Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 37) Message-ID: <548@psivax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 17:46:58 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.548 Posted: Wed Jul 10 17:46:58 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 07:41:30 EDT References: <395@iham1.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Distribution: net Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 56 Summary: In article <395@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE > >II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND LIFE > WERE RECENTLY CREATED. > > C. MOST DATING TECHNIQUES INDICATE THAT THE EARTH AND SOLAR > SYSTEM ARE YOUNG. > > 68. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, > from just the decay of uranium and thorium. Detailed > experimentation [a] has shown that there is no known means > by which large amounts of helium can escape from the > atmosphere, even when considering the low atomic weight of > helium. The atmosphere appears to be young [b]. This is not very clear, could you clarify it a bit? > > a) ''What Happened to the Earth's Helium?'' NEW > SCIENTIST, Vol.420, 3 December 1964, pp. 631-632. > b) Melvin A. Cook, PREHISTORY AND EARTH MODELS (London: > Max Parrish, 1966), pp. 10-14. Actually all these references say is that 20 years ago there was no known mechanism to reduce the Earth's Helium level. Try tracing more recent follow-ups to these articles(someone else has *already* mentioned Science Citation Index - a very useful tool for this sort of checking). I am fairly certain that this matter has recieved quite a bit of research in the last 20 years, and may well be essentially cleared up. > > 69. Lead diffuses (or leaks) from zircon crystals at known > rates that increase with temperature. Since these crystals > are found at different depths in the earth, those at > greater depths and temperatures should have less lead. > Even if the earth's crust is just a fraction of the age > that is claimed by evolutionists, there should be a > measurable difference in the lead content of zircons in > the top 4000 meters. Actually, no measurable difference is > found [a,b]. Similar conclusions are reached from a study > of the helium contained in these same zircon crystals [c]. > In fact, these helium studies lead to a conclusion that > the earth's crust is only thousands of years old [d]. > Aren't Zircons found mainly in *volcanic* rocks? If so than there would be little correlation between depth and age, since volcanics are often *intrusive* into sedimentary rocks, forming more or less equal age columns. Would somebody with more knowledge in geology confirm(or deny) this? -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen