Dr. Humphreys’ Young-Earth Helium Diffusion “Dates” from Zircons: After More than 20 Years, Still a Failure and Unable to Compete with Dr. Loechelt’s Alternative Uniformitarian Model: A 2020-2024 Update

Dr. Humphreys continues to dismiss or ignore numerous bad assumptions and flawed results in his RATE project and the Success of Dr. Loechelt’s Uniformitarian Model.

by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

September 7, 2020; Updated: January 15, 2021; March 28, 2021; May 30, 2021, August 10, 2021; September 11, 2021; February 28, 2022;          April 17, 2022; October 26, 2022; November 23, 2022; December 15, 2022; January 9, 2023; October 1, 2023; January 19, 2024; June 8, 2024

Copyright © 2005-2024

[Original Talkorigins version: March 17, 2005]

[Revisions at Talkorigins: November 24, 2005; July 25, 2006; June 20, 2010 at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html ]

Copyright © 2020-2024, Kevin R. Henke.  Unlike the original March 17, 2005 essay and the 2005-2010 updates at Talkorigins, this webessay now contains copyrighted material that may not be distributed.

Outline

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Dr. Humphreys’ Helium Diffusion in Zircons RATE Project

1.2 Criticism of Dr. Humphreys’ Claims: 2005-2020

1.2.1 My Essay and Its Revisions (2005-2020)

1.2.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Other Critics 

1.3 The HOUR is Late (added January 15, 2021)

2.0 Background Information

2.1 Zircons and Their Chemistry

2.2 The Fenton Hill Test Site

2.3 Helium Diffusion Processes in Zircons

2.3.1 Multi-Domain Helium Diffusion

2.3.2 Which Curve Should be Used?

2.3.3 Confusion over “Non-Volumic” Diffusion? Including Comments from Dr. Gary H. Loechelt

2.3.3.1 What is “Non-Volumic” Diffusion?

2.3.3.2 The Effect of Initial Conditions

2.3.3.3 More on Extrapolating the High-Temperature Arrhenius (Intrinsic) Curve to Lower Temperatures: Comments from Dr. Loechelt

2.3.3.4 Dr. Loechelt Comments on the Misuse of Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) in Humphreys (2018a)

2.3.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Four Lower Temperature Measurements: Relevant or Not?

2.3.5 Uniformitarianism is Not Out in the Cold

3.0 Erroneous Geology from Dr. Humphreys and His Supporters, and the Consequences

3.1 Background Information

3.2 Misidentification of Fenton Hill Gneisses and the Serious Consequences for Dr. Humphreys

3.3 Outdated and Inaccurate Petrologic Claims at CreationWiki #1

3.4 Humphreys (2005b) Tries to Trivialize the Misidentification of his Gneisses

3.5 More Bad Science: Humphreys et al. Make Up their own Formation Names and Violate the Rules on Naming Rocks

3.6 Questionable Sample Processing

3.6.1 Grinding of Biotite Samples

3.6.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Impure Biotite Separations

4.0 Questionable, Absent, and Bad Measurements of Critical Parameters in the Fenton Hill Zircons and Biotites

4.1 Parameter Definitions and Other Background Information

4.2 Mysterious Modifications of the Helium (Q) Measurements from Gentry et al. (1982a): More Questions than Answers

4.2.1. Questionable Q Results

4.2.2. Interesting Insights from CreationWiki #1 and Humphreys (2005b)

4.3 Questionable and Unexplained Origin of R. V. Gentry’s and Humphreys’ Q0

4.4 Two Wrongs (Q and Q0) Don’t Make a Right (Q/Q0)

4.5 Humphreys (2005b) Corrects an Erroneous Unit of Measure in the Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a) 

4.6 Missing and Questionable a Values

4.7 Poorly Defined Average b Value

4.8 Missing Data? With Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

5.0 Data Manipulation and Bad Math

5.1 Manipulation of Magomedov (1970) Data in Humphreys et al. (2003a)

5.1.1 Introduction

5.1.2 Equations in Magomedov (1970) Definitely Indicate the Use of Natural Logs

5.1.3 Lead Data in Magomedov (1970) Further Confirm the Use of Natural Logs

5.1.4 Distorted Magomedov Graph at CreationWiki #1

5.1.5 Dr. Humphreys’ Fudging of the Magomedov (1970) Data is Inexcusable and his Actions Show that He cannot be Trusted with Data

5.1.6 The Serious and Inconvenient Consequences of the ln D Magomedov (1970) Data to Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating Equations”

5.1.7 Dr. Humphreys Admits that the Magomedov (1970) Data are “Ambiguous.” So, Why Didn’t He Discard Them?

5.1.8 The Results of Dr. Humphreys’ Fudging Spreads into the Scientific Literature

5.2 Dr. Humphreys Hits Another Log Jam

5.3 A Factor Here and a Factor There Result in Huge Uncertainties for Dr. Humphreys’ Agenda

5.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Inconsistent Treatment of Samples 5 and 6 to Support his Creation Model

5.4.1 Data Points are Not to be Rejected Just to Protect Bad Models

5.4.2 Questionable Validity of Both Samples 5 and 6

5.4.3 Dr. Humphreys Confuses Area and Volume

5.4.4 Invalid Comparisons in Another Attempt to Eliminate Sample 6

5.4.5 Peer-Reviewer of an Earlier Version of this Essay Uncovers Another Error When the “Corrected” Data from Humphreys et al. (2004) are Utilized

5.4.6 The Dire Consequences of Removing Sample 5 to Dr. Humphreys’ 6,000 Year Old “Date”

5.4.7 The Real Issue Beyond the Numbers

5.5 Questionable Standard Deviations in Humphreys et al. (2004)

5.6 Dr. Humphreys’ Inaccurate Claims about Lead Diffusion in Zircons: Lead Loss is Compatible with Ancient Zircons

6.0 Complications Neglected or Inadequately Addressed by Dr. Humphreys

6.1 The Possibility of Extraneous Helium and Dr. Humphreys’ Invalid Lyell Uniformitarianism

6.1.1 Radiogenic, Excess, Inherited and Extraneous Noble Gases

6.1.2 Complications to All Helium Diffusion Models if Extraneous Helium is Present

6.1.3 Detecting Extraneous Helium

6.1.4 Too Many YECs only Invoke the Presence of Extraneous Inert Gases When the Gases Benefit Their Agenda

6.1.5 Important Comments from R.V. Gentry about Helium Sources

6.1.6 Evidence of Open Systems in the Fenton Hill Zircons

6.1.7 Dr. Humphreys’ Proposed Field Studies are Unnecessary and Magmas aren’t Needed to Produce Extraneous Helium

6.1.8 Extraneous Helium Identified in Nearby Valles Caldera

6.1.9 Dr. Humphreys’ Invalid Lyell Uniformitarianism

6.1.10 Evidence of Past Fluids in the Fenton Hill Rocks Refutes Dr. Humphreys’ Dry Lyell Uniformitarian Claims

6.1.11 An Extraneous Helium Hypothesis for Fenton Hill

6.2 Subsurface Pressure Effects on Zircons and Other “Hard” Silicates

6.2.1 Dr. Humphreys Fails to Consider Pressure Effects on Helium Diffusion in Zircons

6.2.2 Exponential Effects of Pressure on Diffusion

6.2.3 Dr. Humphreys Initially Ignored Potential Pressure Problems

6.2.4 Lack of Pressure Data in the Noble Gas Diffusion Literature

6.2.5 Humphreys (2006a) Cites Inconsequential Articles and Relies on an Irrelevant Curve in Carroll (1991)

6.2.6 The Information in Dunai and Roselieb (1996) that Dr. Humphreys Wouldn’t Want You to See: High Pressure Experiments Indicate that Helium in “Hard” Garnets Takes 10,000,000s to 100,000,000s of Years to Diffuse Even at Temperatures as High as 700oC

7.0 Flaws in Dr. Humphreys’ Dating Equations and Superior Uniformitarian Alternatives

7.1 Entering More Realistic a, b, D and Q/Q0 Values into Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations Fail to Support his YEC Agenda (Corrections Made to Dates in 2010)

7.1.1 Introduction: How Realistic are Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations?

7.1.2 The Problems with the Helium Diffusion “Dates” in Tables 5 and 6 of my Original Essay

7.1.3 Helium Diffusion “Dates” from Entering a, b, D and Q/Q0 Values from 2010 into Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations

7.2. More Realistic Helium Diffusion Models in Loechelt (2008c) Support an Ancient Earth and Refute Young-Earth Creationism

7.3 Helium Diffusion Results in Wolfe and Stockli (2010) and Other Peer-Reviewed Papers Fail to Support Dr. Humphreys’ YEC Agenda

7.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Overreliance on his Pretty Figure

7.5 Dr. Humphreys’ 1990s “Prediction” of Helium Diffusion in Zircons

8.0 Some Hot Topics

8.1 The Real Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface that Dr. Humphreys’ “Acts of Generosity” Can’t Dismiss

8.1.1 Thermal Conditions in the Subsurface of Fenton Hill

8.1.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Unrealistic “Generous Offer”

8.1.3 Dr. Loechelt Studies the Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface in Greater Detail

8.1.4 Dr. Humphreys Admits to Reading a Graph Backwards

8.2 Further Debates between Dr. Humphreys and Dr. Loechelt over the Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface

8.2.1 Overview

8.2.2 Dr. Humphreys Repeatedly Cites Bad Modeling Results and Outdated Information from Kolstad and McGetchin (1978)

8.2.3 More Arm-Waving from Dr. Humphreys on Fenton Hill Thermal History

8.2.4 More Problems for Dr. Humphreys from Sasada (1989) with Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

8.2.5 Humphreys (2012b) Finally Gets into Hot Water and Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

8.2.6 Humphreys (2010b; 2012b; 2018a) Summarizes his Flawed Uniformitarian Thermal Model

8.2.7 Three Invalid and Unnecessary Uniformitarian Thermal Models in Humphreys (2010b; 2018a)

8.2.8 Argon Diffusion Confirms Dr. Humphreys’ 6,000 Year Old Earth? Not so Fast!

8.2.9 Uniformitarian Models in Harrison et al. (1986) Work Better than the Young-Earth Model in Humphreys (2011)

8.3 Accelerated Radioactive Decay: Controversy among YECs and the Heat Problem

8.3.1 The Accelerated Radioactive Decay Controversy among YECs

8.3.2 The Accelerated Radioactive Decay Heat Problem: Initial YEC Proposals Fail to Solve It

8.3.3 Humphreys (2018b) Proposes a New “Physics” to Solve the Heat Problem

8.3.3.1 Background

8.3.3.2 The Biblical Interpretations in Humphreys (2018b) are Highly Questionable

8.3.3.3 Some Technical Problems and Inconsistencies with the Accelerated Radioactive Decay and Cooling Mechanisms in Humphreys (2018b)

9.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Misuse of Science, Misinterpretation of the Bible, and the Questionable Ethics of RATE

9.1 Dr. Humphreys Misunderstands and Misuses Science

9.2 A “Burden of Disproof”? That’s Not How Science Works Dr. Humphreys

9.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Actions are Religious and not Scientific

9.4 Second Peter 3:4: Often Misinterpreted by Dr. Humphreys and Other YECs

9.5 Ethical Questions Dealing with the Zodiac Minerals and Manufacturing Front Company

10.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Inappropriate Challenges for Laboratory and Peer-Review from His Opponents

10.1 Although it’s Not the Responsibility of Dr. Humphreys’ Critics to Do His Laboratory Work for Him, Dr. Humphreys’ Critics have Corrected Many of His Mistakes

10.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Inappropriate Challenges for Peer-Review, Which Dr. Loechelt and Me Have Already Done

10.2.1 Peer-Reviewing of this Essay.  Talkorigins is Popular and Mainstream

10.2.2 Peer-Reviewing of Dr. Loechelt’s Articles

10.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Poor Record on Peer-Review and the Phony Peer-Review System at the Creation Research Society Quarterly

10.3.1 Dr. Humphreys’ Peer-Review Record on Helium Diffusivity

10.3.2 Peer-Review Issues Related to Humphreys et al. (2004)

10.3.3 Devastating Critiques of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and Its Peer-Review System from Whitmore et al. (2007) and Cosner and Carter (2020)

10.4 The Mixed Record of the Journal of Creation

10.5 Dr. Humphreys’ Peer-Review Hypocrisy

11.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Personal Attacks

11.1 Ad Hominem Fallacies, What They Are, and Who’s Using Them

11.1.1 Definition and Descriptions

11.1.2 Humphreys (2018a) Complains that his “Dogs of War” Opponents Use Ad Hominem Attacks plus a Response from Dr. Loechelt

11.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Personal Attacks on Me:  The Failure of his Biblical Pop Psychology

11.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Attacks Dr. Loechelt’s Motives with a Further Response from Dr. Loechelt

12.0 Miscellaneous Issues

12.1 Background

12.2. Dr. Vardiman Abandons his YEC Atmospheric Helium Argument (Updated January 15, 2021)

12.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Aquatic Alchemy and Planetary Magnetic Fields

13.0 The Failure of Dr. Humphreys’ Helium in Zircons Project: The Long-Term Consequences

13.1 The Lessons of the Vapor Canopy

13.2 The Five Sides and the Possible Future of the Helium in Zircons Project and Associated Accelerated Radioactive Decay and Cooling

14.0 Conclusions

15.0 Acknowledgements

16.0 Appendices

A:  Calculation of Q/Q0 Values Using the Questionable Assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a)

B: Calculation of More Realistic Q0 Values and Estimations of Q/Q0 Values for Individual Zircons from Samples 1, ~3, 5 and 6 Using Chemical Data from Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979) (Corrections Made in 2010)

C: Crucial Questions that Dr. Humphreys Can’t or Won’t Answer

C.1 Introduction

C.2 Questions by Section

D: 2 Peter 3: What It Really Says and Why the Evidence is Not What YECs Want to Believe

D.1 Introduction

D.2 What does 2 Peter 3:1-12 Say and What Does It Really Mean?

D.3 What is the Likely Reason for Why 2 Peter 3 was Written?

D.4 Who Wrote 2 Peter and Who was the Intended Audience?

D.5 When was 2 Peter Written?

D.6 What is the Relationship between 2 Peter and Jude?

D.7 What is Our Oldest Copy of 2 Peter and What is the Time Span between the Likely Date of the Oldest Copy and the Date When the Original was Written?

D.8 Could 2 Peter have been Deliberately or Accidentally Altered Copying?

D.9 What do Available Records of the Early Church Fathers Say about the Authenticity of 2 Peter and Its Acceptance into the New Testament Canon?

D.10 Currently, What is the Best Evidence about the Origin and Authenticity of 2 Peter?  

D.11 Should Anyone Table the Contents of 2 Peter 3 Seriously in the Debate over Modern Uniformitarianism and Young-Earth Creationism?

17.0 References

List of Figures

Figure 1.  The old Earth multi-domain (uniformitarian) model from Loechelt (2008c) better explains the current amount of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons represented by Q/Q0 values than Dr. Humphreys’ oversimplistic young Earth RATE model. 

Figure 2: A photograph of a microscopic zircon. 

Figure 3:  Well-crystallized (euhedral) zircons are typically tetragonal prisms capped with four-sided pyramids. 

Figure 4:  This is a multi-domain diffusion model, where helium atoms diffuse from different domains or types of locations in a hypothetical mineral.

Figure 5:  An Arrhenius diagram modified from Figure 13 in Humphreys (2005a) and Figure 2 in Humphreys (2018a) showing helium diffusivity values for the Fenton Hill zircons and the young- and old-Earth helium diffusion models from Humphreys et al. (2004). 

Figure 6:  Arrhenius diagram of an argon diffusivity curve for potassium chloride (KCl) (modified after Figure 12 in Fechtig and Kalbitzer 1966, p. 83).  

Figure 7:   Humphreys (2005a, his Figure 16, p. 62) argues that if the helium diffusion results based on helium measurements in the Fenton Hill zircons were to comply with his uniformitarian model, the zircons would have needed to have been at an impossibly cold temperature of -78oC in the deep subsurface for 1.5 billion years.

Figure 8:  A typical granite (top), granodiorite (middle) and gneiss (bottom).

Figure 9:  Geology of the Fenton Hill GT-2 and EE-2 cores…

Figure 10:  Typical flakes of the mineral biotite. 

Figure 11:  Arrhenius plot of helium diffusion in zircons…

Figure 12:  In an unsuccessful attempt to defend Dr. Humphreys’ manipulation of the Magomedov (1970) data …

Figure 13: Thermal history of a granodiorite at 2624 meters depth in the subsurface of Fenton Hill…

Figure 14:  Subsurface pressures on Dr. Humphreys’ and R.V. Gentry’s zircons in the Fenton Hill cores…

Figure 15.  This Arrhenius diagram is modified from Humphreys (2018a, p. 49). 

Figure 16: Borehole temperatures and helium diffusion and U-Th/He radiometric dates for zircons from various depths in the German KTB borehole - copyrighted, used by permission.

Figure 17:  The predictions of helium diffusivities in biotite made by Humphreys (2000)…

Figure 18: The one-billion year thermal history (blue line) of the Fenton Hill subsurface at a depth of 2900 meters based on calculations in Loechelt (2008c). 

Figure 19:  The thermal history of Fenton Hill borehole, New Mexico, USA, for the past 24,000 years…

Figure 20: Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. 

Figure 21: Battleship Rock produced by the Banco Bonito volcanic eruption.

Figure 22:  40Ar/39Ar spectrum for microcline (feldspar) sample 5…

Figure 23:  Martin Luther’s version of the biblical cosmos.

Figure 24. The magnetic moments in joules/tesla (J/T) versus the masses in kilograms of Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth…

List of Tables

Table 1: Temperature measurements with depth in the Fenton Hill boreholes, New Mexico, USA. 

Table 2: Helium diffusivity values in cm2/sec at 87oC and 180oC from various studies in the literature. 

Table 3: Information on the Fenton Hill, New Mexico, GT-2 and EE-2 well cores…

Table 4:  Comparison of Q/Q0 values from Humphreys et al. (2004), Loechelt (2008c), and my Appendix B. 

Table 5: Confirmation that lead diffusion results

Table 6: “Dates” for Fenton Hill zircons 1, ~3, 5, and 6… Corrections made in this table in 2010.

Table 7.  A comparison of zircon helium diffusion data from 21st century published sources taken from Table 1 of Loechelt (2020a, p. 42) and the listed references. 

Table 8: Diffusion lengths calculated for different times.

Table A1: Q/Q0 values for zircons in the Precambrian Fenton Hill, New Mexico well cores…

Table B1: Uranium and thorium atomic parts per million concentrations of seven zircons from the Fenton Hill well cores as stated in Gentry et al. (1982b).

Table B2: Concentrations of uranium and thorium and the total number of 238U, 235U, and 232Th atoms in the zircons from Zartman (1979).    

Table B3: The amount of lead and helium daughter products in the Zartman (1979) zircons.

Table B4: Total radiogenic helium in the Zartman (1979) zircons.

Table B5: Mean length and width of zircons from the Fenton Hill cores (Heimlich 1976, p. 7).

Table B6: Calculated fraction of retained alphas in zircons using the equations from Tagami et al. (2003).

Table B7: Q/Q0 values for the Zartman (1979) zircons. 

Table B8: Calculation of Q/Q0 values from uranium and thorium data of zircon 1A from Gentry et al. (1982b).

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Dr. Humphreys’ Helium Diffusion in Zircons RATE Project

For decades, young-Earth creationists (YECs) have desperately sought “scientific evidence” to attack radiometric dating and promote their religious views of Earth history. Although YECs claim to believe that the Bible is the “powerful word of God” (Hebrews 4:12-13), they fully realize that just quoting their scriptures is not going to convince secular geochronologists and other scientists to abandon their research and stream to church altars in repentance. Therefore, in 1997, a small group of YEC PhDs associated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Creation Research Society (CRS) and Answers in Genesis (AiG) (then including what would later become Creation Ministries International, CMI) formed the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) committee (Vardiman et al., 2000, pp. 6-7; Humphreys et al., 2004, pp. 3-4).  Simply put, their activities included combing the scientific literature and designing laboratory experiments that would somehow verify what they have already concluded.  Namely, that a “literal” interpretation of Genesis is “The Truth” and that the Earth and the rest of the Universe were created in six-24 hour days only about 6,000 years ago.  Furthermore, anything that conflicts with their biblical interpretations must be incorrect.  As AiG personnel dogmatically admit in Section 4 of their Statement of Faith:

“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

Other YEC organizations and schools have similar statements and oaths. 

One of the major projects of RATE was led by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a young-Earth creationist with a Ph.D. in physics (Sarfati 2021).  He, along with J.R. Baumgardner, S.A. Austin, A.A. Snelling and others, investigated the diffusion of helium gas in the mineral zircon (zirconium silicate, ZrSiO4) (Humphreys 2000; 2002).  Zircons typically contain small amounts of the radionuclides uranium (238U and 235U) and thorium (232Th).  As the uranium and thorium radioactively decay, they produce a variety of other radionuclides as well as alpha radiation, which is the nuclei of helium-4 (4He) atoms.  Depending on the size, temperature and other properties of a zircon grain, helium may accumulate the mineral.  

Gentry et al. (1982a) listed some helium measurements for zircons taken from rocks collected from the Fenton Hill deep boreholes, New Mexico, USA (Section 2.2).  Fenton Hill is located about 56 kilometers (km) west of Los Alamos.  The zircons purportedly contained a lot of helium.  Supposedly, up to 58% of their original radiogenic helium was still in the zircons.  Uranium-thorium-lead dating of these zircons indicate that they are about 1.5 billion years old (Humphreys 2005a, p. 28; Zartman 1979, p. 1).  The abundance of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons convinced Dr. Humphreys and other YECs that substantial radioactive decay occurred within these zircons.  Unlike some YECs that deny any numerical meaning to radiometric dates (e.g., Woodmorappe 1999), Humphreys (2000, pp. 335-339; 2005a, p. 31) and many other YECs readily admit that the Fenton Hill zircons experienced 1.5 billion years’ worth of radioactive decay (Section 8.3).  However, Humphreys (2008b; 2010b, p. 35) questioned how these tiny zircons could retain so much helium at high subsurface temperatures for 1.5 billion years.  If the zircons are really no more than 6,000 years old as the Bible claims, then the helium and other radioactive daughter products must have resulted from one or more periods of accelerated radioactive decay in the past 6,000 years.  Attempting to determine the “real”, biblically consistent age of the zircons became the focus of the Humphreys et al. RATE project.  Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues would attempt to date the zircons by how quickly their radiogenic helium diffused out of them.  They thought that gas diffusion should not have been affected by accelerated radioactive decay.  

Like Gentry et al. (1982a; 1982b), Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2003b; 2004) and Humphreys (2005a) obtained their zircons from rock cores taken from the Fenton Hill GT-2/EE-2 borehole sites.  By studying helium diffusion rates from the zircons, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 1 [Note: Page numbering of this reference varies with different internet copies. The page numbering here is based on the copy linked in the bibliography]) initially concluded that the zircons must only be 4,000 to 14,000 years old. Subsequently in Humphreys et al. (2003b; 2004) and Humphreys (2003; 2005a), the “age” of the zircons was further restricted to 6,000 ± 2,000 years (one sigma standard deviation using the “biased” equation [i.e., n and not n-1 in the denominator; Davis, 1986, p. 33; Keppel, 1991, p. 43-44, 58]; see Section 5.5). Not surprisingly, their new “age range” conveniently straddles Bishop Ussher’s classical 4004 BC “Genesis creation date” for the world (Sarfati 2015, pp. 128-129).  Most YECs would cite Humphreys’ helium in zircon study as good evidence of “accelerated” radioactive decay either during Noah’s Flood and/or the Creation Week.  For whatever reason, God supposedly sped up the radioactive decay of nuclides and produced millions and billions of years’ worth of helium and other daughter products in a brief amount of time.  The helium diffusion model designed by Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), however, was not affected by these accelerated decay event(s) and accurately recorded the actual age of the zircons.  As discussed in this essay and its references, the Humphreys et al. model has huge problems, including explaining how Noah or Adam and company could have ever survived the enormous amount of heat that would have been released by any supposed accelerated radioactive decay event (see Section 8.3). 

Less technical summaries of Dr. Humphreys’ work are in DeYoung (2005, pp. 65-78) and Humphreys (2003; 2006b; 2012d).  In general, YECs have overwhelmingly and uncritically supported Dr. Humphreys’ claims on helium diffusion in zircons (e.g., Wieland 2004; DeYoung 2005, pp. 65-78, 176, 180; DeYoung 2008, pp. 240-243; DeYoung 2023; Doyle 2020; Williams and Hartnett 2005, pp. 192-193, 197, 324; Humber 2007, pp. 1, 7-8; Riddle 2006, p. 123; Lindauer 2013; Oard 2009, p. 112; Oard 2019, pp. 86, 91-100; Reed 2013, pp. 123-124; Armitage 2007, p. 258; Sarfati 2014, pp. 214-215; Sarfati 2015, p. 135; CreationWiki #1-#3; Snelling 2009a, pp. 192-194; Snelling 2012a, pp. 152-153; Snelling 2012b; Snelling et al. 2013, pp. 122-125; Stenberg 2012a, p. 57; Baumgardner 2012a; Mason 2014, pp. 210-212; Cupps 2019, p. 115; Ham 2008, p. 118; Patterson 2008, pp. 94, 98, 112; Vardiman 2008, p. 199; Vardiman 2011; Oard and Carter 2021, pp. 137-139; Walker 2024).  Although too many YECs simply accept Dr. Humphreys’ claims without question (Proverbs 14:15; 2 Timothy 4:3-4) and simply parrot them, other YECs are far more cautious and would want to see Dr. Humphreys’ results confirmed with other studies (e.g., DeYoung 2005, p. 180; Williams and Hartnett 2005, pp. 192-193).  Still other YECs have questioned some aspects of his results and even a few YECs have been very critical and doubt Dr. Humphreys’ claims, as listed in Table 1 of Humphreys (2010a, p. 15) and the discussions in Froede (2012) and Froede and Akridge (2012; 2013a; 2013b).  It is important to recognize that there are YECs that see serious flaws in this RATE project and Dr. Humphreys’ results and conclusions.

1.2 Criticism of Dr. Humphreys’ Claims: 2005-2020

Contrary to Humphreys (2010a), he has not silenced his critics.  After all these years, we are waiting for him to answer our numerous questions (e.g., Appendix C).

Considering how popular the results of Dr. Humphreys’ RATE project are with many YECs, many of his supporters would probably consider his project as one of the “crown jewels” of YEC research; that is, one of their best efforts.  However, a careful evaluation of the claims and efforts of Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues indicate that the helium diffusion in zircons project is not what it first seems.  Instead, it was an effort based on bad assumptions, numerous math errors, manipulation of data from the literature, and inappropriate and premature conclusions. 

1.2.1 My Essay and its Revisions (2005-Present)

Many YEC articles and books present long lists of evidence for a “young” Earth or that supposedly indicate that the Earth must be far younger than 4.5 billion years old (e.g., Batten 2017).  However, back in 2004, I noticed that Humphreys et al. (2004) not only argued for a young Earth, they actually claimed that helium diffusion in zircons provided an absolute date of 6,000 +/- 2,000 years old, which was consistent with the Ussher biblical chronology. As a geologist, I was fascinated by the claim and I began to investigate Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and related papers in great detail.  I soon discovered that there were numerous bad assumptions, math errors, and other problems in Dr. Humphreys’ work.  As a result, I wrote a detailed critique of Dr. Humphreys’ work on zircons and had the essay posted on Talkorigins in March, 2005. Contrary to disinformation in footnote #25 of Humphreys (2008b), my original essay is permanently archived at Talkorigins. 

In my original and later editions of this essay, I documented numerous errors in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and related documents.  In particular, the “dating” equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a) are clearly based on many questionable assumptions (including: isotropic helium diffusion in minerals, constant subsurface temperatures over time, ignoring the possibility of extraneous helium, etc.) that cannot be dismissed with any acts of “generosity” from Dr. Humphreys to the uniformitarians (e.g., Section 8.1).  The vast majority of the a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in the “dating” equations of Humphreys et al. (2003a) are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate (Section 4.0).  Using the best available chemical data on the Fenton Hill zircons from Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979), the equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a) provide ridiculous “dates” that range from hundreds to millions of years old (average: 90,000 ± 500,000 years old [one significant digit and two unbiased standard deviations]) and not 6,000 ± 2,000 years as claimed by Humphreys et al., 2004) (Section 7.1).  (Notice that the standard deviation is far larger than the actual date from Dr. Humphreys’ equations.  This is typical of bad results that are scattered over several orders of magnitude.)

In response to my Talkorigins essay, Dr. Humphreys wrote Humphreys (2005b), which is full of rash and inappropriate statements.  Contrary to Humphreys (2005b), the vast majority of the errors and unsound assumptions in the Humphreys et al. documents are not “petty”, “peripheral” or a “mountain of minutiae”, but fatal mistakes that completely invalidate any confidence in their work and claims.  On November 24, 2005, I updated and expanded my Talkorigins essay and responded to Humphreys (2005b). Humphreys (2006a) is a reply to that revision.  I again revised my Talkorigins essay on July 25, 2006 and responded to the statements in Humphreys (2006a).  Since then, Dr. Humphreys has largely ignored the revisions to this essay.  Apparently, he hopes that by ignoring the problems, his followers will think that the problems either do not exist or have been satisfactorily answered (e.g., Humphreys 2010a).  A careful review of the facts shows otherwise.

Other YECs also tend to ignore updates of my essay.  As an extreme example, the CreationWiki #2 webpage completely ignores all of my 2005-2010 updates, even though this YEC webpage was last updated on November 24, 2015.  The YEC author(s) should have realized long ago that their accusations against this essay are very outdated.  Specifically, they still only link to the original March 17, 2005 version of my essay and incorrectly claim that I ignored Dr. Humphreys work after 2003:

“Kevin Henke, an instructor at the University of Kentucky, spent 25000 words challenging these results… [reference to my original March 2005 Talkorigins essay]. Humphreys responded in a 2005 report … [reference to Humphreys 2005b] should be noted that Henke's attack was on the 2003 model, not the putatively correct predictions found after the original report.”

It’s obvious that the author(s) of CreationWiki #2 (2015) is more concerned about cheerleading for Dr. Humphreys than being up-to-date and accurate. 

CreationWiki #3 (2009) is another outdated and inadequate defense of Dr. Humphreys’ claims on helium diffusion in zircon.  The author(s) primarily responds to Claim CD015 in Isaak (2005) at the Talkorigins archive, which deals with Dr. Humphreys’ helium diffusion in zircon project.  Mark Isaak (2005) wrote short responses to various YEC claims.  The main goal of his work was to briefly summarize and provide both uniformitarian (actualist) and YEC references on a particular topic, where interested readers can find more details on the topic. However, the discussions in Claim CD015 of Isaak (2005) are very outdated.  Although Isaak (2005) summarized arguments from my original March 2005 version of this essay, it also does not include any subsequent information in my November 2005 to 2010 updates.

Dr. Humphreys’ early responses to me and his other critics (such as Humphreys, 2005b; Humphreys, 2006a; Humphreys, 2008a; Humphreys, 2008b; Humphreys, 2010a) were superficial, flippant, insulting, full of errors and totally lacked suitable mathematical and technical details to appropriate defend his procedures and YEC conclusions. Rather than dealing with most of his mistakes, it’s obvious from Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys (2006a) that Dr. Humphreys did not even read and comprehend the vast majority of my criticisms.  Clearly, Dr. Humphreys in Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys (2006a) thinks that he can just skim through earlier versions of this essay, throw out some insults, try to trivialize his serious mistakes, make bold assertions without any calculations to support them, make a couple of minor corrections here and there, misrepresent critical details in the literature, invoke several irrelevant analogies (e.g., lead self-diffusion in Humphreys, 2006a; Section 5.6), ignore the details, promise better answers in the future, and then hope that his readers will just go away on faith.  Now, some individuals might accept this type of arm waving, the invoking of “God did it!”, and the brushing off of serious criticisms, but individuals concerned about accuracy, including real scientists and editors of scientific journals, would not.  Science doesn’t work this way and Dr. Humphreys should know better (Sections 9.1 and 9.2).  Instead of relying on the evasion and ridicule of Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys (2006a) to deflect legitimate criticism, Dr. Humphreys needed to take some time to actually think about the numerous problems in his work.  For example, he should, if technically possible, have done spot analyses for helium, lead, thorium and uranium on numerous zircons from all of his and R.V. Gentry’s samples so that realistic Q/Q0 values may be obtained.  Dr. Humphreys has had more than 15 years to make a thorough and air-tight case for his claims and produce the detail calculations that he promised in Humphreys (2005b).  As explained in this essay, he has wasted a lot of time and money, made a lot of empty claims and promises, and has utterly failed to support his YEC agenda. 

In June, 2010, I again extensively updated and reorganized my essay to: 1) include materials from other critics of Dr. Humphreys’ work, 2) address criticisms from additional peer-reviewers of this essay, 3) respond to Humphreys (2008a), Humphreys (2008b), and Humphreys (2010a), and 4) discuss new revelations on how Dr. Humphreys unethically manipulated results in Magomedov (1970) to promote his YEC agenda (Section 5.1).  The June 2010 version of this essay was then summarized in a journal article, Henke 2010, in the September-October 2010 issue of National Center for Science Education Reports. 

As demonstrated in Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys (2006a), Dr. Humphreys has a tendency to superficially review the works of his critics.  In response, I constructed a list of questions for him in an appendix of the July 2006 version of this essay.  That way, when he skims, he could see the numerous problems with his work in a convenient list.  At that time, I hoped that he would actually provide appropriate answers to these questions or do the research to produce the answers.  In the June 2010 version, the list of questions was permanently moved to Appendix C and expanded.  

For the 2020 and later versions, I have completely reorganized my essay and moved it to my own website, where I can readily update it.  I have added more figures, expanded the list of questions in Appendix C, and included many new categories and discussions in response to 2010 and later statements by Dr. Humphreys, his allies and his critics.  After all these years, Dr. Humphreys and his prominent allies continue to ignore the questions of Appendix C. 

1.2.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Other Critics

Loechelt (2008c) demonstrates that Dr. Humphreys’ diffusion data actually support an age of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons, which totally refutes Dr. Humphreys’ claims for a “young” (6,000 years old) Earth and his need for “accelerated” radioactive decay. 

Since 2005, a number of PhD physicists, geologists, and others have criticized the validity of Humphreys et al.’s claims (e.g., Loechelt 2008a; 2008b; 2008c; 2009a; 2009b; 2010; 2012; 2020a; 2020b; Loechelt and Henke 2018; Whitefield, 2008; Isaac, 2007; 2008a; 2008b; Christman, 2005; Dudás, 2020, pp. 381-387; also see the list of critics in Table 1 in Humphreys 2010a, p. 15).  Humphreys (2008b) even admits that his critics not only include secular scientists, but a diverse group of young- and old-Earth creationists, including members of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA).  As discussed later in this essay, Humphreys (2008a; 2008b; 2010a; 2010b; 2011; 2012a; 2012b; 2012c; 2012d; 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; 2020) are totally inadequate defenses of his work and ineffective responses to his critics.  In one response, Humphreys (2008a) criticizes the religious diversity of ASA and briefly replies to criticism of his helium diffusion study from Isaac (2007, 2008a, 2008b).  In another response, Humphreys (2010b, p. 35) completely misinterprets the motives of the critics of his RATE project.  He thinks that we are worried that he may be right.  No.  We know that his claims are bogus. Despite their desires for Dr. Humphreys to be right, Humphreys’ YEC critics also obviously recognize that his efforts have serious flaws.  Some people have a strong desire for truth and protest inaccuracies and misconceptions when we see them, and Dr. Humphreys’ RATE documents are full of inaccuracies, bad assumptions, and misconceptions that must be honestly addressed.  Furthermore, secular and old-Earth creationist scientists don’t like to see our professions attacked and people misled by bogus claims about 6,000 year old zircons.  Dr. Humphreys should realize that his opponents include a lot of people that sincerely hate to see people deceived and mislead by his errors.  Truth matters.

Among his many critics, the most extensive and devastating criticisms of Dr. Humphreys’ claims originate from old-Earth creationist, materials engineer, and diffusion expert Dr. Gary H. Loechelt.  Even by the time that Humphreys (2013c) was written, Dr. Humphreys was recommending Dr. Loechelt’s papers to individuals that were undecided about the helium and zircon controversy.

Dr. Loechelt applied multi-domain diffusion models to Dr Humphreys’ and R.V. Gentry’s data, which raise many new arguments that further undermined Dr. Humphreys’ YEC claims.  Loechelt (2008a; 2008b) are brief and less technical summaries of Loechelt (2008c).  Loechelt (2008c) is a detailed report that argues that Dr. Humphreys’ claims and his underlying assumptions are oversimplistic, inconsistent, and erroneous.  Loechelt (2008c) corrects many of the equations and parameters in Dr. Humphreys’ documents.  He further demonstrates that Dr. Humphreys’ diffusion data actually support an age of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons (my Figure 1), which totally refutes Dr. Humphreys’ claims for a “young” (6,000 years old) Earth and his need for “accelerated” radioactive decay.  While the young-Earth claims in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and Humphreys (2005a) depend on supernatural-based accelerated radioactive decay, the model in Loechelt (2008c) demonstrates that the diffusion of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons can be entirely explained with the laws of chemistry and physics without relying on any magic.  Loechelt (2008c, p. 8) also keenly points out:

“The RATE radiohalo theory proposes the following mechanism for the formation of polonium radiohalos. Radon gas escapes uranium bearing minerals, such as zircon, which are embedded in biotite crystals, and migrates to accumulation sites where it decays into polonium, thereby forming a radiohalo. This theory requires that the heaviest of all noble gases, radon, have the ability to leave its host mineral and travel scores of microns between biotite plates, all within the time constraint determined by the 3.8235 day half-life of 222Rn. On the other hand, the helium diffusion theory requires that this same biotite trap helium, the lightest of all noble gases, and hold it for thousands of years.  Clearly, the RATE researchers were focused on two isolated phenomena (helium diffusion and radiohalos) rather than solving a more general problem, like noble gas migration in biotite. Ironically, the helium diffusion study and the polonium radiohalo study are published as consecutive chapters in the same [2005 RATE] book... [references from Vardiman et al., 2005 omitted].”

Figure 1.  The old Earth multi-domain (uniformitarian) model from Loechelt (2008c) better explains the current amount of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons represented by Q/Q0 values than Dr. Humphreys’ oversimplistic young Earth RATE model.  Unlike the RATE model, Dr. Loechelt’s uniformitarian model entirely depends on the known laws of chemistry and physics, and not on any magic involving accelerated radioactive decay.  The sample numbers are from Gentry et al. (1982a) and Humphreys et al. (2004). Both Dr. Loechelt and I (my Appendix A) demonstrate that Dr. Humphreys’ Q0 value is too small, thus inflating his Q/Q0 or helium retention values for the zircons.  More realistic Q/Q0 values from Loechelt (2008c) are based on data from Zartman (1979) and utilize the alpha-correction procedure in Meesters and Dunai (2002b).  As shown in the calculations in Appendix B of this essay, data from Gentry et al. (1982b) also provide better ranges of Q/Q0 values for samples 1, 5 and 6 than the values used by Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys.  For sample 3, my range of Q/Q0 values was derived from data in Zartman (1979).  Zartman (1979) analyzed a zircon taken a few meters from sample 3 and probably from the same granodiorite.  All of the models assume that none of their Q/Q0 values were elevated by contamination from extraneous helium (Section 6.1).  This graph was modified from Figure 7 of Loechelt (2008c) with permission.

Although Humphreys (2008b; 2010a) briefly mentions Loechelt (2008a; 2008b; 2008c), he provides no detailed responses to Dr. Loechelt’s models.  In response to Humphreys (2008b), Loechelt (2009a, p. 2) correctly concludes:

“For Humphreys to dismiss my work, which was thoroughly documented in a 37 page technical paper (Loechelt 2008c), with only three paragraphs of unsubstantiated rhetoric in a web article (Humphreys, 2008[b]) demonstrates his lack of serious scholarship.”

Readers should compare the equations and discussions in Loechelt (2008c) with the claims in Humphreys (2008b) for themselves.

In the subsequent disputes with Dr. Humphreys, Loechelt (2009a) is a detailed rebuttal of Humphreys (2008b), and Loechelt (2009b) is a shorter summary of some of the issues in Loechelt (2009a).  Humphreys (2010a) is a brief letter, where he largely recycles the materials in Humphreys (2008b) and prematurely declares “victory” against the “dogs of war” without appropriately answering the numerous questions from his critics (e.g., my Appendix C).  Loechelt (2010) is a response to Humphreys (2010a).  Humphreys (2010b) then responded to Loechelt (2010). 

During the subsequent eight years, Humphreys (2012a; 2018a; 2020) and critic Loechelt (2012; 2020b) exchanged additional brief letters in the Journal of Creation, over some of the many problems associated with Dr. Humphreys’ RATE study.  Humphreys (2011) is an article, where he discusses argon diffusion in feldspars from the Fenton Hill cores and makes additional comments on Loechelt (2010).  Vardiman (2011) then uncritically summarizes and defends Humphreys (2011).  Loechelt (2020a) is an article that responds to Humphreys (2018a) along with other issues. Yet, as discuss in this essay and summarized in Appendix C, many more unanswered questions remain about the validity of Dr. Humphreys’ methodology, calculations, and conclusions. 

YECs have also severely criticized Dr. Humphreys’ RATE efforts as indicated in the exchange of letters between Froede (2012); Humphreys (2012a); Froede and Akridge (2012); Humphreys (2013a) and Froede and Akridge (2013a; 2013b).  The list of his critics in Humphreys (2010a) also includes other YECs.

In Humphreys (2018b), he attempts to solve the excess heat problem that has plagued proponents of accelerated radioactive decay for years (see Section 8.3).  Also in 2018, Dr. Loechelt and I gave presentations critical of Dr. Humphreys’ RATE project on Steve McRae’s YouTube program, The Great Debate Community (Loechelt and Henke 2018).  Rather than watching our presentations, Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) requested that outlines of our talks be sent to him via Steve McRae.  This was done.  An email from Dr. Humphreys printed in Loechelt (2020a, p. 48) further indicates that after reviewing the outlines, Dr. Humphreys was reluctant to watch our videos because he came to inappropriate conclusion that we had nothing “new” or “worthwhile” to say on the program:

“I’m reluctant to spend several hours watching the Hanke [sic, Henke]/Loechelt videos, because I have a strong feeling that they have said nothing new or worthwhile.”

In my 2018 video at Steve McRae’s The Great Debate Community, as well as earlier versions of this essay, I have repeatedly stated that Dr. Humphreys has failed to address the critical questions in Appendix C of this essay and many other questions from other individuals.  Now, I repeatedly stressed that until these and other questions from his numerous critics are properly answered and the numerous gaps in his work filled, the scientific community will have absolutely no reason to take his grandiose claims about overthrowing nuclear physics seriously.  However, by 2018 and long after his retirement, I came to realize that Dr. Humphreys was never going to properly answer these questions.  Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) is correct when he states that I encouraged him via Steve McRae to deal with Dr. Loechelt’s issues raised in the program.  That is, rather than overwhelm Dr. Humphreys at this late date in his retirement by again pleading for him to thoroughly answer all of the questions in Appendix C, I told Dr. Humphreys to concentrate on the issues in Dr. Loechelt’s video.  I thought that if Humphreys (2018a) had satisfactorily answered Dr. Loechelt’s questions on this program, I would have been encouraged to approach him one more time about at least dealing with some of the questions on the long list in Appendix C.  Unfortunately, his response (Humphreys 2018a) contains even more errors, which are addressed in Loechelt (2020a) and in this updated essay.  Thus, the list of questions for Dr. Humphreys in Appendix C keeps growing.  If YECs ever want to salvage Dr. Humphreys’ work, someone else is going to have to come forward, do the hard work and additional experiments, and try to answer these critical questions.  

In an effort to dismiss the extensive criticisms of his work from a number of very qualified individuals, Humphreys (2008b) even suggested that his opponents are disorganized and disagreeing with each other:

“Another simple point is the number of critics and the long time they’ve been criticizing.  Each one was unsatisfied enough with the previous criticisms (most are familiar enough with the others to borrow their arguments occasionally) to take the time to attack the helium data on their own.”

Even if Dr. Humphreys’ critics disagree, does that necessarily make Dr. Humphreys right?  For example, if Dr. Humphreys says 2+2 = 5, and one critic says “no, it’s four” and another says “no, it’s six,” does that mean that Dr. Humphreys is automatically right because his critics can’t agree?  Nevertheless, a review of the available documents from Dr. Humphreys’ critics shows a lot of agreement among us.  For example, Whitefield (2008), Loechelt (2008c) and I all agree that Dr. Humphreys’ Q/Q0 values are inflated.  Many of us have also protested against Dr. Humphreys’ mysterious changes in the Q values from Gentry et al. (1982a) and his inability to justify his Q0 value of only 15 nano cubic centimeters of helium at standard temperature and pressure per microgram of zircon (ncc STP/µg) despite the unfulfilled promise in Humphreys (2005b) to present his math “soon” in a Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) article (Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4).  Had Dr. Humphreys been more open and honest with his math, adequately answered our questions about his work way back in 2005, and not been so flippant and evasive with the numerous problems with his results, the list of his critics might have been much shorter.  Dr. Humphreys is also simply failing to realize that his critics have very diverse areas of expertise in physics, materials engineering and geology, and that each one of us had no difficulty discovering new errors and questionable claims in his work.  As Loechelt (2009a, p. 8) concludes:

“The very thing that Humphreys criticizes, multiple people who are unrelated and unknown to each other bringing their different and sometimes conflicting ideas to the table, debating and even disagreeing with one another, is how true science works!”

Dr. Humphreys’ work is finally undergoing a thorough scientific peer-review that it never received from the bogus peer-review system of the CRSQ (Humphreys et al. 2004) or when he submitted his brief and vague abstract (Humphreys et al., 2003b) to the secular American Geophysical Union (Section 10.3).  Unfortunately for him, Dr. Humphreys’ critics have shown overwhelming evidence that his study is flawed and useless, and perhaps even contrived to unfairly promote his creation model (e.g., Loechelt 2008c; 2009a, pp. 5-7; Section 7.5).

Now, it’s very important that all readers question and evaluate my claims, the claims of Dr. Humphreys, the claims of Dr. Loechelt, and everyone else on this and other topics. Far too many people just embrace ideas because the ideas seem to support their religious or political agenda.  Over the past 40 years, I’ve seen some very sophisticated and apparently convincing YEC arguments evaporate once they are investigated in detail and, certainly, ex-YECs (including myself), physicists, and even some YECs would place Dr. Humphreys’ work in this category.  However, to make an appropriate decision for yourself, you need to read the literature from various sides in this argument. This is a very complex topic and readers will need to extensively review the literature to comprehend many of the arguments. 

 1.3 The HOUR is Late (Section added January 15, 2021)

The Creation Research Society Newsletter of November/December 2020 announced that the society will be sponsoring another YEC helium in zircon project.  The announcement states:

"CRS is contributing to Helium Outgassing from Uranium Radioactivity (HOUR) project. This study seeks to analyze zircons for their helium-retention levels.  This data will then be used to measure the low-temperature helium diffusion properties of zircons.  This study expands the original diffusion work done as part of the RATE project (a study of radiometric dating methods)."

This project is an update of Dr. Humphreys' helium in zircon project which formally ended in 2005 and which has been extensively criticized in this and earlier versions of the essay since 2005.  

A brief update in the August, 2021Creation Research Society Newsletter  indicates that HOUR is now one of three CRS projects that are underway and that the projects, as a group, have some funding.  The August Newsletter says the following about the three groups as a whole:

"The Society seeks funds for these research initiatives from individuals, churches, and other interested groups that are willing to provide support with either one-time gifts or monthly donations.  Through funds already received, work continues to progress and necessary equipment purchased.  Future funds will allow the Society to expand the scope and extent of this important research."

The November, 2022 Creation Research Society Newsletter again mentions HOUR and states that the Creation Research Society is contributing to the project.  However, still no further details on HOUR are available at this time.  As further details become available, the project will be discussed at this website.  It's likely that a separate webessay at this site will be written to review the HOUR project once results are published.  A link to my review of the HOUR project will then be listed in this section.  Hopefully, after all these years, the HOUR project will correct at least some of the numerous errors and misunderstandings in the RATE project - better late than never.  

2.0 Background Information

2.1 Zircons and Their Chemistry

As briefly mentioned in Section 1.1, zircon is a zirconium silicate mineral (ZrSiO4; Figure 2).  Zircons are usually microscopic.  They may form in igneous and high-temperature metamorphic rocks, especially igneous rocks that are felsic; that is, relatively rich in silica, sodium, potassium, and aluminum.  Because zircons are very hard and durable, they may also accumulate in sediments and sedimentary rocks (Klein 2002, p. 498).

Figure 2: A photograph of a microscopic zircon.  Source: Chd, public domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#/media/File:Zircon_microscope.jpg

When not considerably eroded, zircons often appear as four-sided prisms capped with pyramids (Figure 3). They typically contain 1-4% hafnium (Hf) (Klein, 2002, p. 498) and trace amounts of radioactive uranium (238U and 235U) and thorium (232Th).  As the uranium and thorium radioactively decay, they release a variety of other radionuclides as well as alpha radiation, which are the nuclei of helium-4 (4He) atoms. Eventually, uranium and thorium atoms decay to helium and stable isotopes of lead, as follows (Gentry et al. 1982a, p. 1129; Dalrymple 1991, p. 101):

238U → 206Pb + 8 4He

235U → 207Pb + 7 4He

232Th → 208Pb + 6 4He

Each 238U, 235U, and 232Th atom releases a total of eight, seven and six 4He atoms, respectively, as they decay to their stable lead isotopes.  Depending on the size of the zircon, its temperature and other factors, some of the helium may accumulate in the mineral.

Figure 3:  Well-crystallized (euhedral) zircons are typically tetragonal prisms capped with four-sided pyramids.  Mineralogists define two axes on all zircon crystals.  The c-axis is longer and passes through the middle of the crystal parallel to the four faces on the prism.  The a-axes are perpendicular to the c-axis.  Because all four sides of the zircon’s prism are the same size, axes a1 = a2.

Helium has two natural isotopes: 3He and 4He. 3He only has one neutron per atom.  The isotope is largely the product of the Big Bang (Delsemme, 1998, p. 22-23) and nuclear fusion in stars (Faure, 1998, p. 17). Small amounts of 3He were trapped within the Earth when our planet formed and the isotope is currently degassing from the Earth’s interior.  Besides forming from radioactive decay, 4He, which has two neutrons in every atom, also formed during the Big Bang and stellar fusion (Delsemme, 1998, p. 22-23; Faure, 1998, p. 17).

Using analogous definitions for argon in McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 11), helium may be classified as “radiogenic” or “extraneous” (also see Section 6.1.1).  Radiogenic helium refers to 4He that forms from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in a mineral (such as a zircon) and then remains trapped within the mineral until its analyzed.  In contrast, any 3He and ex-situ 4He are extraneous helium. That is, if 4He escapes from its source mineral and enters and contaminates surrounding fluids or rocks, it becomes extraneous. Volcanism and tectonic activity may cause 4He and very small amounts of 3He to rise from the Earth’s interior, accumulate in minerals in the upper crust, and then perhaps eventually escape into the atmosphere (also see Baxter, 2003). 

2.2 The Fenton Hill Test Site

As mentioned in Section 1.1, Dr. Humphreys’ zircons came from rocks taken from deep boreholes at Fenton Hill, New Mexico, USA.  In 1970, scientists and engineers at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, USA, developed a research project to evaluate the generation of geothermal power from hot subsurface rocks at Fenton Hill (Duchane and Brown 2002, p. 13).  By 1982, four deep boreholes had been drilled at the site: GT-2, EE-1, EE-2, and EE-3. The first drill hole, GT-2, was produced in 1974 (Duchane and Brown 2002, p. 14).  It went down to a depth of 2.93 km and had a bottom bole hole temperature of 197oC (Laughlin et al. 1983, p. 24).  The depth of EE-1 was 3.06 km with a bottom hole temperature of 205.5oC.  EE-2 had a true vertical depth of 4.39 km and a bottom hole temperature of 323oC.  EE-3 had a true vertical depth of 3.98 km (Laughlin et al. 1983, p. 24).  Igneous and metamorphic rock samples from the boreholes were archived at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Zircons were later extracted from some of the rocks and were utilized by Zartman (1979), Gentry et al. (1982a; 1982b), Humphreys et al., and others in their research projects.

2.3 Helium Diffusion Processes in Zircons

2.3.1 Multi-Domain Helium Diffusion

Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 4-5) and Loechelt (2008c) give overviews of how helium diffusion works in zircons.  The crystalline structure of zircon is relatively complex.  For better visualization, Figure 4 shows a simplified crystalline structure of a hypothetical mineral and where helium atoms could be located.  The figure illustrates a multi-domain diffusion model; that is, the helium atoms diffuse from different domains or types of locations within the hypothetical mineral.  The same relationships would then apply to zircons.

Figure 4:  This is a multi-domain diffusion model, where helium atoms diffuse from different domains or types of locations in a hypothetical mineral.  Most helium atoms, shown in red, are tightly bound within the crystalline structure of the mineral. A few loosely held helium atoms, shown in green, occur in defects, such as in fractures on the surfaces of the mineral. 

In Figure 4, the non-helium atoms making up the crystalline structure are shown as blue circles.  The intercrystalline or tightly bound helium atoms are in red and are well-surrounded by non-helium atoms.  The green circles in Figure 4 represent loosely bound helium atoms in fractures on the surfaces of the hypothetical mineral.  The vast majority of helium in the zircons would be located within the relatively more voluminous crystalline structure rather than in isolated fractures or other defects, which may go deeper into the mineral (Section 2.3.3.4).

As Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) points out, scientists don’t directly measure the diffusion of helium in minerals. They obtain diffusivities from a model.  Scientists heat a sample and measure the amount of helium coming out of it at a given temperature.  Now, if the scientists think that the helium is only coming from one type of location in the mineral, such as within the crystalline structure and not from defects, and if they further think that the situation only yields one activation energy value, they can then construct a diffusion model with the Arrhenius equation, as shown here:

Where:

D = Diffusivity of helium or another gas in a sample at a given temperature in cm2/sec.

D0 = Frequency factor or essentially the speed of the diffusion process at infinite temperature in cm2/sec.

E = activation energy of the sample or the minimum amount of energy required to remove a helium atom from its location in kcal/mol or J/mol.

R = the universal gas constant, which is either 1.987 x 10-3 kcal/K•mol or 8.3144 J/K•mol.

T = temperature in Kelvin.

The results are then plotted on an Arrhenius diagram like the one in Figure 5. 

Figure 5:  An Arrhenius diagram modified from Figure 13 in Humphreys (2005a) and Figure 2 in Humphreys (2018a) showing helium diffusivity values for the Fenton Hill zircons and the young- and old-Earth helium diffusivity models from Humphreys et al. (2004).  The blue and green diamonds with two standard deviation (2σ) uncertainties are the helium diffusivity values derived from helium measurements of Dr. Humphreys’ Fenton Hill zircons at various temperatures.  The intrinsic curve, representing helium diffusion from within the crystalline structures of the zircons (my Figure 4), is shown in light blue.  A low-temperature curve is shown as a red line, which Loechelt (2020a) argues is a defect curve that should be ignored.  The four lower temperature samples represented by green diamonds follow the low-temperature rather than the intrinsic curve. The predicted data points for the Humphreys et al. (2004) creation or 6,000 year old Earth model are shown as red diamonds with two standard deviations.  This model well overlaps the low-temperature curve and its four helium diffusivity values for the Fenton Hill zircons at 175-300oC. The Humphreys et al. (2004) uniformitarian or 1.5 billion year old Earth model with two standard deviations is shown in purple and its predicted helium diffusivity values are at least 100,000 times lower than the low-temperature diffusivity values of the Fenton Hill zircons.  Loechelt (2008c) argues that creation and uniformitarian models from Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) are fictitious and that the low-temperature curve resulted from defects and is irrelevant.

Under laboratory vacuum conditions, a zircon or other sample is heated in steps.  As the temperature in the furnace initially rises or ramps up from room temperature, the usually small concentrations of loosely bound helium in fractures and other defects in the zircon is largely, but perhaps not entirely, released (green dots in Figure 4; Loechelt 2009a, pp. 2-3; 2009b).  Because helium released by the initial temperature ramp up is generally not tightly bound within the crystalline structure and is in small concentrations, the concentrations are usually ignored.  Scientists generally only want to know the diffusion of the dominant helium that is tightly bound within the crystalline structure of the zircon (i.e., the red dots in Figure 4).  This is why Dr. Humphreys’ experimenter told him to ignore the results from the initial temperature ramp up steps 1-9 (50-450oC) for the analyses in Table II of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 6) and why any results below 300oC were ignored in Table C1 of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 17).  Above about 300oC, temperatures are high enough that the relatively abundant and tightly bound intercrystalline helium atoms begin to escape in large numbers from the minerals and may be detected.  As shown in steps 15-44 of Table C1 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 17), temperatures were then cycled up and down between 325-500oC to better dislodge the helium from the interior of the zircons.  In some experiments, the remaining helium is entirely released from the zircon by heating it above about 1300oC, where the crystalline structure of the zircon is destroyed through melting (Wolfe and Stockli 2010, p. 74).  This is a “fusion” step (Loechelt 2012, footnote 35, p. 50).

The high-temperature diffusion results for the intercrystalline helium are plotted on an Arrhenius diagram, such as the one shown in Figure 5.  Typically, the results form a linear intrinsic curve.  The slope of the intrinsic curve gives the activation energy (E) for the intercrystalline helium, which is the minimum amount of energy that is required to dislodge an intercrystalline helium atom from its position in the zircon sample.  Loosely bound helium in fractures and other defects in the zircons is released at lower temperatures and may produce a shallower curve, like the red curve in Figure 5. Because its slope is shallower than the intrinsic curve, the low-temperature curve has a lower activation energy.  That is, it takes less energy to remove helium atoms from fractures than from the deep intercrystalline interior of the zircon. 

Loechelt (2020a) argues that the red curve in Figure 5 is indeed a defect curve; that is, it results from helium released from fractures and other defects.  Thus, it should be ignored.  However, Humphreys (2018a) disagrees with that interpretation.  Dr. Humphreys argues that the low-temperature curve is very relevant.  Without the low-temperature curve, Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model fails (Figure 5). This dispute is further discussed in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3.

As shown in Humphreys et al. (2004, Table I, p. 3) and my Table 1, the borehole temperatures for their Fenton Hill samples were 96-313oC.  However, the initial laboratory diffusion study in Humphreys et al. (2003a, Table C1, p. 17) only went down to 300oC.  Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues really wanted measurements below 300oC, so they had the experimenter perform another run at lower temperatures.  These results are shown in Table II of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 6).  However, the measurements only went down to 175oC (step 17).  Although Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 5) asked their researcher for measurements at lower temperatures, Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) notes that in their literature, the researcher and his students never take measurements at lower temperatures.  It’s very difficult for scientists to directly measure the amount of helium coming out of the intercrystalline sites at lower temperatures.  The diffusion would be very slow and it could take far more than days to measure the helium concentration at a lower temperature even under a strong vacuum.  Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) concludes that if lower temperature results are problematic, why would the researcher and his students waste time and money on those measurements? 

Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) raises another complication with low-temperature measurements.  Besides the possibility that a small amount of helium in defects could remain there after heating above 300oC (Loechelt 2009a, pp. 2-3), any intercrystalline helium released at higher temperatures or more slowly at lower temperatures may temporarily enter fractures and other defects in the zircon, where the helium released during the initial temperature-ramp up once resided (Loechelt 2020a, p. 46).  Even if the helium atoms originated in intercrystalline positions, when they eventually leave the fractures and other defects at lower temperatures, they would produce a defect curve on an Arrhenius diagram. This effect could easily explain the red curve on Figure 5.

Loechelt (2020a) argues that scientists typically estimate the amount of intercrystalline helium that would diffuse out of zircons at lower temperatures by extrapolating from the high temperature intrinsic diffusion curve on an Arrhenius diagram (Figure 5).  Humphreys (2018a) objects to this extrapolation.  Notice, in Figure 5, that an extrapolation or extension of the intrinsic curve approaches Dr. Humphreys’ uniformitarian or old-Earth model.

2.3.2 Which Curve Should be Used?

Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-51) quotes a statement from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) on argon diffusion in potassium halide compounds and misapplies it to helium diffusion in zircons.

In his YouTube video at Steve McRae’s The Great Debate Community, Dr. Loechelt has a table that lists the helium diffusivity values for various zircons at 87oC and 180oC (Loechelt and Henke 2018; my Table 2).  This information is also listed in his Table 1 of Loechelt (2020a, p. 42).  Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) stresses that these diffusivity values were not obtained at those temperatures, but are “synthetic numbers” extrapolated down from the intrinsic curves at about 300oC and higher (Figure 5; my Table 2).  Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) argues that the diffusivity values should have been based on helium measurements taken at those temperatures and not extrapolations. As discussed further below, Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) argues for using helium diffusivity values from his lower temperature curve (the red curve in Figure 5) rather than extrapolating from the higher temperature intrinsic curve (the blue curve in Figure 5). 

Many zircons, including those in Humphreys et al. (2003a), have defect curves that have shallower slopes and lower activation energies than their intrinsic curves (e.g., Figure 5).  Referring to statements in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966), Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) argues that when determining diffusivity at lower temperatures with zircons that have both an intrinsic and a defect curve, it’s best to extrapolate down from the intrinsic curve rather than using the defect curve (Figure 5).  Although Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) refer to the diffusion of radiogenic argon in different minerals, Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) argues that the same arguments apply to helium in zircons.  Both helium and argon are inert noble gases. The defect curve mainly represents the diffusion and activation energy of a relatively small number of helium atoms leaving fractures and other defects in the zircons and not the far more abundant and relevant intercrystalline helium (Figure 4).  Again, extrapolating from the intrinsic curve is necessary because it would take a very long time to get measurable concentrations of intercrystalline helium leaving the interior of the zircons at low temperatures. 

Humphreys (2018a, p. 51) strongly disagrees with this conclusion and states that the five quotations from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, pp. 82-83, 91, 96-97, 101) given to him by Dr. Loechelt only apply to “non-volumic diffusion” (Section 2.3.3).  Humphreys (2018a, p. 51) then quotes the following statement from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) to argue against extrapolations from high to low temperatures: 

“These results on this ‘simple’ system show that the diffusion of argon at low temperatures should not be calculated from high-temperature measurements, but that measurements have to be performed in the low-temperature interval.”

Humphreys (2018a, p. 51) thinks that this statement from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) generally applies to helium diffusion in zircons at lower temperatures, such as his defect curve produced by the four low temperature points in the Fenton Hill data (green diamonds in Figure 5).  However, Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) argues that this statement by Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84), in context, only applies to the unusual case of argon diffusion in potassium halide compounds (e.g., potassium chloride, KCl) where the slope of the lower-temperature curve is actually higher than the slope of the higher-temperature curve (Figure 6).  That is, the unusual case involving argon diffusion in potassium halide compounds is the “simple system” that Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) are referring to in the above quotation that Humphreys (2018, p. 51) takes out of context.  With zircons, the intrinsic curve tends to have a greater slope and this slope should be extrapolated to a desired lower temperature (Loechelt 2020a, p. 44). 

Figure 6:  Arrhenius diagram of an argon diffusivity curve for potassium chloride (KCl) (modified after Figure 12 in Fechtig and Kalbitzer 1966, p. 83).  Unlike helium diffusivity in zircons, the lower-temperature curve for argon in potassium chloride is steeper and has a higher activation energy than the higher-temperature curve.  Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-51) makes the mistake of arguing that this unusual situation should be applied to lower-temperature (actually defect) curves for helium in zircons (e.g., Figure 5).  

2.3.3 Confusion over “Non-Volumic” Diffusion? Including Comments from Dr. Gary H. Loechelt

2.3.3.1 What is “Non-Volumic” Diffusion?

Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) mention cases of “non-volumic” diffusion of argon gas in minerals and other solid materials.  According to Loechelt (2020a, p. 44), “non-volumic diffusion” is an antiquated term for diffusion from surface and higher-order extended defects, which would produce a defect curve.  These types of defects usually do not comprise the majority of the volume of a solid unless the solid is in a highly defective amorphous or amorphous-like state (e.g., extensive metamictism from radiation damage), hence the basis for the term “non-volumic.”

Dr. Loechelt sent me an extensive commentary on some relevant issues in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) and how Humphreys (2018a; 2018c) greatly misinterpreted this document. Humphreys (2018c) is an earlier draft of Humphreys (2018a).  Except for changes in the title and some other minor differences in grammar, Humphreys (2018c) is the same as Humphreys (2018a).  The commentary from Dr. Loechelt is fully quoted in the following subsections with his permission.  The quotations of Humphreys (2018a), below, fully comply with the citation requirements of the Journal of Creation.

2.3.3.2 The Effect of Initial Conditions

Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 71) describe how the initial temperature ramp up of a diffusion experiment may produce diffusivities that deviate from a straight line on an Arrhenius plot (also see Section 2.3.1).  They argue that the data from the later, high temperature steps in the experiment are valid provided that the total amount of noble gas released later in the experiment is far greater than any lost by the sample in its original geologic environment.  Dr. Loechelt then comments on this statement in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 71):

“Although not explicitly discussed by Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 71), this statement provides the justification behind the practice of neglecting the initial temperature ramp in a diffusion experiment.  Deviation of the initial concentration profile from an ideal square profile introduces an error in the calculation of the diffusion coefficient [see Fechtig and Kalbitzer 1966, p. 71, for details].  The impact of this error decreases throughout the course of the experiment as more and more gas out-diffuses.  Strictly speaking, the condition that must be met is that the measured gas released in the experiment should be several times higher than the (usually) unmeasured and unknown original gas loss in the geologic environment.  In practice, unless the sample was severely disturbed thermally, such as from a natural metamorphic event its past, this condition is often met after the initial temperature ramp.

Here is why this point is important.  Humphreys (2018a) stresses multiple times the importance of neglecting the initial temperature ramp in the analysis.  This point is not controversial by practitioners in the field.  It is a simple and practical solution to the usual non-ideal initial condition.  It does address that ONE problem.  However, Dr. Humphreys makes too much of the method, basically claiming that it solves ALL the analytic problems with helium diffusion experiments.  It does not.  Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) never claimed that it did.  This is a classic example of how Dr. Humphreys invokes a valid but specific technique to solve all his problems.  More on this later.

As an aside, when there is initial gas depletion near the surface of a sample, the diffusivities that are measured in the early ramping steps of a diffusion experiment come out too low, and the activation energy too high, as noted in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966).  This effect is the opposite of the low-temperature defect line often described by Dr. Humphreys.  Clearly these are two different phenomena, and one would not necessarily expect the correction for one to be valid for the other.”

For argon-40 resulting from the radioactive decay of potassium-40, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 74) argue that low-potassium solids may produce flat Arrhenius curves with low activation energies due to argon-40 loosely trapped in grain boundaries.  In substances where potassium is incorporated in the crystalline structure, loosely bound argon may also be located in grain boundaries, in areas where atoms have been dislocated, and other defects.  Even with synthetic potassium chloride (KCl) crystals, very small amounts of loosely held argon have been observed. 

Similarly, loosely bound helium-4 would occur in both potentially high uranium and thorium zircons and quartz, where uranium and thorium are expected to be nearly absent.  As discussed in Section 6.1.3, this situation potentially has practical applications in detecting extraneous helium in zircons.

Dr. Loechelt further comments on the situation in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 74):

“Because Humphreys (2018a) misinterprets Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966), it is important to establish what they actually said and what they did not say.  First, fractions of weakly bound gas are often found in diffusion experiments.  This weakly bound gas manifests itself on an Arrhenius plot as a low-slope curve in the low-temperature region.  By definition, the gas is weakly bound because the activation energy (i.e., slope) is lower than the main part of the curve; i.e., the intrinsic curve.  Implicitly, this gas represents only a small fraction of the original gas.  Although not immediately apparent on the Arrhenius plot, the majority of the gas is released at higher temperatures, not low temperatures, in a diffusion experiment.  If a large fraction of the argon (or helium) in a sample is loosely bound, one would never observe the high-slope part of the curve.  Instead, the low-slope curve would dominate at all temperatures.

Second, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) make no distinction between exhaustible and inexhaustible types of non-volumic diffusion.  This is an invention of Humphreys (2018a, pp. 51-52).  More on this topic later.  For now, the important point is that the only distinction made by Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) is whether the radioactive parent atoms are part of the regular crystal structure or not.  In the case of zircon, the radioactive uranium and thorium atoms readily substitute for zirconium in the crystalline structure (Section 2.1).

Third, for this case where the radioactive source atoms do constitute part of the regular crystal structure, as is the case for uranium and thorium in zircon, the loosely bound helium (or argon in potassium minerals) is explained by higher structural defects such as dislocations and grain boundaries.  Note that these types of defects are not confined to the surface of the crystal, but often extend deep into the interior.  Therefore, non-volumic diffusion should NOT be confused with surface diffusion.  These higher-order crystalline defects can extend throughout the three-dimensional structure.  However, even if they do extend into the interior of the crystal, they do not constitute the majority of the volume of the crystal, hence the use of the term non-volumic.  Unless one is dealing with an amorphous or metamict sample, the majority of the volume of the sample is occupied by the regular crystal lattice, and a relatively smaller volume of the sample is occupied by defects.”

2.3.3.3 More on Extrapolating the High-Temperature Arrhenius (Intrinsic) Curve to Lower Temperatures: Comments from Dr. Loechelt

Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, pp. 82-83) discuss an example, where only several 10-5 parts of the total amount of argon were observed diffusing from a potassium chloride (KCl) sample at 107oC.  This was only about 10 parts per million (ppm) of argon.  They concluded that this low concentration of argon was due to non-volumic diffusion from structural defects in the KCl.  If this small amount of argon is subtracted from the total amount of argon released in the experiment, the resulting diffusion constants match the value extrapolated from the volume diffusion process at higher temperatures (Fechtig and Kalbitzer 1966, pp. 82-83; also see Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2).  Dr. Loechelt then comments on these results:

“This is the first of several examples in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) of extrapolating the high-temperature diffusivity on an Arrhenius (intrinsic) curve down to lower temperatures.  First, note the amount of gas released – 10 ppm.  This is very close to the amount of gas released in the four low-temperature points of the RATE experiment – 8 ppm (Section 2.3.4).  Second, the adjective exhaustible was used in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 82) in a descriptive sense rather than a distinctive sense.  In other words, the authors were not trying to distinguish between exhaustible versus inexhaustible mechanisms as Humphreys (2018a, pp. 51-52) proposes.  Rather, they were simply observing that since an extremely small amount of gas was released at low temperatures, it is highly unlikely that rest of the argon in the sample could be released by the same mechanism.  Third, and carefully note this point, the effect was still observed AFTER the sample was heated to high temperatures and quickly cooled.  As emphasized earlier, the neglecting of the initial temperature ramp is done to minimize the error caused by the initial concentration profile not being uniform.  It does not solve the problem of non-volumic diffusion.  Figure 11 in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 83) is direct evidence that ignoring the initial temperature ramp is insufficient.  One also has to neglect the low-temperature gas release from the analysis and rely upon the high-temperature data.”

Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 91) also discuss some argon diffusion experiments on felspars from Reynolds (1957), Fechtig et al. (1960), and Amirkhanov et al. (1959).  In each of the three cases, there are multiple diffusion curves each with their own activation energy. Dr. Loechelt comments on the results from these three articles:

“Note that three case studies from three different research teams all followed the same basic practice.  When multiple activation energies are observed on a “bent” Arrhenius plot, the typical practice is to neglect the low-temperature data and extrapolate the high-temperature diffusivity down to lower temperatures.”

Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, pp. 96-97) indicate that when minerals have “two different straight lines” on an Arrhenius curve, the steeper curve at higher temperatures would represent volume diffusion, whereas the less steep curve indicates non-volumic diffusion at lower temperatures.  This is also the typical situation with helium diffusion in zircons. Contrary to the claims in Humphreys (2018a), Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 97) state:

“Assuming that practically the entire argon escape is due to volume diffusion, an extrapolation of the steeper part to the lower temperatures is appropriate.”

Dr. Loechelt then comments on statements in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, pp. 96-97) by stating:

“Once again, the authors advocate “extrapolation of the steeper part to lower temperatures” when “two different straight lines” are seen on an Arrhenius curve.” [his emphasis]

Concerning argon diffusion in potassium minerals, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 101) conclude:

“Although the situation is quite complex one can say that at least for minerals which have K homogeneously distributed throughout the mineral practically all the argon can escape only by volume diffusion, if we do not take into account any metamorphism.  For such minerals it is, therefore, allowed to extrapolate the straight line which represents the volume diffusion down to the temperatures investigators are most interested in.”

For minerals, where potassium is a major component in its crystalline structure, the potassium would tend to be homogeneously distributed throughout the mineral to the point where the mineral could be effectively described with a single chemical formula containing potassium (e.g., Klein 2002, pp. 3-5).  Dr. Loechelt then states:

“Note that this statement from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 101) was made in the conclusions section of the paper.  It summarized the findings of the previous case studies, some of which were cited above (Reynolds 1957; Fechtig et al. 1960; etc.).  The general practice is to ‘extrapolate the straight line which represents the volume diffusion down to the temperatures investigators are most interested in.’  The authors do qualify their statement because exceptions exist, particularly when the crystal undergoes structural changes at higher temperatures (also see Figure 6 and associated discussions in Section 2.3.2).”

Contrary to claims in Humphreys (2018a), Dr. Loechelt’s comments in this subsection indicate that with the exception of some potassium halide minerals discussed in Section 2.3.2, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) overwhelmingly endorse extrapolating downward from the high-temperature intrinsic or volume diffusion curve to determine the argon diffusivity at lower temperatures.  This situation would also apply to helium diffusion in zircons, including the Fenton Hill zircons utilized by Humphreys (2005a; 2018a; 2018c) and Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004). 

2.3.3.4 Dr. Loechelt Comments on the Misuse of Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) in Humphreys (2018a)

Next, Dr. Loechelt quotes a number of statements from Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-52) and comments on how Dr. Humphreys misinterprets statements in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966).  The statements in Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-52) are also in Humphreys (2018c). Dr. Loechelt begins by quoting Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-51), which states:

 “[Dr. Loechelt] thinks Fechtig and Kalbitzer (hereafter abbreviated F&K) recommend that he ignore such measurements and that he should instead extrapolate down from the high-temperature measurements.  [Dr.] Loechelt supplied me with five quotes from F&K which he thinks support what he says.  But all of them appear to apply only to a special variety of ‘non-volumic’ diffusion, a variety which only affects a very small percentage of the total helium in the crystal.  I will discuss that case in the next section.”

 Dr. Loechelt then responds:

 “Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-51) begins his misrepresentations.  First, he dismisses my five quotations without actually taking the time to discuss and refute them.  Second, nowhere do Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) discuss this “special variety of ‘non-volumic’ diffusion”.  Humphreys (2018a) is just inventing technical terminology at this point.  Note that Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) based their conclusions on (1) a solid theoretical understanding of material science and diffusion, and (2) extensive experimental case studies in the field.  Dr. Humphreys has demonstrated competency in neither.”

Dr. Loechelt next quotes the following statement from Humphreys (2018a, p. 51):

“[Dr.] Loechelt did not send me the F&K quote below; it says exactly the opposite of what he wants … [see the relevant ‘simple system’ quotation from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) below and also see the discussions on this quotation in Section 2.3.2.] This appears to be a general principle which would reasonably apply to any situation in which significant amounts of a noble gas diffuse out of a crystal differently at low temperatures than at high temperatures. I.e. the diffusion experts prefer measurements over extrapolations.  The next section shows why [Dr.] Loechelt thought otherwise.”

The relevant quotation from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) again states:

“These results on this ‘simple’ system show that the diffusion of argon at low temperatures should not be calculated from high-temperature measurements, but that measurements have to be performed in the low-temperature interval.”

Dr. Loechelt replies:

“Section 2.3.2 in this essay does an excellent job of addressing this misrepresentation in Humphreys (2018a), so I will not belabor the point here.  However, I do want to highlight one additional fallacy by Humphreys (2018a) on p. 51: “This appears to be a general principle which would reasonably apply to any situation in which significant amounts of a noble gas diffuse out of a crystal differently at low temperatures than at high temperatures.”  What situation is Dr. Humphreys referring to when he talks about significant amounts of a noble gas diffusing out of a crystal at low temperatures?  Only 8 ppm of helium were released in the four low-temperature points of the RATE experiment (see Section 2.3.4).  The RATE experiment even fails to achieve Dr. Humphreys’ own self-invented criteria.”

 Dr. Loechelt continues to quote Humphreys (2018a, p. 51):

“Non-volumic diffusion includes a special case I here call surface diffusion, meaning diffusion of small quantities of helium from at or near the surface of a crystal, including the surface of cracks in the crystal.  This contrasts with volume diffusion:  large quantities of helium coming from within the entire body of the crystal.  Noble gas at or near the surface is often ‘weakly bound’ or 'loosely bound,’ and so ‘will diffuse out easily,’ say F&K (p. 74). ‘This exhaustible small amount’ (F&K, p. 82) of noble gas will normally be released in the earliest part of an experiment, when the experimenter increases the temperature in steps from a low temperature (say 100°C) up to a high temperature (say 500°C).  When the experimenter then decreases the temperature in steps, the subsequent diffusion data will not follow the data from the first upward steps because the ‘loose’ gas has already left the crystal.  Subsequent cycles up or down usually follow the data from the first downward steps.  That means one can eliminate the surface diffusion data simply by ignoring the first set of upward steps.  For a variety of reasons, [Dr.] Farley recommended that we ignore the data from those initial steps, and that is what we did.  So the data we show do not include any surface diffusion.  I’ll give a specific example a few paragraphs below.” [emphasis in original]

Dr. Loechelt again responds:

“There are numerous misrepresentations in this one paragraph alone.  First, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) never discuss any special case of non-volumic diffusion, except for maybe the difference between radioactive source atoms being included in the crystal structure or not.  Humphreys (2018a, p. 51) is inventing technical terminology to suite his purposes.  Second, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) never mention anything regarding noble gas being ‘at or near the surface’ on p. 74.  Once again, Humphreys (2018a) is just making stuff up.  What Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) do discuss are things like dislocations and grain boundaries.  These higher order structural defects extend throughout the volume of the crystal, and are not confined to just the surface.  Furthermore, Dr. Kenneth Farley, who performed the RATE diffusion experiments, never mentioned anything about surface helium either.  In the published lab report at the end of Humphreys et al. (2003a), Farley discussed (1) a rounded He concentration profile, and (2) the annealing of radiation damage.  No mention of “loosely bound helium” or “surface diffusion” was made.  Third, as previously discussed, the “exhaustible small amount” of gas discussed on pp. 82-83 of Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) was observed AFTER ‘the sample was heated at higher temperatures and quickly cooled down’, directly refuting Dr. Humphreys’ claim.  Fourth, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) never claimed that ignoring the initial temperature ramp is a solution to eliminating the effect of all the loosely bound gas.  And finally, as discussed earlier, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) discussed how ignoring the initial temperature ramp can minimize the error caused by a non-uniform initial concentration profile, which is a very different problem than removing loosely bound helium from the surface (p. 71).”

Dr. Loechelt next quotes the following statement from Humphreys (2018a, p. 51):

“Unfortunately, F&K use a broader definition of non-volumic diffusion.  It includes both surface diffusion and any other diffusion mechanism that gives a shallower slope … [reference to figure omitted] than the slope of the main high-temperature component … [reference to figure omitted].  Most of the other shallow-slope components, besides surface diffusion (which also has a shallow slope), are from sources that are usually distributed uniformly throughout the whole volume of the crystal, such as lattice imperfections (point defects, grain boundaries, dislocations, etc.) and impurities, all of which are very common in naturally occurring minerals.  These mechanisms draw upon all the helium in the volume, merely offering different pathways of diffusion.  We might call this variety of non-volumic diffusion inexhaustible diffusion, ‘inexhaustible’ by comparison with the much more exhaustible surface diffusion.”

Dr. Loechelt then responds to these statements:

“Humphreys (2018a) continues to invent and misuse terminology here.  He is correct in stating that Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) did not differentiate between different types of non-volumic diffusion, as a careful reading of their paper will show.  There is nothing unfortunate about this.  These authors understood far better than Dr. Humphreys how crystal defects affect solid-state diffusion.  The unfortunate confusion is on Dr. Humphreys’ end.  Once again, he makes artificial distinctions where none exist.  There is no distinction between surface non-volumic diffusion and non-surface, non-volumic diffusion.  Likewise, there is no distinction between exhaustible non-volumic diffusion and inexhaustible non-volumic diffusion.  Humphreys (2018a) is just making this up.

Perhaps in his defense, it appears that Dr. Humphreys has a major conceptual misunderstanding.  He seems to associate non-volumic diffusion with surface diffusion, thinking along the lines of a surface versus volume distinction.  That is not what Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) had in mind by the terminology.  A better description of volumic versus non-volumic diffusion is to consider what fraction of the volume of the crystal is occupied by the structural feature.  Volumic diffusion comprises the regular crystalline lattice and occupies a large fraction of the volume of the solid unless it is highly defective.  In contrast, non-volumic diffusion comprises the remaining defective volume of the solid.  Although both regions can coexist throughout the volume of the crystal on a macroscopic scale, they are spatially separated on the atomic scale.  Therefore, contrary to Dr. Humphreys’ claims, this microscopic spatial separation prevents the defective regions from drawing upon all the helium in the volume.  Instead, helium that is trapped in the regular crystalline lattice must diffuse according to the local diffusivity of that region before it can move throughout the crystal.  It is this separation of diffusion domains at the atomic level which motivates the formulation of multi-domain diffusion models.  Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) understood the implications of these effects over a half-century ago.  As an aside, the fact that the diffusion of a helium is governed by its local environment (i.e., crystalline or defect) is another argument against the adding of diffusivities, which is advocated by Humphreys (2018a, pp. 52-53).”  See Section 5.2.

It should also be noted that zircons are often zoned (e.g., Pidgeon 1992; Reiners et al. 2004), which means that impurities (such as uranium, thorium, and their radiogenic helium) would not necessarily be uniformly distributed throughout the zircon as Humphreys (2018a, p. 51; 2018c, p. 4) believes.  This explains why Gentry et al. (1982b) found uranium concentrations varying by more than an order of magnitude within single Fenton Hill zircons (see my Appendix B). 

Dr. Loechelt continues by quoting the following statements from Humphreys (2018a, p. 52):

“This is the crucial problem I see with [Dr.] Loechelt’s reasoning:  he seems to think that all diffusion with low slopes at low temperatures is exhaustible, as exhaustible as surface diffusion.  He ignores the most likely mechanisms for low-temperature diffusion, which are as inexhaustible as volumic diffusion.  So he thinks we should simply ignore [Dr.] Farley’s low-temperature data, because he thinks it represents only a tiny fraction of the helium in the zircon.” [emphasis in original]

Dr. Loechelt replies:

“Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) summarized the difference between our two interpretations fairly accurately in this paragraph.  However, we need to draw attention to his unsubstantiated claim: ‘He ignores the most likely mechanisms for low-temperature diffusion, which are as inexhaustible as volumic diffusion.’  Where has Dr. Humphreys demonstrated that his proposed mechanism for the low-temperature diffusion is as inexhaustible as the primary ‘volumic’ mechanism?  There is no experimental data supporting this claim.  On the contrary, only 8 ppm of helium were released during the four low-temperature measurements (Section 2.3.4).  How does Dr. Humphreys know that the rest of the 99.9992% of the helium in the sample could ultimately be released by this mechanism?”

Dr. Loechelt then cites the following section from Humphreys (2018a, p. 52):

“But [Dr.] Loechelt is ignoring important evidence against his assumption.  The first nine steps of [Dr.] Farley’s experiment… [reference number omitted], whose diffusivities he told us to ignore, cooked out 4% of the total helium in the crystal.  The very next step, number 10, 1 hour at 500°C, cooked out an additional 11%.  I would think that any exhaustible diffusion mechanisms would no longer be represented after that point, and that the remaining 85% of the helium, whether measured at low temperatures or high ones, would be from sources as inexhaustible as volumic diffusion. So there is no reason to ignore [Dr.] Farley’s low-temperature data, as [Dr.] Loechelt wants to do.”

