Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?

Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?

by Greg Moore

Young-earth creationists are touting a research project they call Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, or RATE. They describe the RATE findings as astounding, successful beyond all expectation and history in the making.¹ Why are they so ecstatic? They claim RATE researchers have uncovered powerful evidence that confirms the Earth is young and demonstrates the old earth model is not supported by empirical science.²

This is a remarkable claim. Do the RATE findings invalidate the mainstream view of Earth history? Most of the issues the RATE team examined are technical, making it difficult for laypeople to evaluate the significance of their work. This paper attempts to provide a balanced assessment of the project so Christians can decide for themselves what the RATE findings contribute to the age of the earth debate.

Background

RATE was a joint venture between the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society (CRS).³ Answers in Genesis (AIG) also supported the project.⁴ The RATE team was comprised of seven scientists, all committed young-earth creationists: Dr. Steven Austin and Dr. Andrew Snelling, geologists; Dr. John Baumgardner, geophysicist; Dr. Eugene Chaffin, Dr. Donald DeYoung and Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist; and Dr. Larry Vardiman, a meteorologist who chaired the group.⁵

The goal of RATE was to challenge the mainstream view that radioisotope data confirms the Earth is billions of years old. The project was funded by donations of about $1.5 million and occurred in two phases.⁶ The first phase, the literature-searching and hypothesis-developing stage, took three years. Those results were reported in the 2000 book, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.⁷ The second phase, the research stage, took five years. Those results were reported in two 2005 books: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth-Volume II, a technical report, and Thousands...Not Billions, a popular version.⁸

Scientists believe billions of years of nuclear (radioactive) decay have occurred in Earth history. This is based on the quantity of daughter elements found in rocks and minerals. (Daughter elements come from the decay of radioactive elements). In the first phase of the project, the RATE team set out to challenge this proposition. What they expected to find was the quantity of daughter elements on the Earth was far less than scientists claim and consistent with thousands, rather than billions, of years of nuclear decay. Instead, they found the quantity of daughter elements is thousands of times greater than the young-earth model would predict.⁹

This finding led to the hypothesis that defined the second phase of the RATE project. To explain the abundance of daughter elements on the Earth, the RATE team surmised that nuclear decay must have been accelerated at some time in the past, resulting in the production of large quantities of daughter elements in a short period of time. Five research projects were selected to test this accelerated decay hypothesis.¹⁰ It is these studies that young-earth creationists claim provide powerful evidence of a recent creation.¹¹

Nuclear Decay

For those who are unfamiliar with the concept of nuclear decay and how scientists use daughter elements to determine the age of rocks, it is useful to begin with a brief primer.

There are currently 115 known elements and more than 2,000 different varieties of these elements called isotopes.¹² Most elements are stable and do not change. However, some elements are unstable and change through a process of nuclear, or radioactive, decay. Over time, the atoms emit particles and the element (called the parent element) changes to a new element (called the daughter element).¹³ For example, uranium-238 decays through a series of unstable isotopes until it ends up as lead-206, a stable daughter isotope that no longer decays.

Scientists believe nuclear decay occurs at a constant rate. The time it takes for half the atoms of the parent isotope to decay into the daughter isotope is known as the half-life of that parent isotope. By measuring the quantity of parent and daughter isotopes of an element in a rock and applying the half-life, scientists can determine the age of the rock. This is the process known as radiometric dating. Scientists have measured the half-lives of more than 40 radioactive isotopes (or radioisotopes), giving them over 40 different radiometric dating methods.¹⁴

For those wanting a more comprehensive explanation of nuclear decay and radiometric dating, see "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger Wiens. This paper describes in relatively simple terms how the dating techniques work, how accurately half-lives and rock ages are known, and how dating results are verified. It is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.¹⁵

The Research

The RATE research projects focused on five issues: helium diffusion rates, isochron discordance, radiohalos, fission tracks and nuclear decay theory.¹⁶ In order to judge the validity of the young-earth claims about RATE, it is important to examine what the RATE team was looking for, what they found, and the significance of their findings.

