I am resigned to not being able to discuss some things in a few succinct paragraphs. That's OK with me - it might not be with you. If you don't want to take the time to read for a while, this would be a good one to skip.

Herr Commissar Stephen and I had a bit of vigorous debate last week over my post that decried the intellectual totalitarianism that characterizes our current 'science' culture.

I wanted to discuss how open dialog is currently stifled across the sciences and Stephen wanted to discuss some of the issues I explored with origins 'science'. We did a little of both. I won't reproduce our discussion here, but I will assume that you have read it in the comments to my post and the comments in a couple of subsequent posts that Stephen made to assure his acolytes that transitional forms are sacrosanct and dissident science is indeed allowed. (Are you back? I told you it was a long read ...)

One of the issues that we discussed over the course of last week was the matter of how determinations are made about what the actual age of something is - because I had cited a paper that is dissenting from the 'science' mainstream.

As you could read, Stephen didn't want to discuss it any more with me last week, but apparently did a bit of thinking about it over the weekend and produced a post 'debunking' the study we had been discussing.

I'm sure that Stephen didn't reference our previous discussion in his post this week because he really likes me and wanted to spare me the kind of vitriol that he received himself at the hands of some of the comment brigade at Pharyngula who commend him for his support of 'science' and 'reason' but condemn him for his conservative politics. (Sagredo argues that this is empirical evidence against Simplicio's extra credit assignment to Start a Center Right Blog... All your Marxist ideologies are belong to us!).

Alas, as well, it is left to me to debunk the debunker.

Stephen attempts to distill a technical discussion between two PhD's - actually, he just uses the reasoning of one PhD - into a few points that would have us doubt the veracity of the original paper we were discussing. Actually 'doubt' is too weak a description of objective - maybe more like 'laugh uncontrollably at the idiot' is better.

We know from the outset what Stephen's point of view is: "But his paper is filled with errors and incorrect assumptions. It's bogus." Glad we've got that straight.

Stephen contends that it is because of empirical errors that six orders of magnitude between two methods of dating can be explained.

Let's take his assertions one by one (as he simplifies Henke):

1. INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT MATH

Humphreys uses one set of equations for his "creation model" and another set for the "uniformitarian (or 'evolution') model." He should use the same equations for both models. He also uses an incorrect ratio of the measured-to-expected helium (the Q/Q_O ratio). Without correcting any of Humphrey's other errors, Henke used this internally consistent math and came up with an "ages" as high as 3,100,000 years. (See Table 6 near the bottom of Henke's document for the diverse “dates” that are possible from Humphreys’ equations.) Note that Henke does not accept any of these dates as the age of the Earth; they’re simply numbers that measure Humphreys' internal math errors and inconsistencies.

Internally consistent math could result in "dates" up to 3.1 million years. (While some of Humphreys' data may change again, at this writing, an average of the dates produced, using consistent math, gave 140,000, not 6,000 years, a factor of 20.)

Unlike, Stephen's post we'll give the other PhD equal time. This was Humphreys' response in his rebuttal (first as to the value of Q₀):

In his Appendix A Henke derives his value for Q₀, 41 ncc/µg (1 ncc = 1 "nano-cc" = 10^–9 cm3 at standard pressure and temperature, STP). He is in the right ball park, but he is probably using too small a value for the percentage of alpha particles (helium nuclei emitted by the nuclear decay) escaping the zircons. The percentage came from Gentry’s paper, but Gentry may have misstated what he meant by the number. From our own measurements of lead in zircons and my own very rough estimate of alpha particle losses, I got a Q₀ considerably less than 25 ncc/µg. Gentry’s original calculations are no longer available. But after discussing the matter with him, I’m inclined to think that even if he had an error in Q₀, the error canceled out when he calculated the ratio Q/Q₀, which is the crucial quantity in this analysis. In support of that is the remarkable alignment of the diffusion measurements with the predictions in Figure 2. The paper I plan to submit to CRSQ will discuss this issue more fully.

However, even if Henke’s number were correct, it would reduce the percentage retentions by only a factor of two or so. That is not anywhere near the factor of about 100,000 reduction that Henke needs. Put another way, Henke’s values for retentions would not move the predictions outside the error bars Figure 2 shows. This is a molehill, not a mountain.

And (as to inconsistent math):

Equations are only as good as the numbers one plugs into them. Henke plugs garbage into the equations and gets garbage out. Figure 2 shows obvious-to-the-eye evidence for the dates I got. Notice how well the data fit the "6,000 year" prediction. Notice how far away the data are from the "1.5 billion year" prediction. All of Henke’s slung mud cannot obscure the obvious conclusion: the helium leak age is very much closer to 6,000 years than it is to 1.5 billion years.

Let's spell this out just a little, shall we? Henke complains that the experimental observation is not to his liking and proposes that another number be used for a formulaic variable. Then he uses an array of variables (all labeled "My" which means they are Henke's) to build a table that gives different results from Humphrey's papers. Voila: Humphrey's math is inconsistent. Let's see - that's use My variable, and plug a range of My variables into the equations to build a table and get some different results - He's gotta be wrong! (See ... see ... there's a table!)

2. CHANGED SOURCE DATA

Humphrey relies on source data that Gentry produced in 1982 in his study of these Fenton Hill, New Mexico bore site zircons. He blithely changes Gentry's helium measurements by a factor of 10.

Humphreys claims that he’s just correcting some “typos” in Gentry et al. (1982), but he never explains how and when these typos were discovered. It’s just so amazing that after Gentry’s data are “corrected,” they fall in line with Humphreys results.

Humphreys' rebuttal:

On p. 16 of CRSQ 2004, in my notes in the reference "Gentry et al. 1982a", I spelled out exactly why and how I, in consultation with Gentry, made two corrections in his tables (the main one being in the units he specified for his absolute amounts of helium). There is nothing dubious about it. Moreover, as I implied in that note, the corrections would not affect the main result of the paper, which depends on the percentage of helium retained, not the absolute amounts. Finally, as I pointed out on p. 9 of the same article, "the 6.3 ncc/µg yield of these zircons [our sample 2003] is quite consistent with Gentry’s data [as revised]". Figure 7 on the same page shows how well the resulting 42% retention point interpolates between Gentry’s points 1 and 2. Without the revision, no interpolation at all would have been possible. That is very strong evidence that the correction was justified.

So blithely changes is really 'consultation between two scientists to normalize units between data sets' and typos are 'corrections explained in detail'. If they had not normalized units and published those results they wouldn't have made any sense and, of course, people could point and laugh and say "Don't they know that inches aren't equal to feet?". Instead we are left with pointing and laughing with "It sure is dubious that these people converted inches to feet isn't it? I mean it's greater than a factor of 10. Oh, my."

Next?

3. IGNORED SOURCES OF EXTRANEOUS HELIUM

The study was all about residual helium found in zircons since they were formed. The idea is that a certain amount of helium was in the zircons originally, and that over billions of years, almost all of it would have diffused out by now. (Actually the zircons in question are dated at about 1.5 billion years old.) But Humphreys finds "too much" helium in them, and uses that to back into an age of 6,000 years for the zircons.

Sorry, but the Earth is a dynamic place. The Fenton Hill borehole site (where the zircons came from) is only one kilometer from the volcanic and helium-bearing Valles Caldera. The caldera formed 1.12 - 1.45 million years ago. The most recent volcanism associated with the caldera occurred roughly 130,000 years ago. Even "Young Earth Creationist" (YEC) Vardiman admits that volcanic events may release helium. Studies of the fluids in the caldera show that helium is still present. YEC Gentry, who gathered a lot of this data in 1982 even admitted "We are not certain whether the minute amounts of Helium recorded from the deepest zircons ... are actually residual Helium in the zircons or derived from some other source."

How much extra helium could have this nearby volcano have introduced? Five times as much? Ten times as much? One hundred times as much?

Humphreys' rebuttal:

...Because he [Henke] thought that the retention fraction in sample 2002 was greater than 100%, he figured there had to be "excess" helium coming into the zircon from outside it. As the above item shows, his premise was wrong.

But let’s look at his scenario more closely. First, if the helium in the zircons were "excess" and came from outside them, it would have had to come through the biotite. As I pointed out on p. 9 of CRSQ 2004, the helium concentration in the biotite is two hundred times lower than the concentration in the zircon. That means, according to the laws of diffusion, that the helium is presently leaking out of the zircons into the biotite, not the other way around. Also, as I pointed out, the total amount of helium in the biotite is roughly the same as the helium lost from the zircon.

In Henke’s vague scenario, the source of the helium is "recent" (100,000 to 1.45 million years ago) volcanic magmas several kilometers away from our borehole. He is apparently assuming that conduits of such magma came relatively close to borehole GT-2. The conduits could not have broken through to the surface, because then they would have immediately vented their helium into the atmosphere. Henke wants "fluids" from the magma to carry helium through the mineral interfaces in the granodiorite, through the biotite, and into the zircons.

It is doubtful that such fluids could travel very far. First, the granodiorite is presently dry and well-consolidated, even at the surface. Second, the overlying rock puts the Jemez Granodiorite under in situ pressures hundreds to thousands of times greater than atmospheric pressure. Those factors would mean that the interface widths between minerals would be microscopic, perhaps only an Angstrom (the diameter of a hydrogen atom) or so. Henke needs to show—preferably with experimental data in a peer-reviewed scientific journal—just how far the helium could travel in this rock unit during the time he thinks is available. That would determine how close his conduits of magma would have to be. Then he would have to show geological evidence that conduits of basalt (solidified volcanic magma) presently exist within that distance of the borehole.