In response to these statements, Dr. Loechelt states:

“Dr. Humphreys raised a similar objection to my diffusion modeling work in Humphreys (2008b).  I am not ignoring the evidence. Rather, Dr. Humphreys is ignoring my response.  In Loechelt (2009a), I refuted Dr. Humphreys’ claims by direct calculation (see my section 2, question 1).  Using a multi-domain diffusion model, I demonstrated that not all of the loosely bound helium would be out-gassed after the first temperature ramp.  Remember, only 8 ppm of helium were released at the low temperature steps, so only a tiny amount of loosely bound helium had to remain later in the experiment.  Diffusion is an inherently slow process, and even with a high diffusivity, the actual diffusion flux decreases with the concentration gradient.  Therefore, it is possible that enough loosely bound helium remained later in the experiment to account for 8 ppm of gas released at low temperatures. 

The calculations in Loechelt (2009a) have never been refuted.  After posting Loechelt (2009a) on the website of the American Scientific Affiliation, I requested that Creation Ministries International, which hosted the Humphreys (2008b) web article, communicate my response to Dr. Humphreys.  The next year Humphreys (2010a) was published by Creation Ministries International in their Journal of Creation.  In this paper, Humphreys boasted about how he had silenced his critics.  In early drafts of my response to Humphreys (2010a), I challenged the claim that Dr. Humphreys had silenced his critics when in fact he had ignored them.  Time and again the editors of the Journal of Creation struck my statements from the draft.  I eventually had to settle for the following simple sentence in the endnotes of my 2010 letter: “I had previously informed [Dr.] Humphreys of this reply through CMI in May 2009.”

Dr. Humphreys gave a more lengthy response in his reply to my letter: “As he mentions above, on 5/18/2009 he sent an e-mail to the editors of this journal, merely giving links to his two new articles. The editors forwarded it to me, asking if I wanted to reply on the CMI website or in Journal of Creation. I replied to the editors that in the new (non-peer-reviewed) articles [Dr.] Loechelt pointed to a complex theoretical analysis he did in a previous article (also not peer reviewed) to bolster his claim that we didn’t get rid of all of the “loose” helium (my term) in the zircons. However, my earlier reply (this reference) to the same issue is still quite adequate. I suggested to the editors that further replies from me should await [Dr.] Loechelt publishing a peer-reviewed article, especially one with a new experiment (not theory) to test his claims.”  (Also see Section 10.0, which discusses Dr. Humphreys’ “peer-review” record and how Dr. Loechelt’s papers were peer-reviewed.)

Now after many years, Humphreys is repeating the same criticism that I ignored the effects of the initial temperature ramp in my diffusion model.  On the contrary, I did not ignore the effects.  I explicitly included them and got a better match to the entire RATE diffusion dataset than Humphreys’ own model (see section 4 of Loechelt 2009a including figure 6).  Dr. Humphreys dismissed my “complex theoretical analysis” and yet relies on his own speculative reasoning like “I would think that any exhaustible diffusion mechanisms would no longer be represented after that point” and again “There is no reason to ignore [Dr.] Farley’s low-temperature data”.  He rejects my work because it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, yet he is allowed to make statements lacking any scientific rigor, such as the two quotes cited above, in a so-called peer-reviewed young-Earth creationist scientific journal.

In addition, Guenthner et al. (2013) suggested another possible mechanism.  Enough helium from the high-retentivity domain, which was activated during the high-temperature steps, could re-occupy the low-retentivity domains during the retrograde part of the ramp to account for gas released at low temperatures (also see Section 2.3.1). Therefore, there is more than one possible explanation.  Note that the conclusions of Loechelt (2009a) were based upon rigorous mathematical calculations and the conclusions of Guenthner et al. (2013) were based upon years of extensive experimentation.  In contrast, Dr. Humphreys’ claims are based upon neither.

Dr. Humphreys rejected Loechelt (2009a) because it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal and lacked new experimental data. Guenthner et al. (2013), in contrast, was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and contained some of the latest experimental data in the field. Will Humphreys finally take these concerns seriously, or will he ignore Guenthner et al. (2013) the same way he ignored Loechelt (2009a)?”

In additional discussions, Loechelt (2020a) relies on more recent results from Wolfe and Stockli (2010), Guenthner et al. (2013), and Cherniak et al. (2009) to supplement Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966).  These more recent studies broadly support the earlier work of Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966).  Guenthner et al. (2013), in particular, discusses diffusion under lower temperature conditions and offers some insight into the diffusion mechanism.   Besides often misquoting and misinterpreting Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966), Humphreys (2018a; 2018c) also overly relies on Girifalco (1964).  Dr. Loechelt further comments:

“Girifalco (1964) is particularly problematic in that the book discusses solid-state diffusion in very simplistic terms and does not address the specific issues faced by noble gas thermochronometry in general or the complexities of helium diffusion in zircon in particular.”

2.3.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Four Lower Temperature Measurements: Relevant or Not?

The issue then arises, was the helium released by the four low temperature measurements (green diamonds in Figure 5) significant and relevant “inexhaustible” non-volumic helium as advocated by Humphreys (2018a, pp. 51-52) or insignificant low concentrations associated with a defect curve as advocated by Loechelt (2020a)?  Loechelt (2020a, pp. 46 and footnote 35, p. 50) did some calculations on the results from Humphreys et al. (2004, Table II, p. 6) and Humphreys et al. (2005a, his Table 2, p. 45).  He demonstrated that the amount of helium released from the four low temperature analyses in Dr. Humphreys’ Fenton Hill data are not “significant” at all and indicate that the data points are actually associated with a defect curve that should be ignored (the green diamonds and red line in Figure 5).  Referring to Table II in Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 6), the high temperature (355oC to 505oC) steps of 10-13 and 21-27 released 306 nano cubic centimeters (ncc) of helium or 22.58% of the total.  Both Loechelt (2020a, pp. 46, 50) and Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) agree that the initial temperature ramp up (steps 1-2, 4-9 at 50-450oC) released about 4% of the helium from Dr. Humphreys’ zircons (due to problems measuring the temperature, step 3 is omitted from Table II in Humphreys et al. 2004, p. 6).  Loechelt (2020a, pp. 46, 50) further lists the total amount of the helium released during the temperature ramp up phase as 56.5 ncc.  While Humphreys (2020a, p. 52) prematurely ends his calculations here and assumes that the rest of the helium is relevant, Loechelt (2020a, pp. 46, 50) continues his calculations and discovers some important details. The intermediate temperatures (between 260oC and 350oC) at steps 14, 15, 20, and 28 released 0.118 ncc of helium (0.0087%).  The four lower temperature steps (175-255oC) of 16-19 released only 0.0106 ncc of helium or 0.0008%, which is a typical result for measurements on a defect curve (green diamonds and red line in Figure 5).  This is an important calculation that Humphreys (2018a) overlooked.  The rest of the helium was released during the high temperature fusion step to yield a grand total of 1356 ncc of helium.  Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) then asks an important question, what does the 0.0008% or 8 parts per million (ppm) of helium from the four lower temperature analyses tell us about the age of the Earth and the presence of past accelerated radioactive decay event(s)?  Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) thinks not much.  A few parts per million of helium are simply not enough to make any authoritative statements about the overall helium diffusion behavior of the zircons at 175-255oC (Loechelt 2008c, pp. 10-12).  Furthermore, as discussed in Section 6.2, high subsurface pressures would tend to seal shut fractures and other defects in the zircons, expel the ppm of helium from the defects, and largely or entirely eliminate the defect curve.  So, Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) wonders how Dr. Humphreys and his allies can justify using this tiny amount of helium from a laboratory study to rationalize their YEC diffusion model and argue that this is definitive evidence of past accelerated radioactive decay event(s). 

2.3.5 Uniformitarianism is Not Out in the Cold

Humphreys (2005a, p. 61 and his Figure 16, p. 62; 2018a, pp. 53-54) also argues that the old-Earth model would only work if the Fenton Hill zircons were exposed to impossibly cold temperatures of about -78oC for 1.5 billion years.  He illustrates his argument by extending his defect curve down to intersect the uniformitarian model as shown in Figure 7.  Humphreys (2020a, p. 50) then argues that Dr. Loechelt only endorses an extrapolation with the high-temperature intrinsic curve because he thinks that the results favor the old-Earth or uniformitarian model.  As shown in Figures 5 and 7, an extrapolation of the intrinsic curve more closely approaches Dr. Humphreys’ non-cryogenic uniformitarian model.  Yet, as seen in discussions in the Sections 2.3.2 through 2.3.4, Dr. Humphreys has no justification in applying his low-temperature (actually a defect) curve to either his young- or old-Earth models.  It is Dr. Humphreys, and not Dr. Loechelt, that is using the wrong curve to justify his dating model.

Humphreys (2018a, p. 53) further argues that even if extrapolating with the intrinsic curve (blue line) is appropriate, the curve still passes about 100oC too high for the three purple intrinsic points on his version of the old-Earth model (Figure 5). Humphreys (2018a, p. 53; 2012d) sees this as Dr. Loechelt’s motive for wanting cooling temperatures in the past subsurface of Fenton Hill (Sections 8.1 and 8.2).  Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) further argues that even if the temperatures were lower and the three intrinsic points on Dr. Humphreys uniformitarian model coincided with the blue intrinsic curve, Dr. Loechelt would have to explain the three points on the left side of the uniformitarian model.  However, as discussed in Loechelt (2008c; 2009a, pp. 2-3; 2009b; 2020a), the three points to the left are on a defect curve, which are not important because they would result from small amounts of helium in cracks and other relatively small numbers of defects (Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.4).  Also, as discussed in Section 6.2, high pressures in the subsurface of Fenton Hill would have lowered the intrinsic curve and sealed at least some of the defects, which would largely eliminate the defect curve.  Finally, Loechelt (2008c) used a more rigorous and appropriate version of the uniformitarian model and demonstrated that the diffusion of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons was totally compatible with that model (Figure 1).  Dr. Humphreys’ uniformitarian model in Figure 5 is flawed.

Figure 7:   Humphreys (2005a, his Figure 16, p. 62) argues that if the helium diffusion results based on helium measurements in the Fenton Hill zircons were to comply with his uniformitarian model, the zircons would have needed to have been at an impossibly cold temperature of -78oC in the deep subsurface for 1.5 billion years. Discussions in Loechelt (2008c; 2020a) show that this is not true.  Dr. Humphreys erroneously comes to this conclusion by extending his defect curve shown in red.  As discussed in Sections 2.3.2 through 2.3.4, any extrapolations of helium diffusion results to lower temperatures must be made on the intrinsic curve shown in blue.   Unlike Dr. Humphreys’ flawed uniformitarian model, the more rigorous uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) is consistent with the Fenton Hill data.

3.0 Erroneous Geology from Dr. Humphreys and His Supporters, and the Consequences

3.1 Background Information

As a geologist, I see many statements in Dr. Humphreys’ articles, the CreationWiki #1-#3 internet posts, and other YEC documents on this topic that stand out as blatantly sloppy and wrong.  Dr. Humphreys and his coauthors committed a number of fundamental errors related to the lithologies and mineralogy of their Fenton Hill samples.  Despite some of them actually having Ph.D.’s in geology and claims by Humphreys (2013c) that he does not think that “geology is all that hard, once you get past the jargon”, the numerous geological errors in their papers demonstrate that Dr. Humphreys and his coworkers lack basic qualifications in geology, they utilized inadequate laboratory procedures in identifying and measuring samples, and that they did not have a sufficient understanding of the geology literature of the Fenton Hill site.  Unfortunately, it is also obvious based on their statements, that too many of Dr. Humphreys’ supporters, such as at “Trueorigins.org” and CreationWiki #1-#3, also totally lack suitable qualifications in geology and the scientific method, tend to uncritically accept and defend whatever Dr. Humphreys says, and attack Dr. Humphreys’ critics without really understanding the issues or the criticisms.  As a consequence, Dr. Humphreys’ and his supporters’ inadequacies in geology seriously impact their ability to obtain complete and accurate measurements on their biotites and zircons, as discussed in Section 4.0, which in turn ultimately affects their ability to construct realistic models of the origin and history of the Fenton Hill zircons.

3.2 Misidentification of Fenton Hill Gneisses and the Serious Consequences for Dr. Humphreys

Gneisses are not “Granites”, “Granodiorites” or other Igneous Rocks

When performing research, scientists must carefully follow all quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) procedures.  Essential QC/QA procedures include properly collecting, identifying, labeling, storing, and monitoring all samples.  If the collection site of a specimen is unknown or if it has been improperly stored and mishandled for several decades, any resulting data are often useless.

Unfortunately for them, Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues have failed to comply with the most fundamental QC/QA requirements.  Throughout their paper, Humphreys et al. (2003a) claim to have studied biotites and zircons from samples of the “Jemez granodiorite” collected at a depth of 750 meters from the Fenton Hill borehole site.  Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 5) and Humphreys (2005a) also referred to their samples from depths of 750 and 1490 meters as “granodiorite.”  Granodiorites are igneous rocks that crystallize from melts (magmas) deep in the subsurface.  As their name implies, they have intermediate chemical compositions between granites and diorites, which means that granodiorites tend to have more silica than diorites and more magnesium and iron than granites (Hyndman, 1985, p. 46).

A review of the scientific literature on the subsurface geology of the Fenton Hill borehole site indicates that about 75% of the GT-2 and EE-1 cores consist of gneisses (Laughlin, 1981, p. 308; Laney et al., 1981, p. 2) and that granodiorite is not encountered in the cores until depths of 2591 meters (my Figures 8 and 9) (Laney et al., 1981, p. 1; Laughlin et al., 1983; Burruss and Hollister, 1979).  Gneisses are former igneous or sedimentary rocks that have been metamorphosed under relatively high temperature and pressure conditions (highly altered), but without melting (Hyndman, 1985, p. 442; Chernicoff et al., 2002, p. 128).  Gneisses may be divided into orthogneisses, which form from the high-grade metamorphism of intrusive igneous rocks, and paragneisses, which result from high-grade metamorphism of sedimentary rocks. 

Additional information in Laughlin et al. (1983) and other references clearly indicate that Humphreys et al.’s 750 and 1490-meter samples are gneisses (Figure 9).  Even a figure in Sasada (1989, p. 258), an article that Humphreys (2005a; 2010b; 2011; 2012b; 2018a) frequently cites, identifies the rocks at the depths where Dr. Humphreys obtained his samples as gneisses.  Thus, Dr. Humphreys has no excuse for misidentifying the host rocks of his samples.  

The author(s) of CreationWiki #3 (2009) also has absolutely no excuse in frivolously dismissing criticisms of Dr. Humphreys’ bad geology by claiming that others and I were somehow looking at the geology from the “wrong location.”  It’s obvious that the author(s) of CreationWiki #3 (2009) never bothered to check the diagram in Sasada (1989, p. 258) and our other references before throwing out such an uninformed claim.

Figure 8:  A typical granite (top), granodiorite (middle) and gneiss (bottom).  Notice the distinctive foliation ("layering") in the gneisses that is not found in granites and granodiorites.  By definition, gneisses have metamorphic foliation, but granites, granodiorites and other igneous rocks do not. Photographs of the granite and granodiorite by Dexter Perkins at https://geodil.dperkins.org/.  Photograph of the gneiss by Sim Sepp.  The sample is the property of the University of Tartu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gneiss#/media/File:Gneiss.jpg

Figure 9:  Geology of the Fenton Hill GT-2 and EE-2 cores based on information in Laughlin et al. (1983, p. 25, 26) and Sasada (1989, p. 258).  The zircons and biotites utilized in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) are from gneisses and not granodiorites or other igneous rocks.

Even after being presented with evidence from the literature, Humphreys (2005b) still refused to admit that he and his colleagues misidentified gneisses as “granodiorites.”  Despite unambiguous statements in Laughlin (1981, p. 308) and Laney et al. (1981, p. 2) that say otherwise, Dr. Humphreys continued to insist that most of the Precambrian sections of the Fenton Hill cores are “granodiorites.”  In contrast, YEC R.V. Gentry readily admitted in Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1129) that their zircons, whose data Dr. Humphreys used in his studies, came from gneisses, as well as other rock types. 

Humphreys et al.’s misidentification of the rock types in the Fenton Hill cores is not a trivial issue as Humphreys (2005b) claims.  When Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) were under the delusion that the Precambrian rocks of the Fenton Hill cores largely consisted of only one rock unit (the “Jemez granodiorite”), they openly admitted that any mixing of experimental results from different rock types would be inappropriate for their modeling efforts:

“Measurements of noble gas diffusion in a given type of naturally occurring mineral often show significant differences from site to site, caused by variations in composition.  For that reason it is important to get helium diffusion data on zircon and biotite from the same rock unit (the Jemez Granodiorite [sic]) which was the source of Gentry’s samples.” [my emphasis]

Of course, the sizes and chemistry of zircons and biotites can be highly variable depending on the host igneous or metamorphic rock.  As late as Humphreys (2012c, p. 1), Dr. Humphreys failed to realize that gneisses, and not just “granitic rocks”, may contain zircons.  Because zircons are very hard, insoluble in water and resistant to weathering, they may also readily accumulate in sediments and occur in sedimentary rocks (Klein 2002, p. 498).  Thus, sediments that form paragneisses may have obtained zircons from the wind and water erosion of a large number of outcrops with vastly different ages, origins, and distributions over a large region. These zircons may then have survived metamorphism.  To illustrate how zircons in sediments may have great diversity in age, chemistry, and physical properties, if the sediments at the Mississippi River delta in Louisiana are sampled, it’s highly probably that we would find microscopic zircons originating from the Precambrian rocks at the head waters of the Mississippi River in Minnesota, zircons originating from the Rocky Mountains and brought into the Mississippi River by the Missouri and Arkansas tributaries, and zircons from the western Appalachian Mountains and surrounding areas brought into the Mississippi River by the Ohio River and other tributaries (also see Faure 1998, pp. 353-354).

Heimlich (1976) concluded that the Fenton Hill zircons that he examined probably came from paragneisses.  If some of the zircons in the samples of Gentry et al. (1982a; 1982b) and Humphreys et al. (2004) actually came from paragneisses, then it was even more critical that Dr. Humphreys should have paid close attention to the petrology of the host rocks and the chemistry of the individual zircons. 

Because Humphreys et al. didn’t realize which lithologies they sampled and often did not know the precise sizes of their zircons, serious errors could easily be introduced into the a and b values that are used in their “dating” equations (13-14 and 16 in Humphreys et al., 2003a, pp. 9-10) (Sections 4.6, 4.7, and 6.1).  Chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979) also suggest that the zircons from the different rocks of the Fenton Hill cores have highly variable concentrations of uranium and thorium, which would mean that Dr. Humphreys cannot accurately represent the zircons from different rock types at various depths with just one Q0 value (Section 4.3).

Rather than relying on information in Laughlin et al. (1983), Laney et al. (1981), and other detailed studies from the literature, Humphreys (2005b) responded to my criticisms by referring to the naked-eye observations of their samples by YEC and coauthor Dr. John Baumgardner.  The following statements by Dr. Baumgardner are quoted in Humphreys (2005b):

“Yes, there are occasional veins of material other than the coarse-grained granodiorite that forms the vast majority [sic] 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 quotation also uncritically appears in CreationWiki #1 (2011).  Dr. Baumgardner’s statement that a “coarse-grained granodiorite” forms “the vast majority of the core” blatantly contradicts statements in Laughlin (1981, p. 308) and analytical data in Laughlin et al. (1983), which state that approximately 75% of the cores consist of gneisses (not granodiorite).  The dominance of gneisses in the Precambrian rocks of the Fenton Hill cores is also obvious from my Figure 9.  Because Dr. Baumgardner’s conclusions are inconsistent with the results of professional geologists that have examined and analyzed the cores in great detail, I emailed him back in 2005 with a list of questions about the samples that he had collected for Humphreys et al.  In his kind reply, Dr. Baumgardner described the core as consisting of dark gneissic “veins” surrounded by an “unaltered granodiorite” consisting of “large (typically, 2-3 mm)” pinkish grains [my emphasis].  Although I requested any mineralogical (such as petrographic or X-ray diffraction analyses) or chemical data (that is, major oxides, minor and trace element analyses) that Dr. Baumgardner might have to support his claims, he provided none.

By definition (Hyndman, 1985, p. 442), gneisses consist of alternating dark- and light-colored bands and not “veins” (Figure 8).  If “dark gneiss veins” [sic, bands] were present in Humphreys et al.’s samples as Dr. Baumgardner claims, where are the light-colored bands of the gneiss?  By the definition of a gneiss, how can the Fenton Hill samples have dark gneissic bands and no light-colored gneissic bands associated with them?  Dr. Baumgardner seems to have misidentified the light-colored gneissic bands as “unaltered granodiorite.”  The light-colored layers of a gneiss often consist of blocky feldspar and quartz grains, but unlike igneous rocks, these layers form in a solid state and not from melts.  Without detailed chemical and microscopic studies, feldspars and quartz in a light-colored gneiss can readily appear “igneous” and “unaltered” to the naked eye. 

In a later email to me, Dr. Baumgardner generously sent photographs of a couple of Fenton Hill cores and described the 750-meter core as a “granite” on the basis of its “abundant” pink orthoclase (potassium feldspar) grains.  He further argued that the 1490-meter core was a “granodiorite” because of its lack of pink orthoclase.  However, identifying a mineral on the basis of color is unreliable.  Orthoclase can come in many colors besides pink.  Other minerals besides orthoclase are also pink.  Furthermore, pink feldspars can be abundant in some gneisses and entirely absent in others.  Even if the samples were igneous, Dr. Baumgardner’s naked-eye observations would not have been adequate enough to distinguish a granodiorite from a granite, monzonite, or any other intermediate or felsic intrusive igneous rock. Again, Humphreys et al. have yet to produce any definitive chemical or microscopic evidence to challenge the metamorphic identifications of their samples in Laughlin et al. (1983) and other documents.  Finally, according to Feeley (2007), Dr. Baumgardner now admits that Dr. Humphreys’ zircons came from gneisses.  Dr. Feeley attended one of Dr. Humphreys’ presentations of his helium in zircon work and wrote:

“Well, after the Q & A session Humphreys called me ‘evil’ for asking such a question (I thought it was a valid question, but Humphreys apparently didn’t and I don’t think he is a very nice man). I also told him that he had a problem because the core sample he showed in his talk from where his zircons were separated was clearly a gneiss and not a granodiorite (‘with schist veins through it’), as he claimed. I could see this from the back row, as could the undergraduate geology students in attendance. At this point he called me ‘dumb’ and asked if I had the guts to tell Baumgardner (who selected the core) that the sample was a metamorphic rock and not an igneous rock. Sure, I’d tell him. As we walked over to speak with Baumgardner, a young woman who identified herself as a Christian, scolded Humphreys for being mean and not behaving in a Christian-like manner by calling me evil and dumb. She didn’t think he was a very nice man either. To get back to the point, Baumgardner conceded that the core sample was indeed a gneiss and not a granodiorite. To his credit, Humphreys did begrudgingly apologize. Personally, I didn’t care about the apology, which wasn’t sincere anyway. I was more concerned that this guy was conducting expensive research on the age of the earth, yet couldn’t even tell the difference between a metamorphic rock and an igneous rock. Oh yeah, I forgot, he’s a creationist physicist and not a geologist.”

Yet, Dr. Humphreys has never publicly admitted his mistake in rock identification in his articles.

3.3 Outdated and Inaccurate Petrologic Claims at CreationWiki #1 (2011)

In an effort to cloud the issue on the petrology of the host rocks of Dr. Humphreys’ and R.V. Gentry’s zircons, the author(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) states: 

“The claim that some of the rocks are gneiss is based on a couple of papers, one of which has a labeling of the upper portion as gneiss, but this conflicts with a paper from Los Alomos [sic, Alamos] labs that shows much of that portion to be granite and granodiorite. This paper clearly shows that Gentry’s samples 1, from a depth of 960 m (3149.6 ft), was in granodiorite. Now it does label the rock of RATE’s two new samples, depth 750 m (2461 ft) and 1490 m (4888ft) core, as granite.”

Due to inadequate referencing of this citation, the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) may be referring to a Los Alamos report by Purtymun et al. (1974) or perhaps another report by Laney et al. (1981), both of which appear in the bibliography of the CreationWiki #1 (2011) post.  The information in Purtymun et al. (1974) is outdated and only relied on drill cuttings (fragments) to identify the Precambrian rock types.  This report has been replaced by more thorough studies by Laughlin et al. (1983) and Laney et al. (1981) that used far more complete and reliable well cores.  While drill cuttings from intrusive igneous rocks and gneisses are often difficult to distinguish, the well cores used Laughlin et al. (1983) and Laney et al. (1981) are easier to identify.  Laney et al. (1981) mostly discuss the deeper EE-2 core rather than the GT-2 core, the source of R.V. Gentry’s sample 1 and Dr. Humphreys’ zircons.  However, the information in Laney et al. (1981) blatantly contradicts the claims in CreationWiki #1(2011) that R. V. Gentry’s sample 1 and Dr. Humphreys’ zircons came from intrusive igneous rocks.  The diagram in Laney et al. (1981, p. 17) clearly shows the presence of “Precambrian gneiss” at depths of 750, 960, and 1490 meters, where Dr. Humphreys’ and R. V. Gentry’s sample 1 zircons originated (Table 1).

Next, the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) cites some webpage definitions and attempts to claim that a “granodiorite” has a composition that is close enough to be called a “granite.”  Of course, this argument has nothing to do with gneisses, which are metamorphic rocks and not granites or granodiorites. Although some might refer to granodiorites and granites as “granitoids” in the field, especially before the rocks have been analyzed for an exact classification, careful geologists don’t accept such a sloppy and interchangeable use of the terms granite and granodiorite to identify igneous rocks. Laney et al. (1981), which the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) cites, even contains a classification diagram on p. 10 that stresses the important mineralogical differences between granodiorites, granites and other intrusive rocks.  So, there are definite chemical and mineralogical differences between granites and granodiorites that can and must be distinguished by geologists.  In the end, the author(s) of CreationWiki #1 (2011) is being sloppy with rock terms and is trying to create a controversy where one has not existed since the work of Laughlin et al. (1983) and Laney et al. (1981).  Misidentifying a gneiss (a metamorphic rock) as an intrusive igneous rock is no more acceptable than calling frogs “reptiles,” and referring to a granodiorite as a granite is like calling a gorilla, a “chimpanzee.”

3.4 Humphreys (2005b) Tries to Trivialize the Misidentification of his Gneisses

I predicted in my original essay that if Dr. Humphreys ever began to suspect that he and his colleagues sampled gneisses and not a granodiorite, he would try to trivialize his mistakes and argue that misidentifying a gneiss would not significantly affect their zircon diffusion studies or “dating” results.  This is exactly what Humphreys (2005b) attempts to do.  Humphreys (2005b) tries to argue that any misidentification of the rock types in the Fenton Hill cores would not be a serious mistake:

“The important point is that, regardless of the name we put on the rock unit [sic, rock units!, my Figure 9], the zircons throughout it have been measured to contain essentially the same amounts and ratios of lead isotopes [Gentry et al., 1982b], 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.”

First of all, two zircons can have identical U/Pb dates and Pb/Pb isotope ratios, but still greatly differ in size, which affects Dr. Humphreys’ a values (Section 4.6), and have radically different absolute concentrations of lead, uranium, thorium and helium (that is, very different Q/Q0 values; Section 4.0 and my Appendix B).  Secondly, Dr. Humphreys makes several bold assertions in the above paragraph that are flatly refuted by the chemical data in the very reference that he cites (i.e., Gentry et al., 1982b).  Gentry et al. (1982b) show that uranium and thorium concentrations in the Fenton Hill zircons can vary by more than an order of magnitude even if the zircons are taken from the same section of the cores (my Appendix B).  In the case of zircon 1A in Table B1 of my Appendix B, the uranium concentrations vary by more than an order of magnitude within the zircon!  Gentry et al. (1982b, p. 296) readily admit:

“Frequently, there were significant differences in the U and Th concentrations from two different locations on the same zircon.”

