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