I. Helium Diffusion Rates 

Background

In the 1970s, researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory obtained rock samples from a site at Fenton Hill, New Mexico. The researchers extracted small crystals called zircons from several samples and measured the quantity of uranium and lead in them. (Lead is a daughter element of uranium). Based on the uranium and lead in the zircons, the rocks were radiometrically dated to about 1.5 billion years old.¹⁷

Other samples were sent to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory where researcher Robert Gentry measured the quantity of helium in the zircons. (Helium is a by-product of uranium decay that readily escapes, or diffuses, from rock.) He also estimated the quantity of helium that should have been produced by uranium decay from the quantity of lead in the zircons. By comparing these two values, Gentry concluded that 17 to 58 percent of the helium produced by uranium decay was still in the zircons.¹⁸

Gentry, a young-earth creationist, believed it was impossible for zircons to retain that much helium if the rocks were billions of years old. Thus, he concluded this was evidence the rocks were instantaneously created.¹⁹ Since the publication of Gentry's findings (1982), many young-earth creationists have agreed with him. However, because there were no conclusive measurements of the rate at which helium diffuses from zircon, there was no way to substantiate that belief.

The goal of this RATE study was to measure the helium diffusion rate in zircon.²⁰ What the RATE team expected to find was helium diffuses from zircons much too quickly for rocks containing helium to be billions of years old.²¹ They believed this would demonstrate the uranium decay (that produced the helium) must have occurred recently, thus supporting the accelerated decay hypothesis. Of the five RATE projects, this was given top priority.²²

Approach

The RATE team obtained rock samples from Fenton Hill at depths of 750 and 1,490 meters. One sample was sent to a laboratory that used several zircons to date the rock. Those results agreed with the earlier Los Alamos ages of about 1.5 billion years.²³ From the other samples, zircons were extracted and sent to a researcher to measure the helium diffusion rate. This was done by heating the zircons to various temperatures and measuring the rate at which the helium was "baked" out of the zircons.

The RATE team used this data, along with the results of other similar studies, to calculate helium diffusion rates over a wide range of depths and temperatures. Based on these diffusion rates and measurements of the quantity of helium in the zircons, they then determined how long helium diffusion had been taking place in the rock. Initially, they concluded this limited the age of the Fenton Hill rock to between 4,000 and 14,000 years.²⁴ This was later revised to 6,000 ± 2,000 years.²⁵

The RATE team claims these findings provide powerful support for the accelerated decay hypothesis. Because the quantity of lead in the zircons indicates billions of years of uranium decay has occurred, while the helium diffusion data indicates the rock is only thousands of years old, they contend over a billion years of nuclear decay must have occurred sometime in the last 6,000 years.²⁶

Discussion

A number of things cast suspicion on the RATE data. For example, the RATE team assumed all the helium in the zircons was radiogenic (from nuclear decay). However, Fenton Hill is located in a tectonically active area and adjacent to a massive volcanic system known as the Valles Caldera. Tectonic and volcanic events can release helium from the Earth's interior that can migrate to surrounding areas and increase the helium content of zircons. Because the RATE team didn't rule this out, their helium measurements are unreliable.²⁷

Second, the RATE helium diffusion measurements were obtained under a laboratory vacuum, rather than pressures consistent with the depths of the samples. More helium will diffuse from a bare zircon in a laboratory vacuum, than a zircon deep within the Earth. In fact, studies have shown gas diffusion rates may decrease by three to six orders of magnitude (1,000 to 1,000,000 times) if studies are performed under pressure rather than in a vacuum.²⁸ Thus, actual helium diffusion rates are likely much lower, making the rock much older than they determined.

Third, the RATE team assumed subsurface temperatures at Fenton Hill have been constant over time. However, the history of Fenton Hill includes numerous heating and cooling events. This is important because helium diffusion is also affected by temperature. During hot events, radiogenic helium can rapidly escape from rock. During cool events, nonradiogenic helium can contaminate the rock. As a result, the RATE constant-temperature assumption is too simplistic and ignores the role thermal variations can play in the helium content of the zircons.²⁹

Fourth, some of the RATE calculations appear to be faulty.³⁰ The RATE team also refers to the Fenton Hill samples as granodiorite-igneous rocks that crystallize from melts deep below the surface of the Earth.³¹ However, scientific literature indicates most of the Fenton Hill rock is gneisses-former igneous or sedimentary rocks that have been metamorphosed under relatively high temperature and pressure. Because gas diffusion rates can vary significantly for different types of rock, this could have introduced errors into their equations.³²

These are but a few of the issues that have been raised about this RATE project.³³ Scientific studies do not mean much until the results have been confirmed by other researchers. However, this is impossible because the research paper published by the RATE team lacks a thorough explanation of the methodology, including the assumptions made in the calculations and a full disclosure of all the data.³⁴ Given the small sample size and the lack of independent peer review, there is good reason to be cautious about the RATE findings. The study may provide the basis for further research, but not for drawing firm conclusions about helium diffusion in zircon.

II. Isochron Discordance

Background

Rocks that contain certain daughter elements usually contain nonradiogenic isotopes of that element (isotopes not from nuclear decay). In isochron dating, scientists determine the quantity of the parent isotope, daughter isotope and nonradiogenic isotope in a sample. They then plot the ratios of the parent and daughter element to the nonradiogenic isotope on a graph. From this, they can determine the quantity of the daughter element that was in the rock initially and, from that, the age of the rock.³⁵ There are two kinds of isochrons: mineral and whole rock. Mineral isochrons use samples consisting of a single mineral, whole rock isochrons use samples containing many different minerals. The agreement of whole rock and mineral isochrons usually indicates the age obtained is good and the rock system has not been disturbed.³⁶

The goal of this RATE study was to use several different isochron dating methods to date a body of igneous rock (rock formed from magma). What the RATE team expected to find was different dating techniques would produce different ages for the rock. The RATE team believed this discordance would demonstrate the constant decay rate assumption of radiometric dating is invalid, thus supporting the accelerated decay hypothesis.³⁷

Approach

The RATE team obtained rock samples from the Beartooth Mountains of Wyoming and the Bass Rapids sill in the Grand Canyon. The Beartooth Mountain rock consisted of a single sample; the Bass Rapids rock eleven samples. The samples were sent to commercial laboratories and dated using four dating techniques: potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium and lead-lead. Both whole rock and mineral isochrons were performed on most of the samples.³⁸

The published age for the Beartooth Mountain rock is 2.79 billion ± 35 million years (based on rubidium-strontium whole rock isochron dating).³⁹ The RATE results were:

• potassium-argon whole rock isochron age of 2.01 billion ± 45 million years and mineral isochron ages of 1.52 billion ± 31 million years to 2.62 billion ± 53 million years;
• rubidium-strontium mineral isochron age of 2.52 billion ± 110 million years;
• lead-lead mineral isochron age of 2.69 billion ± 9 million years; and
• samarium-neodymium mineral isochron age of 2.89 ± 190 million years.⁴⁰

The published age for the Bass Rapids rock is 1.07 billion ± 30 million years (again based on rubidium-strontium whole rock isochron dating).⁴¹ The RATE results were:

• potassium-argon whole rock isochron age of 841 ± 164 million years;
• rubidium-strontium whole rock isochron age of 1.06 billion ± 46 million years and mineral isochron ages of 1.01 billion ± 79 million years to 1.08 billion ± 34 million years;
• lead-lead whole rock isochron age of 1.25 billion ± 130 years and mineral isochron age of 1.33 billion ± 230 million years; and
• samarium-neodymium mineral isochron ages of 1.33 billion ± 360 million years to 1.38 billion ± 140 million years.⁴²

The RATE team claims these findings demonstrate the constant-decay-rate assumption of radiometric dating is invalid. They contend the scatter in the ages obtained by the various dating techniques is evidence decay rates were greater in the past with different isotopes experiencing different levels of accelerated decay.⁴³

Discussion

This study is based on the premise that radiometric dating techniques must always yield concordant ages for radiometric dating to be valid. Most often, radiometric dating results do agree. However, the Earth's surface is constantly being rearranged through volcanism, tectonics and erosion. Such rearranging cannot occur without impacting some of the isotopes in rocks.⁴⁴ As a result, it is perfectly reasonable that different isotope systems will yield different ages when rock has experienced certain geologic events. Both the Beartooth Mountains and the Bass Rapids sill are known to yield discordant ages based on previous studies.⁴⁵

