this paper. In severe instances of stripbark growth, only a small tuft of the crown may still consist of live branches and needles (Fig. 7). The remainder of the tree is dead, and denuded of bark, for which reason the BCP is often called ‘living driftwood’.It is interesting to note that, for some individuals, the BCP’s ‘tortured’ mode of life has spiritual connotations: ‘The awakening of a tree’s life has always been the occasion for religious festival. Conversely, when humans perceive the tree’s trunk echoing the twisted form of Christ on the cross, they represent their own agony … Agony, for instance, seems eternally associated with the bristlecone.’12 Field crossmatching of BCP samples One of the objectives of this field trip was to acquire firsthand experience with the visual crossmatching of BCP wood samples, all done under the supervision of experts having considerable experience in the crossmatching of BCP samples. The samples included both cores as well as slabs. 13Owing to the fact that BCP trees include very narrow rings, these can be exploited for the construction of skeleton plots.14 The author constructed several skeleton plots in the field (Fig. 16), using a binocular microscope at 25X magni-fication to see the narrow rings. Although the BCP tree is a difficult one to work with owing to the minute width of most rings (Fig. 19), and this is compounded by the challenge of producing a sufficiently smooth polished wood surface (to see all the ring boundaries) under field conditions, 15 some of the samples yielded readily interpretable skeleton plots. These plots were matched against patterns in the master chronolo-gies (a composite of skeleton plots from earlier samples), and the correctness of the crossmatches were then verified by an expert. The matches were unambiguous, and the author did not see any instances where the same pattern of narrow rings showed a strong correspondence to more than one location in the master chronology.Frost-damaged rings can serve as an independent markerfor crossmatching. However, it became obvious that frost-damaged rings occur only sporadically in ancient BCP trees. I was told that they are absent in the Methuselah Walk chronology and occur infrequently in the Campito chronol-ogy. Only a few such rings were seen on this field trip (e.g. Fig. 16). Other non-ring-width wood anatomical features(e.g. earlywood/latewood patterns) are of little value in the crossmatching of BCP samples, and specialists have com-mented that they do not attempt to use these as part of their crossmatching procedures. 16The author’s experience with crossmatching of BCP indi-cates that this appears to be a valid procedure, at least for this particular kind of tree and at this particular location. It tends to substantiate the statistically based identification of cross-matches of previously available ring width measurements for the long chronologies. 2 In order to account

for this fact, the model for compressing the long chronologies, developed by this author,2 assumes that the crossmatchings used to develop the chronologies are at least generally correct. Figure 10. The many overturned trees Figure 11. Fire-damaged BCP trees. Figure 12. Stripbark mode leading to illustrate The eccentric the shallow rooting of BCP trees in the convective movement of heated gases growth. The tree died in 1676 and was dolomitic and about 3,200 years old at the time of death. A 15terrain. (Methuselah Walk Trail) flame caused the charring of the uphill sides cm of the trees, and these carbonized ruler situated edgewise, within a crack, segments of immeditrunk, being weak, were subsequently ately below the shadow, casts the removed parallelogramby erosion. (Sheep Mountain) shaped shadow. (Discovery Trail) Figure 13. Panoramic view of Methuselah Ridge (centre right), an exceptionally stony terrain on which the oldest BCP trees grow. It consists of a large scarp of Reed dolomite (Precambrian-Cambrian), which, being less weathered than the surrounding dolomitic soil, looks whiter. (Methuselah Walk Trail)

Figure 14. Severe dieback and severe growth conditions at Methu-selah Ridge. Gross non-climatic influences on BCP trees Figure 15. Looking down the axis of the Methuselah Valley from Methuselah Ridge. The vast majority of the oldest onceliving samples, used to construct the presumed 8,000-year chronology, originated from this valley. The author’s model2 proposes that the BCP crossmatches, in the early part of the chronologies, were not according to annual climatic variations but according to moving distur-bances. Many potential and actual agents of growth distur-bance were seen on this field trip, in support of this model.The stony terrain in which the BCP grows (e.g. Fig. 6) is itself likely to have facilitated the migration of a series of disturbances not long after the Flood. For example, while the dolomite was in the process of lithification, there were probably lithified zones that could transmit earthquake damage to BCP roots, situated next to relatively unlithified zones that tended to absorb any potential earthquake dam-age. As lithification proceeded, so did the deployment of conduits for escaping subterranean gases. As the conduits opened and then closed, the BCP could have experienced a migrating series of CO 2 emissions, facilitating temporary growth increases.Other causes of growth disturbances are even easier to picture. Much of the surface of the White Mountains consists of dolomite gravel. 17 It is not difficult to visualize past instances of BCP growth having been perturbed by landslides. In fact, a variety of indicators of ground-surface movements have been identified in other studies. 18 These include the damming of rock debris, shallow mass wasting, the presence of many faults, debris flows moving at least five kilometres, and even rock streams moving separately from other debris.BCP usually have very shallow roots. This fact be-comes particularly obvious when these trees are overturned (Fig. 10). The shallow rooting makes BCP growth especially vulnerable to earth-surface movements. Relevant effects include the erosive removal of overburden as well as the extra weight on the roots imposed by a landslide.Fire is another environmental factor affecting trees. Even though the BCPs tend to grow relatively far apart, forest fires can spread between trees. Indicators of fire damage were observed on the Methuselah Walk Trail and on Sheep Mountain (Fig. 11). The fires were usually of low intensity, and only capable of curling around the uphill sides of the trunks and partly burning them. There is no doubt that fire regimes can change with time. What about potential biological disturbances of BCP trees? It is well known that insects, fungi, etc. that attack the trees can perturb incipient tree-rings. More research is needed on this in view of the fact that BCPs may be more vulnerable to fungi,19 and parasitic plants such as dwarf mistletoe,20 than previously supposed.Finally, there are indicators of major disturbance evident in gross tree-ring sequences themselves. Growth suppres-sions, affecting a variable number of consecutive rings, are common in BCP. Other BCPs have rings that are all monoto-nously small. 21 Still other BCP series possess an assortment of ring widths, but fail to crossmatch with any other live or dead BCPs. 22 While this is indicated to be the outcome of numerous inferred missing rings, it also frequently occurs for no apparent reason.

BCP logs of inferred great age need not ‘look’ old As noted earlier, one of the objectives of the trip had been to extend the two chronologies. But how does one know, in the field, whether a sample is an old one? A number of criteria had been proposed: absence of branches, high resin content, evidence of wind erosion, presence of a thick weathering rind, etc. However, a little field experience soon made it obvious that none of these, nor any other criteria, are particularly accurate in predicting which samples will crossmatch to the earlier parts of the chronologies. Perhaps these ‘exceptionally old’ samples are actually no older than the ‘moderately old’ ones!Let us now consider some particulars in this regard. Evidence of prolonged wind-induced erosion (e.g. Fig. 18) appears to be uncommon, and was not seen on some of the samples of inferred great age. Sample 93-4, dendrochrono-logically dated at over 8,000 years of age, has a strong resin odour, yet its weathering rind is unimpressively thin (Fig. 17). Sample TRL 01-682 (Fig. 21) is dendrochronologically dated at over 7,000 years old. Yet one specialist told me that he did not expect this sample to be so old because of the fact that it still had so much wood material.It would be interesting to compare the collection fre-quency of very old samples with their actual frequency in the field. Unfortunately, no-one has examined the overall relative abundance of (supposedly) younger and older wood. Such a comparison is hindered by the fact that a certain fraction (one specialist estimated 20%) of BCP samples are dendrochronologically undatable, owing to a profusion of inferred missing rings. In addition, there are large areas (such as parts of the north slope of Methuselah Walk) where Figure 16. The author engaged in graphical crossmatching (skeleton plotting) of BCP samples (cores and slabs) recently gathered in the field. The sample shown is slab # 93-4, which is crossdated to the chronology near the interval 5,000–6,000 bc.

Figure 17. Weathering rind on bole sample 93-4. In spite of the fact that this tree is inferred to have lived some 8,000 years ago and died some 7,000 years ago, the rind is not thick. Dime provides scale. (Methuselah Walk Trail) Figure 18. Wind erosion furrows on log caused by the ‘sandblast-ing’ effects of small particles of dolomite. Scale: 15 cm. (Discovery Trail)

Figure 19. Possible frost damage ring (dark ring), ~7,000 years old. Note that most of the rings are narrow (only a fraction of a millimetre wide), which is typical of high-altitude BCP trees in general. This sample originates from Campito Mtn. few live and dead BCP can be crossmatched at all (because of an estimated 30% of rings missing).In order to get a general idea of relative abundances as a function of inferred age, I have examined an unpublished cata-logue of BCP samples recovered in the last ten years. It turns out that 88% of all samples are inferred to be younger than 3000 bc, despite the fact that there has been an ongoing bias to attempt to collect older samples to extend the chronologies. This bias is even stronger for samples collected in the 2002 field season, owing to the intentional preferential collection of old samples. Based on a thenavailable count of samples collected from Methuselah Walk, the number of samples al-located (by growth start date) into the following nine millennia (7000 bc–6000 bc, 6000 bc–5000 bc, … ad 1000–ad 2000) is, respectively, 3, 3, 3, 9, 13, 13, 16, 14, and 2.This distribution, which is practically the opposite of col-lection objectives, further underscores the fact that inferred old samples do not commonly appear different from much younger ones. This fact, while not constituting proof, does suggest that the great ages of some of the samples are exag-gerations. At the very least, it is consonant with a compressed chronology (according to which, for example, BCPs from, supposedly, 6000 bc actually grew at the same time as those from 2000 bc). 2 In addition, the low relative abundance of inferred old samples makes it easier to understand them in terms of infrequently occurring disturbances, as elaborated in my model.2 These are placed against a backdrop of large numbers of dendrochronologically undatable specimens.23There is no clear-cut pattern of geographic distribution rel-ative to the, supposedly, exceptionally old samples. Although most of the oldest samples originate from Methuselah Valley (Fig. 15), they are not confined to any specific location within the valley. 24 Moreover, a fair number of old samples are found upslope (Oval, Fig. 2). Further north, on Campito Mountain, unexpectedly old samples occur sporadically near the summit (Figs. 20 and 21). The irregular geographic distribution of dendrochronologically old samples, viewed in the light of the author’s model,2 implies that the ring-perturbing events (that eventually caused the trees to crossmatch in a time-staggered sequence) tended to occur as highly localized events.

Figure 20. Campito Mountain. Intersection of lines shows where the old sample TRL 01-682 was located. The scree slope is situated at the left side of the mountain, whereas the currently living BCPs grow on the right side of mountain. A similar photo had been published by another investigator thirty years ago.25 Conclusion The BCP tree is a somewhat enigmatic one. Apart from an after-the-fact interpretation of environmental influences, little is known about the process of stripbark growth that is so characteristic of the BCP. It is this very process that ena-bles the BCP to live to great ages, and it needs to be better understood before consideration can be made of post-Flood conditions that may have enabled a substantially different mode of BCP growth that is seen today. The latter includes the appearance of more than one growth ring per year.The crossmatching of the BCP series appears to be valid. However, this need not imply the correctness of the long chronologies. If the incipient tree-rings were disturbed, in a time-transgressive manner, the BCP would

crossmatch in an age-staggered manner.There is, in fact, considerable evidence of BCP growth disturbance. The shallow rooting of the BCP tree in a rocky terrain makes this tree particularly vulnerable to earth-surface processes that can perturb its growth. This provides a further basis for considering a model that recognizes time-independ-ent, repeated perturbations of tree growth that eventually produced artificially long tree-ring chronologies.2 Figure 21. Campito Mountain site with TRL 01-682 (dendrochrono-logically dated at 5,228 bc–4,068 bc). Close-up of site identified in Figure 20.

Figure 22. Sheep Mountain timberline. Note the recent emergence of young BCPs in an area where older still-standing ones had died long ago. In spite of the fact that some BCP samples are, according to crossmatching in the chronology, believed to be several thousand years old, they fail to exhibit a set of morphological features that consistently appear older than those of wood samples recognized as only a few thousand years old. This observation is consistent with the premise that the BCP long chronologies are artificially inflated in terms of age. Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines by Mark Matthews The great ages claimed for certain individual Bristlecone Pine trees (Pinus longaeva) and the Bristlecone Pine masterchronology, conflict with the young age earth history. The ages, however, are based on the assumption that the trees grew no more than one ring per year. Creationists have proposed that these supposed old Bristlecone Pines (BCPs), including the ones that make up the master-chronology, have grown more than one ring per year. If these trees did grow more than one ring per year, the conflict between the ages of these trees and the history record is resolved. This paper compiles and examines some of the evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pine, including observations which don’t make sense under the assumption that all these rings are annual, but are compatible with the creationist hypothesis. Evidence claimed to support the annularity of these rings is rebutted. In addition, a hypothesis is put forward that multiple ring growth per year (known as ‘multiplicity’) may benefit these trees under certain environmental conditions, and a hypothesis is offered to explain the observation that all BCPs with thousands of rings exhibit a strip growth habit. In conclusion I suggest ways that creationists can collect more decisive substantiation of multiplicity in BCPs. Photo by John Woodmorappe Figure 1. Bristlecone Pine growing in less than ideal conditions. Growing in the White Mountains of eastern California are what are thought to be some of oldest living trees on Earth. The tree with the most rings, dubbed ’Methuselah’, is thought to be about 4,600 years old. One might expect then that the White Mountains host some of the best growing conditions on Earth. In fact, the opposite is true. Ironically, the alleged oldest trees grow in some of the worst imaginable conditions. Conditions are so bad that few other plants can survive: short cool summers with a growing season thought to be only several weeks long; desert-like aridity (250 mm of precipitation per year, mostly as snow); many trees grow out of little more than cracks in dolomitic rocks. Strong winds coupled with air that in the summer is said to be the driest on earth,1 and the rocky ‘soil’ (where there is any ’soil’), means that what little rain does fall will evaporate or drain away quickly (figure 1). It may be that these exceptionally harsh growing conditions are the key to understanding why some of these Bristlecone Pines have so many rings that they appear to live about ten times longer than BCPs which are growing in comparatively good conditions!The thesis of this paper is that, under conditions where water is scarce, BCPs grow multiple thin rings per year rather than one thick ring (as has been documented in other species of gymnosperms and angiosperms2). Further, I hypothesize that the multiplicity growth habit and the strip-growth habit conserve a tree’s resources, especially water. Multiplicity is common under the right conditions Perhaps the best evidence that some BCPs can grow multiple rings per year is the fact that it has already been demonstrated. Lammerts, a creationist, induced multiple ring growth in sapling BCPs by simply simulating a two week drought.3 Some dismiss this evidence, saying that while multiplicity has been demonstrated in young BCPs, it hasn’t been demonstrated in mature BCPs and therefore may not occur in mature BCPs.4 While this hypothesis could be true, surely the burden of proof should be on those who propose that what happens in immature trees doesn’t happen in mature trees. An expert in the genus Pinus didn’t seem to have any problem believing that White Mountain BCPs grew multiple rings per year. In his book, The Genus Pinus, Mirov states, ‘Apparently a semblance of annual rings is formed after every rather infrequent cloudburst.’5 If an expert like Mirov readily accepted multiplicity in these BCPs, then perhaps the doubters of this notion should at least give the evidence a serious examination.It is important to understand that the idea that mature trees can grow more than one ring per year is not a highly speculative hypothesis. It is well established that mature trees of many species of both angiosperms and gymnosperms, including other species of the genus Pinus, can grow multiple rings per year, especially under the types of conditions in which some of the BCPs in the White Mountains grow. Glock et al. published a large study in 1960 documenting the common occurrence of multiple ring growth per year, under conditions similar to those in the White Mountains. 2 They found that multiplicity was more than twice as common as annularity, and conclude that probably very few annual increments, over the entire tree, consist of only one growth layer 6 (that is, only one ring).In addition to solid direct evidence that these BCPs may be capable of growing multiple rings per year, there is abundant indirect evidence of multiplicity. Indirect evidence of multiplicity To build a master-chronology of BCPs believed to extend back over 8,700 years, 7 researchers must use wood from dead trees to extend the chronology beyond the lifetime of currently living trees. The older parts of the chronology come from dead wood found lying on the ground near the living trees. This means that some pieces of wood in the earliest part of the chronology would have had to lie around on the ground for more than 7,000 years! 8 Immediately, one wonders how wood can lay on the ground for 7,000 years without rotting, eroding away or otherwise disintegrating. Some have speculated that the cool, dry climate and high resin content of the wood preserve it against fungal rot, insect attack, and weathering. But this explanation doesn’t make sense given the disintegration that has occurred in the dead portions of living strip-growth trees.