As shown in my Appendix B and associated discussions in this and my original essay, orders of magnitude variations in the uranium and thorium concentrations of the Fenton Hill zircons could produce orders of magnitude variations in lead concentrations and Q/Q0 values.  Because Dr. Humphreys did not fully realize that his and R. V. Gentry’s teams had sampled zircons from a diverse group of igneous and metamorphic rocks (my Figure 9 and Table 1), Dr. Humphreys did not carefully consider that the uranium, Q/Q0, and a values of the zircons from these rocks could be extremely different, which would greatly impact his “helium diffusion dates.”  This oversight alone nullifies the “helium diffusion date” of 6,000 years in Humphreys et al. (2004).

YECs might argue that because Precambrian granodiorites and gneisses were all magically zapped into existence during the six 24-hour days of the “Creation Week” (e.g., Snelling and Woodmorappe, 1998, p. 530), distinctions between Precambrian rocks really aren’t important.  While most YECs invoke miracles to explain away most Precambrian intrusive rocks (e.g., Snelling and Woodmorappe, 1998, p. 530), Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 1-2) unintentionally admit that at least some intrusive rocks have significant histories when they claim that zircon crystals become imbedded in larger crystals as a magma “cools and solidifies.” So, Dr. Humphreys has the impossible task of explaining why the numerous metamorphic and igneous rocks in the Fenton Hill cores (my Figure 9) have complex structures and textures that indicate a long history (Laney et al., 1981, Laughlin and Eddy, 1977, Laughlin et al., 1983, Loechelt 2008c, and their references) rather than a supposed rapid and miraculous formation in only six 24-hour creation days.  The properties of a metamorphosed rock often indicate an extensive and complex history involving erosion of precursor igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks; sediment deposition; deep burial of sediments; multiple cooling and heating events; various complex metamorphic reactions; faulting, and finally uplifting to where humans can have access to them.

Because Dr. Humphreys collected his zircons from gneisses and not granodiorites (Figure 9), he needs to realize that thermodynamic and other laboratory studies indicate that gneisses and their metamorphic zircons form under much greater metamorphic pressures than could ever have existed at depths of only 750 to 4,310 meters (Hyndman, 1985; Winkler, 1979).  The gneisses at Fenton Hill were obviously uplifted from much greater depths. By definition, gneisses have gneissic banding, which requires minimum pressures of about 4,000 to 6,000 bars and temperatures of about 600-750°C to form.  So, Dr. Humphreys’ gneisses and their zircons were once at depths of at least 15-22 kilometers (Winkler, 1979, p. 5), perhaps for a significant portion of their history.  Loechelt (2008c) in his Appendix A also provides a detailed geologic history of the Fenton Hill cores, which is hardly consistent with a six 24-hour “Creation Week” or even a mere 6,000 years of history.  Considering that the metamorphic rocks of the Fenton Hill cores probably spent a lot of their history at depths greater than 15 kilometers, Dr. Humphreys is sadly mistaken when he believes that his modeling of helium diffusion in some zircons from current depths of 750 meters to 4.3 kilometers yield valid information on the beginning of the Earth’s geologic history.

3.5 More Bad Science: Humphreys et al. Make Up their Own Formation Names and Violate the Rules on Naming Rocks

Humphreys (2005b) admits that he “invented” the term “Jemez granodiorite” to describe all of the diverse Precambrian rocks in the Fenton Hill cores.  However, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Names Committee (Stamm et al. 2000) and The North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature (2005) long ago established rules that professional geologists and other scientists must follow if they want to introduce a name for a rock unit into the literature.  The USGS Geologic Names Committee also maintains a searchable on-line database of accepted names for American geological units (National Geologic Map Database).  Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues violated these rules when they lumped together all of the diverse Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks of the Fenton Hill cores and misnamed them the “Jemez granodiorite” (Figure 9).  Dr. Humphreys has not only produced an inaccurate name to describe this diverse group of rocks that could eventually spread clutter and confusion in the literature, he has also shown his inability to properly identify rocks.  Dr. Humphreys has further demonstrated that he is incapable of following established scientific rules (also see Sections 9.1 and 9.2). 

Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys et al. (2003a, their Appendix B, p. 15) also mention the existence of a “Beartooth Gneiss.”  Humphreys (2005a, p. 41) later refers to the rock as the “Beartooth Amphibolite”, an entirely different metamorphic rock.  Nevertheless, the National Geologic Map Database and the literature databases Georef and Web of Science contain no references on the existence of the “Beartooth” or “Bear tooth” gneiss or amphibolite (accessed June 7, 2010 and March 6, 2020).  These metamorphically diverse names were probably pulled out of the ether by YECs.  Considering their inabilities to distinguish metamorphic from intrusive igneous rocks when they named the “Jemez granodiorite,” who knows if this Beartooth rock is even a gneiss or an amphibolite. 

3.6 Questionable Sample Processing

3.6.1 Grinding of Biotite Samples

Humphreys et al. (2003a, his Appendix B, p. 15) states that the biotites from the “Beartooth Gneiss” (“Beartooth Amphibolite” in Humphreys, 2005a) and the “Jemez granodiorite” were extracted through “crushing, magnetic separation, and density separation with heavy liquids.”  However, silicate minerals can lose much of their helium through crushing (Trull and Kurz 1993, p. 1314; Mussett 1969, p. 298).  Allowing personnel from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) laboratory to grind the biotite specimens could have resulted in substantial helium loss and significant errors in Appendix B of Humphreys et al. (2003a).  Some researchers cut rather than crush micas for argon diffusion studies (Dalrymple and Lanphere, 1969, pp. 147-148).

3.6.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Impure Biotite Separations

According to Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6, their Appendix B, p. 15) and Humphreys (2005b), the ICR laboratory extracted the biotite samples for the helium diffusion studies in Humphreys et al. (2003a).  The results in Appendix B of Humphreys et al. (2003a) indicate that the Fenton Hill biotites were impure.  As shown by candid statements from Austin (1996), the ICR laboratory has a history of not being able to consistently provide adequate mineral and volcanic glass separations (Henke c. 2001).  As I stated in my original essay, which Humphreys (2005b) ignores, adequately pure biotite separations may not be possible for the Fenton Hill samples.  Certainly, Humphreys (2005b) is correct when he states that different samples provide different degrees of difficulty in mineral separation.  That is, another laboratory also may not have been able to adequately separate the biotites from the Fenton Hill samples either.  However, considering the poor record of the ICR laboratory, Dr. Humphreys should have at least tried.

Humphreys (2005b) again tries to belittle his failures by claiming that the biotite separations are irrelevant.  However, if these separations were not important, why did he bother having them done and the questionable helium analyses published?  It’s also obvious that without these biotite analyses, Dr. Humphreys’ case is weakened even further.  For example, sample #6 doesn’t fit into their modeling scheme (Section 5.4.2).  So, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 7-9) used their questionable biotite analyses to argue that sample #6 is a “special case” and can be ignored in their models.  Also, biotite and its helium diffusion properties have important roles in some of the models described in Humphreys et al. (2003a, especially their Figure 7), in deriving b (which is present in the dating equations of 12-14 and 17 in Humphreys et al., 2003a, Section 4.7), and in Dr. Humphreys’ invalid Lyell uniformitarian claim that current values of the diffusion of helium in his Fenton Hill biotites somehow rules out the possibility of extraneous helium contamination (Section 6.1.9). 

Instead of adequately responding to the questionable Fenton Hill results from the ICR laboratory, Humphreys (2005b) challenged me to do a better job.  But, why should I do his work for him?  I simply have no interest in processing samples for Dr. Humphreys so that he can manipulate them to promote his YEC agenda just like he did with the data in Magomedov (1970) (Section 5.1).

4.0 Questionable, Absent, and Bad Measurements of Critical Parameters in the Fenton Hill Zircons and Biotites.

4.1 Parameter Definitions and Other Background Information  

Besides helium diffusivity values, the dating equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 9-10) require accurate values for Q, Q0, a, and sometimes b. Q refers to the measured quantity of helium (presumably only radiogenic 4He) in a mineral.  Q is typically measured in nanocubic centimeters of helium per microgram of zircon (ncc/μg) or 10-9 cc/ug at standard temperature and pressure (STP or 20oC and one atmosphere).

Once a mineral is below its helium closure temperature, Q0 is the maximum amount of radiogenic helium (4He) that is expected to accumulate in the mineral from the radioactive decay of its uranium and thorium.  A certain percentage of alpha particles (4He nuclei) will escape from the host mineral during radioactive decay and this loss is normally considered when calculating the Q0 values.  Q0 has the same units of measure as Q.  Q/Q0 would then represent the fraction of radiogenic 4He remaining in a sample. Q/Q0 values are listed as a unitless fraction or percentage.  Thus, valid Q/Q0 values must be ≤ 1 or ≤ 100%.  Presumably, the Q/Q0 values would not include any extraneous helium (Section 6.1). The Q/Q0 value of a zircon would not only depend on its age, but also on its size, the number of fractures and metamict areas, its original uranium and thorium concentrations, subsurface temperatures, and a number of other factors.

In their modeling efforts, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 7-9, their Figure 7) assume that helium diffusion in zircons is isotropic (that is, spherical) and could be represented by a single effective radius, a, which typically has units in microns or 10-6 meters.  According to Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8), Magomedov (1970) defined the a of a zircon crystal as one-half of its length (Figure 3). Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 7), Humphreys (2005a, p. 44) and Humphreys et al. (2003a, his Appendix C) adopted this convention for their isotropic helium model.  In contrast, Reiners et al. (2004, p. 1859) describe a as the “average half-width of the tetragonal prisms” [my emphasis] (Figure 3).  The width of a tetragonal prism may be readily determined by sieving, whereas the lengths cannot (this is why you can push a long strand of uncooked spaghetti through a window screen, but not a piece of typing paper of the same length). 

The variable b is the radius of the biotite supposedly surrounding each zircon. This variable is important in some of the dating equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a); however, as discussed in Sections 4.7 and 5.4.3, the measurements of b in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) are extremely uncertain and Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) makes the serious mistake of treating helium diffusion in biotite as isotropic. Like a, b typically has units in microns or 10-6 meters.

As seen in Section 7.1, there are serious flaws in Dr. Humphreys dating equations.  Even if these dating equations were acceptable, as discussed in this section, there are serious questions about the accuracy of the Q, Q0, a, and b values utilized in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Humphreys (2005a) and his other documents.  Most of the measurements in Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Humphreys et al. (2004) simply fail to meet any acceptable scientific standards despite Dr. Humphreys’ claims about his results were “peer-reviewed” (Section 10.0).  The situation in Dr. Humphreys’ documents can be best summarized as garbage values into garbage dating equations yield garbage dates.

4.2 Mysterious Modifications of the Helium (Q) Measurements from Gentry et al. (1982a): More Questions than Answers

4.2.1 Questionable Q Results

Gentry et al. (1982a) contains helium (Q) measurements of zircons from their Fenton Hill samples 0-6.  While Humphreys (2000) simply listed the helium measurements from Gentry et al. (1982a), Humphreys et al. (2004) in consultation with YEC R.V. Gentry concluded that the helium measurements in Gentry et al. (1982a) had “typographic errors” (my Table 3). Their undocumented “corrections” to the measurements in Gentry et al. (1982a) usually included lowering most of the Q values by 10 times (my Table 3).  As discussed in the following sections, there are still many unanswered questions about how the “typographic errors” were discovered and how they were reliably corrected.  Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.4.5, the corrections of Q in Humphreys et al. (2004) and his later documents, inadvertently undermined one of the important arguments in Dr. Humphreys’ attempts to justify the removal of Gentry et al. (1982a) sample 6 from his YEC dating calculations.

4.2.2 Interesting Insights from CreationWiki #1 (2011) and Humphreys (2005b)

As others (e.g., Isaac, 2008b) and I have noted, Dr. Humphreys has yet to reveal adequate details on how the “typographic errors” in Gentry et al. (1982a) were discovered and reliably corrected, and how the associated Q/Q0 values could remain unaffected.  An unknown writer(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) makes the following interesting statement about the discovery of the “typographic errors” in Gentry et al. (1982a):

“The errors were discovered when Humphreys was doing the retention calculations for RATES [sic, RATE’s] sample. He noticed an order of magnitude discrepancy in the absolute helium amounts. When he contacted Gentry, Gentry agreed that they probably were typographical errors.”

It is not known whether this statement is based on a rumor or first-hand knowledge from Dr. Humphreys and/or R. V. Gentry.  If this account is true, R. V. Gentry agreed that his paper “probably” contained typographical errors after Dr. Humphreys obtained his results and noticed a discrepancy between his results and the data in Gentry et al. (1982a). Humphreys (2005b) also admitted that:

“Gentry’s original calculations are no longer available.”

So, contrary to the hopeful speculation in CreationWiki #3 (2009), the original source of the information was not checked by Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues.  Because Dr. Humphreys and R. V. Gentry did not have R. V. Gentry’s original calculations or laboratory notes, how do they know after more than 20 years that typographic errors had been made in Gentry et al. (1982a)?  Was R. V. Gentry simply admitting to the possibility of “typographic errors” to help his friend, Dr. Humphreys, and the RATE project?  Also, why were the Q values affected by the “typographic errors”, but not the associated Q/Q0 values?  How would that mathematically work?

Correcting errors in previous manuscripts is certainly honorable.  However, authors should not agree to any “corrections” unless they can first review their original laboratory notes and confirm that copying, analytical or other errors were indeed made.  In other words, scientists should not admit to making mistakes before seeing the evidence.

As discussed below, there are numerous incidences where Dr. Humphreys has unjustly manipulated (e.g.  a graph in Magomedov, 1970; Section 5.1) or sloppily handled data (e.g., the units of measure in Appendix C of Humphreys et al., 2003a; Section 4.5).  Therefore, documenting the validity of the changes to the helium values from Gentry et al. (1982a) is critical.   Dr. Humphreys needs to fully explain this issue and dispel any possible thoughts that “typographic errors” were invoked so that the data in Gentry et al. (1982a) could be modified (like the data in Magomedov, 1970) to comply with Dr. Humphreys and his YEC agenda.  Until Dr. Humphreys gives a full and detailed account of what actually happened, we simply have no reason to trust any of the data in Gentry et al. (1982a) or any revisions of that data.  Nevertheless, as discussed below, even if the revisions of the Q values in Gentry et al. (1982a) are completely justified, the problems associated with Dr. Humphreys’ other values (Q0, Q/Q0, a and b) and his “dating” methods remain.

Finally, the lack of documentation from Dr. Humphreys to justify changes in the published data of Gentry et al. (1982a) would never be tolerated in authentic scientific journals.  Any editor or peer-reviewer of a legitimate scientific journal would demand a thorough and complete explanation of why these changes are justified before any revisions would be allowed to appear in their journals.  Competent editors and reviewers would also insist that if the original laboratory notes had been lost, then the results must be discarded and the analyses redone from scratch.

4.3 Questionable and Unexplained Origin of R.V. Gentry’s and Dr. Humphreys’ Q0  

Once a mineral cools below its helium closure temperature and remains below that temperature, Q0 is the maximum amount of radiogenic helium (4He) that is expected to accumulate in the mineral from the radioactive decay of its uranium and thorium.  A certain percentage of alpha particles (4He nuclei) will always escape from the host mineral during radioactive decay and this loss is considered when calculating the Q0 values.  My Appendix B, Loechelt (2008c), and their references discuss how alpha particle loss may be estimated. 

Using a series of questionable and vague assumptions, Gentry et al. (1982a) derived a single maximum helium retention (Q0) value for their 1-6 samples and used it to calculate the amount of retained helium (Q/Q0 values) for the six samples.  Humphreys et al. (2004) took the high Q/Q0 values from Gentry et al. (1982a) (which are essential in supporting his YEC model) and “corrected” the “typographic errors” in the helium measurements (Q), which yield a Q0 of about 15 nano cubic centimeters at standard temperature and pressure per microgram of zircon (ncc STP/μg).  Using the available information from Gentry et al. (1982a) and ignoring the possibility of extraneous helium, I was unable to derive a Q0 of 15 ncc STP/μg for the zircons.  Instead, I found that the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) yield a Q0 of 41 ncc STP/μg (Appendix A).  Loechelt (2008c, p. 5) also concluded that the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) would yield a Q0 of about 40 ncc STP/μg and not 15 ncc STP/μg. 

Meanwhile, Humphreys (2005b) still won’t adequately explain how he and supposedly Gentry et al. (1982a) calculated a Q0 of only 15 ncc STP/µg (also see my Appendix A) and why chemical data in another article by R. V. Gentry, Gentry et al. (1982b), indicate that Q0 is typically much greater than 15 or even 41 ncc STP/µg (perhaps almost as high as 800 ncc STP/µg; see Table B8 in my Appendix B).  Rather than admitting that the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) do not support a Q0 value of 15 ncc STP/μg or his high Q/Q0 values, Humphreys (2005b) attempts to salvage his high Q/Q0 values by claiming that there are additional “misstated” numbers in Gentry et al. (1982a) related to the alpha particle loss percentage:

“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.”

Certainly, there are plenty of questionable assumptions and unreliable numbers in Gentry et al. (1982a).  So, why is Dr. Humphreys still willing to trust the Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a) after he’s admitted in Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys et al. (2004) that almost every other datum in this paper is a “typographic error” or “misstated” number?   When will the list of errors in Gentry et al. (1982a) end?  Clearly, Dr. Humphreys invokes “typographical errors” and “misstatements” in Gentry et al. (1982a) as a convenient excuse to avoid explaining his math and justifying his measurements.  As further discussed in Appendix A, the dodging and delays in Humphreys (2005b) and his willingness to selectively alter the values and assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) to protect his high Q/Q0 values and support his YEC agenda do not add any public confidence in his ability to perform science.  Dr. Humphreys either needs to thoroughly justify the Q0 value of 15 ncc STP/μg under the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) or admit that the approach in Gentry et al. (1982a) is wrong, the Q/Q0 values given by Gentry et al. (1982a) are unreliable and should be discarded, and a better way must be found to estimate Q0 and Q/Q0 values.

Humphreys (2005b) claims that revising the Q0 value from 15 to 41 ncc STP/μg as shown in my Appendix A would “only” reduce his Q/Q0 values by “a factor of two or so.”  The author(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) goes even further and inexplicably claims that increasing the Q0 value to 41 ncc STP/μg would increase Dr. Humphreys’ “date” for the Fenton Hill zircons by “only” two orders of magnitude or from “6,000” to “600,000 years.”  However, again, data in Gentry et al. (1982b) indicate that the Q0 value in some cases could be almost as high as 800 ncc STP/µg (see Table B8 in my Appendix B).  Rather than recognizing the likelihood of Q0 values far greater than 41 ncc STP/μg or that Dr. Humphreys’ and R. V. Gentry’s errors associated with Q0 are just one of many problems associated with Dr. Humphreys’ work and claims, the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) attempts to dismiss this two orders of magnitude “dating” problem by invoking an inexplicable “heating event.”  Exactly, how would a heating event help the YEC argument that the zircons are only 6,000 and not at least 600,000 years old?  CreationWiki #1 (2011) doesn’t say.  Again, Dr. Humphreys and his allies fail to realize that the errors associated with their Q0 value and the numerous other questions and errors associated with Dr. Humphreys’ equations and parameters only accumulate and illustrate how frail and unreliable his “dating” methods really are.

By just arguing over whether Q0 is 15 ncc STP/μg, 41 ncc STP/μg or some value in between, Humphreys (2005b) actually misses an important point that goes way beyond Appendix A.  Certainly, Appendix A demonstrates that there are serious errors in the calculations of Gentry et al. (1982a).  However, even if Gentry et al. (1982a) and I had obtained the same Q0 value, I would still argue that their approach and assumptions were flawed from the very beginning and that their Q0 and Q/Q0 values should be discarded.  Gentry et al. (1982a) admit that their samples 1-6 came from a variety of rock types, which means that the uranium concentrations in the zircons from these various igneous and metamorphic rocks are likely to be very different, and so would the Q0 and Q/Q0 values at the different depths within the Fenton Hill rock cores.  Indeed, Gentry et al. (1982b) even show that the uranium and thorium concentrations of the Fenton Hill zircons are highly variable within single zircons (Table B1 in my Appendix B).  Thus, each zircon would need its own Q0 value. There is simply no justification for applying one Q0 value to all of the diverse Fenton Hill samples.

Loechelt (2008c, p. 4) admits that it is not a good assumption to apply only one Q0 value to all of the lithologically diverse samples from the Fenton Hill core.  However, given the limited options with the data from Gentry et al. (1982a), Loechelt (2008c, p. 5) decided that the best way to test the validity of Dr. Humphreys’ models was to derive a single Q0 value (not corrected for alpha ejection) of 74 ncc STP/μg from the uranium and thorium data of a zircon from Zartman (1979) (~ sample 3 in Gentry et al., 1982a). While the calculations in Gentry et al. (1982a) and my Appendix B assume a percent alpha particle loss for a given zircon size, Loechelt (2008c, p. 5) advocates a different method from Meesters and Dunai (2002b), where the correction for the loss of alpha particles is done during the diffusion simulations.  Loechelt (2008c, p. 13) explains the advantages of the Meesters and Dunai (2002b) method:

“Since the alpha-ejection depletes the helium in the surface region of the crystal, it takes comparatively longer for the remaining helium to escape because it is concentrated toward the center of the crystal.  Hence, when the standard correction for alpha-ejection is made for samples which have also experienced loss due to diffusion, significant errors can result.”

Loechelt (2008c, pp. 4-6) then derives his own set of Q/Q0 values for each one of Dr. Humphreys’ and R. V. Gentry’s samples.  Table 4 lists Dr. Loechelt’s values and compares them with the values in Humphreys et al. (2004) and my Appendix B.  Like Dr. Humphreys, Loechelt (2008c, p. 16) applies his Q/Q0 values to his own “young-Earth” and “old-Earth” models.  However, unlike Dr. Humphreys, Dr. Loechelt’s results strongly favor the “old-Earth” model (my Figure 1).  Nevertheless, as stated above, the differences in the lithologies of the Fenton Hill core and the diverse chemical data of the zircons in Gentry et al. (1982b) demonstrate that Humphreys et al. (2003a), Humphreys et al. (2004), Gentry et al. (1982a), Loechelt (2008c), or anyone else simply cannot justify assigning only one Q0 value (whether 15 ncc STP/μg, 41 ncc STP/μg or whatever) to all of the Fenton Hill samples (also see Whitefield, 2008).  Statistically valid ranges of Q0 and Q/Q0 values are needed for each sample, which (unfortunately) are not currently available.  Until reliable a, Q/Q0 values, and other data become widely available for the rocks of the Fenton Hill cores, no “old-Earth” or “young-Earth” modeling results are definitive.  Yet, all of the available evidence indicates that the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) is on the right track.  The biggest flaw, and probably the only major flaw, in the models of Loechelt (2008c) is that Dr. Humphreys and Gentry et al. (1982a) never provided the high quality a, b, Q, and Q0 values that are required for any helium diffusion model to optimally work.  Meanwhile, Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model needs to be propped up with groundless claims of accelerated radioactive decay and cooling miracles.

Isaac (2008b) also questions the validity of the Q0 value used by R. V. Gentry and Dr. Humphreys from a different perspective:

“It is not at all clear that Gentry’s theoretical concentration of helium can correctly be interpreted as an initial concentration Qo of helium.  If so, how did Gentry make that calculation?  What were his assumptions?  If Gentry’s calculation is based on an estimate of all possible helium generated by alpha-emitters in the 1.5 billion year age of the zircon, corrected for near-surface losses, then the RATE team’s assumption that at some time in the past the zircon contained a helium concentration of Qo cannot be supported.  That amount of helium was never concentrated in the zircon at the same time. [new paragraph] The physical mechanism that Humphreys proposes to explain an initial value of Qo with a subsequent decrease in concentration is that accelerated nuclear decay during Noah’s flood caused a very large alpha generation rate which then dropped to its current value.  Subsequent discussion by the RATE team shows that the justification for speculating that accelerated nuclear decay occurred is based largely on a young earth as determined by helium diffusion in zircons.  This is circular reasoning at best.”

4.4 Two Wrongs (Q and Q0) Don’t Make a Right (Q/Q0)  

Without large Q/Q0 values, Dr. Humphreys’ dating efforts fail.

Rather than properly explaining the mysterious changes in the helium concentrations (Q) taken from Gentry et al. (1982a) or how Gentry et al. (1982a) supposedly obtained a Q0 of only 15 ncc STP/µg, Humphreys (2005b) tries to argue that any errors in Q0 would somehow “cancel out” and maintain the high Q/Q0 values that he considers “crucial”:

“But after discussing the matter with him [R. V. Gentry], I’m inclined to think that even if he [R. V. Gentry] had an error in Q0, the error canceled out when he calculated the ratio Q/Q0, which is the crucial quantity in this analysis.”

So, why does Dr. Humphreys consider the high Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a) to be “crucial”?  The answer is clear.  Unless the Q/Q0 values are high, Dr. Humphreys’ dating equations will not obtain a creation date of 6,000 years old and his creation model fails (also see Loechelt, 2008c).  Nevertheless, the above statement from Humphreys (2005b) is no more than a pitiful attempt to argue that two wrongs (Q and Q0) can somehow make a right (Q/Q0).  Just as he avoided explaining and justifying the mysterious changes in the Q values of Gentry et al. (1982a) (Section 4.2), Humphreys (2005b) provides no details or mathematical calculations on how the errors associated with Q0 could just happen to magically cancel out with his “corrections” in Q and maintain the high Q/Q0 values that are crucial to his creation model.  Instead of promptly showing his calculations to quickly settle these critical issues, Humphreys (2005b) simply delayed the inevitable by making an empty promise to provide the necessary details in another Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) article sometime in the “near future”:

“The paper I plan to submit to CRSQ will discuss this issue more fully.”

“However I did not spell out the details of that calculation, so I plan to do that in the paper I intend to submit to CRSQ soon.”

Of course, after all these years, we’re still waiting for Dr. Humphreys’ promised paper with its critical calculations and justifications of his Q0 and Q/Q0 values.  Because Humphreys (2005b) had no problem performing the necessary calculations and correcting his mistake in Table C1 of Humphreys et al. (2003a) so that he could promptly counteract some criticisms in my original essay (Section 4.5), why shouldn’t he be able to readily explain why Q0 is only 15 ncc STP/μg? Why the delay?  The evidence indicates that after Dr. Humphreys discovered the “typographic errors” that allowed him to “correct” the Q values in Gentry et al. (1982a) to make them consistent with his results and after realizing that any decrease in the Q/Q0 values would harm his creation model, Dr. Humphreys was forced to accept a single Q0 value of only 15 ncc STP/μg that he couldn’t mathematically explain without circular reasoning or justify with the diverse uranium and thorium concentrations in the Fenton Hill zircons (Gentry et al., 1982b).

To derive accurate Q0 and Q/Q0 values for their samples, Humphreys et al. somehow need to obtain statistically representative uranium, thorium, lead, helium analyses on numerous individual zircons from each of their core samples.  Until these accurate values become available, the best available chemical data for these calculations are in Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979).  The data in Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979) indicate that the Fenton Hill zircons typically contain a lot more uranium and thorium than what Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Humphreys et al. (2004) realized.  The uranium and thorium concentrations also show that Humphreys et al.’s Q/Q0 values are far more uncertain than the ± 30% (one sigma) as claimed by Humphreys (2005a), Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Gentry et al. (1982a) (see my Appendix B and Table 4).  Specifically, Gentry et al. (1982a) lists the Q/Q0 value of sample #1 as 0.58. That is, the zircons of sample #1 supposedly still contain 58% of their radiogenic 4He excluding alpha-ejection.  In contrast, the chemical data from Gentry et al. (1982b) indicate that the Q/Q0 for sample #1 is lower, perhaps as low as 1.1% (see my Appendix B and Table 4) or about 12% according to Loechelt (2008c) using the Meesters and Dunai (2002b) method to correct for alpha-ejection.  As discussed in Section 7.1, when my lower Q/Q0 values are entered into Dr. Humphreys’ “dating equations”, they often raise Humphreys et al.’s “helium diffusion dates” to well above 6,000 years and, in some cases, over one million years.  In other cases, the revised Q/Q0 values actually lower the “ages” of the zircons to ridiculous values of only 200 years.  Meanwhile, Humphreys (2005b) and his subsequent documents never comment on the results in my Appendix B and how they have even greater negative impacts on his YEC model than the values in my Appendix A. 