The history of the Beartooth Mountains includes numerous heating and metamorphic events.⁴⁶ Rock that has undergone metamorphism (recrystallization) is known to produce discordant dating results because heat scrambles the isotope systems.⁴⁷ As a result, the Beartooth Mountain results are about what would be predicted.⁴⁸ The samarium-neodymium system produced an older age (although within the error margins of the published age) because it is resistant to heat. The potassium-argon system produced a younger age because argon gas escapes and the clock is reset when rock is heated. Likewise, the lead-lead mineral isochron yielded a younger age because uranium and lead are not well retained in many minerals. The reason the rubidium-strontium mineral isochron yielded a younger age is strontium does not fit well into the crystal structure of some minerals.⁴⁹

For the Bass Rapids rock, the situation is entirely different. The Bass Rapids sill was formed when magma (lava) intruded earlier rock and solidified. This is the event that set the clock for most of the isotope systems. Thus, rather than exhibiting discordance, nearly all of the ages fall within the error margins of the published age.⁵⁰ One exception is the potassium-argon system that yielded a younger age and can be attributed to argon loss during subsequent events in the area. The other exception is the samarium-neodymium method that yielded older ages. Because this isotope system is more resistant to heat, this is likely the minimum age of the source of the flows that produced the Bass Rapids sill.

A few examples of discordant dating results do not prove radiometric dating is invalid. All they indicate is the dating methods are not infallible because each isotope system has unique characteristics.⁵¹ To prove radiometric dating is invalid, the RATE team must demonstrate different dating methods produce different ages most of the time. This is a tall order because tens of thousands of well-documented radiometric measurements have been conducted on rock from around the world with concordant results.⁵² Given the body of evidence that supports radiometric dating, the results for a handful of samples from two locations are statistically meaningless.

III. Radiohalos

Background

Some minerals have crystal structures that can accommodate varying amounts of uranium. When these minerals are enclosed in certain other minerals, they can develop spherical discolorations called radiohalos. Radiohalos are caused by radiation damage and often consist of several concentric rings. They form as the temperature of the magma drops below about 150°C (known as the annealing temperature). If the rock is later reheated above the annealing temperature, the radiohalos disappear as the crystal atoms realign themselves and repair the defects.⁵³

Radiohalos are well known in geological literature and were brought to prominence by the 1980 book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, by Robert Gentry.⁵⁴ Gentry, a young-earth creationist, believed radiohalo rings represent different isotopes because the alpha particles emitted by the isotopes in the uranium decay chain have different energies and travel different distances.⁵⁵ Thus, he proposed that radiohalos from the decay of uranium-238 could be classified into four types: a single-ringed halo corresponding to polonium-210, a two-ringed halo corresponding to polonium-214, a three-ringed halo corresponding to polonium-218, and an eight-ringed halo corresponding to uranium-238.⁵⁶

Based on this classification, Gentry identified what he called "parentless" polonium radiohalos-polonium halos with no uranium rings. Gentry claimed these radiohalos could only have formed after the minerals had cooled below the annealing temperature and before the polonium decayed away. Given the short half lives of the three polonium isotopes (three minutes for polonium-218, 164 microseconds for polonium-214 and 138 days for polonium-210), Gentry concluded parentless polonium radiohalos were powerful evidence the rock was instantaneously created during the Creation week.⁵⁷

The goal of this RATE study was to determine the geological distribution of parentless polonium radiohalos and their relationship to the other radiohalos. The RATE team believed these findings would allow them to make inferences about the process of radiohalo formation to support the accelerated decay hypothesis.⁵⁸

Approach

The RATE team obtained samples from three types of rock: Precambrian granite which they classify as pre-Flood rock, Paleozoic/Mesozoic granite which they classify as Flood rock, and Cenozoic granite which they classify as post-Flood rock. Biotite (a mineral in the mica family) was removed from the samples and separated into thin layers. These flakes were then mounted on slides and examined for radiohalos.⁵⁹

The RATE team found the Paleozoic/Mesozoic samples contained significantly more radiohalos than the Precambrian and Cenozoic samples-both uranium radiohalos and parentless polonium radiohalos. They claim this is powerful evidence of accelerated decay during the Flood. They contend the large number of parentless polonium radiohalos in the Paleozoic/Mesozoic samples is evidence the rock formed very rapidly (based on the half-lives of the polonium isotopes); while the uranium radiohalos in the samples indicate at least 100 million years of radioactive decay occurred during the Flood.⁶⁰

Discussion

There are a number of things to consider about this study. First, the RATE team assumed Gentry's classification of radiohalos is reliable. However, the correlation of radiohalo rings with specific isotopes in the uranium decay chain is actually quite speculative. There is no evidence radiohalos are the product of alpha particle decay and radiohalos have a number of features which cannot be reconciled with Gentry's model.⁶¹ As a result, any conclusions based on Gentry's classification must be considered tentative.

Second, scientists believe so-called parentless polonium radiohalos result from the migration of radon-222 in rock.⁶² (Radon-222 is a decay product of uranium and a precursor to the polonium). The RATE team agrees with this view. However, they contend the radon migration had to occur while the granite was cooling; then once the radon decayed to polonium, the temperature of the rock had to drop below the annealing temperature for the polonium radiohalos to form. Based on the short half-lives of radon (3.8 days) and the polonium isotopes (seconds to days), they conclude the Paleozoic/Mesozoic granite had to form in a matter of days.⁶³

The problem with the RATE timetable is the migration of uranium decay series isotopes (including radon) is known to occur in solid rock.⁶⁴ As a result, there is no time restriction on when the radon migration could have occurred. Equally important, the Paleozoic/Mesozoic samples contained mature uranium radiohalos, often in close proximity to the polonium radiohalos.⁶⁵ These uranium radiohalos indicate the rock must have cooled below the annealing temperature long before the polonium radiohalos formed (since radon and polonium come from the decay of uranium).

Third, the RATE conclusions hinge on their classification of the Paleozoic/Mesozoic strata as Flood rock. While the RATE team admits the exact boundaries of how the geologic column relates to the Flood are still under investigation,⁶⁶ for the purposes of this study they claim:

• Precambrian rock (dated 4.5 billion to 543 million years old) is pre-Flood deposits,
• Paleozoic rock (dated 543 to 248 million years old) is early Flood deposits,
• Mesozoic rock (dated 248 to 65 million years old) is mid to late Flood deposits, and
• Cenozoic rock (dated 65 million years old to present) is late and post Flood deposits.⁶⁷

However, such a division is unworkable. The Precambrian contains only simple sea creatures, the Paleozoic contains insects and small primitive land creatures, the Mesozoic contains fossils of every dinosaur, and the Cenozoic contains the vast majority of mammal fossils. Therefore, based on the fossil record, dinosaurs would have survived global floodwaters for over six months and mammals for nearly a year.⁶⁸ Such a scenario is unbelievable, but it is totally absurd when accelerated decay is added to the equation. If a burst of millions of years of decay occurred early in the Flood, the heat from the radiation would have been many tens of thousands of degrees and the Earth would have been molten.⁶⁹ Obviously, any water on the surface would have vaporized any water on the surface of the Earth, ruling out the possibility of a global flood.

Fourth, the RATE team contends the small number of radiohalos in the Precambrian (pre-Flood) granite is due to the fact the rock was heated above the annealing temperature during the Flood.⁷⁰ However, according to the RATE model, this granite would only have been a few thousand years old at the time of the Flood. As a result, nearly all of the original uranium-238 would have still been in the rock (due to its long half life). Therefore, if accelerated decay occurred early in the Flood, this rock should contain a comparable number of radiohalos as the Flood rock because it would have experienced a similar level of accelerated uranium decay.

The RATE conclusions are based on a compounded set of assumptions. These assumptions are not derived from empirical data, but from the young-earth view of Earth history. Until the RATE team can demonstrate the validity of these assumptions, the study findings do little to prove the accelerated decay hypothesis.