Figure 2. Left picture (A) shows strip-growth; in this case spiral strip-growth (live bark is the darker strip spiraling up trunk). (B) depicts the cross-section of a tree that has been growing in a strip-growth habit for many years. Notice that the crosssection has become more rectangular than circular. (C) depicts the cross-section of a strip-growth tree where the wood not directly beneath the strip-growth has decayed away over time. How could this wood decay away in a fraction of the time that wood on the ground has lain un-decayed?Strip-growth is a peculiar phenomenon found in all BCPs with more than about 1,500 rings. In strip-growth trees, most of the tree has died, but there remains one thin strip of living bark running up the side of the tree providing water and nutrients to the small portion of the tree’s crown which is still living. The added growth layers in strip-growth trees cause the tree to become slab shaped instead of cylindrical. Schulman says (speaking of the oldest of the White Mountain specimens found at the time), that in the strip-growth trees, the dead portion of the trees has been eroded down to the pith (centre), ‘… erosion of the barkless areas had been proceeding for one to two millennia and had reached to the pith or near it’.9 How can dead wood lay on the ground for up to 7,000 years while the dead wood in stripgrowth trees completely disintegrates in a fraction of that time? Perhaps the wood on the ground isn’t nearly as old as thought (figure 2). Figure 3. This photo shows John Woodmorappe holding a piece of downed BCP while a cross-section is being sawn for further study. This tree was sampled at a prior unknown date. The fingers of John’s left hand appear to be resting on the old sawn surface—probably where a previous cross-section was taken (although John couldn’t verify this). There are some obvious signs of decay on this old sawn surface that have occurred since the time it was freshly sawn. (Compare the surface that the fingers are resting on to the freshly cut surfaces). (After Woodmorappe,10 p. 126).Also consider that in the climate of the White Mountains, these dead pieces of wood are subjected to many freeze/thaw cycles during the year which would tend to tear the wood apart through mechanical freeze/thaw processes. It seems strange, then, that researchers looking for old wood can’t get any clues about the age of a piece of dead wood just by looking at it.10 The pieces of wood which have been lying on the ground dead for supposedly thousands of years don’t typically show any more signs of ageing/decay than wood which has supposedly been laying there only several hundred years. In figure 3, dead BCP wood shows some obvious signs of decay. Why, then, do these ‘younger’ pieces of wood show just as much decay as pieces of wood which have been decaying for thousands of years? Shouldn’t the supposed decay inhibitors at work in the ‘old’ dead pieces be effective in the ‘younger’ pieces of dead wood?One would also expect more dead wood lying on the ground from all those supposed past millennia if the wood is capable of surviving on the ground for thousands of years. Woodmorappe and others have found that dead wood dating to the earliest millennia is very rare. 11 If this ‘ancient’ dead wood is so resistant to decay processes that it looks as fresh as wood only a few hundred years old, then it would seem it should be about as abundant as wood from more recent millennia; or, at a minimum, that there should be an approximately linear relationship between the amount of wood remaining on the ground and the millennia in which it grew. In a limited study, Woodmorappe didn’t find such a linear relationship but more of a log-normal distribution of ages with the distribution skewed toward the younger ages. 11 On the other hand if these trees, living and dead, are all about the same maximum age, but some grew more rings per year than others, then Woodmorappe’s observations begin to make sense.The claim that wood can lay on the ground undecayed for 7,000 years is even more fantastic when one considers the rate at which the mountains that these trees are growing on are eroding away. LaMarche12 has found an erosion rate of about 1 foot (30 cm) per 1,000 years in the White Mountains in general, and a higher rate in the areas where the oldest trees grow. (The actual erosion rate may be much higher than LaMarche reports because he derived these erosion rates based on the tree-ring records of living trees assuming annularity of rings—an assumption that this paper contests). How is it possible that seven feet (213 cm) of dolomitic surface, can erode

away over the course of 7,000 years, while dead wood could remain essentially in place on the surface of the ground over that same period? Can the dead wood really be that much more resistant to destruction than the rocks are?We find more evidence for multiplicity of rings when comparing the growing environments of BCPs having thousands of rings with those having only a few hundred rings. The White Mountains afford the BCPs growing there numerous ‘micro-environments’ (that is conditions in the immediate vicinity of an individual tree). It is therefore baffling that the trees with thousands of rings grow only where water and soil are most scarce! After studying the environment of ‘old’ BCPs, LaMarche notes, ‘Comparative aridity thus seems to be an important characteristic of the “old-age habitat”’ and ‘Thus, high life expectancy is apparently related to the frequent occurrence of sub-optimum moisture conditions.’ Consequently, ‘There is a large concentration of ancient trees on arid sites at the lower forest border in the White Mountains.’ 13 Conversely, LaMarche found that where moisture conditions were better, as in valley areas where a decent soil can accumulate, none of the BCPs reach the ancient ‘ages’, ‘No old bristlecone pines are found in the valley bottom, which is a sheltered area with deep colluvial soil and gentle surface slope.’14 Strange—trees in decent growing conditions only live to several hundred years, similar to the maximum age of many other tree species, but trees growing nearby in a microenvironment with little water can live to several thousands of years. These observations would make more sense if both sets of trees actually live to about the same maximum ages, but the trees growing where water is scarce grow multiple thin rings per year rather than one thicker ring. One explanation is that such a growth habit conserves water.Similarly, researchers have found that in the central area of a stand of BCP trees, where growing conditions are the best, the trees do not have more than several hundred rings. But at the margins of the stand, where the soil thins and growing conditions become progressively poorer, the trees with the most rings are found. 15 It seems more probable that all the trees in the stand are about the same age, but that the trees growing at the margins are starved for water and grow multiple rings to conserve water. If there are no truly ancient BCPs—only BCPs which grow multiple rings per year—then Woodmorappe’s observation that ‘old BCP trees do not seem to show some typical biomarkers of ageing’ also makes sense.16 Figure 4. Typical tree cross-section, Ring B is the growth layer that grew over the layer represented by ring A. Consistent with the above observations are the observations of Larson et al.17 In their study of US and western European trees that grow out of cliff faces, they found many ancient trees with exceptionally thin rings, and often exhibiting strip-growth. Again, it’s likely there isn’t much soil on a cliff face to provide for water storage between precipitation events, so the cliff trees may be using multiple ring growth per year to conserve water. Can multiplicity conserve water? If the basic proposition of this paper is correct—that there are no truly ancient BCPs, only BCPs which have grown multiple rings per year under xeric (dry) conditions—what is the connection between multiplicity and water scarcity? Could it be that multiplicity somehow conserves water, thereby allowing a tree to survive? To understand how multiplicity may help a tree conserve water, it is necessary to understand some tree anatomy.

Figure 5. The dark-wood is caused by the wood cells becoming gradually smaller. When growth begins again the first cells formed are large; this makes the outer edge of the dark-wood sharp and the inner edge diffuse. Wood growth is to the right in both frames. The ring widths are about 0.5 mm. Tree growth can be conceptualized as a tree continually adding one layer of wood after another to itself, over its entire surface area. It is as if thick coats of paint are added over the surface of the whole tree one at a time. This method of growth causes the wood of the tree to have the distinctive pattern seen on a stump when a tree is cut down. The basic pattern that we see is of concentric circles like the cross-section in figure 4. Each ring in the figure represents the cross-section of one growth layer that grew over the surface of the whole tree but which we are now seeing only in cross-section. In figure 4, ring B is the growth layer that was added on top of the growth layer that grew right before it, represented by ring A. Not all trees exhibit this growthring habit, but most species in temperate zones of the world do. For trees that do exhibit growth rings, it is normal for them to grow one ring per year under normal growing conditions.In BCPs each growth-layer or ’tree-ring’ (the terms are synonymous), consists of a light coloured band of wood coupled with a dark coloured band. The radial growth in a tree occurs due to a thin layer of cells just under the bark, called the cambium. As the cells in the cambium divide, they add wood to the outer surface of the tree just under the bark. The light coloured wood is often called the ‘early-wood’ because, under the assumption that each growth layer represents one year’s growth, the light coloured wood represents the growth that happens earlier on in the growing season. The dark coloured wood is called the ‘late-wood’ or ‘dense wood’. The cells that make up the late-wood are smaller, the cell walls are usually thicker, and there is a higher resin content in these cells. Since the cell walls appear dark and more of the late-wood consists of cell walls, the late-wood has a darker appearance and is more dense (figure 5). (Throughout the remainder of this paper I use the terms ‘light-wood’ and ‘dark-wood’ rather than the conventional ‘early-wood’ and ‘late-wood’, because these terms describe the wood rather than reinforce the idea that these kinds of wood only grow during certain times of the year—which is incorrect in some cases).

Figure 6. Trees with only one growth increment per year (top) have sapfilled wood in constant contact with the bark throughout the growing season. In trees growing multiple rings per year (bottom) the dark-wood layers may serve as barriers to radial movement of water during the growing season, thereby reducing water loss through the bark.Trees lose water naturally from their leaves or needles during photosynthesis. Trees can also lose a significant amount of water vapour through the bark. 18– 20 Any mechanisms that slow the rate of water loss out through the bark would be a great advantage to the trees in xeric conditions. Since the darkwood has thicker cell walls, higher resin content, and smaller and fewer pits for conducting water, it is possible that the dark-wood retards the movement of water in the radial direction better than the thin-walled, lowresin, heavily pitted, light-wood cells. Perhaps this is why during the winter dormant season a tree has a layer of dark-wood right beneath the bark; it may be a design feature of the tree to help prevent water loss out of the bark during the winter dormant season. If this hypothesis is correct, and the dark-wood slows the radial movement of water and reduce the rate of water loss out of the bark, then a BCP having just one thicker layer of highly conducting light-wood in constant proximity to the bark throughout a growing season will loose more water through the bark than a tree which grows multiple thin rings, because each dark-wood layer would serve as a barrier to the radial movement of water (figure 6). A possible test of this hypothesis might involve measuring rates of water loss through the bark of thick-ringed BCPs and thin-ringed BCPs to see if the thin ringed BCPs lose less water than thick-ringed ones.Conserving resources, mainly water, may also explain the mysterious strip-growth habit of the trees with thousands of rings. LaMarche notes that ‘Attainment of an age greater than about 1,500 years apparently depends on the adoption of a strip-growth habit.’ 21 This ‘strip growth’ habit is caused by the cambium dying around most of the circuit of the tree such that there is only one long living strip of bark running up the side of the trunk. The added growth layers cause the tree to become slab shaped instead of cylindrical. Strip growth allows the surface area of the bark to be minimized and resources to be conserved.A tree growing in a normal manner (that is, adding growth layers around its whole circumference) requires that each centimetre of increase in trunk or branch radius adds about 6 cm of circumference, and a corresponding increase in surface area. added surface area increases water loss through the bark. It also means that as the tree gets older and bigger, an ever-increasing amount of wood has to be added for each ring of the same width. To keep up this rate of wood addition would require that the tree have basically unlimited access to resources needed to grow—including water. But under strip growth, the tree doesn’t use an ever increasing amount of resources to add each new growth layer; it takes about the same amount of resources each year to add each new growth layer (figure 7). Perhaps the switch to strip-growth takes place when the tree has reached a point that it can no longer add complete new growth layers because of resource limitations. Figure 7. When a trunk or a branch is adding an increment of growth around its whole circumference (left), the addition of increment B takes more resources than the addition of the previous increment A of the same thickness. But under strip-growth (right) increment B takes about the same amount of resources to grow as the previous increment of the same thickness A.Most of the water is conducted up the tree in the ‘sapwood’, which comprises the rings just underneath the bark; the ’heartwood’ does not conduct much water up the tree. When strip-growth occurs (as is the case with the White Mountain BCPs with thousands of rings), the strip of live bark and associated sapwood in the rings immediately beneath it only feed one or a few main branches; the rest of the tree dies because there are no more conducting tissues to feed it. The dead part of the tree begins to dry out and eventually decays. When the water conducting cells of the tree become dry (a condition known as cavitation) they serve as an effective barrier to water movement. Thus, the many rings consisting of cavitated cells would serve as a very efficient barrier to water loss from the relatively small portion of conducting sapwood beneath the live strip-bark. In this way very little water would be lost from the dead portion of the strip-growth tree.Support for the hypothesis that strip growth allows for better survival when resources are limited can be seen in the BCP crosssection of figure 8. The tree experienced cambial die-back over about a fourth of its circumference, after which it immediately started growing thicker rings than before the die-back occurred. Because the tree had less surface area to cover during its growth increment after die-back, a thicker increment could be grown even though the accessible resources remained the same.

Figure 8. This cross-section demonstrates that after die-back (when strip-growth begins) a tree has enough resources at its disposal to grow thicker rings than before die-back. The upper-left frame is a scan of the whole cross-section. The upperright diagram shows where part of the circumference experienced die-back allowing more vigorous growth around the remaining live part of the circumference. The bottom frame shows the last 12 rings formed before die-back (left) and first 12 rings formed after die-back (right). Note that the average ring is much thicker after die-back occurred. The cross-section is about 24 cm at its widest point. The bottom frame is about 0.64 cm wide.This leaves open the possibility that BCPs under certain conditions may switch between annual growth rings and multiple growth rings per year several times during its life. For example, when the tree is young and its circumference is small, it may have access to enough water to meet its basic needs, so it grows only one ring per year. As it ages and the surface area of the tree expands it loses more and more water out of the bark, but by switching to a multiplicity growth habit it can conserve water. As the tree continues to expand in surface area a point is reached where the tree can no longer sustain growth over its whole surface area. By switching to strip growth it reduces drastically the surface area of tree which is a pathway for water loss. Growing in a strip-growth habit, the tree may now have access to enough water that it can maintain its growth using only a single ring each year. If for some reason the water supply is no longer sufficient, the tree can begin growing multiple thin rings per year again. Rebuttal to claimed evidence for annularity The initial reason that scientists studying BCPs in the White Mountains thought that they were growing only one ring per year is because they believed it was fairly easy to tell when a tree was growing more than one ring per year. As seen in figure 5, the beginning of the dark-wood is usually a zone that is somewhat fuzzy; that is, the light-wood grades gradually into the dark-wood. This is because the light-wood cells gradually becoming smaller as new cells are added. However the dark-wood band usually ends abruptly, producing a distinct line which marks the outer edge of the dark-wood. This results from the cells of the dark-wood typically getting smaller and smaller until they stop and are followed by distinctly larger cells making up the light-wood of the next ring. So, the inner edge of the dark-wood is usually gradual, fuzzy and indistinct; but the outer edge of the dark-wood is usually abrupt and distinct. This was interpreted as meaning that late in the growing season of each year, a tree would slow down its growth until it gradually came to a complete stop (this stop corresponded with the last latewood cells that were added to the circumference of the tree). No further growth would take place until the beginning of the next growing season; at that time the tree began vigorous growth again and the cells which began to grow were the large early-wood kind.Sometimes dark-wood is produced which does not have a distinct outer boundary, but a fuzzy one, like the inner boundary. Under the microscope it can be seen that the cells of dark-wood do not end abruptly but gradually start getting bigger again. This is usually interpreted as the tree, for some reason, slowing down its growth during the growing season, but then picking up its growth again before beginning the final slow down that occurs at the end of a season. The entire growth band for that year would then include a ‘false’ band of dark-wood (such dark bands are designated as ‘false’ because they did not occur at the end of the growing season as ‘true’ dark bands should). If not detected, false bands would lead one to believe that two rings were present, representing two years, rather than one year’s worth of growth with a ‘false’ dark band in the midst of that year’s light-wood. So it was assumed that ‘false’ rings (and thereby multiplicity) could be easily detected because the outer edge of the dark-wood would be less distinct than the outer edge of normal annual rings.

