₦airaland Forum

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


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 the Journal 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.

Here I will show that their argon diffusion data favor an age of only 5,100 (+3,800/-2,100) years.

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

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 the 40Ar 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 Genesis Flood. We also hypothesized an accelerated cooling mechanism that would get rid of much of the resulting radiogenic heat.11

Figure 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.

http://creation.com/argon-diffusion-age

What do you all think? Anyone interested can read the full article...

I dont care what the article says,I think the article is meant for the atheist on nairaland.


As far as am concerned whether science proves that the earth is 6000 years or 4:54 billion years,it still doesnt change the fact that God created the heavens and the earth.

k2039: I dont care what the article says,I think the article is meant for the atheist on nairaland.


As far as am concerned whether science proves that the earth is 6000 years or 4:54 billion years,it still doesnt change the fact that God created the heavens and the earth.

You seem very bold in throwing around that word...anyway did you read the article?

k2039: I dont care what the article says,I think the article is meant for the atheist on nairaland.


As far as am concerned whether science proves that the earth is 6000 years or 4:54 billion years,it still doesnt change the fact that God created the heavens and the earth.

b4 God created heaven nearth where was he/she?

Unbelievably insincere.

Potassium - argon radiodating can only be used to date anything suspected to be below 5000 years.

The half-life of radioactive potassium to argon is 5570 years so even if you date something you are certain is 1 billion years old using potassium - argon, you can't get an age older than 5000 give or take.

So you shouting the earth is 6000 years old, using p - a dating is preposterously ludicrous, a total farce. Its one of the failed attempts of some brainwashed people to force their farcicle bible on intelligent people who regard bible as nothing but another story book and myth.

ooman: Unbelievably insincere.

Potassium - argon radiodating can only be used to date anything suspected to be below 5000 years.

The half-life of radioactive potassium to argon is 5570 years so even if you date something you are certain is 1 billion years old using potassium - argon, you can't get an age older than 5000 give or take.

So you shouting the earth is 6000 years old, using p - a dating is preposterously ludicrous, a total farce. Its one of the failed attempts of some brainwashed people to force their farcicle bible on intelligent people who regard bible as nothing but another story book and myth.

I Posted the OP to show that most atheist we know are just social critics and i cannot attribute them to enlightened mind cos even a freshman at College will see the irregularities in my post.

mkmyers45: I Posted the OP to show that most atheist we know are just social critics and i cannot attribute them to enlightened mind cos even a freshman at College will see the irregularities in my post.

So of what use exactly is this bug of a thread. You think I have the time to read your epistle you posted? Keep it short next time.

ooman: So of what use exactly is this bug of a thread. You think I have the time to read your epistle you posted? Keep it short next time.

Haha..i will but atleast i made a point. NOTED