Next, Henke would have to show that the concentration (atoms or nanomoles per cc) of helium in the magmatic fluids could have been high enough to do the job. Our 15 ncc/µg value for Q₀ in the zircons means there was at least 3140 nanomoles of helium per cubic centimeter in the zircons originally. (Henke’s value of "41" ncc/µg in item 6 above would require even more helium, 8590 nmol/cc.) The concentration in the assumed fluids would have to exceed that value in order to transfer helium from the fluid into the zircons. Yet the concentration of helium produced by uranium decay in typical basalt¹² (and hence in basaltic magmatic fluids) would be less than 80 nmol/cc, more than forty times too small. No transfer would take place. So Henke’s scenario requires extraordinary amounts of helium in his magmatic fluids.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that the helium somehow gets into the zircons. Now it has to stay there. The magmatic fluids would raise the temperature of the zircons considerably higher than their present temperature, and temperatures would remain high for dozens of millennia. As I showed in ICC 2003, section 7, the zircons would then lose essentially all their helium—contrary to what we observe. Moreover, most of the helium outside the zircons has to disappear somehow, so that the biotite concentration would drop to its present low level, hundreds of times less than the concentrations in the zircons.

Henke’s scenario is pure conjecture. It depends on unknown factors to produce improbable coincidences. Even though this is his best shot (that’s why I’ve spent some time on it), it falls far short of credibility.

All the data point to a much more straightforward scenario: the source of the helium is the observed nuclear decay in the zircon, the helium is diffusing as observed out of the zircon into the biotite, and according to the observed total quantities not much of it has gone beyond the biotite into the surrounding minerals.

I can't help but be a bit tickled by this. "Extraneous helium"? "Sorry, but the Earth is a dynamic place"? Uh, Stephen, you are co-opting YEC arguments to your own advantage. In any other current dating method in 'science' nothing like 'extraneous' isotope is ever given credence, nor is the effect of volcanism and other 'dynamics' of the earth. You are demanding a double standard. Give me a cite.

Additionally, Stephen's argument fundamentally says: "We know water doesn't run up hill (i.e. a less dense gas does not flow into a more dense gas), but it could have run up hill. No one knows how it could have run up hill or why - but you didn't take it into account. Therefore your paper is rubbish."

Is there more?

4. LABORATORY DIFFUSION RATES

This one is very good. Humphreys selected tiny zircons. Tiny? With a typical radius of 50 microns. Very tiny. Then the lab tested the helium diffusion rates of these samples, at various temperatures, in a vacuum. Reams and reams of data. But wait. Obviously, helium will more readily escape from a bare zircon in a rapidly heated laboratory vacuum than a deep subsurface zircon that is surrounded by minerals and high-pressure fluids. Furthermore, vacuums may decompose minerals and open fractures, which would allow helium to more readily escape than under natural subsurface conditions. Humphreys' own experimenter, Ken Farley warns that laboratory diffusion data must be carefully applied to natural situations:

"It is important to note that such laboratory measurements may not apply under natural conditions. For example, diffusion coefficients are commonly measured at temperatures far higher than are relevant in nature, so large and potentially inaccurate extrapolations are often necessary. Similarly, some minerals undergo chemical or structural transformations and possibly defect annealing during vacuum heating; extrapolation of laboratory data from these modified phases to natural conditions may lead to erroneous predictions."

In other words, diffusion rates obtained in a lab can't be compared to natural diffusion rates.

What's the error factor here? How much more rapidly will helium escape from tiny zircons isolated in a vacuum, than when surrounded by solid rock? Ten times as fast? One hundred times as fast? A thousand times as fast?

Humphreys' rebuttal:

Henke is counting on his readers not to have read my papers carefully enough to know that I considered and discussed all the factors he mentions. I pointed out [ICC 2003, section 7] that, "Our assumption of constant temperatures is generous to uniformitarians." That is because their thermal history models require a recent (by their timescale) pulse of high temperature which would wipe out all the helium in the zircons. I further pointed out that the zircons would have to be colder than dry ice [CRSQ 2004, p. 9] for most of their history in order to save the 1.5 billion year scenario, and no geologist would consider such a low temperature to be in the realm of possibility. As I said in item 6, Henke’s hoped-for value of Q₀ would make no practical difference in our results. And I discussed the assumption of isotropic diffusion in biotite, showing that a more precise assumption would make no practical difference in our results. Biotite has hardly any effect on the outflow of helium from zircon, as we demonstrated. Again, this is a molehill, not a mountain. Finally, if I used such poor judgment in choosing the simplifying assumptions for my "6,000 year" model, how did it happen to anticipate the data in Figure 2 so exactly?

