Dating zircon crystals Thugs for sex video chat
The question remains, can this theory accurately predict the radiogenic helium levels in zircon specimens from sites other than the Fenton Hill well?To answer this question, I will make some predictions based on RATE’s data and conclusions and then compare them with field observations.The zircons not only suggest that early Earth wasn’t quite the boiling ocean of magma that it was thought to be, but that it was even cool enough that solid continents had formed, that erosion of these continents was occurring, sediments were forming, and, most significantly, that Earth has liquid water on its surface. This finding has revolutionized the way geologists think about early earth.
The durability of zircons allows them to crystallize around other silicate minerals and existing zircon crystals as the rock is re-heated during a “second melting” event.
Thus, the crystals cannot really be 1.5 billion years old rather they are only a few thousand years old. The RATE research includes some limited analyses of helium contents of some zircon crystals, some diffusion rate measurements and calculations to support their claims about the short time of the diffusion process. The authors of the RATE zircon-helium study claim that their primary thesis, that the earth is only 6000 years old, is vindicated by their calculations of the expected residual helium levels in the Fenton Hill zircon crystals.
They claim that their "theory" has predictive power because they can use it to correctly calculate the remaining helium levels in zircons from various depths (and temperatures) in the well.
That observation is clearly at odds with the belief that world is only around 6000 years old.
To counter the conclusions of radiometric dating creationists have formed the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) Group.
The argument, presented in a creationist journal goes like this: The rock formation is radiometrically dated at about 1.5 billion years of age.