Later, however, Glock et al. demonstrated that in dry climates, not only are ‘false’ rings common in many species, but the bands of ‘false’ dark-wood can have outer boundaries that are every bit as distinct as the outer boundaries of a true annual ring.2 Therefore, ‘false rings’ can be indistinguishable from ‘true’ annual rings; ‘ … the growth layers resulting from intraannual flushes [of growth] may, and commonly do, possess outer borders indistinguishable from the borders terminating the annual increment … .’22 So we see that ‘false’ dark-wood does not always have a fuzzy outer boundary. Figure 9. Photo of thin-ring dark-wood with diffuse inner and outer boundary. It is difficult to tell which is the inner, and which is the outer boundary. The frame is about 0.1 mm wide.LaMarche and Harlan see four lines of evidence as supporting the annularity of rings in BCPs.4 The first is that the dark-wood bands in BCPs do not have diffuse outer boundaries, implying that none of the rings are ‘false rings’. Glocket al. showed that at least some species can have ‘false rings’ that are indistinguishable from the annual rings.22 It may well be that White Mountain BCPs have false rings which are indistinguishable from annual rings. It is also often the case that extremely thin rings have inner and outer boundaries which are virtually identical (figure 9). Additionally, Glock et al. found that about 99% of the extremely thin rings and partial rings were ‘false’ rings.23 White Mountain BCPs with thousands of rings abound in thin and partial rings.24,25 In fact, some ring sequences consist of rings so thin (averaging 0.1 to 0.2 mm and less 26) that a microscope is needed to distinguish one ring from another. Some ring bands are the thinnest possible, being only one cell thick! 27 (Figure 10 shows a thin ring with a light band only two to three cells thick.) Finally, further evidence of ‘false’ rings can be seen in figure 11 which shows three distinct BCP dark-wood bands that are all connected together, strongly indicating that they were all formed during the same growing season. Figure 10. Photo of a ring where the light-wood is only 2 or 3 cells thick. The frame is about 0.2 mm wide. The second line of evidence comes from a 3-year study by Fritts where continual growth measurements were taken on a few Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains of California. 24However, these measurements were taken from trees in a valley-like area where the soil was substantial enough that soil moisture measurements could be taken (the ‘soil’ is too rocky in most of the ‘old’ tree areas to allow moisture level measurements), and all these trees were deemed ‘young’. As discussed above, BCPs in decent soil may not grow multiple rings per year, as a general rule, because they have access to enough moisture in the soil. Also, the trees are deemed to be ‘young’ because they don’t have thousands of rings, which, according to my hypothesis in this paper, means they are probably not growing multiple rings per year.With respect to the third line of evidence, LaMarche and Harlan claim that samples obtained in 1971 crossmatch with White Mountain Bristlecone Pines sampled in 1954 by Schulman. 9 They found that most trees have formed exactly 18 rings in the period 1954–1971 28 (a few formed only 17 rings, none formed more than 18 rings) indicating that the BCPs did not grow more than one ring per year. The argument hinges on a claimed cross-match that can’t be verified and could be incorrect given the inherent subjectivity of cross-matching. Beyond that, it appears that none of the living trees sampled in 1971 were ‘ancient’ ones (i.e. with thousands of rings), so it is possible that the trees in this study were growing only one ring per year.The fourth line of evidence has to do with frost markers found in a number of trees in the 87 th ring before the ring representing 1971. If each ring represented a year, then this frost would have occurred during the growing season of 1884. After finding these frost markers, LaMarche and Harlan went back through weather records and try to make the case, based on sketchy weather data, that there could have been a frost around 9–10 September 1884 which caused the frost damage in the trees rings. Figure 11. Three dark-wood bands tied together. B continues to the right of A with the black vertical line at approximately the same location. If traced to the left, the darkwood band in A indicated by the white arrow merges completely with the dark-wood band above it. Likewise, the same dark-wood band in B (again indicated by the white arrow) if followed to the right blends in completely with the dark-wood band below it, giving the strong indication that all three dark-bands were grown during the same growing season. The total length of A and B together is about 2 cm.The argument is unconvincing for a number of reasons. Fritts25 found that Bristlecone Pine in the White Mountains stopped growing in late July to early August. The trees would still have to be growing when the freeze supposedly occurred ⅓ of the way through September (LaMarche and Harlan don’t actually mention where in the growth ring the damage occurs, but even if it were in the very last formed part of the ring, 9 September seems like an unlikely date for the trees to still be growing). In addition, it goes against the general rule that frost damage usually occurs early in the growing season due to a late frost.29LaMarche and Harlan claim that the 87th ring was the first ring with frost damage encountered when counting back from 1971. This means there shouldn’t have been any other unseasonably cold spells between 1884 and 1971 that could have caused frost damage, but LaMarche and Harlan don’t address this question. The frost could have occurred much more recently if the trees have grown extra rings per year. Lastly, there apparently isn’t good weather data available for the White Mountains back in 1884. LaMarche and Harlan end up

having to rely on weather data that is vague and over 400 miles away for making a weak case that there could have been a frost around September 9, 1884.Another idea encountered in the literature is that the cross-datability of BCPs somehow negates the possibility that the rings involved aren’t annual. I have never seen the logic behind this contention explicitly stated, but perhaps the thinking is that if trees were putting on extra rings per year more or less randomly, then we shouldn’t be able to match the patterns between two trees because one tree might have grown one ring in a year and another tree might have grown two or more. However, if the timing of the growth layers is triggered by environmental factors (like rain events), it could very well be that all trees growing in a similar environment behave similarly. So, for instance, if there were two large precipitation events and one smaller one in a particular year, then it might be expected that all the trees growing near each other in similar growing conditions would grow two larger rings and one thin ring that year. In this way the ringwidth sequences would be similar, but not every ring would represent an annual increment. Glock et al. concur that crossdating doesn’t prove annularity, ‘The fact that the thin, entire growth layers or lenses match from one tree to another does not prove their annual character.’30 Suggestions for demonstrating multiplicity The following are some ways that additional direct evidence for BCPs growing multiple growth layers per year can be obtained (remembering that trees growing in water scarce conditions are the ones most likely to grow multiple rings a year): Find old photos (from perhaps a private land owner, nature photographer, the National Park Service or the US Forest Service) of individual Bristlecone Pine trees or stands of trees, where the date (or year) that the photograph was taken is known, and the location of trees is known. Go to where the original photo was taken and try to find new trees or new branches that have grown since then. Get permission to core the tree or branch (or better yet see if the whole tree or branch can be cut, special permission may be needed on public land). The age of the photo will provide the maximum age that the branch or tree can actually be—see if the number of growth-rings exceeds this maximum age. A slight variation of this method would be to find a private individual or public servant who knows (and can preferably document) exactly when a certain Bristlecone Pine tree was planted or a certain road was built or land cleared.Place time tags in the trees by freezing with dry ice to produce ‘frost’ damage or by watering with a dye that is transferred to the sap wood. It is possible that nuclear bomb testing or other events have put radioactive or, for example, trace element tags into wood that can be used to verify multiplicity.Locate dated old photos of dead standing BCP snags and logs laying on the ground to determine if the rate of wood decay matches what it should be if these dead pieces of wood are thousands of years old. This could offer indirect evidence of multiplicity. Conclusion The great ages claimed for individual BCPs are based on the assumption that the trees grew no more than one ring per year. These ‘ages’, generating a master chronology of 8,700 years, are plainly contradictory to the youngage timeframe. Upon close scrutiny there is strong evidence that multiplicity of ring formation is common under the environmental conditions where the trees grow that are used in the master chronology. Thus the assumptions behind the great ages are not correct. The number of growth rings produced by BCPs seems to be more a function of the soil water status of the area in which the BCPs grow: the drier the environment, the more rings are produced. Multiplicity of growth rings and the strip growth habit are possibly physiological mechanisms for conserving water in dry conditions. Studies that have sought to prove annularity in BCPs have not used a correct methodology or timeframe, and more suitable experimental methods have been proposed. In investigating direct evidence for multiplicity, the effect of environmental conditions needs to be accounted for. Once again, uniformitarian assumptions about the constancy of rates in the past are shown to be too simplistic, and the young age timeframe can accommodate the data. Patriarchs of the forest by Gary Bates High in the cold, dry air of the White Mountains of California, just north of the infamous and inhospitable Death Valley, lives possibly the world’s oldest living 1 organism. It’s a Bristlecone Pine tree, given the Biblical name of ‘Old Methuselah’ due to its estimated age (from counting the number of its tree rings) of 4,723 years.2 ‘The Dead Giant’, a sequoia in Yosemite National Park, California.This tree’s ‘ring’ age is close to the Biblical date for the globe-covering and life-destroying Flood of around 4,500 years ago. There should be no trees aliveon Earth today which are older than the Flood. A flood cataclysm of this magnitude would have laid down much of the massive thickness of sedimentary rock covering most of the Earth’s surface, and would have ensured that no trees alive at that time would have remained growing in place. So no tree growing today could have started growing from a seed in that spot more than about 4,500 years ago.It is normally assumed that for each year of growth, one growth ring will be shown. This is generally true; however, it is a demonstrable fact that in years of good growth, i.e. moist, warm conditions, more than one growth ring can readily occur. Research has actually demonstrated this with Bristlecone Pine seedlings. By supplementing the ‘normal’ winter day length with a heat lamp, extra rings were able to be grown. 3 In the presumed warm, moist and changing seasonal conditions in the first few centuries after the Flood, it is likely that there would have been quite a few such extra rings. This comfortably accounts for the few hundred years (less than 10%) difference between the oldest ‘real’ tree-ring results and the date of the Flood.However, such an explanation would be strained if treerings on living trees gave dates of thousands of years more than this. Some scientists have now proposed a Bristlecone Pine chronology extending back more than 9,000 years from today.4 But this is by using a tree-ring dating method that links pieces of dead trees (even fossil fragments) with living ones. This ‘overlapping’ method seeks to cross-match the rings, using best-fit scenarios. These are fortified by statistical analysis to try to eliminate the subjectivity. But in the past, there has apparently been some difficulty obtaining access to the raw data to independently check these procedures. This has now been overcome, and further creationist research is underway.5 The bottom line is, however, that these apparent challenges do notarise from present-day, growing trees.Are any living trees claimed to be substantially older than the date of the Flood? Indeed so—sometimes more than 10,000 years. But we shall discover that none of these were from counting the actual number of rings in a living tree.

Oldest and Biggest? The Bristlecone Pine. Using its growth rings as age indicators, it is perhaps the oldest living thing on Earth. At over 4,000 years old, these trees possibly started to grow just after the great Flood.Sequoia trees, like the one pictured here are among the tallest living things on Earth today, growing to be hundreds of feet high. The name ‘sequoia’ is in honour of the Indian Cherokee nation leader Seqouyah(1776–1842), who invented a unique alphabet and taught his people to read and write. One of the first books in Cherokee was the Bible (1825).Giant Sequoias generally have very shallow root systems of only about 3 m (10 ft) deep and are highly resistant to insect pests, disease and fire. The General Sherman tree (above) is the most massive one in the world. It contains enough timber to build 40 houses of five rooms each. Its outer bark is reported to be more than 1.3 m (4 ft) thick. Tasmanian trees—30,000 years old? The Huon Pine (Lagarostrobos franklinii) is a native conifer of Tasmania (Australia). In 1995, international headlines claimed that there could be Huon Pines as old as 30,000–40,000 years. 6 Many people had the impression that this must refer to the number of rings, but that was not the case. How were the dates obtained? The trees in this particular stand are genetically identical to each other. That is, they have reproduced by vegetative reproduction from an original tree. This could mean that they have simply transplanted themselves, possibly from fallen branches, or new growth could be occurring from underground root systems. It is assumed that this reproductive process has been continuing for many millennia, hence the speculative ‘long ages’. In some cases, the carbon-14 (14C) dating method has been used on the root system and nearby fragments, and Huon Pine pollen has been found in the sedimentary layers of a nearby lake. We have often explained the assumptions behind 14C methods and the errors made in interpreting the data. The world’s oldest trees Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva and Pinus aristata) grow in very extreme, harsh conditions at altitudes of more than 3,000 m (10,000 ft). The highly resinous wood of these gnarled, ghostly-looking giants ensures they resist attacks from bacteria, fungi and insects. They are extremely slow growers. During their annual growing season of only about 45 days, they can add as little as 2.5 cm (1 in) to their girth every hundred years. 7 While only reaching a maximum height of around 18 m (60 ft), the girth of the largest Bristlecone, named ‘Old Patriarch’, is a massive 11.2 m (36 ft 8 in).The second-oldest known living tree, with a verified tree-ring age of 3,631 years, is an Alerce Tree from Chile, South America. Also known as the Patagonian Cypress, this species is believed to be related to North America’s giant redwoods (sequoias). Interestingly, Charles Darwin named it Fitzroya cupressoides in honour of Robert FitzRoy, captain of H.M.S. Beagle.8 The world’s tallest trees The tallest known living tree is the Mendocino tree, a giant redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) found near Ukiah, California, USA. It has been officially measured at 112 m (367 ft 5 in). However, this was dwarfed by an Australian eucalypt (mountain ash), felled in Victoria, Australia, in 1872. It was believed to have been almost 150 m (492 ft) tall or as high as a 36-storey building, and remains the tallest ‘known’ tree to have ever lived. 9The location of many of these ‘prized’ trees (such as Old Methuselah or the Mendocino tree) is kept secret to deter vandals and souvenir hunters.10 The world’s largest trees The official ‘living’ record for size is held by a giant sequoia, dubbed ‘General Sherman’, which can be found in California’s Sequoia National Park. It stands at 83.8 m (275 ft) and is 31.3 m (102 ft 8 in) around its base, and (with the possible exception of an underground fungus system 11) is the largest single organism existing on Earth. Its total bulk is more than ten times that of a Blue Whale.General Sherman was originally thought to be more than 6,000 years old, but this has now been revised to only 2,150 years. Nate Stephenson of the US Geological Survey said, ‘The new Sherman tree age estimate could still be off by centuries’. How, using a very simple method of ‘just counting tree rings’, can dates be subject to such dramatic alteration?Most people presume that an ‘old’ tree’s age is derived from just counting the annual rings from a full-depth core sample. But this is hardly ever so. In the case of General Sherman, only foot-long samples were taken, and cross-matched with each other by looking for similar ‘indicator’ or distinct rings. Mathematical assumptions are then made to calculate the age of the tree by comparing measurements from other sequoia stumps. 12,13A uniformitarian (the present is the key to the past) approach is then applied when calculating dates (which doesn’t allow for differences in past climates which can affect growing seasons and even produce extra rings). This has been shown, in the case of General Sherman, to be very inaccurate. It would be more accurate if samples could be taken right through to the tree’s core or pith. But such procedures are very difficult on huge trees, as core samples are usually only pencil thin. This is because a full-depth procedure using large power equipment would involve significant damage to the tree. In short, longer dates have been assumed due to the enormous size of the tree.

Interestingly, Nate Stephenson also says, ‘Most of the largest sequoias are really just middle-aged. But they’re still growing like teenagers. Each year, it adds enough wood to make a tree one ft (30 cm) in diameter and more than 100 ft (30 m) tall’. He adds, ‘The relative youth of the world’s largest tree comes as something of a surprise’. 12Plant biologists agree, and even expect, that these vigorously-growing, magnificent ancient trees could continue to grow for many thousands of years into the future. And they would expect, therefore, that there is no reason why many among them could not have started their life

many, many thousands of years ago. But there is no evidence that any of them predate the Flood. Even with the assumptive cross-matching method, the cut-off number seems to be around 4½ to 5 thousand rings. This is strongly consistent with expectations based on young age timeline. Why no older trees? The fact that the magnificent patriarchs of the forest discussed here have stood silently growing for thousands of years. It also suggests that they must be virtually impregnable to attack by natural pests, diseases, wildfires and the like. Why are there none growing today which are, say, 7, 8 or 9 thousand years old by straight-forward tree-ring counting? Long-age plant claims wither There have been many claims of plants other than trees being supposedly older than 10,000 years, including the King’s Holly of Tasmania (which was based on fossil remains near the plant) and a colony of Box Huckleberry (based on growth estimates over an area of 25 km2/10 miles2) in Pennsylvania, USA. The most notable claims, however, have been about the Creosote Bush (Larrea tridentate) of North America. It is a very common, unspectacular-looking shrub that thrives in the extreme, hot desert regions of both North and South America. The ‘granddaddy’ of them all is a plant named ‘King Clone’. Found in 1980, it was claimed to be 11,700 years old. But this date has been much revised, with scientists now speculating about an age of 7,500 years or less.1In times of drought, the Creosote Bush looks more dead than alive. When there is plentiful water, it bursts to life with a foliage of waxy green leaves that ‘colours’ the desert. When crushed, its resins smell like creosote, 2 hence its name.Its growth cycle begins as a single plant. As the original shrub gets older, the stem and branches at its centre die and get covered with sand. However, the branches on the outward edges continue to grow to become the main plant. This process is repeated over and over again (for many years) as each new bush grows and dies, eventually forming rings of small creosote bushes stretching out over many hundreds of metres. This is a form of natural cloning. 3Dating is assumed by estimating the growth rate at which the rings of bushes increase. The debate regarding the age of King Clone demonstrates the inexactness of this uniformitarian approach; it is impossible to accurately determine a plant’s age based on current growth rates.