Despite the fact that Loechelt (2008c) would have been available to them in their 2009 update, the author(s) of CreationWiki #3 (2009) never bothered to check the contents of Loechelt (2008c), the diagram from Loechelt (2008c) as shown in my Figure 1, and other statements in the pre-2009 literature criticizing the Q/Q0 values in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Humphreys (2005a), and Gentry et al. (1982a).  Instead the author(s), flippantly states that criticism of the Humphreys-Gentry Q/Q0 values is “a baseless claim.” They also want to see evidence of Dr. Humphreys’ math errors.  But, again, these errors were extensively discussed in Loechelt (2008c) and the 2005-2006 versions of this essay.  There is no justification for believing any of the Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys’ documents.

4.5 Humphreys (2005b) Corrects an Erroneous Unit of Measure in Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a)   

In my original essay, I obtained some ridiculous Q/Q0 values using the “nmol/g” values from Table C1 in Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a).  Humphreys (2005b) admits that the units should be ncc (nano cubic centimeters) rather than nmol/g.  After correcting his mistake, Humphreys (2005b) chides me for not being skeptical enough of his work.  In this case, Dr. Humphreys is right.  There is no reason to ever trust Dr. Humphreys to properly handle any data.

 4.6 Missing and Questionable a Values

Dr. Humphreys’ “dating equations” require accurate and well-defined values of a, which are currently unavailable.  Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys et al. (2004, Table 1, p. 3) even admit that for their first (2002) data set they still do not know the average size of their zircons; that is, the zircons were never sorted by size and the vital parameter a was not measured!

In their modeling efforts, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 7-9, their Figure 7) assume that helium diffusion in zircons is isotropic (that is, spherical) and could be represented by a single effective radius, a.  Of course, zircon has a tetragonal (anisotropic) rather than an isotropic crystalline structure, which would cause anisotropy in the diffusion of helium through the mineral (Figure 3).  That is, helium would tend to diffuse more readily in certain directions in the zircon structure than others. Nevertheless, Loechelt (2008c, p. 6) cites Meesters and Dunai (2002a) and states:

“A rigorous diffusion model would use a realistic 3-dimensional geometry.  It has been demonstrated through direct computation, however, that a simpler spherical geometry is a reasonably good approximation provided the effective radius is chosen such that the surface-to-volume ratio of the sphere is the same as the geometry...” [Dr. Loechelt’s emphasis]

Yet, more recently Cherniak et al. (2009, p. 162) concluded:

“Because of the anisotropy of He diffusion in zircon, simple calculations assuming spherical geometry and isotropic diffusion cannot adequately describe helium’s diffusion behavior.”

This is why helium diffusion parallel to the c or long axis is often orders of magnitude different than diffusion perpendicular to the axis (Cherniak et al. 2009, p. 155; Guenthner et al. 2013; Figure 3).

So, if Meesters and Dunai (2002a) are still correct and if Dr. Humphreys was careful in choosing his a shortcut, he might have gotten away with an acceptable approximation.  Yet, how careful was Dr. Humphreys in choosing a?  Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 15) respond to the issue of zircon anisotropy by claiming that switching the diffusion geometry of their zircons from an isotropic sphere to an anisotropic cylinder would change their results by less than a factor of two.  This claim could be true.  However, as usual, Humphreys et al. (2004) provide no calculations to support this claim.  Dr. Humphreys is just piling yet another questionable assumption on top of his already numerous questionable assumptions and shortcuts (also see Section 5.3).  Furthermore, many scientists would use the more rigorous equations rather than tolerate uncertainties as high as a factor of two. 

Rather than always carefully measuring critical factors, such as the lengths and widths of his zircons, Humphreys (2005b) admits that the average size of the zircons in his 750-meter (2002) sample is unknown.  Humphreys (2005b) states:

“I reported that as “~80” in Table I of CRSQ 2004 [Humphreys et al. 2004].  (I used the “~” sign because as I reported in CRSQ 2004, p. 5, the average size of the zircons in the 750 meter [2002] sample is unknown, making detailed comparisons with the other samples inappropriate.) … [footnote number omitted].” [my emphasis]

The footnote in Table I of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 3) further admits:

“All zircons were of length 50–75 μm, except for those from sample 2002, which were not sorted into size groups.”

In other words, Humphreys et al. never bothered to measure the critical parameter a of their 2002 zircons!  Instead, they simply assumed that a was 30 microns (Humphreys et al. 2003a, p. 16).  Gentry et al. (1982a) also does not contain adequate information on the lengths and widths of their zircons.  Yet, Humphreys (2000, Figure 6, p. 347) previously gave an expected a of 22 microns for the Fenton Hill zircons.  Rather than actually measuring the zircons, why did Dr. Humphreys increase his assumed size of a from 22 to 30 microns for his 2002 data set in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 8, 16)? 

Heimlich (1976) performed numerous measurements on zircons from various sections of the Fenton Hill cores.  Based on the widths in Heimlich (1976), the average half-width (a as defined by Reiners et al., 2004) of the zircons is probably close to 20 microns (also see my Appendix B).  Loechelt (2008c, p. 6) also argues that a for the Fenton Hill zircons should be closer to 20 rather than 30 microns.  Estimating a at 30 microns, 20 microns or a similar value may seem trivial.  However, as shown in Table 6 of Section 7.1, simply varying a between 20 and 30 microns significantly affects the results that are obtained with Dr. Humphreys’ dating equations.  Varying a would also have allowed Dr. Humphreys to zero in on a date closer to his desired value of 6,000 years (also see Section 7.5).  For example, Humphreys et al. (2004, Table III, p. 8) claims an average “creation date” of 5,680 years ≈ 6,000 years with a = 30 microns for Fenton Hill samples #2-5.  With a = 22 microns as originally stated in Humphreys (2000, Figure 6, p. 347) and otherwise using the same questionable variables and dating equations, the average “creation date” for samples #2-5 is only 3,050 years.

Discussions in McDougall and Harrison (1999, pp. 147-148) also demonstrate that poorly defined a values can introduce huge errors in the argon diffusion coefficients of feldspars, which are silicate minerals.  Specifically, Mussett (1969) showed that improper estimates of a can cause the argon diffusion coefficients (D values) to vary by over seven orders of magnitude at a given temperature (also see McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 147).  So, even if isotropic diffusion is a reasonable assumption for Dr. Humphreys’ zircons, inaccurate a values for the Fenton Hill zircons could introduce unacceptable errors into “dating” equations 12-14 and 16 of Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 9-10).  Like many other issues dealing with Dr. Humphreys’ helium in zircon studies, the author(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) also fails to recognize the inadequacy of Dr. Humphreys’ measurements of a and the seriousness of poorly defined and inaccurate values of a, Q0, and other parameters to Dr. Humphreys’ YEC equations and agenda. 

4.7 Poorly Defined Average b Value

Some of Dr. Humphreys’ “dating equations” require accurate values of b that are not currently available.

Biotite is a mica, which is a well-layered silicate mineral that resembles a stack of playing cards (Figure 10).  Because of the well-developed and prominent cleavage planes between the biotite layers, the layers can be readily peeled off with fingernails.  The cleavage planes also make biotite very anisotropic.  Thus, helium would tend to migrate through the planes rather than perpendicular or oblique to them. 

Figure 10:  Typical flakes of the mineral biotite.  Biotites have strong cleavage planes that cause them to peel off into flakes.  Helium would tend to preferentially diffuse down these planes. Photograph by Dexter Perkins, https://geodil.dperkins.org/h/5.html

Obviously, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) made a serious mistake when they assumed that biotite is isotropic in their models.  The models in Humphreys et al. (2003a) are further harmed because Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) failed to indicate how many biotite grains were measured to obtain b (the radius of the biotite supposedly surrounding each zircon as shown in their Figure 7). The variable b must be known in order to obtain “helium diffusion dates” from equations 12-14 and 17 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 9-10). Dr. Humphreys’ documents only list one b value, which is an average of ~1000 microns for an unknown number of biotites from the 750-meter (2002) sample (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 8).  In my original essay, I criticized Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) for failing to indicate how many grains were measured to obtain this average, providing no standard deviations for this value, and then erroneously applying this one average (like he did with his Q0 value) to other samples from the Fenton Hill samples.  Because descriptions in Laughlin et al. (1983) indicate that samples 1-6 in Gentry et al. (1982a) and samples 2002 and 2003 from Humphreys et al. (2004) were from diverse metamorphic and igneous rocks (my Table 1), it’s likely that the sizes, and therefore the b values, of the biotites from these different rocks were highly variable.

Rather than providing suitable measurements and standard deviations for b, Humphreys (2005b) again throws out the same old lame excuses.  He tries to belittle his mistakes by claiming that accurate b values really aren’t important because the biotites supposedly only have minor effects on his results. However, Dr. Humphreys fails to remember that his single b value played a key role in his efforts to remove sample 6 from his models and obtain his desired “helium diffusion date” of 6,000 years (Section 5.4.4). 

Even if accurate b values were not very important to his “dating” efforts, Dr. Humphreys’ omission of valid averages and standard deviations for any of his data is not a trivial issue.  His lack of suitable averages and standard deviations exposes serious shortcomings in his laboratory procedures. Only after proper measurements of a and b are done and the results entered into the proper dating equations, could Humphreys (2005b) ever claim that the b values were unimportant.

Finally, Humphreys (2005b) replies to my criticisms of his b measurements with the following absurd statement:

“However, Henke has the raw data we published, so he can compute the standard deviations for himself.”

I need to remind Dr. Humphreys that his papers only contain one b value, which is supposedly an average as listed at Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8). Contrary to the claims in Humphreys (2005b), the necessary raw data to calculate a standard deviation for b are not present in any of his documents.  So, how can anyone obtain an unbiased (n-1) standard deviation from only one number?! Calculating the standard deviation would lead to division by zero!  This is yet another example of Dr. Humphreys flippantly trying to dismiss criticism without really thinking about the ridiculous implications of his rash retorts.  Also see Section 5.5.

4.8 Missing Data? With Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

In slide #14 of his YouTube presentation in Loechelt and Henke (2018), Dr. Loechelt accuses Dr. Humphreys of not publishing all of his zircon data.  Dr. Loechelt quotes Humphreys (2005a, pp. 41-42):

“After that, in the summer and fall of 2002, we tried several times to get lower-temperature zircon data. However, we only discovered several wrong ways to make such measurements.  First, we asked the experimenter to do new runs on the same batch of zircons, but at lower temperatures.  The results were ambiguous, an effect we decided was due to exhaustion of He from the smaller zircons in the batch, thereby increasing the effective radius of the remaining part of the batch.” [my emphasis]

This statement is also in Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 5).

In his presentation, Dr. Loechelt also cites the following 2011 personal communication from an anonymous YEC that claims that a 2003 final report exists and that it was never published:

“I have begun a dialog with Humphreys and I did receive the lab report.  The only way he would give it to me was if I promised not to give it to you or anyone else without his permission.  I don't know why he's so tight with it ... he seems to have some funny ideas about sharing information with non-YECs.  He was real suspicious of me at first ... quizzing me about my YEC ‘credentials’ and such.”

So, Dr. Loechelt accused Dr. Humphreys of having a lack of transparency and hiding data that would perhaps damage his YEC agenda. 

Humphreys (2018a, pp. 54-55) was offended by these accusations from Dr. Loechelt.  Dr. Humphreys identified them as ad hominem attacks (also see Section 11.0). Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) then quoted a June 30, 2003 email from his experimenter indicating that there was no 2003 final report and that the last set of zircons and biotites had results that were similar to earlier samples:

“Here are the two data sets in excel format, on zircon and biotite.  They look more or less the same as we have already seen.  The basic outline of what I did is the same as in the past with the excpection [sic, exception] that I weighed the samples to get total He concentration, so I did not bother with another summary report.” [emphasis in Humphreys 2018a, p. 55]

In reviewing this section, Dr. Loechelt further comments on this situation:

“Although this correspondence does support Dr. Humphreys’ claim that no formal lab report was made for the final RATE experiment, it actually raises more questions than it answers.  For instance, why was a formal lab report not written?  The answer in Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) is that the results “look more or less the same as we have already seen.” The same as what, we might ask?  Prior to publication of the final RATE experiment in Humphreys et al. (2004), the only other RATE data that were published were in Humphreys et al. (2003a).  Unlike the experiment in Humphreys et al. (2004), the experiment in Humphreys et al. (2003a, appendices) did have a lab report, which gave an estimate of 128°C for the closure temperature, based upon an activation energy of 34.5 kcal/mol (p. 16).  The report noted that the closure temperature was “somewhat cooler than we have observed before in zircons though the database is not large” (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 17).

Indeed, the database was not large in 2003.  By the following year, however, this situation had changed with the publication of the paper on zircon (U-Th)/He thermochronometry by Reiners et al. (2004).  In this seminal work, the best estimate for the closure temperature was given as 183°C with a corresponding activation energy of 40.4 kcal/mol.  Dr. Humphreys never calculated the activation energy for the high-temperature diffusion data in Humphreys et al. (2004).  Subsequently, Loechelt (2020a, his table 1, p. 42) calculated a value of 38.1 kcal/mol, which comes much closer to the 40.4 kcal/mol in Reiners et al. (2004) than the 34.5 kcal/mol reported in the initial RATE experiment of Humphreys et al. (2003a) (also see Table 7 in Section 7.3).  The closure temperature reported in Humphreys et al. (2003a) is indeed low, but now that the database is much larger, we know that it is not typical of most recent experiments.

The correspondence in Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) now begs an interesting question – what is meant by the statement that the results “look more or less the same as we have already seen”?  The closure temperature and activation energy certainly are not the same as the results in Humphrey et al. (2003a), which as we have already seen are atypically low.  Are the results from Humphreys et al. (2004) being compared to Reiners et al. (2004)?  Are they being compared to unpublished RATE data?  This statement stands out as being strikingly peculiar since the reference data in question is not apparent.

This bring us to the second point.  Consider again the statement that the results “look more or less the same as we have already seen.”  Remember that Dr. Farley was deceived into performing this experiment, thinking that he was working for a mining company instead of a young-Earth creationists research group (see Section 9.5).  Never-the-less, Dr. Humphreys achieved his goal of having a true blind experiment.  Consider now the unbiased assessment of Dr. Farley in Humphreys (2018a, p. 55).  There was nothing special, unusual, or remarkable about the RATE diffusion experiment, so much so that it was not even worth his time to write a lab report.  How then does Dr. Humphreys find evidence to support the radical notion that nuclear decay rates were accelerated in the past when his own researcher finds nothing remarkable in the data at all?  As demonstrated in Loechelt (2020a), there is indeed nothing unusual about the high-temperature RATE diffusion data when compared to the literature.  The one exception is the four low-temperature diffusion data points, which are all-important to the accelerated nuclear decay argument, but are not even worth mentioning, much less explaining, by Dr. Farley.”

When asked about unpublished data, Dr. Humphreys, in an email to Steven McRae on May 24, 2018 that Mr. McRae publicly released, further denied that there was any unpublished data by stating the following (Loechelt 2020a, p. 48):

“Sorry that I’ve given this such a low priority, I’m reluctant to spend several hours watching the Hanke [sic, Henke]/Loechelt videos, because I have a strong feeling that they have said nothing new or worthwhile.  For example, I think I’ve published (in the Rate II book, [Humphreys 2005a]) all the diffusion data that Dr. Loechelt is asking for, along with all the relevant parts of the lab reports we received.  See particularly the appendices to my chapter in the book.  Thus it seems to me that Dr. Loechelt is grasping at non-existent straws, which implies to me that he’s got nothing substantial.  That in turn un-motivates me for spending more time on him.”

However, Loechelt (2020a, pp. 47-48) was not satisfied with these explanations and there’s also the question of why Dr. Humphreys or his experimenter never reported a closure temperature for Dr. Humphreys’ 2003 data (see the question in Section 4.8 of Appendix C).  The above quotation from Dr. Humphreys to Steven McRae indicates that there are no unpublished data, but based on statements in Humphreys (2005a, pp. 41-42), Dr. Loechelt thinks that there are.  Certainly, any results from zircons that were severely pitted or corroded during cleaning may not be published because the data would not be representative (e.g., Humphreys 2005a, p. 42).  But, what about the zircons that gave the “ambiguous” results mentioned in the above quotation from Humphreys (2005a, pp. 41-42)?  How large were these zircons and why weren’t their results published?  Again, why was no closure temperature reported for Dr. Humphreys’ zircons from 2003 that were published in Humphreys et al. (2004)?  Loechelt (2020a, p. 48) wonders if the unpublished data indicate that the RATE results were unreproducible.  Sometimes, it’s best to publish the data, give an explanation for any ambiguous results, and see if the readers agree.  That way, there’s no basis for charges of a coverup.  

5.0 Data Manipulation and Bad Math

5.1 Manipulation of the Magomedov (1970) Data in Humphreys et al. (2003a)

5.1.1 Introduction

Without his log base-10 manipulation of Magomedov’s graph, Dr. Humphreys and his allies admit that Dr. Humphreys’ methodology provides ridiculous “creation” dates of only a few decades to centuries for Magomedov’s zircons.

Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) and Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 2) cite Magomedov (1970), a Soviet article, which contains some early data on helium diffusion in zircons. Only a brief abstract of Magomedov (1970) is readily available in English:

“Heating experiments at 1000 and 1150°C and up to 48 hours on zircon suggest loss of surface lead and helium is considerable during the first few hours. Estimates of activation energy of bulk diffusion are 58 kcal/mole for Pb in zircon, and only 15 kcal/mole for He.”

Dr. Humphreys, however, has an English translation of the entire Russian article, as he notes in his reference of Magomedov (1970) (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 14).

Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) describe a graph in Magomedov (1970, his Figure 3) and reproduce it in their Figure 5 (p. 6) (my Figure 11). The y-axis of the graph in Magomedov (1970) has the English units of “ln(D,σ),” where “ln” refers to natural log, D represents the diffusion coefficient and σ refers to electrical conductivity, which may influence diffusion in some crystals as cited in Girifalco (1964, p. 92-102), a reference used by Humphreys et al. (2003a).  Based on helium diffusion results of zircons from the Fish Canyon Tuff, Colorado (which Humphreys et al. 2003a mislabel as being in Nevada!) (Reiners et al., 2002), Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) conclude that the units on Magomedov’s graph must be “incorrect” and that the actual units should be log base 10 D (log10 D).  Based on this faulty assumption, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) manipulate the Magomedov (1970) data from natural log (ln) to log base 10 to comply with their data and the data in Reiners et al. (2002) (see my Figure 11).  As further discussed below, Dr. Humphreys’ unjustified manipulation of the data in Magomedov (1970) exposes his inability to properly handle the literature, even with an English translation.

5.1.2 Equations in Magomedov (1970) Definitely Indicate the Use of Natural Logs

The equations in Magomedov (1970) clearly refute Dr. Humphreys’ log10 D interpretation of the Magomedov data.  Equation 4 in Magomedov (1970) is the well-known, e-based Arrhenius equation, which was introduced in Section 2.3 and is shown here again as equation 1: 

Magomedov (1970) even admits that he used his e-based Equation 4 to construct his Figure 3, which is the graph that Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) incorrectly claim has units of log10 D rather than ln D.  Magomedov (1970) states:

“Используя формулу (4) можно определить значения E и D0, строя график зависимости ln D 1/T.  На рис. 3 нанесены значения ln D в зависимости от обратной температуры для свинца и гелия.  По углу наклона кривых рассчитаны соответствующие значения E.”

English Translation: “Using Equation (4), it is possible to determine the values of E and D0 by constructing a graph of the relationship ln D vs. 1/T.  In Figure 3, ln D is plotted as a function of reciprocal temperature for lead and helium.  The slope of the curves calculates the corresponding values of E.”

Magomedov’s Equation 4 is exactly the same as Equation 2 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 5).  So, Dr. Humphreys should know that this equation is e-based and not base 10. (To use log10 D in Equation 4 of Magomedov, 1970, a conversion factor of 2.303 would have to be added to the equation, which yields: log D = log D0 – ((E/2.303R)(1/T)), see McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 144.) 

From his Equation 4, Magomedov (1970) derives the following natural log (ln) equation (his Equation 5):

Figure 11:  Arrhenius plot of helium diffusion in zircons from the Soviet Union (triangles; Magomedov, 1970), Fish Canyon Tuff, actually Colorado and not Nevada as labeled in Humphreys et al. (2003a) (black circles; Reiners et al., 2002) and the Fenton Hill core (black diamonds; Humphreys et al., 2003a) (based on Figure 5 of Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 6).  Magomedov (1970) reported that the activation energy of his zircons was 15 kcal/mole, which is consistent with the slope of the intrinsic portion of the ln D curve (filled triangles with red line).  When Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) improperly changed the diffusion units of the Magomedov data from natural log (ln) to log base 10 (log) (gray squares) to correspond with their and the Reiners et al. results, the activation energy of the intrinsic curve became approximately 40 kcal/mole, which contradicts the results in Magomedov (1970). 

The steps for deriving Magomedov’s Equation 5 from his Equation 4 would be as follows:

5.1.3 Lead Data in Magomedov (1970) Further Confirm the Use of Natural Logs

Magomedov (1970) only shows a graph of his helium diffusion data and does not list any numerical results in a table.  However, he does list his lead diffusion results in his Table 1, which conclusively demonstrate that Magomedov (1970) was using natural logs in his equations and graphs, and not log10 D as Dr. Humphreys desires.  Specifically, Table 1 in Magomedov (1970) lists the diffusion of lead in zircon as D/a2 = 1.2 x 10-8 1/sec at 1000oC and D/a2 = 1.32 x 10-7 1/sec at 1150oC, or with a = 75 microns, D = 2.1 x 10-4 cm2/sec at 1000oC and 2.3 x 10-3 cm2/sec at 1150oC.  If these data are entered into Magomedov’s natural log-based Equation 5, the activation energy for lead (E) is 58 kcal/mol, which is the exact value that is listed in the English abstract of Magomedov (1970).  (Also, see my Table 5 and the English abstract above).  If “ln” means log10 in Magomedov (1970), as Dr. Humphreys claims, Equation 5 would yield an incorrect value of E = 25 kcal/mol for lead (my Table 5).  Also, there is also no reason to believe that Magomedov (1970) would inconsistently use “ln” to represent natural log in Equation 5, but have “ln” represent log10 on the y-axis of his Figure 3. 

The use of ln as a natural log rather than log base 10 is also verified by further comparing the lead data at 1000 and 1150oC in Magomedov’s Table 1 with the ln graph in his Figure 2b.  Natural log values from the results in his Table 1 correspond well with the points in the graph of Figure 2b in Magomedov (1970), but log base 10 values are far too small.

As an additional confirmation that Magomedov (1970) was using natural logs, when the temperature and diffusion coefficients from Magomedov’s Table 2 are entered into Magomedov’s Equation 5, the resulting activation energy (E) is 23.5 kcal/mole, which is very close to the value of 23.4 kcal/mol in his Table 2.  The use of log base 10 diffusivity values with the data in Table 2 of Magomedov (1970) would yield an activation energy of only 10.2 kcal/mole. 

Clearly, the data within Magomedov (1970) overwhelmingly indicates that he was using natural logs.  Dr. Humphreys has absolutely no justification for arguing for a log base 10 interpretation of the Magomedov data and fudging Magomedov’s helium diffusion data to support his YEC agenda. 

The high helium diffusion coefficients in the Magomedov (1970) are not surprising considering that Magomedov’s zircons were very metamict (damaged by a lot of radioactive decay).  There is also an 11 order of magnitude difference (wow!) between the lead diffusion coefficients in the zircons of Magomedov (1970) and a gem-quality Sri Lankan zircon described in Lee et al. (1997).  Considering how the physical and chemical properties of zircons may significantly vary from one specimen to another, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) simply has no justification for “correcting” the Magomedov (1970) data to comply with their helium diffusion results and the results in Reiners et al. (2002) (my Figure 11). While Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) boast that their log10 D interpretation of the Magomedov (1970) data is five orders of magnitude too high for their “uniformitarian model,” they forget to mention that before they “corrected” the Magomedov (1970) data, the Magomedov (1970) data were at least five orders of magnitude higher than their zircon results and the Fish Canyon Tuff data from Reiners et al. (2002) (my Figure 11).

5.1.4 Distorted Magomedov Graph at CreationWiki #1 (2011)

Even statements in Humphreys (2000) contradict the desperate efforts of the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) to conjure up a line with a 15 kcal/mol slope and salvage Dr. Humphreys’ manipulation.

In the process of fudging the units on the y-axis of Figure 3 in Magomedov (1970) from natural log to log base 10, Humphreys et al. (2003a) failed to realize that the slope of the intrinsic curve automatically changed (my Figure 11).  Because the slope of the intrinsic curve determines the activation energy of the sample, the activation energy of the base 10 log intrinsic curve no longer complies with Magomedov’s value of 15 kcal/mole (see the above English abstract).  Like the 29-44 kcal/mole results in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 7) and Reiners et al. (2002, p. 301), the activation energy of the base 10 log curve is now roughly around 40 kcal/mole (my Figure 11). 

The author(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) are so desperate to salvage Humphreys’ log base-10 interpretation of the Magomedov (1970) graph, that like Dr. Humphreys, the  CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) completely ignores the equations, figures and tables of supporting data in Magomedov (1970) that conclusively indicate the use of natural logs.  The author(s) attempts to defend Dr. Humphreys’ log base 10 interpretation of the Magomedov (1970) data by showing that an “activation energy” (E) of 15.53 kcal/mol could be derived by passing a line through two points from the combined Magomedov (1970) intrinsic and defect data in a log base 10 format (see my Figure 12).  Although the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) claimed to have drawn a “best fit line” through the Magomedov (1970) data, it is difficult to believe that Magomedov (1970) would derive his activation energy for helium by passing a single line through only two points selected from his obviously diverse intrinsic and defect curves.  Not even Dr. Humphreys supports the CreationWiki #1 (2011) approach for determining the activation energy of this sample (see Figure 6 in Humphreys, 2000, p. 347, where Dr. Humphreys clearly associates the 15 kcal/mol with only Magomedov’s intrinsic curve).  In Section 5.2, Loechelt (2020a, p. 47) further explains why intrinsic and defect curves are treated separately on Arrhenius graphs (also see discussions in Section 2.3).   

In reality, a statistically valid least squares (best) linear fit through all of the Magomedov (1970) helium data in a log base 10 format yields an activation energy (E) of about 20 kcal/mol, which is inconsistent with the 15 kcal/mol result from Magomedov (1970) (my Figure 12).  In contrast, the slope of the intrinsic curve of the natural log distribution of the Magomedov (1970) data provides a better activation energy of 16-17 kcal/mol.  Considering that numerical values of Magomedov’s D and temperature results are not listed and must be estimated from his Figure 3, an activation energy of 16-17 kcal/mol for helium is reasonably close to Magomedov’s value of 15 kcal/mol. 

Figure 12:  In an unsuccessful attempt to defend Dr. Humphreys’ manipulation of the Magomedov (1970) data and to obtain the desired activation energy of 15 kcal/mol listed in the text of Magomedov (1970), the author(s) of CreationWiki #1 (2011) contradicts the approach in Figure 6 of Humphreys (2000, p. 347), disregards the equations and data in Magomedov (1970), and “fits” a linear curve using only two of the seven Magomedov (1970) data points in a log base 10 format.  Although the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) claims that his/her/their line is a “best fit”, a statistical least squares best linear fit for all of Magomedov’s data in a log base 10 format yields an unacceptable activation energy of 20 kcal/mol and not 15 kcal/mol. 

5.1.5 Dr. Humphreys’ Fudging of the Magomedov (1970) Data is Inexcusable and his Actions Show that He cannot be Trusted with Data

Humphreys (2005b) accuses me of lying when I stated in my original essay that Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) fudged the Soviet helium diffusion data from Magomedov (1970).  But, how else can we describe the actions of Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6)?  Without any legitimate justification and in contradiction to the very equations, figures and tables of data in Magomedov (1970) and even his own e-based Arrhenius equation 2 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 5), Humphreys et al. (2003a) changed the units of measure on the y-axis of the Magomedov (1970) graph from natural logs to base 10 logs just so that the Soviet data lined up with their results and the results in Reiners et al. (2002) (my Figure 2; Figures 5 and 6a on pp. 6-7 in Humphreys et al., 2003a).  Because Humphreys et al., (2003a, p. 14) admit in their reference that Dr. Humphreys had an English translation of Magomedov (1970) and Equations 4 and 5 in the original Russian manuscript of Magomedov (1970) are in an English format, Dr. Humphreys has no excuse for either ignoring or incompetently misinterpreting the equations and data in Magomedov (1970). 

Dr. Humphreys’ willingness to alter results from the literature to suit his religious agenda is not a “ridiculous quibble” as he claims in Humphreys (2005b), but a serious act of ethical misconduct that illustrates how fast and loose he is with data.  Contrary to Humphreys (2005b), there is NOTHING reasonable about him altering data to line up with his YEC expectations and “everybody else’s zircon data.”  Since when does any scientist manipulate a data set to “line up with everybody else’s zircon data”?  What happens if everybody else’s “view” of helium diffusion doesn’t apply to these highly metamict Soviet zircons?  Even Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) admit that minerals from different locations should not have the same properties:

“Measurements of noble gas diffusion in a given type of naturally occurring mineral often show significant differences from site to site, caused by variations in composition.”

So, when individuals (like Dr. Humphreys) ignore their own previous warnings, unquestionably manipulate a data set from the literature to comply with the results that they want, and then boast that their results are “consistent” with the manipulation (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 10), THAT IS FUDGING.  Dr. Humphreys’ misuse of the Magomedov data shows that he is willing to do just about anything if an opportunity arises to manipulate a data set to promote his anti-science agenda. One can only wonder if Dr. Humphreys used the same type of manipulation to convince R.V. Gentry to admit to “typographic errors” in his Q values so that R. V. Gentry’s values could also be “corrected” to comply with Dr. Humphreys’ results (Section 4.2).  Also see Section 11.1.1 for further discussions.

The willingness of the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) to ignore the critical details in Magomedov (1970) and to desperately defend Dr. Humphreys’ manipulation at any cost also shows great carelessness and ethical misbehavior.  It is far better for individuals to have opponents that provide useful and constructive criticisms, than groupies that are willing to go to any ridiculous extreme to cover up their mistakes.

5.1.6 The Serious and Inconvenient Consequences of the ln D Magomedov (1970) Data to Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating Equations”

The high helium diffusion rates in the Soviet zircons based on natural logs have dire consequences for Dr. Humphreys’ “dating” equations.  Instead of discussing the Magomedov data in greater detail and adequately defending his manipulation, Humphreys (2005b) accuses me of just wanting to reject the Magomedov data because I find them “inconvenient.”  In reality, it was Humphreys et al. (2003a) that found the extremely high helium diffusion results from Magomedov (1970) to be so inconvenient that they manipulated the units of measure and ignored the obvious natural log-based equations and data in Magomedov (1970) to protect their “creation date” of 6,000 years.

Although there is no justification for mixing analytical results from the Fenton Hill #1 zircons with entirely different Soviet zircons from a different continent, Humphreys (2000, p. 347) admitted that when he combined a = 22 microns and a Q/Q0 value of 0.58 from Fenton Hill sample #1 to the natural log helium diffusivity values from the Soviet zircons of Magomedov (1970), he got a ridiculous “creation date” of 23 years.   Without providing any calculations to back up his opinion, YEC Armitage (2004, p. 19) is willing to push the creation date of the Soviet zircons back to a few centuries.  Besides questioning the results in Magomedov (1970) and any other literature that they use, perhaps Dr. Humphreys and his followers should have also questioned his dating equations when they indicate that these Soviet zircons from the Ural Mountains somehow formed between the reigns of Ivan the Terrible and Joseph Stalin.  

5.1.7 Dr. Humphreys Admits that the Magomedov (1970) Data are “Ambiguous.” So, Why Didn’t He Discard Them?

Although the natural log Magomedov data support my arguments by exposing the ridiculous nature of Humphreys et al.’s “dating” scheme, I still advocate discarding the Magomedov data because they were probably produced with antiquated equipment and the helium data were not clearly listed as numbers in a table.  While Dr. Humphreys is willing to manipulate ambiguous data produced with old Soviet technology, scientists would want state-of-the-art results (for example, the results from Wolfe and Stockli 2010 in Section 7.3).  Dr. Humphreys also admits in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) and Humphreys (2002; 2005b) that the Soviet data are ambiguous. So, if Dr. Humphreys recognized that these data are ambiguous, why didn’t he simply discard them rather than manipulate them to support his agenda? 

5.1.8 The Results of Dr. Humphreys’ Fudging Spreads into the Scientific Literature  

The deceptive effects of Dr. Humphreys’ manipulation of the Magomedov (1970) data have already gotten a foothold in the mainstream science literature via a 2004 article by YEC Mark Armitage.  Armitage (2004, p. 19) claims that the Reiners et al. (2002) data “lined up well” with the results from Magomedov (1970).  Of course, the Magomedov and Reiners et al. results ONLY “lined up well” after Magomedov’s data had been fudged as shown in Figure 5 of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) (also see my Figure 11).  While scientists generally know better than to quote literature from YEC organizations, Armitage (2004) is in a legitimate analytical chemistry journal. 

5.2 Dr. Humphreys Hits Another Log Jam  

Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 34) wanted to determine the overall helium diffusivity of the Fenton Hill zircons at a given temperature involving results from both his high- (intrinsic) and low- (defect) temperature curves (my Figure 5).  To achieve this goal, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 5) presented the following equation:

Where:

D = supposed total helium diffusivity for the zircons

D0 and E0 are the diffusion prefactor and activation energy, respectively, using the high-temperature or intrinsic curve.

D1 and E1 are the diffusion prefactor and activation energy, respectively, using the low-temperature, actually a defect, curve.

R = the universal gas constant in kcal/K•mol or J/K•mol.

T = temperature in Kelvin

It should be stated that Humphreys (2005a, p. 34) accidently omitted a negative sign from this equation, but that the sign is correct in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 5) and Humphreys (2018a, p. 52). 

Loechelt (2020a, p. 47) argues that diffusivity values associated with the defect and intrinsic curves should not be added because the values along these different curves typically result from different processes or mechanisms.  Loechelt (2020a, p. 47) uses this car analogy to clarify his argument:

“The problem with this naïve equation [2] is that one typically cannot add diffusivities from two separate mechanisms any more than one can add velocities from cars traveling on two parallel highways. The diffusing species will be in either one state or the other, just as a traveling car will be on either one highway or the other, not both at the same time. This insight is the motivation behind multidomain diffusion models. … [reference number omitted] In multidomain diffusion models, the diffusing species is partitioned into separate domains. Each domain has a separate diffusion model with a unique concentration, diffusivity, and particle flux. After modeling the diffusion in each domain, the results are combined. In multidomain models, concentrations and particle fluxes can be added, but diffusivities, in general, cannot.”

In response to similar criticism from Dr. Loechelt on Steve McRae’s YouTube channel (Loechelt and Henke 2018), Humphreys (2018a, pp. 52-53) presented his derivation of equation 2 in more detail.  He starts with the following Arrhenius equation, where D∞ is the overall diffusivity of a sample at infinite temperature and Q represents the system’s overall activation energy: 

Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) then states that the total activation energy of the zircons is the sum of the activation energies from both the intrinsic curve (E0) and the defect curve (E1) as shown in this equation:

Eq. 4)   Q = E0 + E1

Next, Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) tries to claim that the overall helium diffusivity of the zircons at infinite temperature (D∞) is the product of the diffusion frequency factors of the Arrhenius equations for the intrinsic and defect curves:

Eq. 5)   D∞ = D0D1

A physicist and gas diffusion expert, who desires to remain anonymous, sent me an email after reviewing Humphreys (2018a).  Among the many problems in Humphreys (2018a), the expert identified a serious error with equation 5 or equation D in Humphreys (2018a, p. 52).  Diffusivity, whether D∞, D0, or D1, would have units of m2/sec in the metric international system (SI). Yet, in equation 5, the units of measure for D∞ become an inconsistent (m2/sec)2.  Just arbitrarily inserting a square root on the right side of equation 5 would eliminate the problem with the units, but that does not mean that equation 5 with a square-root is accurate or that the other problems associated with equation 2 are solved. 

Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) then inserts equations 4 and 5 into equation 3 and takes the natural log of both sides to obtain equation 6, which is supposedly the natural log of equation 2:

Besides all of the problems associated with equation 2 and its derivation, Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) made another serious math error in deriving equation 6. The error can best be seen by simplifying the equations in the derivation of equation 2.  Equation 2 or equation A in Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) may be converted into the following equation:

Eq. 7) D = A + B

          Where:

Equation 6 or equation E in Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) then claims:  

Eq. 8) ln(D) = ln(A) + ln(B)

Putting equations 7 and 8 together, one gets the following from the claims in Humphreys (2018a, p. 52), which is a simplified form of equation 6: 

Eq. 9) ln(A + B) = ln(A) + ln(B)

Yet, as shown in high school algebra textbooks (e.g., Larson et al. 2004, p. 493), the relationship in equation 9 is false.  As Loechelt (2020a, p. 47) states, this equation plots one straight line and not separate intrinsic and defect lines with different slopes as in Figure 5.  The correct relationship is:

Eq. 10) ln(A x B) = ln(A) + ln(B)

That is, the A and B must be multiplied and not added before taking a natural log on the left side of equation 10.  In other words, the variable D on the left sides of equations 2 and 7 is not the same variable D on the left side of equation 6.  Dr. Humphreys botched the proof.  His final equation 6 is not equal to the original equation 2 that he claimed to have derived.  They are not even the same equation.  The situation may also be seen with the following specific example: 

ln 100 = 4.605

ln 1,000 = 6.908

According to equation 10:

ln (100 x 1,000) = ln 100 + ln 1,000 = 4.605 + 6.908 = 11.513

ln (100 x 1,000) = ln (100,000) = 11.513

11.513 = 11.513, equation 10 works!

The situation according to Dr. Humphreys in equation 9:

ln (100 + 1,000) = ln 100 + 1n 1,000 = 4.605 + 6.908 = 11.513 (??)

ln (100 + 1,000) = ln (1,100) = 7.003

7.003 ≠ 11.513, Dr. Humphreys’ approach does not work!

Loechelt (2020a, p. 47) concludes that Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) not only failed to provide a rigorous derivation of equation 2, but he also made serious algebra errors when deriving equation 6.  Humphreys (2018a, pp. 52-53) also argues that this issue really is not important because he didn’t use equation 2 in other sections of his papers.  This is a dodge that Dr. Humphreys frequently uses.  Obviously, when he originally made statements about equation 2, the parameter b (Section 4.7) or samples 5 and 6 (Section 5.4), he thought that these issues were important and needed to be discussed in his papers.  However, once his errors and inconsistencies on these topics are exposed, all of the sudden the topics are no longer important.  Even if the topics are not that important, Dr. Humphreys’ elementary mistakes give important insights on the limits of his abilities when dealing with math and helium diffusion in zircons.  This is the key point.  Why would anyone trust Dr. Humphreys’ conceptual understanding of solid-state diffusion if he makes so many fundamental mathematical errors?

5.3 A Factor Here and a Factor There Result in High Uncertainties for Dr. Humphreys’ Agenda  

When confronted with the large uncertainties in his modeling assumptions, data and other claims, Dr. Humphreys frequently attempts to trivialize them as being “inconsequential” without showing any calculations to back up his dismissive assertions.  For example, Humphreys (2005b) claims that revising his Q0 value from 15 ncc STP/μg to a more realistic value of 41 ncc STP/μg as shown in my Appendix A would supposedly only reduce his Q/Q0 values by “a factor of two or so.”  The author(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) further claims that increasing the Q0 value to 41 ncc STP/μg would increase Dr. Humphreys’ “date” for the Fenton Hill zircons by “only” two orders of magnitude; that is, from “6,000” to “600,000 years”!  Like Dr. Humphreys, the authors at CreationWiki #1 (2011) provide no calculations to back up their assertions. 

In a different situation, Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 15) admits that switching the diffusion geometry of his zircons from an isotropic sphere to a more realistic anisotropic cylinder would change his results by “less than a factor of two.”  When asked by Roger Wiens about whether the accumulation of radiation defects in the zircons would significantly affect his helium diffusion results for the creation model, Humphreys (2008b) sounds like a broken record.  He again attempts to trivialize the issue and emphasizes the “100,000 discrepancy” between the diffusion data and the “uniformitarian model.”  Humphreys (2008b) claims:

“Effect turns out to be only a factor of two, within our error bars, and again vastly smaller than the factor of 100,000 discrepancy observed.”

When discussing the effects of one kilobar of pressure in the subsurface of Fenton Hill on the helium diffusivity in his zircons, Humphreys (2006a) again arm waves and provides no calculations to support his claims.  Instead, he tries to trivialize the problem by stating:

“For a change of only 1 kilobar pressure, the change in diffusivity would probably be about one order of magnitude. This is far less than Henke’s desired six orders of magnitude.”

When confronted with the more realistic results from the models in Loechelt (2008c) and their devastating consequences to Dr. Humphreys’ YEC agenda, incredibly Humphreys (2008b) again arm-waves and once more invokes his old unsubstantiated excuse:

“Loechelt also whacks away at some of my calculations. If he were correct, my calculations might have to be adjusted by a factor of two or so. But that would still be within the error bars of the models.”

After invoking all of these “factors of two” in numerous situations or otherwise trying to trivialize his discrepancies, what makes Dr. Humphreys think that he’s still within the error bars of his models?   Where are Dr. Humphreys’ calculations to support his claims that all of these “factors of two”, etc. adjustments are actually trivial and all together add up to nothing?  The problem is that an order of magnitude or a factor of two change here and there can quickly negate his claims for a 6,000 year old Earth, especially if each of these changes are actually much greater than “a factor of two” or “an order of magnitude.”  Now, if Dr. Humphreys or his allies retort that the changes could be far less than a factor of two or less than an order of magnitude, they still need to show the calculations to demonstrate these claims and that their critics are wrong. 

Based on his statements on the errors supposedly canceling out in the calculation of R. V. Gentry’s Q/Q0 values (Section 4.4), Dr. Humphreys probably hopes that all of these errors would somehow miraculously cancel out and preserve his bogus creation date of 6,000 years.  Again, Dr. Humphreys never produces any calculations to support his tedious and flippant excuses, and the evidence presented in this essay and its references does not support his sloppy arm-waving attempts to belittle the numerous problems with his work.  Certainly, any real scientists would perform the calculations (such as what was done in Loechelt, 2008c) rather than just waving their arms and hoping that all of these “factor of two or so” discrepancies would magically cancel out and disappear.  Except for his cheerleaders, people will easily see through all of Dr. Humphreys’ empty arm-waving tactics and they are not going to accept it.

5.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Inconsistent Treatment of Samples 5 and 6 to Support his “Creation Model”

5.4.1 Data Points are Not to be Rejected Just to Protect Bad Models

In his efforts to develop and promote his creation model, Dr. Humphreys must explain the helium distributions in the Fenton Hill core samples and also demonstrate that helium diffusion in the zircons under actual subsurface conditions is only consistent with a 6,000 year-old time span.  While reviewing their data, Humphreys et al. readily noticed that their Q and Q/Q0 values for samples 1-5 consistently decrease with depth and increasing subsurface temperatures (my Table 3).  Humphreys et al. (2003a, Table 1, p. 3) recognized that while the helium concentration (~0.2 ncc STP/μg later changed to ~0.02 ncc STP/μg in Humphreys et al. 2004) in sample 5 agrees with the temperature and helium concentration trend in samples 1-4, an identical helium measurement from sample 6 is too high to fit their model (also see my Table 3).  To validate their creation model, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) must demonstrate that the Q and Q/Q0 values for sample 5 are trustworthy and should be included in their models.  At the same time, Humphreys et al. must think of some excuse to treat the identical result from sample 6 as a “special case” (Humphreys et al., 2003a, pp. 3-4) and somehow eliminate it from their modeling efforts.

5.4.2 Questionable Validity of Both Samples 5 and 6

According to Laughlin et al. (1983), sample 5 came from a biotite granodiorite, whereas a gneiss and a biotite granodiorite are located at the depth that provided sample 6 (my Table 1).  Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) admit that the low concentrations of helium in the zircons of these samples may not be in-situ radiogenic 4He:

“In fact, at present we are not certain whether the minute amounts of He recorded from the deepest zircons (3930 and 4310 m [i.e., samples 5 and 6]) are actually residual He in the zircons or derived from some other source.” [my emphasis]

“Derived from some other source” could mean extraneous helium (Section 6.1) or possibly interferences from the analytical equipment.  It’s also possible that both the helium in samples 5 and 6 are in equilibrium with extraneous background concentrations that may include contributions from regional volcanic, hydrothermal and/or tectonic activities sometime in the recent geologic past (e.g., Harrison et al., 1986).

Due to the uncertainties associated with the helium measurements of samples 5 and 6, Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) only listed the Q and Q/Q0 values for samples 5 and 6 as approximations. Although Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 3) claim that they will “allow for the possibility” that the error on the helium measurement of sample 5 is considerably larger than the errors of samples 1-4, their Table 1 lists no error for the Q/Q0 value of sample 5 and they generally treat the helium concentration of the sample in a quantitative manner in their models (as examples, Tables 4 and 5 in Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 11).  The semiquantitative (at best) nature of the helium (Q) results for samples 5 and 6 must also be remembered when evaluating Humphreys et al.’s helium diffusion “dates” (Section 7.1.3).

Rather than treating both samples 5 and 6 as contamination during analysis, unreliable instrument noise, minor helium background concentrations, or in another consistent manner, Humphreys et al. (2003a) attempt to justify eliminating sample 6 from their models.  At the same time, they show unjustified bias and fail to apply the same standards to sample 5. 

5.4.3 Dr. Humphreys Confuses Area and Volume

As part of their efforts to remove sample 6 from their models, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) make the following nonsensical arguments:

“Because b is more than 32 times larger than a, the disk-like (not spherical) volume of biotite the helium enters is more than 1000 (~32 squared [sic]) times the volume of the zircon.  This consideration affects the boundary conditions we choose for r = b, and how we might interpret sample 6 (see sect. 2), as follows. [new paragraph] Suppose that helium could not escape the biotite at all.  Then as diffusion proceeds, C would decrease in the zircon and increase in the biotite, until the concentration was the same throughout the two materials.  After that C would remain essentially constant, at about 0.001 C0.  The fraction Q/Q0 remaining in the zircon would be about 0.001, which is just what Gentry observed in sample 6.”

First of all, what is meant by “disk-like volume”?  How can Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) say: “...the disk-like (not spherical) volume of biotite the helium enters is more than 1000 (~32 squared) times the volume of the zircon, [my emphasis]” when volumes have three dimensions and not two? (That is, cubed and not squared dimensions.)  If Humphreys et al. are trying to compare a and b by passing a random plane through the center of a zircon and into its surrounding biotite, how can C ~ 0.001 C0 because in the real world the plane would probably intersect several other zircons that are additional sources of helium?  Perhaps, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) are suggesting in their statements that all of the helium diffusing out of a sample 6 zircon enters into only one apparently two-dimensional “disk-like” biotite cleavage plane.  If so, the volume of this biotite feature is not 1000 times the volume of Humphreys et al.’s spherical zircon with a = 30 microns.  The volume of their ideally spherical zircon = 4/3πa3 = 4/3 (3.141) 303 = 113,000 cubic microns.  The typical width [h] of a biotite cleavage is about 3.4 Å [0.00034 microns] (Bailey, 1984, p. 20-23).  Using a b value of 1,000 microns as argued by Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8), the volume of that cleavage would only be 1070 cubic microns (V = πb2h = 3.141 [1000]2 [0.00034] = 1070 cubic microns).  So, Vbiotite / Vzircon = 0.0095 and not 1000.  Thus, the vague arguments about “two-dimensional” volumes in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) do absolutely nothing to support their efforts to dispose of sample 6.

5.4.4 Invalid Comparisons in Another Attempt to Eliminate Sample 6

In another attempt to justify the elimination of sample 6 from the creation model, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) state:

“Our measurements (see Appendix B [in Humphreys et al., 2003a]) showed that the helium concentration in the Jemez [sic, gneiss] biotite at a depth of 750 meters was small, only about 0.32 × 10‑9 cm3 (at STP) per microgram. Taking into account the difference in density of biotite and zircon (3.2 g/cm3 and 4.7 g/cm3), that corresponds to almost exactly the same amount of helium per unit volume as sample 6 contained. That suggests the zircon and biotite were near equilibrium in sample 6, thus supporting our hypothesis.”

In the above statements, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) claims that there are similarities between the helium concentration of impure and ground biotites (Humphreys et al., 2003a, their Appendix B) from a gneiss collected at a depth of 750 meters and their helium concentration for the zircons from sample 6 (a different lithology [gneiss with granodiorite intrusions] at 4310 meters depth, Laughlin et al., 1983, with a helium concentration that was later changed in Humphreys et al. 2004).  They then illogically concluded that the biotites from sample 6 must have the same helium concentration as the biotites from the 750-meter sample.  Certainly, the helium concentrations of the zircons and biotites in both samples 5 and 6 may be in equilibrium with extraneous background helium; however, how can anyone argue that the helium concentrations of the zircons and biotites in sample 6 are essentially the same on the basis of comparing the amount of helium in the sample 6 zircons at 4310 meters depth with the helium concentration of an impure biotite sample from a different lithology at only 750-meters depth?  Again, this approach utterly contradicts the admission in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) that mixing measurements from different lithologies is inappropriate.  Dr. Humphreys needs to actually measure the helium concentration in the sample 6 biotites to confirm that they are not even lower. Rather than deal with the irrational statements in Humphreys et al. (2003a), Humphreys (2005b) simply refers to the same erroneous sections of Humphreys et al. (2003a) and once again appeals to his deceptive Figure 2 (Section 7.4).

Besides invalidly comparing the helium content of a biotite with the content of the sample 6 zircons at much greater depth, the helium measurements for the biotite and the zircons are far too unreliable to support the efforts in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 3, 8) to treat samples 5 and 6 differently, and protect their YEC agenda.  As previously discussed, Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) admit that there are serious uncertainties about the concentrations and origin(s) of the helium in their samples 5 and 6.  Furthermore, information in Appendix B of Humphreys et al. (2003a) also raises questions about the suitable purity of the Fenton Hill biotite and the nature of its helium concentration.  The discussions in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 16) concluded that there were likely “multiple sources” of helium in the Fenton Hill biotite.  The scientist that did the analysis of the biotite states (p. 16):

“He diffusion in this sample follows a rather strange pattern, with a noticeable curve at intermediate temperatures. I have no obvious explanation for this phenomenon. Because [the Wyoming] biotite BT-1B did not show this curve, I doubt it is vacuum breakdown. I ran more steps, with a drop in temperature after the 500ºC step, to see if the phenomenon is reversible. It appears to be, i.e., the curve appears again after the highest T step, but the two steps (12, 13) that define this curve had very low gas yield and high uncertainties. It is possible that we are dealing with more than one He source (multiple grain sizes or multiple minerals?).”

Humphreys et al. (2003a, Appendix B, p. 16) then reasonably conclude:

“We think it is likely there were some very small helium-bearing zircons still embedded in the biotite flakes, which would be one source. The other source would be the helium diffused out of larger zircons no longer attached to the flakes.”

Since the biotite probably contained zircon impurities that produced excess helium and since Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) were uncertain about the concentration and origin of the helium in their sample 6 zircons, what justification do Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 3, 8) have for relying on these questionable data to get rid of sample #6 from their models and keep sample #5?  Why didn’t they just throw out both samples 5 and 6 (for the answer, see Section 5.4.6)?

5.4.5 Peer-Reviewer of an Earlier Version of this Essay Uncovers Another Error When the “Corrected” Data from Humphreys et al. (2004) are Utilized

As discussed above, the comparison in the following paragraph from Humphreys et al. (2003, p. 8) is invalid for a number of reasons:

“Our measurements (see Appendix B [in Humphreys et al., 2003a]) showed that the helium concentration in the Jemez [sic, gneiss] biotite at a depth of 750 meters was small, only about 0.32 × 10‑9 cm3 (at STP) per microgram. Taking into account the difference in density of biotite and zircon (3.2 g/cm3 and 4.7 g/cm3), that corresponds to almost exactly the same amount of helium per unit volume as sample 6 contained. That suggests the zircon and biotite were near equilibrium in sample 6, thus supporting our hypothesis.”

A scientist that peer-reviewed this essay in 2010 decided to perform the calculations and verify Dr. Humphreys’ conclusion that the amount of helium in the Fenton Hill biotite at a depth of 750 meters and the amount in the zircons of R.V. Gentry’s sample 6 from a depth of 4310 meters were “almost exactly the same.”   Here are his calculations based on the description in the above paragraph from Humphreys et al. (2003, p. 8) and the zircon data from Humphreys et al. (2004, Table I, p. 3), where the “typographical errors” in Gentry et al. (1982a) had been corrected:

Q x density (in biotite) = Q x density (in zircon)

Before multiplying, the Q values from Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) must be converted from ncc STP/μg to cc STP/g so that the units are consistent with the density units of the minerals.  The results are then:

Biotite: 0.32 x 10-3 cc STP/g x 3.2 g/cc = 0.001 (unitless)

Zircon: ~0.02 x 10-3 cc STP/g x 4.7 g/cc = 0.00009 (unitless)

The scientist then wrote the following comments to me:

“Almost exactly the same????  The numbers are off by over an order of magnitude!  I cannot find any mistake in my math, but then again, if Humphreys meant something else, he should have elaborated on his argument in the first place.  What is worse, for Humphreys, is the fact that the biotite value is higher than the zircon value (which cannot happen through out-diffusion), which goes back to your point that one cannot claim that the biotite was in equilibrium with the zircon when the two minerals were separated by 3.5 kilometers.”

Again, the scientist obtained the Q values for the Fenton Hill biotite and used the “corrected” value for R. V. Gentry’s sample 6 zircons from Humphreys et al. (2004). When the uncorrected Q value from Humphreys et al. (2003a) is used, the statement in Humphreys et al. (2003, p. 8) is true.  Although it’s a completely invalid and meaningless calculation (as described above), the amount of helium in the Fenton Hill biotite at a depth of 750 meters and the amount in the zircons of R.V. Gentry’s sample 6 from a depth of 4310 meters were “almost exactly the same” before the typographical errors in Gentry et al. (1982a) were “corrected” in Humphreys et al. (2004). When Dr. Humphreys’ modified the Q values in Humphreys et al. (2003a, Table 1, p. 3) to obtain the revised values in Humphreys et al. (2004, Table I, p. 3), which included changing the Q value of sample 6 from ~0.2 to ~0.02 ncc STP/μg, his claim was no longer true.  As shown above in the scientist’s calculations, the results now vary by an order of magnitude. In the process of “correcting” the Q values in Gentry et al. (1982a), Dr. Humphreys unknowingly undermined one of his frail arguments for removing sample 6 from his models. This discovery also undermines an argument in CreationWiki #1 (2011) that extraneous helium contamination in the Fenton Hill zircons is not possible because “the amount of He in the surrounding biotite is of the same order of magnitude as that lost by the zircons.”  The emotional arguments against the possibility of extraneous helium in CreationWiki #3 (2009) and the shallow arguments at this website to defend Dr. Humphreys’ inconsistent discrimination between samples 5 and 6 are also refuted.

Despite several awkward and erroneous attempts, Humphreys et al. (2003a) have not shown that the Q and Q/Q0 values for sample 6 should be treated any differently than the results for sample 5.  They simply have no justification dismissing the sample 6 results and yet accepting the results for sample 5 to promote their YEC model.  Contrary to the approximations in Gentry et al. (1982a) and even statements by Humphreys et al. (2003, p. 3) that they will “allow for the possibility” that the error on the helium measurement of sample 5 is considerably larger than the errors of samples 1-4, Dr. Humphreys has failed to show that the Q and Q/Q0 values for sample 5 are quantitative enough to justify their use in his “creation” and “uniformitarian” models.  For consistency, Dr. Humphreys should have rejected both samples 5 and 6.

5.4.6 The Dire Consequences of Removing Sample 5 to Dr. Humphreys’ 6,000 Year Old “Date”

Finally, in a rash response to my criticisms over his inconsistent treatment of samples 5 and 6, Humphreys (2005b) claims that he could remove sample 5 from his models and that his “dating” results of 6,000 years would remain unaffected:

“However, we could dispense with both samples [i.e., samples 5 and 6] entirely with no damage to our case at all.  This is just another quibble about an inconsequential issue.”

However, the mathematics refute Dr. Humphreys’ flippant and superficial claims. Without sample 5, the dating scheme in Table III of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8) would only consist of samples 2, 3, and 4 (“dates” of 7270, 2400, and 5730 years).  This small dataset would provide an outlandish average “date” of 5,100 ± 5,000 years (2-sigma using the unbiased equation, Davis, 1986, p. 33; Keppel, 1991, p. 43-44, 58; Section 5.5).   In other words, at 95% confidence and without sample 5, Dr. Humphreys’ “date” for the Fenton Hill zircons is worthless even by YEC standards and now spans two orders of magnitude: anywhere from 100 to about 10,000 years.  The dire consequences of removing just one sample from his dataset shows how weak Dr. Humphreys’ claims really are. 

When discussing this issue, the author(s) at CreationWiki #3 (2009) fails to fully realize that Gentry et al. (1982a) admitted that his helium measurement on sample 5 was only an approximation.  Considering all of the problems associated with Q, Q0, and Q/Q0 in Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys’ papers (Section 4.0), the author(s) of Creation #3 (2009) have no justification for arguing that the helium concentration of sample 5 is consistent with the helium concentrations in samples 2-4.  The author(s) also mentions the existence of 28 diffusion data points that supposedly support the four dates utilized by Humphreys et al. (2004, Table III, p. 8).  However, the author(s) fail to realize that the 28 diffusion results don’t support the dates promoted by Dr. Humphreys because his dating equations and analytical methods are seriously flawed (e.g., my Figure 1; Sections 4.0 and 7.0).

5.4.7 The Real Issue Beyond the Numbers

Although the above calculations and disputes over the accuracy of the values in Dr. Humphreys’ documents are important, there is a danger that all of us (including Dr. Humphreys) could get bogged down in these numerical disputes and overlook the even more critical questions about Dr. Humphreys’ behavior and claims.  Dr. Humphreys needs to answer critical questions about his sloppy methodology and his flippant approach to scientific research and criticism from scientists.  That is, why are the claims and numerical results of Dr. Humphreys and his allies so often shown to be wrong when other individuals perform their calculations (e.g., my Appendix A and Section 5.4.5)?  Where is the CRSQ article promised in Humphreys (2005b) that would explain how he obtained a Q0 of only 15 ncc STP/μg?  How can Dr. Humphreys in Humphreys (2005b) claim that any errors in Q and Q0 would cancel out and not affect his Q/Q0 values? How is that mathematically possible? What valid justification does Dr. Humphreys have for omitting sample 6 from his models, but including sample 5?, etc., (see my Appendix C for further questions).

5.5 Questionable Standard Deviations in Humphreys et al. (2004)

What justification does Dr. Humphreys have for using a biased standard deviation?

In Humphreys et al. (2004, Table III, p. 8), the “dates” for samples 2-5 (i.e., 7270, 2400, 5730 and ~7330 years) were averaged.  Humphreys et al. (2004) rounded off the average value of 5,681 years to 6,000 years.  Humphreys et al. (2004) then list the “date” and “standard deviation” for their creation model as 6,000 ± 2,000 years.

Typically, standard deviations are calculated with a “unbiased” equation, which uses degrees of freedom (n-1) in the denominator, rather than the “biased” equation, which uses the total number of samples (n) in the denominator (Davis, 1986, p. 33; Keppel, 1991, p. 43-44, 58).  The unbiased equation is used when relatively few samples are taken from a large population (like when Dr. Humphreys and Gentry et al. sampled from the population of all the zircons in the Fenton Hill cores).  The biased equation is typically used when all members of a population are sampled, which is not possible with Dr. Humphreys’ zircon study. 

In the results in Table III of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8), Dr. Humphreys uses one standard deviation, instead of two, which would be fine if he was consistent.  Two standard deviations (2σ) are large enough to include 95% of all theoretical measurements.  The use of the unbiased equation and two standard deviations would yield 6,000 ± 4,600 years for the results in Table III of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8) (not ± 4,000 years as stated in Humphreys, 2005b).  Humphreys et al. (2004, Table III, p. 8) minimized their standard deviation at ± 2,000 years by using the biased equation (n instead of n-1 in the denominator) and only reporting one standard deviation (1σ or about 68% of the measurements).  This is an old statistical trick that some individuals use to make their errors appear as small as possible.  Obviously, Humphreys et al. (2004) would rather have their method provide a range with a most recent “creation date” of 2,000 BC instead of 600 AD!

Humphreys (2005b) and his other documents never justify his use of the unconventional biased equation to calculate his standard deviations.  Humphreys (2005b) simply mentions that he prefers to use one standard deviation rather than two.  Certainly, many scientists only use one standard deviation and that’s fine, again, as long as they’re consistent.  However, Humphreys (2005a) contains measurements with both one and two standard deviations (1 and 2σ).  His inconsistent use of one or two standard deviations seems to depend on which approach best serves his YEC agenda.  For example, Figure 13 in Humphreys (2005a, p. 55) uses 2σ, which helps to overlap the diffusion data with his creation model.   In contrast, the E0 value from Humphreys (2005a, p. 40) has only one standard deviation because it’s desirable to have the error minimized.

5.6 Dr. Humphreys’ Inaccurate Claims about Lead Diffusion in Zircons: Lead Loss is Compatible with Ancient Zircons

As further discussed in Section 8.3.1, Humphreys (2013a, pp. 321-322) goes as far as to defend some aspects of radiometric dating, including U-Th-Pb dating of zircons. Unlike the lack of understanding about basic geochemistry in Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 323-324), Humphreys (2012a; 2012c, p. 2; 2013a, p. 319) correctly recognizes that as zircons crystallize, they mostly exclude lead (Pb2+) ions from their crystalline structures.  Pb2+ ions have the wrong charge and are too large to readily substitute for Zr4+, Hf4+, U4+ and Th4+ in the crystalline structures of zircons (Faure 1998, p. 288).  As discussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 6.1, helium atoms are small enough to move into and out of the crystalline structures of zircons under certain conditions, which creates a problem with helium loss and possible extraneous helium in zircons.  Although radiogenic lead may escape from metamict areas, radiogenic lead produced from the decay of uranium and thorium may remain within the crystalline structure of the zircon.  This lead is very useful in U-Th-Pb dating.  By analogy, just like lead in zircon, it’s possible to build a truck from small parts within a house (that is, it’s possible for radiogenic lead to form within a zircon crystalline structure), but someone cannot drive through most house front doors without damaging the house (lead cannot readily move into the crystalline structure of zircons).

Humphreys (2012c, p. 2; 2013a, p. 319) also correctly states that because of its hard and insoluble structure, radiogenic lead, uranium, and thorium tend to stay within the crystalline structure of zircons over time.  Zircons are so hard and water insoluble; that is, resistant to physical and chemical weathering, that they often accumulate in sands and sandstones (Klein 2002, p. 498; Section 2.1). That being said, if zircons are substantially heated or metamictized through radiation damage, then lead certainly would be lost. However, typically Pb-Pb dates are unaffected by lead loss in zircons (Ludwig et al., 1984; Faure, 1998, p. 288; Dalrymple 1991, pp. 117-118).  The masses of the lead isotopes are so similar (204, 206, 207 and 208 atomic mass units [amu]) that loss events would not be able to remove more of one lead isotope than another.  As expected, the 207Pb/206Pb dates for the zircons in Table A1 in Appendix A of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 14) are about 1.43 billion years old, which are consistent with other Fenton Hill results (e.g., Brookins et al., 1977).

Using activation energy and diffusion coefficients from Magomedov (1970) (which are listed in footnote 16 of Gentry et al. 1982b), Humphreys et al. (2004, pp. 9-10) performed some calculations and claimed that 60-micron long zircons (assuming a = 30 microns) from sample 6 should lose about 50% of their lead if they were exposed to 313°C for 1.5 billion years.  Because the zircons supposedly have only lost about 10% of their lead (Humphreys et al. 2004, p. 9), Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 10) spuriously argue that the zircons must be much younger than 1.5 billion years old.  Later, based on information in Cherniak and Watson (2001) and in reply to Brown (2004), Humphreys (2004b, p. 259) became less convinced about the lead diffusion calculations in Humphreys et al. (2004, pp. 9-10).

Lee et al. (1997, p. 160, 161) list a more recent activation energy value (161 kcal/mol) and temperature-independent diffusion coefficient (approximately 3.9 × 109 cm2/sec) for lead in a gem-quality Sri Lankan zircon. The Lee et al. (1997) diffusion coefficient is 11 orders of magnitude larger than the measurement on exceptionally metamict (radiation damaged) zircons in Magomedov (1970).  Inserting the values from Lee et al. (1997) into the same equation used by Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 9-10) (that is, Nicolaysen, 1957 in footnote 16 of Gentry et al., 1982b, p. 298) predicts only about 1% lead loss at 313°C over 1.5 billion years rather than a loss of approximately 50% as claimed by Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 10).  Entering data from the Cherniak and Watson (2001) lead diffusion in zircon study into the Nicolaysen equation also predicts about 1% lead loss in the zircons over 1.5 billion years.  Considering that the Magomedov (1970) zircons were very metamict and that the Sri Lankan zircons were gem quality, a 10% lead loss in the sample 6 Fenton Hill zircons over 1.5 billion years is very feasible.

A 10% actual lead loss in the sample 6 zircons, if it is true, might be explained by metamorphic fluids leaching lead from metamict portions of the zircons (Geisler et al., 2002) and/or prolonged exposure to temperatures well above 313°C sometime in the distant past.  Rather than deal with reasonable possibilities, Humphreys et al. (2004, pp. 9-10) used measurements on extremely metamict Soviet zircons and made fallacious assumptions, which cause them to erroneously conclude that the lead data are incompatible with an ancient age for the zircons.  Thankfully, Humphreys (2004b, p. 259) seems to have recognized his mistake.

6.0 Complications Neglected or Inadequately Addressed by Dr. Humphreys

6.1 The Possibility of Extraneous Helium and Dr. Humphreys’ Invalid Lyell Uniformitarianism

6.1.1 Radiogenic, Excess, Inherited, and Extraneous Noble Gases

As discussed in Section 2.1, helium has two natural isotopes: 3He and 4He. 3He only has one neutron per atom.  The isotope is largely the product of the Big Bang (Delsemme, 1998, p. 22-23) and nuclear fusion in stars (Faure, 1998, p. 17). Small amounts of 3He were trapped within the Earth when our planet formed and the isotope is currently degassing from the Earth’s interior.  Besides forming from radioactive decay, 4He, which has two neutrons in every atom, also formed during the Big Bang and stellar fusion (Delsemme, 1998, p. 22-23; Faure, 1998, p. 17).

Using analogous definitions for argon from McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 11), helium may be classified as radiogenic, excess, inherited, or extraneous.  An example of radiogenic helium would be uranium or thorium within a zircon producing 4He, where the 4He stays within the zircon.  In his Fenton Hill project, Dr. Humphreys was only interested in the concentrations of radiogenic 4He in his zircons and he assumed that all of the helium analyzed in his study and the study by Gentry et al. (1982a) was radiogenic 4He. 

Excluding any contamination from the atmosphere, excess helium refers to any 3He or any 4He that enters a host rock or mineral rather than originating in it.  Inherited helium is any helium that might somehow remain in a rock or mineral after it forms from igneous or metamorphic processes.  Extraneous helium is the sum of a mineral’s or rock’s excess and any inherited helium. 

6.1.2 Complications to All Helium Diffusion Models if Extraneous Helium is Present

Throughout his documents, Dr. Humphreys claims that the Fenton Hill zircons contain too much helium to be 1.5 billion years old.  In response, Loechelt (2008c; 2009a) states that his multi-domain models indicate that Dr. Humphreys’ helium diffusion measurements are actually consistent with the zircons being about 1.5 billion years old.  Both Drs. Loechelt’s and Humphreys’ models, however, would be invalidated if significant extraneous 4He and perhaps 3He were actually present in the Fenton Hill zircons.  That is, extraneous helium would produce inflated and false Q/Q0 values. Extraneous helium could, especially, become relevant with zircons from deep portions of the Fenton Hill cores that have extremely low concentrations of helium, such as samples 5 and 6 in Gentry et al. (1982a) (Sections 5.4 and 6.1.5).  Despite the possibility of extraneous helium and other unknowns, the evidence indicates that the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) is on the right track because of its more thorough treatment of helium diffusion and fewer shortcuts and assumptions, while Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model is not (Section 7.2).

6.1.3 Detecting Extraneous Helium

Just as there are methods to detect and correct for the presence of extraneous argon in rocks and minerals (Hanes, 1991; McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 114-130; Henke c. 2000a), Dr. Humphreys should be able to detect any significant extraneous helium in his zircons and develop techniques to correct for it.  Although terrestrial concentrations of 3He are usually extremely low, if substantial concentrations of this “primordial” isotope were identified in the Fenton Hill zircons, the 3He would be extraneous and appropriate corrections to the total helium analyses would have to be made. Thus, to avoid the possibility of extraneous helium wrecking his study, Dr. Humphreys should have determined the 3He/4He ratios of his zircons and also performed the analyses on fresh zircons from R.V. Gentry’s rock samples. 

The presence of extraneous 4He in the zircons may be strongly inferred if 4He is detected in surrounding quartz and other minerals that contain virtually no uranium and thorium.  That is, if extraneous helium occurs in quartz, it’s probably also present in adjacent zircons. 

So, before Dr. Humphreys can use his “studies” to promote a religious agenda and overthrow nuclear physics and geochronology, he clearly needs to measure the 3He and 4He values on preferably freshly collected (not decades old) minerals and eliminate any possible effects from extraneous helium.  Certainly, extraneous helium may not be a problem in the Fenton Hill zircons.  However, a careful researcher always checks for such possibilities because, if significant extraneous helium is present, it would seriously interfere with the project.

6.1.4 Too Many YECs Only Invoke the Presence of Extraneous Inert Gases When the Gases Benefit Their Agenda

YECs readily accept the existence of extraneous argon in igneous and metamorphic minerals because they improperly believe that “excess” and radiogenic argon cannot be distinguished, and subsequently potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating are automatically unreliable (Snelling 1999; but see Hanes, 1991; McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 114-130; Henke c. 2000a).  While Humphreys (2005b; 2012a) inappropriately scoffs at the idea of extraneous helium in the Fenton Hill zircons, YECs Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 326-327) take the possibility seriously, just as seriously as extraneous argon being a supposed problem in K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating (e.g., Snelling 1999).  Because helium atoms are much smaller than argon atoms, helium would tend to more readily move in and out of most minerals than argon. Thus, Froede (2012, pp. 37-38) and Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 326-327) remind Dr. Humphreys about the possible presence of extraneous helium and argon at Fenton Hill and that the gases could come from the mantle and produce false dates for YECs as much as for uniformitarians.  So, if many YECs enthusiastically accept the existence of extraneous argon, why shouldn’t they also agree with Froede and Akridge (2013a) and acknowledge that subsurface minerals (including zircons) could be substantially contaminated with extraneous helium?  The answer is obvious.  Extraneous helium is one of many factors that could completely nullify the YEC conclusions of Dr. Humphreys’ Fenton Hill zircon study, and many YECs think that the project is too important and too expensive to lose.  

6.1.5 Important Comments from R. V. Gentry about Helium Sources

Although Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 3) claim that Gentry et al. (1982a) measured the amount of 4He in their samples, Gentry et al. (1982a) clearly give no indication that they distinguished extraneous from radiogenic helium in any of their analyses.  Simply because of how zircons from samples 1-4 degassed, and especially two groups from sample 4 with relatively large (150-250 microns) specimens, Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) thought that some of the helium in samples 1-4 (Table 1) was radiogenic.  However, samples 5 and 6 were different:

“That is, in the two deepest zircon groups (3930 and 4310 m [samples 5 and 6]), we observed only short bursts of He (~1-2 sec) in contrast to the prolonged 20 sec or more evolution of He which was typical of He liberation from zircon groups down to and including 3502 m [samples 1-4].  In fact, it was this prolonged He liberation profile seen in two 150-250 micron size zircon groups from 3502 m [sample 4] which convinces us that some residual He is still trapped in the zircons down to that depth (239°C).”  [my emphasis]

Clearly, these degassing profiles did not quantify and eliminate the possible presence of extraneous helium in the relatively small (50-75 microns) zircons in samples 1-4, which were used to derive Gentry et al.’s Q/Q0 values.  As mentioned in Section 5.4.2, Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) even admit that samples 5 and 6 may not contain radiogenic 4He:

“In fact, at present we are not certain whether the minute amounts of He recorded from the deepest zircons (3930 and 4310 m [samples 5 and 6]) are actually residual He in the zircons or derived from some other source.” [my emphasis]

Again, “derived from some other source” could mean extraneous helium or possibly interferences from the analytical equipment.

6.1.6 Evidence of Open Systems in the Fenton Hill Zircons

Zircons from a biotite granodiorite (Zartman, 1979) and overlying gneisses in the Fenton Hill core (Appendix A in Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 14) have discordant U/Pb dates, which indicate open system behavior for lead and/or uranium, and no doubt helium.  Open systems would not only mean that helium may flow out of zircons, but extraneous helium may have periodically flowed into them. 

6.1.7 Dr. Humphreys’ Proposed Field Studies are Unnecessary and Magmas aren’t Needed to Produce Extraneous Helium

Humphreys (2005b) mistakenly believes that any contamination of zircons with extraneous helium would require high temperature “magmatic fluids” and in particular “basaltic magmatic fluids.”  That is, Humphreys (2005b) erroneously claims that if I want to demonstrate the presence of extraneous helium in the Fenton Hill cores, I need to find “geological evidence that conduits of basalt (solidified volcanic magma [sic, by definition, magma is not extrusive]) presently exist within that distance of the borehole.”  Dr. Humphreys’ proposed field studies are completely unnecessary and Humphreys (2005b) wouldn’t be making these statements if he actually knew as much about geology as he claims in Humphreys (2013c) and if he had bothered to read the relevant literature and my proposed laboratory studies for detecting extraneous helium in his zircons, which were introduced in my original essay (also see Section 6.1.3).  While magmas can certainly release extraneous helium, extraneous helium may also originate from the massive portions of the mantle that are not molten (Goff and Gardner, 1994, p. 1816).  As previously mentioned, YECs Froede (2012, pp. 37-38) and Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 326-327) remind Dr. Humphreys about the possible presence of extraneous helium and argon at Fenton Hill and that the gases could come from the mantle and produce false dates for YECs as much as for uniformitarians. 

Extraneous helium can accumulate in minerals in the upper crust and perhaps eventually escape into the atmosphere (also see Baxter, 2003).  Specifically, Manning (2008, p. 1, 65-66) argues that helium in the groundwaters of the Española Basin, which is located just east of Fenton Hill, probably originated from uranium-rich minerals in the northeastern part of the basin and from deeper crustal- and mantle sources.  Extraneous helium may further accumulate in hydrothermal (“hot water”, but not magmatic) fluids through the leaching of helium from surrounding Precambrian rocks (Truesdell and Janik, 1986, p. 1827).  These fluids need not be as hot as magmatic temperatures, which are typically 650°C and higher.  For example, the Valles Caldera, which is only a few kilometers from Fenton Hill, currently has helium-bearing fluids that are only 260-295°C (Goff and Gardner, 1994, p. 1816).  Hydrothermal fluids may also deposit uranium-rich materials in rock fractures, which can be locally important sources of extraneous helium.  West and Laughlin (1976, p. 618) even detected uranium deposits in fractures of a biotite granodiorite in the GT-2 core.  Potentially, these deposits could have released extraneous helium into Dr. Humphreys’ nearby gneisses. 

Even if field studies were to locate evidence of extraneous helium at Fenton Hill, Dr. Humphreys would probably invoke some vague arm-waving excuses to reject the evidence just as he has done with the vast amounts of previous criticism of his work.  Instead of proposing superfluous field work, I stated in previous versions of this essay and now in Section 6.1.3 of this essay that Dr. Humphreys should have analyzed his zircons for extraneous helium.  But, once Dr. Humphreys thought that he got the “True answer” of 6,000 years from his zircons, he obviously stopped being interested in any further research. 

6.1.8 Extraneous Helium Identified in Nearby Valles Caldera

Helium-rich gas deposits and groundwaters occur in many areas of New Mexico, including in the Española Basin, which is located just east of Fenton Hill (Manning, 2008).  Some of the New Mexico gas deposits have such high concentrations of helium that they are valuable reserves (“extractable resources”).  In the Valles Caldera, which is only a few kilometers away from the Fenton Hill site, fluid samples collected in the 1980s from the Baca test wells contained significant extraneous helium.  In 1982, extraneous 4He ranged from 0.0183 cc/kg for Baca-15 to 0.1173 cc/kg for Baca-4 (or 0.0183 to 0.1173 ncc STP/μg) (Smith and Kennedy, 1985, p. 897). According to Goff and Gardner (1994, p. 1816), wells Baca-15 and Baca-4 are greater than 1,000 meters deep and have bottom temperatures of 267°C and 295°C, respectively.  In a later article, Truesdell and Janik (1986, their Table 8, p. 1831) report somewhat higher helium concentrations (about 0.2 ncc STP/μg) in Baca wells 13 and 4.  The extraneous helium concentrations in at least the Baca 4 well approach or exceed the helium concentrations that Humphreys et al. (2004) list for the zircons in samples 4-6 (my Table 3).  Unless Dr. Humphreys can thoroughly identify and subtract out any possible extraneous helium in his zircons and correct the other numerous problems with his work, no one should expect realistic results from his  “creation” and “uniformitarian” models.  

6.1.9 Dr. Humphreys’ Invalid Lyell Uniformitarianism

When dealing with the possibility of extraneous helium at Fenton Hill, Dr. Humphreys and his CreationWiki followers have an invalid Lyell uniformitarian mindset that YECs so often accuse scientists of possessing. 

In response to the possibility of extraneous helium in the Fenton Hill zircons and biotites, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 11-12) further states:

“A second uniformitarian line of defense might be to claim that the helium 4 concentration in the biotite or surrounding rock is presently about the same as it is in the zircons.  (Such a scenario would be very unusual, because the major source of 4He is U or Th series radioactivity in zircons or a few other minerals like titanite or apatite, but not biotite.)  The scenario would mean that essentially no diffusion into or out of the zircons is taking place.  However, our measurements (Appendix B) show that except for possibly samples 5 and 6, the concentration of helium in the biotite [sect. 6, between eqs. (7) and (8)] is much lower than in the zircons.  Diffusion always flows from greater to lesser concentrations.  Thus helium must be diffusing out of the zircons and into the surrounding biotite.”

Humphreys (2005b) makes a similar claim:

“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 [Humphreys et al.] 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.”

The authors of CreationWiki #1 (2011) and CreationWiki #3 (2009) also summarize and uncritically accept these faulty arguments from Dr. Humphreys. The author(s) of CreationWiki #3 (2009) is especially emotional and overconfident about denying the possibly of extraneous helium at Fenton Hill in the past.  Obviously, Dr. Humphreys and his CreationWiki followers have an invalid Lyell uniformitarian mindset that YECs so often accuse scientists of possessing.  That is, they falsely believe that if the helium concentrations in some of the surrounding biotites are now relatively low, then these concentrations must have always been low in the past.  Dr. Humphreys and his followers simply fail to realize that the zircons may have been contaminated with extraneous helium over a prolonged period in the remote past.  While abundant cleavage planes could have allowed extraneous helium to dissipate relatively quickly from biotites in the distant past, once the extraneous helium intruded into the zircons, the helium could substantially remain in the relatively impermeable zircons for longer periods of time (Section 6.1.11). That is, Dr. Humphreys and his followers fail to realize that the concentrations of gases in the subsurface of Fenton Hill, just like anywhere else, are likely to fluctuate over time.

After repeating Dr. Humphreys’ invalid Lyell uniformitarian argument, the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) adds the following nonsensical statement:

“In addition to this Q/Q0 decreases with depth as predicted by the zircons being the source, on the other hand, contamination would tend to produce the opposite pattern since the deeper zircons would have higher diffusion rates, it would tend to accumulate quicker in those at shallower depths.”

Extraneous helium, probably originating from the deep crust or mantle, happens to be more abundant in the deeper groundwaters at depths down to 700 meters in the Española Basin around Santa Fe, New Mexico (Manning, 2008, his Figure 56, p. 60, along with his Table 14, p. 58).  Besides the presence of extraneous helium from deep crustal and mantle sources, the amount of extraneous helium in any zircons would also depend on the uranium and thorium contents, mineralogy and permeability of their host and surrounding rocks.  For example, as previously mentioned, extraneous helium can also originate from uranium deposits that are known to locally occur in fractures within the Fenton Hill rocks (West and Laughlin, 1976, p. 618).  So, not all zircons may be equally exposed to extraneous helium and not all of the helium in the zircons may be extraneous.  That is, extraneous helium may cause the Q/Q0 values to show any trend with depth and, perhaps, no trend at all.  Until Dr. Humphreys or his supporters become responsible and actually measures the 3He/4He ratios of his zircons and looks for extraneous 4He in quartz and other low uranium and thorium minerals (Section 6.1.3), no one will know if this is a significant problem or not.

6.1.10 Evidence of Past Fluids in the Fenton Hill Rocks Refutes Dr. Humphreys’ Dry Lyell Uniformitarian Claims

Humphreys (2005b) improperly believes that fluids that might contain extraneous helium could not have flowed through the rocks of the Fenton Hill cores in the past because these rocks are currently “dry and well-consolidated.”  Once again, Dr. Humphreys shows his fallacious Lyell uniformitarian thinking (that is, because the rocks are now dry and impermeable, they must always have been dry and impermeable in the past).  However, if fluids did not migrate through the Fenton Hill cores sometime in the past, why are their fractures often filled with hydrothermal (“hot water”) minerals and inclusions (for example, Sasada, 1989), including uranium-rich materials that can produce extraneous 4He (West and Laughlin, 1976, p. 618)?  How did these hydrothermal minerals form under dry conditions?  If the subsurface of Fenton Hill was as dry as Dr. Humphreys claims, why are liquid-rich inclusions present in calcite veins at depths of 2624 meters (Sasada, 1989, p. 259; my Figure 13)?  Also, why do Laney et al. (1981) and Laughlin and Eddy (1977, p. 28) admit that the Fenton Hill cores were substantially altered by fluids?  How does the presence of fluid-altered grains support the undocumented proclamation in Humphreys (2005b) that fluids could not have traveled very far in the Fenton Hill Precambrian rocks because “the interface widths between minerals would be microscopic, perhaps only an Angstrom (the diameter of a hydrogen atom) or so”?  Where are Dr. Humphreys’ measurements that indicate that these interface widths are this narrow?  Even if these widths are currently extremely narrow, how does he know that they were this narrow in the past and again how does he explain that presence of fluid-altered minerals in the cores?  If the subsurface Precambrian rocks at Fenton Hill were under too much pressure to allow for the diffusion of extraneous helium, why did Manning (2008, p. 1, 65-66) conclude that faults within similar “basement” rocks of the nearby Española Basin could have been suitable conduits for extraneous helium?  Also, if Dr. Humphreys is willing to claim that subsurface pressures and “Ångström-wide interface widths” would hinder the flow of extraneous helium, why won’t he consider the possibility that these subsurface conditions might also hinder the diffusion of helium out of his zircons?  To answer these critical and often conflicting questions, Dr. Humphreys needs to stop the arm-waving and groundless speculations, and actually perform some high-pressure experiments (Section 6.2) and measure his zircons for possible extraneous helium. 

Years later, in a reply to Loechelt (2012), Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) seems to finally concede that hydrothermal fluids (“hot water”) had a role in the subsurface rocks of Fenton Hill: 

“He [Dr. Loechelt] is probably right in suggesting some of the heat came from the magma part-way to the site by means of hot water.”