Whoot! This is very good. Stephen does it again. I guess double standards should be done more than once shouldn't they? Where does 'science' currently perform dating methodology? Not in the laboratory? Oh, no! How can the data be trusted if it's not extracted in the natural environment? Then there's the sly mention of Humphrey's own experimenter. We need not mention that Farley did the experimental work because his company was hired to do it and were not informed what the purpose of the empirical science was for. Farley and his company are not YEC's - far from it. So, wait a sec, some YEC's hired the best science company in the field to do the experimental work? Yep. Didn't tell them what the data was for? Correct. Didn't know what the results would be? Correct. Blind data collection using a universally trusted third party? Yep. Oh, and now Henke suggests - since Farley is now possibly tainted just because he did this blind work - everyone should know that Farley's not the last word on everything you know.

This argument also doesn't take into account that more than half of the helium generated by the nuclear decay (that 'science' accepts as valid) is still in the zircons when they are taken to the lab in the first place. (I know, assuming that water hasn't run uphill in the meantime.) Seems like they'd want to get all those zircons out from where they are everywhere and into the labs so they can bleed them out quick. Then they could say "See - they are very old. All the helium is gone."

Is there another?

5. METAMORPHIC versus IGNEOUS ROCKS

This one is a little hard to believe. Gentry's original source data recognized that both igneous (granitic) and metamorphic rocks (gneiss) were included. The granitic "granodiorite" is below 2500 meters; gneisses and other metamorphic rocks occur above. Gneisses and granodiorites have very different origins, chemistries, and histories. The metamorphic gneisses, which have undergone high temperatures and pressures after the formation of their precursor rocks, would not resemble the granodiorites -- in helium retention or other properties.

Once again, one wonders what order of magnitude error is introduced by confusing metamorphic and igneous rocks. Five times? Ten times? One hundred times?

Humphreys' rebuttal:

Henke means that I didn’t specify that the top 1000 meters or so of the Precambrian granitic rock unit in question might contain gneiss or schist instead of granodiorite. What he doesn’t realize is that "Jemez Granodiorite" is a name I invented (since the literature had not previously named it) to apply to the whole unit from about 700 meters depth down to below 4,310 meters. Our co-author John Baumgardner, a geophysicist, saw large portions of the GT-2 core at Los Alamos and picked our samples from it. He says:

Yes, there are occasional veins of material other than the coarse-grained granodiorite that forms the vast majority of the core. In making the selections I made of what samples to use, I purposely avoided these occasional veins. In fact I tried to select sections of the core well removed from such veins. So at least from my vantage point, the samples of core we used for the helium diffusion measurements were indeed coarse-grained granodiorite, not gneiss.

The important point is that, regardless of the name we put on the rock unit, the zircons throughout it have been measured to contain essentially the same amounts and ratios of lead isotopes, and therefore have undergone the same amount of nuclear decay. The uranium, helium, and lead levels in our samples are perfectly consistent with the corresponding levels Gentry reported for his. The effect of variation from sample to sample is probably smaller than the 2-sigma error bars around our prediction. So here Henke is making a distinction without a difference.

There's a bit more scuttlebutt around this having to do with what the rocks are named - but that's not the issue. Hard to believe? I'll say. What Stephen is saying is directly analogous to "Hey, you caught rodents in rat traps and mouse traps! You didn't properly distinguish between rat traps and mouse traps - so you may not tell us anything about the rodents!"

Let me be clear. This is what Stephen would have you believe: Radioisotope dating performed in the laboratory on these zircons is the only possible method for determining their age. Nothing that could have happened in the past could have possibly affected the egress or ingress of any of the isotopes or the resulting stable element in those zircons. The chief byproduct of that ever stable nuclear reaction, however, is not stable. In fact the experimentally derived amount of the nuclear decay byproduct in the same samples is a result of all known physical laws that govern the property of gases being broken. Additionally, you may not use the same physical methodology in working with the nuclear decay byproduct that you can use with the isotopes themselves. The measurements on the byproduct must be conducted several thousand feet below the surface of the earth as the sample lies in undisturbed stasis. Isotope reaction measurements can, of course, be freely done in the comfort of your local laboratory and any experimental results that are not confirmed by theory may be thrown out.

We are also treated to such venal sobriquet as 'the journal that published Humphreys' study "so lacks credibility that it is not listed in a database for determining publication impact factors."' which simply proves my assertion that we live within a 'science' culture that does not embrace open dialog in the first place.