The oldest living things by Jerry Bergman and Robert Doolan By far the tallest living things are redwood trees. Relatives of the sequoia, they can soar taller than a 36-storey building. Like all trees, redwoods and sequoias continue to grow as long as they are alive. Thus, the longer a tree lives, the taller and wider it becomes.Except for men who cut them down for timber or earthquakes, fires and lightning—redwoods and sequoias have few enemies. Scientists have researched the redwoods carefully, and have not found even one that has died of old age, sickness, or insect attack. This latter is a common problem of trees. The Dutch elm disease killed and ruined thousands of the beautiful shade trees of many American small towns.It is significant therefore that no redwood tree has been found older than about 4,000 years. There are, though, many sequoias and redwoods in the 3,000 year-old range. The most famous sequoia tree, ‘General Sherman’, located in the Sequoia National Park in California, is about as high as a 27-storey building. It has been around for something like 4,000 years. To support its height, its immense trunk is so large that 17 men stretching out their arms could just about reach around it. This single tree contains enough wood to construct 100 modern houses.But as tall and old as many sequoias are, they are not the oldest tree. A bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California has this honour. It is more than 4,000 years old.As trees such as the bristlecone pines and the redwoods are still living after 4,000 years or more, and seem impervious to the normal problems of trees, it is conceivable that they could live another 4,000 years or longer—a total of 8,000 years! Why then, are none found much older than 4,000 years?It would seem that if these trees grew before this time, it would take something like a catastrophic natural disaster to wipe them out. This is seen as strong evidence for Flood having occurred a little more than 4,000 years ago.Living tree ‘8,000 years older than the new era (?)On a wild Tasmanian mountain there is a magnificent, recently discovered stand of Huon pine trees that has been called the world’s ‘oldest known living organism’. Newspaper reports have claimed that what looks like hundreds of trees densely covering one hectare (2.5 acres), is all part of the one tree, since all these ‘trees’ appear to have identical DNA. Over the years, it is believed, ‘snow has forced its branches to the ground, where they have taken root’. (The Sydney Morning Herald, January 28, 1995, page 1.)The media reported that scientists had definitly found the world’s ‘oldest living organism’ in these Tasmanian Huon pines. A scientist working on the project said, ‘we have made no such claim’.It is hard to see how a tree could be older than the time since the Flood, so if its published age of ‘more than 10,500 years old’ were correct, then this would present a serious challenge to Old Testament chronology. In fact, some media reports claim the tree ‘could be 30,000 or 40,000 years old’.So have these dates been obtained from drill-core sampling of the growth rings in the main trunk? Not surprisingly, the answer is ‘no’. The source of the reported ‘age’ may be a ‘guesstimate’ based on core sampling a lake below the mountain which contains Huon pine pollen. This is clearly based on far more assumptions and uncertainties than tree-ring dating. Even the apparent absence of DNA differences is not 100 per cent certain, it seems, though probable.It appears that traditional tree-ring dating on any timber found growing at the site so far gives an age of no more than 4,000 years. This is well within the ages of the oldest living bristlecone pines, which have around 4,600 tree-rings and are still the world’s oldest living organisms. (Bristlecone pines are native to the Rocky Mountains of the United States.)One of the scientists working on the project has issued a statement on electronic mail saying that they had only said it was plausible that these trees might turn out to be part of a much older tree that was now underground, but that this was definitely not a foregone conclusion. He said the media ‘decided to run with the story that scientists working in Tasmania have definitely found the oldest living organism in the world. We have made no such claim’.If there was a global Flood around 5,000 years ago, no living thing should be older than that. There are still some uncertainties with tree-ring dating, which is by no means absolute (for example, trees can form more than one ring per year). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the maximum tree-ring ages for living trees fall just within this range. Apart from the Flood, there seems no reason why, if certain trees are capable of living for 4,000 years, some should not have lasted much longer. DAYLI ARTICLES

Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth by Ralph W. Matthews, Ph.D. Before 1955, ages for the Earth based on uranium/thorium/lead ratios were generally about a billion years younger than the currently popular 4.5 billion years. The radiometric evidence for a 4.5 b.y. old Earth is reviewed and deficiencies of the uranium/lead method are discussed. The basic theory of radiometric dating is briefly reviewed. Since 1955 the estimate for the age of the Earth has been based on the assumption that certain meteorite lead isotope ratios are equivalent to the primordial lead isotope ratios on Earth. In 1972 this assumption was shown to be highly questionable. Despite this, the momentum gained in the two decades prior to 1972 has made 4.5 b.y. a popularly accepted “universal constant” even though the foundations on which it was based have been virtually removed. Some evidence is also presented to show that radiometric results that are in agreement with the accepted geological time scale are selectively published in preference to those results that are not in agreement. Basics The geological time scale and an age for the Earth of 4.5 b.y. rely heavily on the uranium/thorium/lead radiometric dating methods.1 Because it is not generally appreciated that the assumptions on which the radiometric estimates are based are a virtually impossible sequence of events, let us refresh our minds on the fundamentals of the method by turning to the hourglass analogy (Fig. 1). This system of measuring time works well providing that: the hole does not clog up, the sand always flows at a known and reproducible rate, we know how much sand is in the bottom at the beginning, no sand is added or subtracted during the timing run. In other words, it has to be a closed system. Since radioactive decay constants are believed to be unalterable, the requirement of an absolutely reproducible rate is hopefully met. Therefore, all one has to do in general terms is to find a radioactive mineral which has been a closed system since the time of mineralization, and for which the amount of the daughter product at the beginning is known, the so-called primordial amount, and the absolute age may be calculated from the present amount of parent and daughter isotopes in the mineral.Briefly, the weakest points in this method are that (a) truly closed systems probably do not exist in nature, 4 (b) the primordial concentration of isotopes is an intractable problem and the value chosen can only be based on assumptions and (c), even the invariance of decay constants is now under question. 5–-12More than a dozen radioactive isotopes are known to have easily altered decay constants, by up to 4% * by merely changing the chemical form of the isotope. Therefore, the following is simply a statement of the obvious;“As in the case with radiometric ages determined from almost any rock unit it is impossible to establish unequivocally that the ages reported here reflect the time of original crystallization or emplacement of the bodies from which they are derived.”13 Before we consider the actual lead/lead isotope data there is one other comment that needs to be made regarding extrapolation of present rates. The radiometric dating method is basically an extrapolation of the form shown in Fig. 2.If the decay constant is known with great accuracy, an extrapolation over one or two thousand years may be regarded as quite reasonable. An extrapolation over 5 b.y. is quite a different story. Five billion years is five million times greater than one thousand years. Therefore, if the extrapolation shown in Fig. 2 is 2.5 cm, five million times greater is about 125 km. It should be obvious that the further one projects present rates, the more likely one is to be quite wrong. 4.5 billion years The 4.5 b.y. era started about 1955 with the publication of a classic paper by Patterson et al.2 In spite of cautions and scepticism advised by the authors this number has been widely and enthusiastically accepted and is usually quoted as if the evidence was decisive and conclusive. It has assumed something of the status of a universal constant to which all other data must be fitted, thus it has become common practice to assume that data which does not fit this result is either wrong or unintelligible.3Now let us consider the actual lead/data from the extensive tabulations of Faul 14 and Russell and Farquhar.15 The following analysis is given in the book Prehistory and Earth Models by Melvin Cook.16 A reproduction of the data is shown in Fig. 3.

Lead-206 and lead-207 are known daughter products from the decay of uranium238 and uranium-235, respectively. Lead-204, a minor isotope of common lead, has no radioactive parent and is believed to be primordial lead. Lead-206 and lead-207 are also believed to be present in primordial lead since there is insufficient uranium to account for all the lead. Just how much lead-206 and 207 were present at the beginning, nobody knows. Any amounts chosen must be based on assumption.As a uranium ore ages, the ratio of lead206 to lead-204 increases as does the ratio of lead206 to lead-207. These ratios for many lead ores are plotted in Fig. 3. The lowest ratios are taken to be the most ancient ores, formed at the beginning, billions of years ago and separated from further radiogenic enrichment.Higher ratios are formed as the lead is fed by ageing uranium ore bodies. The theoretical limit to a 4.5 b.y. old lead fed continuously by uranium occurs at a lead-206 to lead-204 ratio of 18.5, which is taken as the present ratio for common lead. This limit is shown in Fig. 3 16 as the upper boundary to the time clock zone.One third of lead ores are regarded as anomalous,16,17 since they have negative ages, that is, ages extending billions of years into the future, in some cases. These are shown in Fig. 3 as the alteration zone. They show that widespread contamination and differentiation from various sources of lead have occurred during the more than one thousandfold concentration into the present lead ore deposits.18The main problem is this. There is no discontinuity whatever between results lying in the time clock zone and those lying in the alteration zone. All the data show the same scatter.Since there is no reason why the alteration zone should not extend into what is classified as the time clock zone (apart from a belief in 4.5 b.y.), the majority of the data can be explained as indicating a history of geochemical alteration. Therefore the ores lying in the time clock zone are not necessarily any more a reflection of age than those lying in the alteration zone and ones lying in the alteration zone cannot possibly be time indicators.It is probably because of this type of evidence for extensive mixing in the alteration zone that Patterson et al.2 were highly critical of the lead ore method of dating.They wrote: “In view of the evidence for extensive mixing, it would seem contrary to the facts to postulate differing frozen lead/uranium ratios that have existed for billions of years. The requirements of the assumptions in the lead ore method are so extreme it is unlikely that it should give a correct age.” So they took a different approach. They estimated the age of the Earth by substituting the lead isotope ratios of certain meteorites in the Holmes-Houtermans equation. In this equation the primordial lead ratios are required. The values they assumed were based on the lead isotope ratios observed for three meteorites.Since meteorites have not proved to be the ancient objects from the sky that one might imagine, 19 it is surprising that they should be assumed to give the primordial lead composition on Earth. That difficulty aside, they were selected because they contain very little uranium and thorium and are therefore unlikely to contain significant radiogenic lead. However, it is even more surprising to learn that the lead isotope ratios chosen by Patterson et al.2 have been found to be not representative of the majority of meteorites. 20Most meteorites have lead isotope ratios similar to those of present day common lead. Up until 1972 these could be explained as being contaminated with radiogenic lead from uranium and thorium decay. In 1972, however, Gale et al.21 showed unequivocally that there is by no means sufficient uranium and thorium to account for what could previously have been called radiogenic lead. Since the lead in meteorites can no longer be ascribed to uranium/thorium decay, it may also be taken to represent primordial lead.Therefore, since the lead isotope ratios for the majority of meteorites are the same as present day common lead ratios and may also be assumed to represent primordial lead, the billion year age chronology disappears.In case the significance of these results is ignored, a few sentences from the Gale et al.21 should reveal their importance: “ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established. “This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition. “It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.” In plain language, the radiometric estimates for the age of the earth are lacking real foundations. Concordant data It might be argued that although radiometric dating has a few problems, the large body of concordant data using different isotopes shows that the dates are of the right order. In fact, there is no large body of concordant data. There is a large body of discordant data but concordant data are scarce. In 1955 a symposium on radiometric dating was held from which the following was given in the summary: 22 “Radioactive ‘dating’ has been perhaps the most widely publicised of geochemical techniques, but of several known dating methods based on radioactivity, only C-14 dating has developed to the point where it yields consistently reliable ages. Mineral ages obtained from isotope ratios like Pb-206/ U-238, Pb-207/ U-235, and Pb-207/Pb-206, for instance, usually do not agree.” By 1965 the situation had grown no better:23 “Mr Webster Smith … regarded the atomic dating method (except in respect to carbon) as still very tentative especially where the older rocks were concerned and where discordant and even absurd results were quite common. There were

records of granites which atomically were older than other granites that they intruded … argon was all too prone to be either deficient, wholly absent, or even too high; in such cases the author ‘adjusted’ his figures.” By 1976 still no improvement had emerged as the following quotation from even the most general of scientific references, the Encyclopedia Britannica shows:24 “Unfortunately, such checks have painted a generally gloomy picture for those seeking a chronometric tool … Experience shows that, with the exception of results from the mineral uraninite, the three uranium-thorium-lead ages are almost always different.” Where comparison has been possible, the rubidium/strontium age is usually much greater than the uranium/lead age or the lead/lead age.25The potassium/argon age is likewise generally different from other isotopic ages. It has been pointed out by Cook26 that there is about ten times more strontium-87 than could arise from rubidium-87 decay alone even if the Earth were 4.5 b.y. old. That is, about 90% of the strontium-87 must be primordial even on the basis of rubidium-87 decay for 4.5 b.y. It has been similarly shown that there is not nearly enough potassium-40 to account for all the argon-40. 27 It therefore seems quite likely that strontium-87 and argon-40 counted as radiogenic are actually primordial. Any decrease in the assumed radiogenic component, however, shortens geological time. Selective data publication Is there any significance therefore in the rough correlation between some radiometric dates and ages assigned to the geological column? A rough correlation of results is to be expected if publication of ‘agreeable dates’ occurs selectively over grossly discordant dates, and such selective publishing is freely admitted to be a common practice: “In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.”28 “Unpublished work by the author on Silurian shales from Pembrokeshire and the Welsh Borderlands has shown that such rocks can define isochrons giving ages significantly younger than the time of deposition adduced from faunal evidence.”29 “In conventional interpretations of K/Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data, such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.” 30The following quotation from Houtermans31 may show the pressure to conform to the accepted time scale: “Sometimes the dates given by radioactive methods are accepted enthusiastically by the classical geologists, sometimes if these dates do not fit their previously formed hypotheses they come to the conclusion to deny the usefulness of radioactive methods altogether.” In a recent article in Science, entitled “Timekeepers of the Solar System” 32, leading rock-dater Wasserburger is reported to have said: “We’re building a new generation of fairy castles and myths for the next generation to play with.” That is a perfectly realistic assessment of radiometric rock dating methods, and serious chronologists should prefer something more than fairy castles. Henry Faul in his book Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars33 stated: “Much geologic insight into the origin and history of ores can be gained from judicious interpretation of the isotopic composition of lead, but colossal misconceptions can arise from false assumptions.” The key word used by Faul is “judicious” and in context implies interpretation in conformity with the accepted geological time scale. The assumption of a great age will influence the interpretation of the data and is certainly likely to lead to colossal misconceptions, the most outstanding of which is the widely propagated view that radiometric dating has established the age of the Earth to be 4.5 b.y. Acknowledgements The author received considerable help from the ICR technical monograph on radiometric dating by Prof. H. Slusher, and the extensive documentation provided by J. Woodmorappe in the CRS Quarterly.34 He also acknowledges valuable material supplied in correspondence with Drs. R. Kofahl, J. Read, and H. Slusher. Variable radioactive decay rates and the changes in solar activity by Andrew Sibley Figure 1. NASA SDO satellite image (AIA 131) of an X6.9 flare on 9 August 2011. Recent research by physicists has suggested that there is some correlation between changes in solar activity and radioactive decay rates. Jere Jenkins and Ephraim Fischbach (from Purdue University, Indiana), for instance, have found that there appears to be a correlation between the radioactive decay rate of32Si and 226Ra on the earth and changes relating to the sun’s activity. This is an important area of research for those who question the constancy of radioactive decay rates, and such variable decay rates may have a bearing upon our understanding of the dating of various rock layers.1 The growing evidence Discrepancies in the radioactive decay of 32Si and 226Ra on the earth’s surface seem to show a degree of correlation with the annual cycle of the earth’s orbit around the sun; that is between aphelion and perihelion with rates speeding up as the earth gets closer to the sun and decreasing as it moves away (data was gathered by the Brookhaven National Laboratory for the beta decay of 32Si and the Physikalisch-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany for the alpha decay of 226Ra).2 The 32Si data was supplied by David Alburger, who had observed anomalies in the decay rate of this isotope through work carried out in 1986. The decay rate seem to be fastest in January–February with a low point in July– August.3 This seems to correlate with a small time lag, or phase shift, between the distance between the sun and earth, and is as yet unexplained. Of course the changes observed in decay rates is small, perhaps of the order of less than 1 percent

over the annual cycle, but then any changes in the distance from Earth to the sun is also relatively small.In another study a sample of 54Mn was found to vary with the occurrence of a significant X-ray solar flare (level X3) and a high-energy solar proton storm (raised flux levels at > 10 MeV protons) on 13 December 2006, and a similar correlation was seen in relation to a weaker X-ray flare on 17 December 2006.4Furthermore, with the 13 December event the variation in decay rates began to change some 36 to 40 hours prior to the X-ray flare. However, it is noteworthy that the observed decay rate seems to have reduced with the flare, whereas the decay rate in the previous findings increased with closer proximity to the sun, as Barry Setterfield for instance has pointed out. 5 The authors suggest that it is unlikely that instrument error is the cause of the differences.Peter Sturrock of Stanford University has also found that there is evidence of a correlation with the 33-day period spin of the solar core and decay rates of 32Si and 36Cl.6 Sturrock points out that one side of the sun’s inner core emits neutrinos more strongly than the other, and from this accumulating evidence, he has proposed that changes in neutrino flux differences may have some impact upon the rate at which some radioactive isotopes decay. However, this is controversial because neutrinos are notoriously unreactive and difficult to detect, and decay rates are supposed to be unresponsive to change as Jenkins points out.Why would something apparently so weak affect something so stable? In later work, Fischbach, Jenkins, and Sturrock proposed the existence of a new particle called the neutrello, which in many respects is the same as the neutrino, but differs in its ability to interact with radionuclei. 7 Setterfield also points out that if neutrino flux density is the cause then that should have shown up in the decay rates of radioactive material onboard various space probes that have traversed into lower and higher orbits. 5Therefore neutrinos would not be the obvious candidate for a causal link.2,4 Further discussion Jenkins and Fischbach have discounted geo-magnetic disturbances as a possibility due to lack of correlation, although they have not considered the fact that the solar event of 13 December 2006 also led to a ground-level neutron event (GLE) that may have led to changes in the decay rate of their sample.8 Very high-energy solar proton storms (with raised flux levels at > 100 MeV proton energy level) may increase the background count of neutrons at ground level as secondary products, particularly in high latitudes.However, these events are relatively short-lived, a matter of a few hours, compared to the length of anomaly found in Jenkins and Fischbach’s study, and it occurred after the decrease in decay rates had begun. A related possibility is the effect of a Forbush decrease on radioactive decay rates. The increase in the high-energy solar proton flux acts in opposition to the flow of cosmic gamma rays, but again the observed decrease in decay rates happened prior to the start of the proton storm. Instead, if there is a correlation it might tie in with the developing sunspot’s magnetic complexity, the tension of which builds up prior to the release of a coronal mass ejection and emission of X-ray flares and associated high-energy proton storms. But as the research suggests, there seems to be changes taking place on or within the sun that precede the flare.An alternative explanation, however, might be related to differences in the scalar energy field density in the vacuum of space (sometimes called zero point energy or the cosmological constant and observed as the Casimir effect— also related to theories of quantum gravity). The zero point energy is the energy left over in a thermodynamic system when it is reduced to absolute zero (it is equal to ½ hf, where f is the frequency and h is Planck’s Constant). Barrow and Shaw for instance have proposed that the sun’s mass may modify this scalar field ϕ and that changes in the gradient of the field might be the cause of the annual variation in radioactive decay rates of isotopes on earth, as the radius of the earth’s orbit varies in distance over the year. Their proposal is that the electromagnetic fine-structure constant α EM is in fact sensitive to changes in the scalar field, and so affects alpha and beta decay rates. 9 However, Jenkins and Fischbach doubt whether variations in the fine-structure constant alone are large enough to account for their findings, although they suggest coupling from two different scalar fields to αEM and to the electron-proton ratio Me/Mp may have a larger impact upon decay rates. Setterfield also favours an explanation involving changes in the density of the zero point energy field that exists in the vacuum of space. He has suggested that the movement of the solar system as a whole through space against this field, and the earth’s motion relative to this, might help to explain the phase shift between the aphelion-perihelion cycle and the variation in radioactive decay rates.The rate of change found so far is, however, really quite small, and not of the order of magnitude that would immediately benefit creation science, although it does offer the possibility of fruitful future research, particularly the possibility of sensitivity between the fine-structure constant and radioactive decay rates. If it is possible to find a way of accounting for larger disturbances in the scalar energy field, perhaps through amplification of longitudinal waves that modify its density, or constructive/destructive interference of separate waves forms in this field, then that might offer one possibility for accelerated or decelerated decay rates. Tentative possibilities might be related to gravity waves or the shock wave from a supernova explosion for instance. Summary This recent work provides a glimpse into an area of research that may provide fruitful outcomes for those with an interest in creation science, particularly the variability of radioactive decay rates. Although at present the identified size of changes are quite small, there are perhaps early observational indications that larger changes in decay rates are possible. Future theoretical and observational research may uncover such possibilities. Solutions involving neutrinos do not appear to offer sufficient energetic interaction to be credible, although further research will shed light on this. However, research into the effect of scalar energy fields may offer another way forward. This may also help provide an explanation for rates of helium diffusion and the production of radio-haloes found in zircon crystals, the radioactive decay rate of which is discussed by the RATE team.10 The Oklo natural reactors in Precambrian rocks, Gabon, Africa by Eugene Chaffin The reactor that began without human intervention Figure 1. The natural nuclear fission reactors of Oklo: (1) Nuclear reactor zones, (2) Sandstone, (3) Uranium ore layer, and (4) Granite. (Image courtesy of the US Department of Energy (DoE)). Can a uranium deposit begin self-sustaining nuclear reactions without human intervention? In 1972, while analyzing uranium which had been mined in Gabon, Africa, some French scientists discovered some uranium which had an abnormally small percentage of the isotope U-235 as compared to U-238. In most uranium 0.72% is U-235, and no natural uranium had ever previously been discovered which was more than 0.1% different from 0.72%. In trying to explain why the particular ore they were analyzing was different, the French scientists were led to the hypothesis that a fission chain reaction had occurred in this ore, hence a natural reactor had existed long before man ever discovered fission or built a nuclear reactor. Since they also

hypothesized that the reactor was about 2 billion years old, it is of interest to creationists to find out whether the numerical data that were gathered could also be explained in a short time frame or whether it is evidence for accelerated nuclear decay.According to the Geologic Time Table, of conventional historic geology, the Oklo surface rocks are Precambrian strata. Thus, they would represent the rocks present before the Cambrian “explosion” which shows the sudden appearance of multi-celled plants and animals. In many creationist models, the Precambrian rocks at Oklo would be either the lowest lying sediments from the Flood, or else the pre-Flood rocks. Since the reactors were found in some steeply dipping sandstone sediments (figure 1), their exact time of placement is not certain, and the nuclear reactions could have occurred after the sandstone deposition, but they would represent an early stage of earth history in any credible scenario.At Oklo, the first reactor zones discovered were in a strip mine. In 1975 a scientific meeting was held in Gabon, which included some sessions on benches in the strip mine next to the reactor deposits. Participants observed the exposed rocks inside the strip mine including uranium oxide deposits. Since the conference, more than a dozen reactor zones have been discovered at Oklo, and others about 20 km south of Oklo (figure 2). Today, water fills the Oklo mine’s pit, which was permitted to flood, even covering the sites of the reactors, after the mine’s uranium ore had been exploited. The fission process Figure 2. One of the uranium concentrations at Oklo.Image courtesy of the US Department of Energy (DoE) Nuclear fission begins when a nucleus deforms. The deformation may be produced when a nucleus absorbs a neutron, resulting in an excited nucleus with extra energy. The situation is often compared to a charged liquid drop. As the drop oscillates it may assume a peanut shape, which, because of the positive charge on both ends, then splits in two. The nuclear force of attraction between nuclear particles is short ranged, hence after the drop is split apart the only force left is the repulsive electrical force, and the two parts must repel each other. The two fragments then emit neutrons and photons. The neutrons may go on to cause more fissions. If the number of neutrons is enough, a selfsustaining chain reaction will result, which we call a nuclear reactor. One result of all this fission is a lot of fission fragments, i.e. smaller nuclei produced when the uranium splits. Any viable theory explaining the Oklo deposits must therefore be able to explain and correlate two sets of data. One is the amount of different forms (isotopes) of the fission-product elements remaining in the reactor at Oklo at present, and the other is the amount of uranium found in the ore. Both of these sets of data, plus a theory, gives us estimates of the amount of fission that has occurred, and both sets of data must result in the same estimate if the theory is correct. Reactor geometry—can it work? Some of the natural reactors are very thin slab-like deposits. They are, in fact, too thin to support a self-sustained nuclear reaction. However, compactification of sedimentary deposits over time typically reduces the thicknesses of strata by 50% or more, especially as the sediments dry out and/or expel water from pores. 1-4 Whether the deposits originally had the right configuration to support sustained nuclear reactions is thus a difficult question. The evidence from element abundances There are approximately thirty elements and many isotopes of these elements which are produced as a result of fission. A large fraction of these elements were found in the Oklo ore, still present and immobilized. In most of the reactor zones, another fraction of the fission products probably dissolved and moved away due to water percolating through the ore. Studies by several workers seem to indicate that elements susceptible to ground water action, such as rubidium, strontium, cesium, barium, and cadmium, have been carried away. One element which did not leach away and was particularly suitable for numerical studies is the rare earth element neodymium.5From these studies of neodymium we can estimate the number of fissions which must have occurred to produce the neodymium. We can also calculate independently, from the percentage of the uranium left at present as U-235 and the actual concentration of uranium, the amount of uranium that must have fissioned. These two ways of calculating the number of fissions must agree. In both creationist and evolutionary (old-earth) models, the answer comes out wrong—the apparent amount of fission that should have occurred does not come out equal to the amount that should have occurred to produce the neodymium. Part of the discrepancy is due to fission of Pu-239, decay of Pu-239 to U-235, fast neutron induced fission of U-238, and possible changes in the size and shape of the ore. When these factors are taken into account, the data are consistent with the hypothesis that a reactor produced the elements at Oklo, but the actual, detailed numerical comparison depends on mostly unknown distributions and their changes over time.An examination of element abundances in the remnant rocks show that the reactors operated by using surface and ground waters to moderate and reflect fission neutrons in order to sustain the chain reaction. Relatively recent work by Meshik et al.6 indicates that the reactors may have cycled on and off as groundwater concentrations were changed by the heating caused by the reactor and then replenished after the reactor shut down. Meshik et al. thought that the reactors may have operated for a half hour until accumulated heat boiled away the water, then shutting down for a couple of hours.7 How much energy did the reactors produce? The reactor power production turns out to be a bit different in various models. The total amount of energy that the Oklo reactor produced may have been as small as 440 MW-years according to the creation model with a young-earth assumption, and 15,000 MW-years in the conventional model with a 2-billion-years-ago assumption. By comparison, modern electric-power reactors, rated at 2000 to 3000 MW of thermal power, would have produced these amounts of energy in 2 months and 5 to 6 years, respectively, operating at full power. The evolution model requires more energy to have been produced since 2 billion years ago the percentage of uranium that is U-235 would have been 3% instead of 0.72%, with the result that more fission had to occur. If one assumes accelerated decay has altered the relative uranium isotope abundances, then one can accommodate a larger power level for the reactors.This also brings up another apparent discrepancy. It is commonly stated by nuclear engineers that an ordinary water reactor with 0.72% U-235 fuel would not be able to maintain a self-sustaining nuclear reaction. However, this is not really a restriction on the Oklo reactor since: 1) the reactor does not have to produce continuous electrical power, but can instead operate in spurts, with the time in between being used to allow fission product “poisons” to decay; and 2) the RATE project results indicate that decay constants are

variable and hence the actual percentage of 0.72% U-235 may not have been the actual value of this percentage even at the relatively recent ages suggested by creationist models. Evidence for changing constants Whether self-sustaining nuclear reactions are possible is dependent on several factors, including the leakage rate of neutrons from the reactor and the possible presence of so-called poisons. The presence of small amounts of boron or vanadium in the Oklo ore would have absorbed neutrons and thus served to prevent the chain reactions from ever occurring. Steve Lamoreaux and his Los Alamos colleague Justin Torgerson reported that the Oklo data are consistent with a slightly different value of the fine structure constant than today’s value. 8,9 However, the amount they specified was very small, only 4.5 x 10-6 %, and subject to possible future refinements. The data also provide constraints on changes in the strong coupling constant of nuclear forces. Helium-3 capture in lunar regolith and the age of the moon by Andrew Sibley Figure 1. (Top) Drawing of the 18 August 1868 solar eclipse by Captain Bullock on expedition in the Celebes Sea showing the variable solar wind stream. (Middle) Eclipse of 11 August 1999 highlighting the corona and solar wind, taken in France. (Bottom) Image of the Full Moon taken 22 October 2010, from Madison, Alabama, USA. Photo: Luc Viatour.Helium has been an important part of solar physics for more than a century, and is also of interest to creation scientists in seeking to understand decay rates within the earth. It is one of the most abundant elements in the universe, and is also plentiful in the earth arising as alpha particles from radioactive decay of thorium and uranium. Jules Janssen and Norman Lockyer first, but separately, detected helium during the 18 August 1868 eclipse of the sun (figure 1). Both noticed a new spectral line in imagery, and Lockyer named the newly discovered element after the Greek god of the sun—Helios. The recent RATE project has of course been looking at the abundance of helium nuclei (alpha particles containing two protons and two neutrons) in the earth from the decay of radioactive elements in zircon crystals, and found evidence that there is still too much helium in the earth if it is as old as secular science believes. As a result, Russell Humphreys, as part of the RATE team, has tentatively suggested that there may have been a period of accelerated nuclear decay during the Flood year to account for the evidence.1 Helium-3 and the lunar regolith There is however another isotope of helium, helium-3 that is formed in a different way than helium-4. It is claimed by some commentators that there is an abundance of He-3 on the moon because it has been bombarded by the solar wind for ‘billions of years’, and that it is too much for the moon to be as young as creationists hold.2 Helium-3 arises from the radioactive decay of tritium, a ‘heavy’ isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and two neutrons. Through beta decay one of the neutrons in the nuclei emits an electron and is converted into a proton; thus the new atomic nuclei has two protons and one neutron turning an isotope of hydrogen into an isotope of helium (31H → 32He + e). This decay process has a half-life of about 12.3 years. Helium-3 also arises from complex nuclear processes in the sun and the sun’s corona involving interaction between protons, deuterium and alpha particles, and the products can be emitted in relatively high concentrations from powerful solar flare events.3 In the depth of the earth, He-3 may arise from the radioactive decay of lithium-6.Although it is a relatively rare isotope of helium, the moon’s surface layer of soil, a fine layer called the regolith, is in fact relatively enriched in places in He-3 compared to the earth. Helium-3 found in natural gas wells within the earth is found to be around 10,000 times rarer than He-4, although the abundance of He-4 may also be the cause of this smaller ratio. But in the lunar regolith the ratio is estimated to be 28 parts-per-million (ppm) of He-4, and estimated up to around 44 parts-per-billion (ppb) of He-3 in polar regions with weak sunlight.4However, in areas exposed to strong solar radiation levels may be as low as 1.4 ppb due to degassing, although the Apollo and Luna missions measured an average of 6.2 ppb in different places. Another study suggests some lunar polar areas sheltered from direct sunlight may contain as much as 50 ppb.5 This is then a variable ratio of approximately 1:20,000 to 1:560. Helium-3 and tritium in the solar wind Most of the He-3 in the lunar regolith is thought to have come from the solar wind, a fast stream of protons, electrons, alpha particles and other ions, some of which is absorbed in the lunar surface because the moon does not have a significant magnetic field or a dense atmosphere. The earth has both and charged particles are deflected by the magnetosphere, or

captured within the Van Allen belts and released back into space; thus He-3 nuclei do not impact the surface of the earth in the same way they do at the moon’s surface. If the moon has had a weak dipolar magnetic field in the past then that might help to direct and concentrate charged particles towards the polar-regions where the cold conditions then help to lock-in the helium. It is also more strongly bound in a mineral called ilmenite (FeTiO 3), this a result of its atomic structure, whereas the looser regolith exposed to strong sunlight cannot hold onto helium isotopes well. 6 He-3 is incidentally considered very valuable because of its potential use in nuclear fusion and it may even make economic sense to mine it from the moon or use as fuel for space travel.But what can be said about the claim that there is too much He-3 on the moon if it is recent? We may, I believe, make the following initial comments. Firstly, it is likely that a lot of the lunar H-3, He-3 and He-4 are released back into space and therefore its concentration in the regolith is possibly in a steady state, although we should bear in mind lunar-polar concentrations are only estimates. Secondly, amounts arriving from the sun may vary due to different levels of solar activity; such as coronal mass ejections, high-speed solar wind streams from coronal holes and occasional very highenergy proton and other ion storms. A strong S3 10MeV high-energy proton storm will increase the proton flux 10,000 fold above background levels and may last for several days (to 1,000 cm -2s-1sr-1) with event frequency around 1 per year.7 Such solar storms, and coronal mass ejections, may enhance the background solar wind contribution significantly, and alter isotope ratios. The RATE group suggested that solar activity might have been much higher during periods of accelerated nuclear decay, i.e. during early creation and the Flood.8The decay rate from H-3 to He-3 is however relatively short being a matter of around 12.3 years, and from this we can assume for the sake of the following calculation that over a 6,000-year period virtually all tritium arriving with the solar wind will be turned to He-3. We may also assume that there is a significant direct contribution of He-3 from the sun’s corona. So it is possible from this to make some basic calculations simply based upon the background solar wind; that is by ignoring additional possible contributions and losses as outlined above. Comparing solar wind fluence and lunar regolith concentrations Observations taken at the ACE satellite suggest a typical solar wind speed of around 450km/s, or some 45,000,000 cm/s, while the density of the solar wind is averaged around 6 protons per cubic cm. 9 So in one second 270,000,000 protons are available to arrive per cm2 at the moon’s surface. In terms of concentrations of alpha and proton concentrations in the solar wind, measurement suggests a ratio of between 1 in 12 to 1 in 30 He-4 nuclei to hydrogen nuclei, or 3.3 to 8%. 10 Anglin et al suggest a tritium-proton ratio of 2 x 10-5 averaged over several solar flare events.11 The deuterium hydrogen ratio has been estimated at 1/61,000.12 Other studies suggest a tritium/ hydrogen ration of 10-11 in interstellar space, although this assumes over time most tritium converts to He-3 and is not really representative of the solar wind near earth orbit.13 Cameron however suggests a direct He-3/He-4 ratio of 1.6 x 10 -4 in the solar system as a whole, 14 although Ramaty and Kozlovsky have argued that the He-3/He-4 ratio may increase to 10-2 in association with powerful solar flares at certain high energy levels.3The tritium/hydrogen ratio may also increase with such flares, but there is not a direct correlation between that and the He-3/He-4 ratio. Fowler and Colgate even report He-3 numbers eight times higher than He-4 in rare solar flares.15 Other research from the Isee 3 spacecraft suggests the solar wind has a relatively high He-3/He-4 ratio of 4.8 x 10-4.16But I think here it is appropriate to assume H-3 contribution of 2 x 10 -5, and He-3 contribution of 1/12 x 1.6 x 10 -4 of the average proton density. So in every one second it is estimated that around 3,600 (and occasionally much higher at around 225,000) He-3 particles will arrive at the lunar surface per cm 2 (270,000,000 x 1/12 x 1.6 x 10-4) with the tritium contribution around 5,400 cm-2 s-1 (270,000,000 x 2 x 10-5), converting over several decades to He-3. This gives a combined contribution of 9,000 particles cm-2 s-1 assuming relatively benign solar activity.The regolith mineral ilmenite has a molecular mass of 152 (FeTiO3) and its density is around 2 g/cm3. So one gramme will have 3.96 x 1021molecules (given Avogadro’s number of 6.02214 x 1023), and 1 cm3 will have 7.92 x 1021 molecules. From the above we may take the unmeasured higher estimate of 44 ppb of He-3 in the regolith where degassing is weakest, so 3.48 x 10 14 nuclei in 1 cm3 of ilmenite will be of He-3. Now in 6,000 years there are 1.9 x 1011 seconds, and given a combined flux of 9,000 He-3 and tritium ions per second arriving at the lunar surface per square cm, about 1.71 x 1015 ions may arrive at the moon’s surface in 6,000 years. This is about five times the estimated amount of He-3 in one cubic cm of lunar polar regolith. This calculation has also ignored the effect of powerful solar flares and proton storms that may enhance the proton flux and He-3/He-4 ratio substantially, although these are historical events that are unmeasured. One may also call into question the accuracy of the estimate of lunar-polar concentrations that are as yet also unmeasured, but if the moon has had a weak dipolar magnetic field in the past, as Humphreys has inferred from data,17 that would help to direct and concentrate charged particles towards the polar regions. Summary Although He-3 is formed in a different way than He-4, there are no reasons to believe that the abundance of this isotope in the lunar regolith is a major problem for creation science, and indeed measured lunar concentrations of He-3 are significantly less than the possible solar fluence over 6,000 years. By using average values and estimates from the solar wind and ignoring additional contributions, while seeking to minimise losses, there is found to be sufficient time to account for the concentration of helium-3 in the lunar regolith. Contributions from flare related and high-energy particle events are also likely to have a major impact, the historic frequency of which is unknown. Argon from RATE site confirms the earth is young by Russell Humphreys Recently a critic1 of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) 2 creation research project inadvertently helped me find a new line of evidence supporting the young age of the world.3 The latest issue of theJournal of Creation has a technical article4 detailing the new evidence I outline here. It comes from a site that RATE had previously studied, a borehole that penetrated miles deep into the granitic rock of the earth’s crust near a volcanic crater in northern New Mexico, USA. (Figure 1 below). Photo courtesy of US National Park Service. Figure 1. Valle Grande, New Mexico, USA, is inside Valles Caldera, a 16-km-wide volcanic crater. The borehole from which RATE’s zircons came, and the feldspar for this study, is just outside the caldera’s western rim. Tiny radioactive crystals of zircon extracted from the borehole samples contain uranium238 and its nuclear decay product lead-206. Assuming today’s slow decay rates, uniformitarian 5 geoscientists estimate the

rock formation is 1.5 billion years old. But creation scientists found the zircons retained surprisingly high amounts of the helium that the uranium-to-lead decay would have produced. On the assumption that the rock temperature in the past was about the same as it is now, the leak rates we measured of helium from those zircons gave us an age for the rock of only (6,000 ± 2,000) years. 6This result indicates that over a billion years’ worth of nuclear decay (at today’s rate) made the helium in the zircons during a period of only thousands of years. That is consistent with RATE’s hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay and accelerated removal of the heat generated thereby. 7 RATE found a number of other lines of evidence supporting the hypothesis.8 Uniformitarians, of course, do not want to accept that idea, so they have instead tried to re-interpret the RATE data in order to retain their long ages of geologic time.The critic wanted to increase the helium-leak age to over a billion years by having the formation be very much cooler in the past than it is at present. That would slow the leakage. He depended heavily on a 1986 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research9 by geoscientists from three US universities. They modelled past temperatures in the formation using argon data in the borehole as a constraint. Though the paper was one of three I had used as references on the formation’s temperature, it seemed unclear to me and I did not go over it carefully. But the new criticism made me examine it much more closely. Photo courtesy of NASA. Figure 2. Valles Caldera photographed from space shuttle. GT-2 is RATE borehole. Annotated by Humphreys. 1986 article ignored nearby volcano To my surprise, I found that this paper had completely ignored the heat that the nearby volcano (Figure 2) would have applied to the formation during the alleged one million years since its eruption. Instead they assumed the temperature of the formation was incredibly low until relatively recently, an assumption that the helium critic welcomed because it supported his assertions. The other two papers I had cited contradicted the low-temperature assumption, one with much more reasonable heat models, the other with actual data.In my reply10 to the helium critic, I reviewed all three papers carefully, concluding that in the uniformitarian view, past temperatures in the formation would have been significantlyhigher than today, high enough for long enough to almost completely eradicate helium from the zircons. That means that RATE’s assumption of constant temperatures was actually quite generous to uniformitarians. But Harrison et al.9 wanted much lower temperatures than today for most of the alleged million years since the volcano erupted. Why did they want to ignore its heat? Figure 3. Feldspar from Colorado, of the same type (microcline) as in the RATE borehole. Impurities in this variety (amazonite) colour the normally-white crystals bluegreen. Black crystals are smoky quartz. Photo by Wikipedia. A million-year-old volcano would eliminate argon The answer relates to the fact that not only helium, but also argon, can leak from minerals. The hotter the minerals, the faster the leaks.11 Feldspar, a common mineral in the granitic rock (Figure 3), contains a lot of potassium, about 0.01% of which is the radioactive isotope potassium-40. Today it decays very slowly into the stable isotope argon-40. Comparing the two isotopes and assuming today’s rate of decay is the basis for the familiar ‘potassium-argon’ dating method, Harrison et al. found that in the deepest, hottest part of the borehole, over 20% of the nuclear-decay-generated argon has leaked out of the feldspar crystals. They also measured how fast argon leaks from the feldspar at various depths in the borehole. Using those data, I show that even assuming that the deepest sample did not get hotter than its present temperature, it would have lost nearly all of its argon in a million years. 12 That is why Harrison et al. were forced to assume the temperature was very low until relatively recently. Then, they assumed that some unknown, unspecified source of heat rapidly raised the temperature in just twenty thousand years up to today’s high temperature. Creationist geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner told me that “given the small value for the measured heat conductivity of granite, such a temperature scenario for this site is not defensible, since it violates the simple and well-known physics of heat diffusion.” Argon data say the site is young The rock in the borehole is dry, which combined with its low heat conductivity means that its temperature cannot change rapidly. Even if we assume Harrison et al. were correct in postulating a recent (and as yet completely unobserved) intrusion of lava very close to the borehole, the temperature could not have changed by more than 50 Celsius degrees (90 Fahrenheit degrees) over the past five millennia.13 That is a relatively small change. More reasonable uniformitarian heat models 14 for the site done by Los Alamos National Laboratory give much smaller changes. That allows us to assume (for simplicity of calculation) that the rock temperature has been roughly constant over those past few thousand years.Then, using Harrison’s own data and equations, I calculate that the feldspar in the rock formation would have lost the observed amount of argon in only 5,100 years, give or take a few millennia according to my estimate of the experimental uncertainty in the data. This age is consistent with results in the Harrison et al. paper, although they wanted to regard the numbers as indicating only the duration of their assumed fast heating pulse after their alleged eons of incredible coolness.This 5,100-year argon diffusion age is consistent with RATE’s helium diffusion age of (6,000 ± 2,000) years for the same rock formation. So now we have two different age measurements using two different gases from two different types of nuclear decay in two different minerals —and the two methods agree within their error bounds. In contrast, the uniformitarian scenario of long ages would leave the rocks with almost no helium and little argon, contrary to the observations of both RATE and Harrison et al.

Neutrinos—the not-so-neutral particles by Emil Silvestru

Figure 1. Solar flares, which always mark increase in solar activity, are preceded by an increase in solar neutrino output. In the references the decay rate fluctuations are reported to happen just before solar flares form. pp I–III = proton–proton branches; hep = helium-electron-proton reaction; pep = proton–electron–proton reaction; ve = electron neutrino.Of all the assumptions involved in radiometric dating, the constancy of the radioactive decay rate has been considered the most certain, half-life being treated, for all practical reasons, as constant. Even if at the level of individual atoms decay is random (stochastic), it was always considered that if there are enough individual atoms in any analyzed sample, the decay rate of the sample is predictable, i.e. ‘constant’. One of the main reasons for such a position was the assumption that no natural processes can or do influence radioactive decay.This assumption was seriously challenged by recent discoveries. Data from Brookhaven National Laboratory showed a statistical discrepancy of measured decay rates published over the years. 1 Even more interestingly, 32Si measured decay rates revealed seasonal variations (modulation), being slightly (0.1%) 2faster in the winter than summer. At that point, the variation was dismissed as a technical glitch; some sort of measurement error.The story gained momentum in 2006 when a clear cause-effect situation was discovered: during a solar flare event, the decay rate of the radioisotope 54Mn was measured to be slightly slower.2 In early December 2006, Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins showed that a spike in X-ray flux due to the solar flare coincided with a dip in manganese decay rate. A few days later, another X-ray spike was found to coincide with a dip in manganese decay. On 17 December 2006, a third such situation was documented, the dip being more evident. Regardless of the facts recorded, the paper submitted by the two authors was rejected by Physical Review Letters because it lacked a mechanism to back it up!The two researchers continued their work, however, and studied another set of data from an experiment performed at the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany and found out that226Ra decay rates also showed seasonal variation. The importance of this discovery lies not only in simply reinforcing the statistics but also in the fact that unlike the previously-mentioned radioisotopes (decaying by β decay), the radium-226 decay is of α type. At about the same time, Fischbach and Jenkins suggested that the culprits were neutrinos 3 in the solar flares. Such an explanation was acceptable for β decay, which is governed by the weak interaction and neutrinos are known to be affected by the weak interaction. Yet α decay should not be influenced by neutrinos.2Proceeding undeterred by the skepticism of most physicists, the two scientists have found that decay-rate modulation is in sync with the earth’s orbit.4-8 Stanford University’s professor emeritus Peter Sturrock then suggested that they test if the modulation was also linked to the rotation of the sun, since the neutrino output of our star is not even over its entire surface and the surface rotates over 28 days. What emerged from Brookhaven National Laboratory was a modulation pattern with a period of 33 days. Since the modulation is now proven to be real and indeed connected to some sort of 33-day solar cyclicity, it is suggested the core rotates slower than the surface because it is the core where nuclear reactions are believed to produce neutrinos.The question that remains to be answered now is how are solar neutrinos influencing radioactive decay on Earth? As Jenkins puts it: “What we’re suggesting is that something that doesn’t really interact with anything is changing something that can’t be changed.” 1 Or maybe neutrinos have nothing to do with this and there is some sort of unknown solar particle that causes decay modulation. The major fact is, as Fischbach puts it: “To summarize, what we are showing is that the decay constant is not really a constant.”2 Is this helping the creationist cause? Whoever would like to jump to conclusions and say “that’s it, the decay rate is not constant, therefore all radiometric dating methods are invalid” should think twice. Yes, a mental barrier has been breached: there are constants that are not so constant after all. But the very small variation does not change the order of magnitude of the calculated radiometric ages.9 Most would probably cause errors within a given method’s error margin.I shall not discuss now the whole range of problems radiometric methods have, a topic that is copiously presented in the YEC literature, but I would like to point out another assumption: that only solar neutrinos interfere with radioactive decay on Earth. Since we only have reliable decay rate records for less than half a century, there is no way to verify older anomalies. Is it implausible that other episodes existed in the geological history of the planet that cannot be linked to the sun? This leads to another major question: are there other sources of neutrinos? The answer is “yes”. Other natural sources of neutrinos Supernovae are known to produce neutrino fluxes, but unless their physics is different from what is commonly held, their distance from Earth would prevent their neutrinos from significantly influencing decay rates.A much more important and very little understood source of neutrinos can be the central bulge of our galaxy (galactic neutrinos). Depending on its physics (still a matter of speculation, sometimes quite wild!), the neutrino flux from the central bulge can not only be significant and comparable to the sun’s but it can also be periodic.The earth itself produces neutrinos (dubbed ‘geoneutrinos’) from

the β decay of 238U and 232Th, a fact detected and measured through recent research. 10 There is in fact hope that this can lead to accurate tomography of the planet.11 Some scientists have already suggested that natural nuclear fission may well exist at the centre of the earth, 11 an idea probably triggered by the proven existence of the Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor in Gabon. Unfortunately, large experiments meant to prove a continuous or periodic neutrino flux from inside the earth are still in the project phase. Another possibility If natural nuclear fission reactors existed deep inside the earth, in the core or/and in the mantle, there is no particular reason why they could not have a pulsating character, periodic or random. It is conceivable that during pulses, massive neutrino fluxes were produced which could have then affected radioactive decay rates of all radioisotopes on the planet. Conclusion The combined solar, galactic and geoneutrinos may well have caused significant acceleration of α and β decays in crustal rocks and therefore further weakened the case for radiometric dating. While there is reason for optimism for YEC believers, there is still a long way until a solid scientific case can be built. Research, clearly-focused and well-funded, is needed. Unfortunately, that cannot be expected from modern academia which simply refuses to follow any research avenue that points to a young age of the earth. How potassium-argon dating works by Tas Walker One of the most widely used dating methods is the potassium-argon method, which has been applied to ‘dating’ rocks for decades, especially igneous rocks that have solidified from molten magma. The attraction of the method lies in the fact that one of the daughter elements is argon which is an inert gas. This means that the geologist can plausibly assume that all argon gas escapes from the molten magma while it is still liquid. He thinks this solves his problem of not knowing the initial quantity of the daughter element in the past and not being able to go back in time and make measurements. He assumes the initial argon content is zero.1He assumes that any argon-40 that he measures in his rock sample must have been produced by the radioactive decay of potassium-40 since the time the rock solidified. He imagines that his radioactive hour glass sealed when the rock solidified, and his radioactive clock started running. And he hopes the rock has remained sealed until the time he collected his sample.With these assumptions the geologist only needs to measure the relative amounts of potassium-40 and argon-40 in the rock at the present time to be able to calculate an age for the rock. Although it is a simple calculation the big question is whether his assumptions about the rock were correct.If the rock actually contained some argon-40 when it solidified then the calculated age would be too old. On the other hand, if the rock was later disturbed by a geological upheaval and lost argon the age would be too young. How can the geologist know? He can’t. What he does is check his calculated age with the ages produced by other dating methods. In other words, he checks to see if his calculated result falls into the range where he expects it to fall, given the geological situation of where he found his rock. He always does this check because no dating method can be trusted on its own.What happens if the results conflict? It’s simple; the geologist will change his assumed history for that rock.For example, if the age is higher than he expected he will say that his rock contains ‘excess argon’ or ‘parentless argon’. By this he means that argon gas in his rock has come from the melting of some older rocks deep underground and contaminated his sample with a higher concentration of argon-40, which is why its age is too old.This is a standard explanation and is essentially a new story about the past, different from the original story that explained how potassium-argon dating works. We could ask ourselves which of the details of this story have been observed. It is a story about older rocks, melted rocks, solidified rocks and argon gas. It explains what each of these were doing deep inside the earth millions of years ago. The story explains that the behaviour of ‘excess argon’ (it even has a name) made the age too old. Too old compared with what? With the true age of the rock. But wasn’t that what the dating method was supposed to be measuring?The problem is that although radiogenic argon and excess argon have different names they are exactly the same isotope—argon-40. It is impossible to distinguish between them experimentally. So, how do we work out how much excess argon we have? We can only calculate the amount of excess argon if we know the true age of the rock. But wasn’t that what we were trying to measure?What happens when the age is too young? In this case the method is again salvaged by changing his assumptions about the past. Often a heating event is invoked to liberate the argon from the solid rock, although other assumptions are made as well.What happens if the age falls into the range he expected? In this case the geologist assumes that everything went well, and he publishes his result as the crystallization age of the rock.So although the potassium-argon method has been used for dating rocks for decades, the results it has produced have tended to reinforce the geological framework that already existed. At most it may have modified the framework a little. The scores of dates that have been produced have had a life like hens in a chicken coop. Whenever a new date is introduced it has to find its pecking order within the geological community. Some dates are accepted, some are rejected, some are overturned and some are modified until everything is in its place, and order reigns again.

Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray A review of Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling and Eugene F. Chaffin Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, 2005 by Michael J. Oard The long-awaited results of an eight-year, $1.25 million research project have finally been published by the RATE group. RATE stands for radioisotopes and the age of the earth, and was a joint project between the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society (CRS). This review will cover volume II of the technical RATE book. The RATE group presented their findings to an audience of about 2,000 people in El Cajon, California, on 5 November 2005. A DVD of the event is now available.1Volume I of RATE was published in 2000 as an introduction and outline of the research plan.2 Volume II does not supersede the first volume; there is much background information on radiometric dating. The 100-page glossary at the end of volume I is needed for the non-specialist to digest volume II.A popular level book by Don DeYoung and a popular-level DVD, both titled Thousands … Not Billions, cover the main results.3,4 These publications are a little heavy for the layman, but the layman can still understand the basics of the important results of the RATE project. In the DVD, Humphreys shows a lucid animation of only 6,000 years of helium leakage out of zircons while 1.5 Ga of radioactivity transpired. Baumgardner’s carbon-14 results were also well animated. Introduction Creationists have long realized that the millions and billions of years resulting from radiometric dating was one of our major challenges. Similar to Larry Vardiman in his introduction to the RATE project at the 5 November conference, I saw that radiometric dating is the basis for upholding the hypotheses of evolution and the supposed old age of the earth. As a result, I spent the better part of two years studying dating method with the goal of doing research on this problem. Then I found out that ICR was planning a major project on radiometric dating. So, I switched to other challenges, since ICR was better equipped and positioned to meet the challenge of radioisotopes. My study certainly was not a waste of time, since the earth sciences are filled with the results of dating methods, which guide many uniformitarian ideas in the earth sciences. Besides, it helps me review the results of the RATE project. 5The technical RATE books are not for new creationists or for someone with little background in geophysics or geochronology or nuclear physics. They are in-depth studies, as one would expect for the results of a research project that challenges radiometric dating. Many exciting results have come out of the RATE project. Instead of radiometric dating being a challenge to creationists, it is now a challenge to uniformitarians. But there are a few perplexing results for the creationist to think through.After a preface by John Morris, chapter 1 is an introduction by Larry Vardiman giving the history of the RATE project, the key research results, and the significance of the project. He has a section on the future of RATE in which unanswered questions will be pursued as special projects, while other major research initiatives are developed. There is a thought-provoking appendix by the late Henry Morris on creationist peer review. He argued that overall peer review is needed and quite beneficial to the creationist movement, but there are shortcomings, as most all creationist and secular scientists realize. Accelerated radiometric decay from helium diffusion There are many assumptions behind radiometric dating, but there are three main ones. Uniformitarian scientists assume (1) the initial isotope amounts are known, (2) the decay rate has remained constant at today’s rate, and (3) the sample has remained in a closed system for millions and billions of years. Evidence is presented that all three assumptions are violated in various contexts, but the RATE project concludes that the assumption of constant decay at today’s rates is the most significant wrong assumption. The RATE group has discovered that one or more periods of accelerated radiometric decay occurred in the past.The most powerful evidence is described in chapter 2 by Russ Humphreys on his results of helium diffusion out of zircons from the Precambrian granite at Fenton Hills, New Mexico. This chapter is a masterpiece on how a research project should be written: clear with colour pictures, non-dogmatic style, systematic development with great graphics, and objections answered. At first, Humphreys was concerned about the diffusion rate in biotite that surrounded the relatively large zircon crystals. Did the biotite slow helium diffusion out of zircons? The RATE team subsequently found out, by subcontracting the diffusion experiment to a secular scientist critical of creationists, that the diffusion of helium through biotite is insignificant compared to diffusion out of the zircon crystals. So, the main variable is the helium diffusion rate out of zircon crystals, which depends upon the temperature.Humphreys found only about 6,000 (± 2,000) years of helium diffusion out of zircon crystals while at the same time the zircons underwent 1.5 Ga of radioactive decay—assuming current rates! There is way too much helium in the zircons for the alleged age. Accelerated radioactive decay sometime in the past is thus strongly supported. The uniformitarian diffusion rate predicted from the radiometric ‘age’ is about 5 orders of magnitude too slow! Humphrey’s results are actually conservative, because the uniformitarian scientists believe that several heating pulses occurred during 1.5 Ga of geological time, which would have driven off even more helium. Humphreys deals with objections in appendix D at the end of his chapter. Most of these objections seem like uniformitarian red herrings.Humphrey’s experimental results are enough to show that absolute radiometric dates by uniformitarian scientists are wrong. Radiohalos offer further support for accelerated radioactive decay Two hourglasses representing two methods of dating the same rock. In the first, 1.5 Ga worth of radiometric decay at today’s rates has occurred, while in the second, only 6,000 years of helium diffusion has taken place.In chapter 3, Andrew Snelling summarizes his results on uranium and polonium radiohalos in biotite. There is much to digest in this chapter. To form a radiohalo, there must be over 109 atoms concentrated into a very tiny spot, about 1 μm in diameter. There cannot be too many atoms or the alpha damage causes a dark diffuse sphere, making it difficult to recognize the type of halo. With 238U halos, colouration initially develops after 100 Ma worth of alpha decay, becomes darker after about 500 Ma worth, and very

dark after about 1 billion worth at today’s rates. Within the short time frame, halos provide further evidence for accelerated radiometric decay.The uniformitarian problem with halos is that the half-lives of polonium are much too short for the assumed slow cooling of magma. The polonium isotopes have decay half lives of 164 microseconds for 214Po, 3.1 minutes for 218Po, and 138 days for 210Po.Snelling discovered that polonium halos are commonly found adjacent to uranium halos along the samebiotite cleavage plane at an average distance of only 1 mm—strong evidence that the polonium originated from the decay of uranium. However, there are some polonium halos that are several kilometres from the nearest uranium source, which would suggest rapid transport. Polonium-210 halos were much more abundant than halos from other polonium isotopes, as expected from its longer half life, and they are generally 6 to 12 times more abundant than 238U halos. Polonium halos were much more abundant in granites that intruded Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks from the Flood than assumed pre-Flood and post-Flood granites. Snelling concludes that there was about 500 Ma worth of radiometric decayduring the Flood.Snelling developed a model in which 238U decays within relatively tiny zircon crystals in the biotite, and the radioactive daughter isotopes222Rn and polonium diffuse out of the zircon. Pressurized hydrothermal fluids moving through the biotite cleavage planes pick up the daughter isotopes, progressively depositing polonium at the same location. What causes more than 109 atoms of the polonium to be deposited in a tiny spot? Snelling surmises that the polonium bonded to sulfur ions. Although there were no sulfur compounds at the centre of the polonium halo, there was a small empty spot, indicating that the sulfur compounds probably leached out of the biotite.No halos are formed above the annealing temperature of 150°C. But, once the granite cooled below the annealing temperature, alpha decay from both the uranium and polonium atoms started forming the halos. Because of the short half-lives of the polonium isotopes, especially214Po, large quantities of polonium had to be transported very rapidly, and the polonium halos had to form within a few hours to a few days. Since uranium supplies the polonium, the uranium halo had to form almost at the same time as the polonium halo, requiring accelerated radiometric decay. If the cooling were very slow, as uniformitarians assert, most of the uranium, radon and polonium would have decayed, leaving little left to form a halo in the narrow window of hydrothermal transport below 150°C. This suggests that the granite magma solidifiedand cooled below the annealing temperature in around 6 to 10 days!Only one sample of ‘post-Flood Cenozoic granite’ from the Cascade Mountains of Washington, USA, had polonium halos, suggesting that this granite is a Flood rock. Radiohalos are more prolific in ‘Flood’ granites than ‘preFlood’ Precambrian granites. Snelling attributes the low number of halos in Precambrian granites to the annealing caused by the heat of accelerated decay during the Flood.Snelling considers the finding of abundant polonium halos in ‘Flood’ granites as evidence that the polonium was emplaced by hot hydrothermal fluids. This is contrary to Robert Gentry’s claim of granites created solid and remaining solid during the Flood—a concept that I believe has not yet been falsified, although RATE members believe so. However, Gentry’s hypothesis has been significantly weakened. Gentry did have problems with the geology of his samples, some even coming from pegmatite dikes and granites that intruded Flood sedimentary rocks. One of the most interesting results is that Snelling found radiohalos in metamorphic rocks, including, gneiss, schist, and biotite garnet eclogite. There are also many polonium halos in pegmatites, probably due to their high uranium content. These results suggest that metamorphic rocks and pegmatites also cooled very rapidly. Fission tracks reinforce accelerated nuclear decay A) In Snelling’s model, hydrothermal fluids rapidly transport Rn and Po from zircons containing U to sites with S forming PoS. These sites average 1 mm apart. B) Once the temperature drops below 150°C, alpha decay starts damaging the crystal. C) With further passing of time and more alpha decay, both 238U and in this case 210Po fully form. Since all Po halos have to form rapidly, especially214Po halos, 100 Ma to 1 Ga of radioactive decay has to occur at the same time from the U within the zircon crystal. This shows that the decay of U was greatly accelerated.Fission tracks are not caused by radioactive beta or alpha decay, but when the whole atom, mainly 238U, splits apart into two fragments. As 238U in relatively large zircon crystals breaks apart, the two atoms recoil from each other, damaging the crystal lattice in a straight line. The nuclear decay rate for fission is much less than the radioactive decay rate. The zircon crystals are treated with acid to etch and enlarge the damage tracks so that they can better be seen under a microscope. The fission tracks are counted, and the age of the zircon crystal is deduced, based on the half-life for uranium fission. However, the number of tracks depends not only on the age, but also on the temperature history of the sample and the cooling rate. High temperature, long time periods, and slow cooling anneal a higher proportion of fission tracks. These variables are spelled out in the appendix to chapter 4.Many sources of error are inherent in fission track dating, in particular the low annealing temperature, possible errors during etching, and others. There is also a fudge factor called the ‘zeta calibration’ which calibrates the results to material of ‘known age’—which is circular reasoning. The lab that Snelling employed did use the zeta calibration, but kept the same value for all the samples, so that the effect of the calibration was less significant.Snelling gathered zircon crystals from several volcanic tuffs around the Grand Canyon and the Colorado Plateau. The tuff samples were extracted from the Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone in the western Grand Canyon, the upper Mesozoic Morrison Formation, and the mid to upper Cenozoic Peach Spring tuff in western Arizona and southeast California.The Tapeats and Muav Formation tuffs exhibited a wide range of fission track ‘ages’. The ‘ages’ ranged from near zero to about 900 Ma and did not match the uniformitarian results. Uniformitarian scientists came up with a number of reasons for the age spread, such as differential annealing and inherited zircons from other sources. This makes one wonder about the integrity of all uniformitarian dates. Are all dates a pick-and-choose process, so that results close to the expected age are chosen while reasons are deduced for rejecting results that do not agree?In regard to fission track ages, uniformitarian scientists commonly appeal to annealing events to cover unexpected results. Snelling apparently

accepts some of this uniformitarian reasoning, especially that the divergent dates on the Cambrian samples are due to annealing. Although annealing of zircons is supposed to occur at temperatures between about 200°C to 300°C, the uniformitarian scientists deduced that the Cambrian formations were never above 130°C. So, how can the Cambrian tuff zircons be annealed? Snelling suggests that the heat of accelerated nuclear decay annealed the tracks, but this brings up a problem. How can the heat of accelerated decay be used when a mechanism is required during the Flood to take away the huge amount of heat?The average of the Morrison Formation fission tracks ages was close to the expected age, but the spread was also quite large.The Miocene Peach Springs tuff had a narrow spread close to the assumed uniformitarian date of about 20 Ma. Snelling assumes that the Peach Springs tuff is post-Flood. If it was formed post-Flood, then accelerated decay continuedafterthe Flood—a questionable interpretation. I take this result to mean that the Peach Springs tuff is from the Flood. However, Snelling cautions that even Pleistocene samples can show a million years worth of nuclear and radioactive decay (but one wonders how much fudging, assumptions and circular reasoning are involved in Pleistocene samples). We certainly need more research on this subject.Snelling interprets the fission track results as physical evidence of millions of years of nuclear decay (nuclear referring to fission) that corresponds to millions of years of radiometric decay during the Flood. So, fission tracks reinforce Snelling’s halo results that there was about 500 Ma worth of nuclear and radiometric decay during the Flood, since there is no doubt that the Cambrian and Morrison Formation tuffs are from the Flood. Different dating methods result in different dates on the same rock Artist’s impression of fission tracks on etched and polished zircon crystal from a sample of the Peach Springs Tuff obtained from an outcrop in the Snaggletooth area of southern California close to the Arizona border.In chapter 5, Steven Austin examined the consistency of four main radiometric dating methods on Precambrian samples from two locations. The samples were collected from the Beartooth Mountains amphibolite and the Bass Rapids diabase sill in Grand Canyon. Austin used the isochron technique that employs different minerals from the same rock. The isochron method is considered superior because a straight line on the isochron plot informs us that two of the three main assumptions of radioactive dating (the closed system and initial conditions assumptions) are supposed to be validated.Snelling takes Austin’s study a step further in chapter 6 by analyzing igneous rocks of many supposed ages, ranging from the recent to the Precambrian. He reinforces Austin’s results in chapter 5. Snelling also obtained some very anomalous dates. For instance, some 20th century lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, gave a Rb-Sr isochron age of 133 Ma, a Sm-Nd isochron age of 197 Ma, and a Pb-Pb age of 3.908 Ga for the cooling time of the modern lavas! Snelling makes a case that the millions and billions of years for these rocks is likely inherited from the mantle and/or due to Flood accelerated decay. There may also be some mixing of magma. In a summary statement, Snelling writes of the significance of these results for radiometric dating:‘All these considerations—isochron discordances, inheritance of mantle source isotopic signatures, and mixing of crustal contamination—must render radioisotope “dating” highly questionable at best, and useless at worst, as the absolute “dating” method is so unanimously and forthrightly claimed to be’ (p. 456).Both studies discovered that dates from the different methods on the same rock disagree by a large amount! Moreover, there are systematic relationships between the methods. The alpha emitters gave older ages than and the beta emitters, and the longer the half-life, the older the radiometric ‘age’. Snelling and Austin suggest that a relationship may exist between the atomic weight of the parent radioisotopes: the greater the weight the greater the isochron ‘age’. They concluded that only accelerated radiometric decay, which affected each element and each type of decay differently, explains the anomalous results.Snelling goes further and suggests that we can use radiometric dates in a relative sense, based on 3–4 Ga of accelerated decay during creation and 500 Ma of decay during the Flood. Within the Creation-Flood model, a rock with a radiometric ‘age’ of say 1 billion years would be older than one with a radiometric ‘age’ of 300 million years. But he also states that because of inheritance and mixing, there will be many anomalies to a relative ‘age’ progression. I would like to see more research on this relative age suggestion. Possible mechanism for accelerated radiometric decay Chapter 7 was the most difficult chapter for me to comprehend, probably because I know little of theoretical nuclear physics. In this chapter Eugene Chaffin presents theoretical considerations for accelerated decay. Chaffin essentially suggests a number of possibilities for accelerated decay. It is especially commendable that Chaffin has published his ideas in the standard physics literature.One possibility for accelerated decay is a slight variation in the strength of the nuclear or strong force that would cause a dramatic increase in alpha decay—around 5 to 8 orders of magnitude! Alternatively, if the alpha energy increases by only 10%, the decay constant increases by about 5 orders of magnitude. These ideas have the most potential.Chaffin then describes a possibility from the highly speculative string theory. He argues that if the radii of compact extra dimensions can be changed, then the strength of the strong force can be changed. The weak force determines beta decay and may also be changed by considering ‘forbidden decays’, as well as string theory. These concepts are highly theoretical and speculative. The different mechanisms causing accelerated alpha and beta decay would likely explain the different isochron ages from these two mechanisms applied to the same rock. Carbon-14 everywhere Chapter 8 presents John Baumgardner’s carbon-14 results on coal, diamonds, and other carbon samples. 14C is ubiquitous in the ‘old’ material studied. Even the uniformitarian geologists have reported such results numerous times. Baumgardner sent carbon samples to an AMS dating lab. If a sample is over 100,000 years old, there should be no detectible 14C. All his samples still contained measurable 14C. So, all these ‘old’ samples must be less than 100,000 years old!The uniformitarian scientists of course cry ‘contamination’, but their claim becomes hollow when considering diamonds. It would indeed be difficult to contaminate a diamond, as it is the hardest substance known!Furthermore, Baumgardner finds no correlation between the 14C abundance in coal and its putative age in the geological timescale, offering support that the coal samples are all the same age (e.g. the time of the Flood). Then if a more realistic past 14C /12C ratio is substituted in the dating equation, the dates telescope to a maximum date of around 5,000 years! This is the Flood model version in which much more 12C existed before the Flood and was taken out of the biosphere by subsequent Flood burial.Baumgardner takes his measurements a step further. He measured Precambrian 14C /12C and got a mean of 0.062 % of the modern carbon ratio (pmc). Phanerozoic ratios average about 0.292 pmc with a wide variation: significantly greater than Precambrian. Six diamonds from kimberlite pipes and one placer deposit gave an average ratio of about 0.12 pmc. He then dated 6 more

placer diamonds and obtained an average 14C /12C ratio of about 0.2 pmc with a wide spread of values, significantly different than the first sample of diamonds.How does he explain all these different average values? He suggests that accelerated radiometric decay, which produces an extreme neutron flux, formed 14C in about the right ratios in his various samples. Baumgardner suggests that the diamonds from kimberlite pipes were less influenced by accelerated decay than the placer diamonds, a deduction that needs more research.Baumgardner’s research provides an example of what would result if creationists could ask the research questions, instead of evolutionists holding the purse strings to taxpayer dollars. For the 14C challenge, we would long ago have found young 14C ages and had answers to why uniformitarian 14C dates are ‘old’. This example indicates that with more research using the creation/Flood model, instead of the evolution/uniformitarian model, we should be able to find answers to many other current challenges in the earth sciences.Chapter 9 summarizes the results of the new topic added late in the RATE project—the grammatical analysis of poetic and historical texts by Steven Boyd. In analyzing poetic and historical texts, he found that historical texts predominantly use the preterite verb form (one type out of four), while poetic texts hardly use it at all. Boyd’s analysis and research are superb; the difference between historical narrative and poetic texts is stark. So the probability that these verses are historical narrative is in the neighbourhood of 99.99%. A larger glossary would have been helpful, since Boyd uses many Hebrew grammatical terms that would be unfamiliar to non-Hebraists. RATE problems The last chapter discusses three problems with the conclusions of the RATE project. Change the word ‘decay’ to ‘transformation’ would rid the terminology of ominous connotations. Such accelerated elemental transformations likely were part of the process of creation of matter during the first few days. The RATE group concludes that there was about 4 Ga of accelerated decay at creation and about 500 Ma worth at the time of the Flood. However, the amount of heat released by this amount of decay during the Flood would raise the crust to 22,000 K, more than enough to melt the whole crust and boil away the oceans! This is called the heat problem.However, we are still here, so the Flood heat must have been removed somehow. Conduction, convection, and radiation of heat are all orders of magnitude too slow. Humphreys suggests a hypothesis that the designer also ‘stretched out the heavens’ during the Flood, as well at creation. This stretching of the universe during the Flood would absorb the heat by the work of expansion and cool the granite magmas in 6 to 10 days. The problem with this idea is that material with little radioactivity would freeze, including the oceans. I am skeptical of this hypothesis but am open to further research. I also noted that heat from accelerated decay is called upon to explain some the results of the RATE project, while the effects of the cooling mechanism were not considered. As for a cooling mechanism, The third problem is the radiation given off by accelerated radiometric decay during the Flood. 500 Ga worth of decay during the Flood would zap the inhabitants of the ark with gamma radiation. The water of the Flood would provide much protection, but it may not be sufficient (water contains radioactive tritium (3H) for one thing). Furthermore, just the radioactive potassium-40 in the bodies of those animals and the people on the ark would kill them when decay accelerated.Although I believe the evidence for accelerated radiometric decay in earth’s past is very convincing, I would like to see further research on the heat and radiation problem during the Flood. I believe it is possible that all the decay occurred during the first few days of the creation, but this would be difficult to demonstrate, since Snelling provides a strong case for accelerated decay during the Flood from halos and fission tracks. From the field of geomorphology, I have observed copious evidence that granites were uplifted solid late in the Flood (a hypothesis not without its problems). This evidence is independent of the reasons why Gentry believes that granites were created solid. Solid uplift of batholiths and plutons has always made me question whether granites were ever molten, but if the granites solidified in 6 to 10 days early in the Flood, then Snelling’s evidence for Flood accelerated decay actually would fit with what I see in the field.I would also like to see the helium diffusion research replicated on one more granite drill core. Although I wouldn’t expect any significant difference, it always helps to tighten up the statistics and quiet critics with more than one sample.Several assumptions in Snelling’s great research and provocative interpretations should be better justified, for instance the classification of granites into pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood. Snelling believes that some of the Precambrian granites were the original creation rocks and were uplifted solid during the Flood. Although he has a section on the upward intrusion of liquid granite during the Flood, I believe the idea needs more research. Are S-type granites, derived from Flood sediments real, or just a geochemical deduction from the plutons of southeast Australia?6–8 Summary The RATE books and DVDs are an excellent addition to the creationist bookshelf. They provide strong evidence that uniformitarian radiometric ‘ages’ are wrong, and that accelerated radiometric decay occurred in the earth’s past. The RATE group is to be commended for providing solutions to the challenge of radiometric dating. Especially valuable is the variety of means used to disseminate the RATE results. The reader can choose the means most applicable to his background. The research is not finished. I look forward to further research on new questions. Radiocarbon in dino bones International conference result censored by Carl Wieland Published: 22 January 2013 (GMT+10) Wikimedia commons/Julian Fong, LA Natural History museum A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years, right in the ‘ballpark’ predicted by creationists.1 But if dinosaurs really were millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14C left in them.This was a joint event of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS). It appears that the researchers approached the matter with considerable professionalism, including taking great pains to eliminate contamination with modern carbon as a source of the 14C signal in the bones. The lead presenter was Dr Thomas Seiler, a German physicist whose PhD is from the Technical University of Munich. The video of his presentation was up on YouTube at the time of writing this report.The researchers seem to be

associated with Catholic creationist groups, which have reported the conference earlier and more vocally than evangelical creationists. One of these reports states that afterwards, “the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. It won’t be restored.”2Indeed, one can go online to see a screen shot of the original program. But going to the official conference site, the talk has clearly been removed. (Go to Wednesday, room Leo 2, double-click on BGO2, which is the session that had the presentation. The numbers go from 4 to 6, omitting 5, which was the one on 14C in dino bones.) So much for science’s alleged openness to the data. The ‘power of the paradigm’ can be clearly seen.Two of the report’s physicist co-authors, Professor Dr Robert Bennett and Dr Jean de Pontcharra, till recently with the French Atomic Energy Commission’s Grenoble Research Centre, are urging colleagues to do their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones. They say that the media should be encouraging scientists to do this also, presenting the findings openly and honestly at similar conferences. This would certainly be in the interests of scientific truth—especially following the repeated findings of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and now even seemingly irrefutable DNA in dinosaur specimens. 3 The public has the right to know the actual chronology of the dinosaurs, and indeed the history of the earth.Of course the people you know will generally not get to hear this powerful information from regular sources. We have been repeatedly surprised when on ministry tours how few people even know about the soft-tissue finds by secular scientists. This is an exciting time to be a creationist, both getting this sort of information, and being able to pass it on. So it’s more important than ever to be not just subscribing to but actively supporting reputable, non-sensationalistic creation organizations committed to this important task. Blood and soft tissue in T. rex bone: 01 Dec 1993 Dinosaur bone blood cells found 01 Sep 1997 Sensational dinosaur blood report! 25 Mar 2002 Evolutionist questions CMI report—Have red blood cells really been found in T. rex fossils? 25 Mar 2005 Still soft and stretchy: Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of ‘millions of years’ 28 Mar 2005 “Ostrich-osaurus” discovery? 16 May 2005 Squirming at the Squishosaur 01 Sep 2005 Dino soft tissue find 01 Dec 2005 Answering objections to creationist ‘dinosaur soft tissue’ age arguments 19 Jul 2006 ‘Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery’ 16 Dec 2006 Why don’t they carbon-test dino fossils? 20 Apr 2007 Squishosaur scepticism squashed: Tests confirm proteins found in T. rex bones 02 Aug 2008 Doubting doubts about the Squishosaur 06 May 2009 Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation! 09 May 2009 Dino proteins and blood vessels: are they a big deal? 01 Dec 2009 More confirmation for dinosaur soft tissue and protein 11 Dec 2012 DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone 22 Jan 2013 Radiocarbon in dino bones Other examples of soft tissue preservation in fossils: 01 Jun 1992 Fresh dinosaur bones found 01 Aug 1998 Exceptional soft-tissue preservation in a fossilised dinosaur 01 Dec 1998 Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really? 30 May 2000 ‘Sue’ the T. rex: another ‘missionary lizard’ 01 Dec 2002 Feathered or furry dinosaurs? Soft tissue preservation 01 Apr 2004 Bone building: perfect protein (See paragraph six re osteocalcin in Iguanodon bones.) 01 Apr 2006 A fossil is a fossil is a fossil. Right? 07 Dec 2007 Hadrosaur hi-jinx: Will this find reveal more unfossilised soft tissues? 01 Jun 2008 The real ‘Jurassic Park’? 11 Nov 2009 Best ever find of soft tissue (muscle and blood) in a fossil 25 June 2013 Created or evolved? Problem of short-lived radionuclides: design perspective by Dmitri Dubikin What’s the problem? One of strongest alleged ‘proofs’ of a billions-of-years-old Earth is the absence in nature of radionuclides with half-lives much shorter than this—short-lived radionuclides (SLRNs). The argument is clearly described in the following statement from an atheistic anti-creationist journal: ‘Only 7 [SLRNs] are actually found. If the earth were only 10,000 years old, there should be detectable amounts of all 47 in nature because 10,000 years is not enough time for them to decay totally … [yet] all 17 nuclides with half-lives longer than 50 million years are found in nature.’1 The details are given in Table 1. Assumptions However, like all arguments about age, this is based on certain assumptions about the past. This assumes that the elements existed in the first place, but is there any reason to believe this? Design perspective When creating radioactive nuclides, the designer could be guided by the fact that SLRNs are highly radioactive, and would be dangerous to people and animals present on a young Earth. Therefore, it would be plausible to assume that He either created such nuclides in very small quantities or that He did not create them at all. There are several reasons for this SLRNs have high special activity (activity of 1 gram of nuclide), which grows with decrease of half-life: A lot of these radionuclides emit γ-quantums with high and hazardous energy.There is a strong correlation of short half-life with energy of emission, described by the standard Gamow theory of alpha decay involving quantum mechanical tunneling. SLRNs, therefore, would have emitted very dangerous radiation had they been created near people.3The compounds formed from these nuclides are often very soluble,4 so they would be leached easily from parent rocks and geochemically concentrated into biologically hazardous ‘hot spots’. Such agglomerations could occur readily during the Flood. Decay rate

Table 1. Nuclides present in nature listed by half-life. ‘Yes’ indicates that an isotope is found in some quantity in nature. ‘Yes-P’ indicates that the isotope is present, but it is produced by the decay of another, longer-lived isotope.2 Click here for larger viewRecent research shows that decay rates were probably greater at some time (or times) in the past. Gentry shows that a possible explanation for 218Po radiohalos having no evidence of their mother elements, is a greater decay rate in the past.5,6 Also, the RATE group of creationist physicists and geologists has cited evidence for accelerated decay rates at certain times in the past, e.g.7–9The presence of daughter isotopes along the entire decay chain in proximity to parent isotopes.Visible scars (radiohalos) from alpha decay, in particular in halos with multiple rings that require much decay of 238U and its daughter elements, but the absence of mature halos in Phanerozoic rocks.The presence of the alpha particles themselves (helium nuclei) still within the rock where they were apparently formed by nuclear decay. The diffusion rate of helium through minerals would suggest that it would have escaped if the rocks were really billions of years old.Visible tracks from decay by fission.Residual heat produced by nuclear decay near high uranium concentrations is consistent with a pulse of accelerated nuclear decay.There are theoretical means of producing accelerated decay, e.g. a small change in the fundamental constants or the shape of the nuclear potential well can have a large effect on the decay rate (but little effect on radiohalo diameter). Also, stripping atoms of electrons to leave a bare nucleus has been demonstrated to accelerate beta decay by a factor of a billion. 10–12The RATE researchers favour a pulse of accelerated decay rate during Creation, and possibly a smaller pulse during the Flood year. In any case, this points to higher radionuclide activity in the past which would be even more hazardous.All these reasons are complementary. For example, a higher decay rate in the past would also mean that smaller quantities were initially created and also that SLRNs disappeared quicker out of the Earth’s surface (Figure 1). Applying these principles to observations Figure 1. Decay diagrams of a certain element with different conditions: a. creation in large quantity, modern decay rate; b. creation in small quantity, modern decay rate; c. creation in large quantity, greater decay rate in past; d. creation in small quantity, greater decay rate in past. Now we can consider what we observe in nature. It is well known, that there are four radioactive decay families: 232Th to 208Pb, 237 Np to 209Bi, 238U to 206Pb and 235 U to 207Pb. Among them, nuclides of the 235U to 207 Pb chain are found in small quantities (only 0.715% of naturally occurring uranium is 235U) and 237Np to 209Bi is absent. Long agers explain that over 4.5 Ga, 237Np (T½ = 2.1 Ma) and its daughters are completely decayed. To explain extant ratios of 235U, they assume that it originally comprised 23.6% of naturally occurring U. Now let’s look at how this picture may be explained from a design perspective. We have at least five reasons for the 237Np chain being created in very small quantities or not at all. 235U (T½ = 700 Ma) has a lower specific activity than 237Np, and that is why 235U could have been created in small quantities.Also, there are weighty reasons for how all created radionuclides existed in the beginning in equilibrium. Their initial quantities could have been such that their future decay rate were compensated by accumulation, and the following ratio would act: or where: Np and Nd are the atom quantities of ‘parent’ and ‘daughter’ radionuclides; Ap and Ad are their activities; lp and ld are their decay constants. This would bring constancy to the total activity on all the Earth’s surface, i. e: For instance, let’s consider the 235U decay chain. If it was originally created without its daughters, then its initial activity would increase twice in 6 days (Figure 2), because of the accumulation of the short-lived 231Th daughter (T½ = 25 hours). It could be quite dangerous if231Th escaped into the biosphere and accumulated near certain areas of uranium with a high fraction of 235U. But for 238U, this decay would happen only in 300 days. The absence of transuranium nuclides in the Earth’s crust can be explained in the same way. However, some of them have been found. It was Seaborg13 who first managed to scavenge 239Pu (T½ = 24 thousands years) out of pitchblende. Only 1 part per 1014 parts were found in the concentrate. He explains that this radionuclide could have been generated from 238U by bombardment of neutrons as follows: Possible sources of these neutrons include cosmic rays and spontaneous fission.14 This phenomenon is appropriate for our model, because small quantities of 239Pu acting as parent for 235U via alpha decay can

maintain the constant activity of the entire decay chain. These principles are also applicable for other natural transuranic elements, such as 237Np. Figure 2. Activity increase of sample containing 1 g of initially pure 235U. SLRNs that are not members of these four radioactive families could be created in larger quantities, depending on their halflives, because they do not have such long decay chains. Also, their activity could be maintained by different sources such as the case with the famous14C (T½ = 5,700 years) produced by cosmic bombardment of 14N. Also, the lesser known 129I (T½ = 17 Ma) is assumed to be produced by fission and is estimated to be over 300 Ma old: ‘In the case of the Anadarko basin, the host formations are all Paleozoic, thus the age of 129I contained in the organic matter, which lived, died and accumulated in Paleozoic, is at least 300 Ma. This means that cosmogenic (surface) 129I component decayed to insignificant levels long ago … The most likely source for the 129I measured in these brines is fissiogenic … the most likely source for I is the Upper Devonian–Lower Mississippian Woodford Shale.’15 Probably, the explanation for 129I can be both its recent creation in small quantities and secondary sources. It’s important to note from this that long-agers would rather propose an unobserved source for an SLRN than concede that the rock is much younger than claimed.16 But if long agers can use the absence of something (i.e. an argument from silence) as proof of their view, how much more can creationists use thepresence of something as disproof. This is especially so with detectable 14C activity in samples claimed to be millions of years old.17–20 Conclusion On the basis of the above, a creationist model of SLRNs can comprise: Creation of radionuclide decay families in an equilibrium state. Initial absence or creation in small, safe quantities of radionuclides with half–lives less than 50 Ma. Creation of additional sources for generation of the total activity of the radionuclides on the Earth’s surface to be kept constant. It should be noted that this model can work only in pre-Flood geology, which completely differs from post-Flood geology. This model, of a recent creation of radionuclides in equilibrium, partly explains today’s observed U/Pb, Ru/Sr and other ratios used as ‘dating’ methods.