IV. Fission Tracks

Background

Fission tracks are caused by radiation damage to the crystal structure of certain minerals. They form when an unstable atom, usually uranium-238, undergoes fission. The fragments emitted by this process fly apart through the mineral and leave trails of damage. These fission tracks have a tubular shape and can be observed through a microscope.⁷¹ Like radiohalos, fission tracks disappear when rock is heated to the annealing temperature (around 200° C for zircon).⁷² Thus, fission track dating reveals the time since the rock last cooled below the annealing temperature which may, or may not, coincide the formation age of the rock. This is useful for investigating the thermal history of rock.⁷³

To use fission tracks to date a rock, an interior surface of a sample is polished and etched with an acid solution so the tracks are visible through a microscope. Researchers then count the number of fission tracks within a certain area of the sample. Next, the sample is heated and irradiated (bombarded with neutrons) to induce uranium fission which produces new fission tracks. Researchers then count the number of new tracks (within the same area) to determine the uranium content of the sample. The ratio of original tracks to new tracks is similar to knowing the daughter and parent atoms in a rock and is used to calculate the age.

The goal of this RATE study was to conduct fission track analyses on samples of Flood rock. The RATE team planned to use this data to estimate nuclear decay rates during the Flood to support the accelerated decay hypothesis.⁷⁴

Approach

The RATE team obtained samples of tuff from the Grand Canyon Colorado Plateau region. (Tuff is volcanic ash that has been cemented to solid rock.) Three samples consisted of Paleozoic rock which they classify as early Flood deposits, six samples consisted of Mesozoic rock which they classify as mid to late Flood deposits, and three samples consisted of Cenozoic rock which they classify as late to post Flood deposits. A commercial laboratory extracted zircon crystals from the samples and conducted fission track analyses on them.⁷⁵

The RATE team found the fission track results for the Mesozoic and Cenozoic samples were in close agreement with published ages of the rock.⁷⁶ However, the fission track ages for the Paleozoic samples varied significantly from the published age of the formation. Fission track dating produced a likely age of 60 to 75 million years, while the published age of the rock is 540 to 560 million years.⁷⁷

The RATE team claims this supports the accelerated decay hypothesis because the published age of the Paleozoic samples indicates over 500 million years of accelerated uranium-238 decay occurred during the early stages of the Flood. They also contend fission tracks are evidence for a recent creation because just hundreds of degrees are sufficient to erase the tracks and it is unlikely the rock could have remained cool for vast ages of time.⁷⁸

Discussion

The fission track ages for the Paleozoic rock agree with the geologic history of the Grand Canyon Colorado Plateau region. The RATE samples consisted of Mauv Limestone and Tapeats Sandstone.⁷⁹ These were deposited by an inland sea around 530 million years ago.⁸⁰ This is the time period the published age corresponds to. About 75 million years ago, major uplift of the region began as part an event that created the Rocky Mountains (known as the Laramide orogeny). The heat from this event would have erased any previous fission tracks and reset the zircons to a zero fission track age. This is the time period the fission track ages correspond to.⁸¹

While the RATE team implies that the discordance between the fission track age and published age of the Paleozoic rock is problematic, they acknowledge that fission track dating does not give the full age of a sample. They also admit that the fission track ages for the Paleozoic rock may be correlated with the uplift of the Colorado Plateau region.⁸² In fact, the RATE conclusions really have nothing do with the dating results. Instead, they are based on two suppositions. First, that Paleozoic rock formed early in the Flood, approximately 4,500 years ago.⁸³ Second, that the Paleozoic rock could not have remained cool for millions of years.⁸⁴ However, neither claim is supported by the study data.

The RATE team does not dispute the efficacy of fission track dating. Therefore, if the RATE suppositions are valid, fission track dating of the Paleozoic rock should have yielded ages of around 4,500 years. The fact it didn't demonstrates the rock is much older than they contend. The dating results also establish that tectonic events following the Laramide uplift did not produce temperatures sufficient to erase the fission tracks; otherwise, the tracks would have reset to a younger age. Thus, the RATE findings contradict the claim that the rock could not have remained cool for millions of years.

Some might contend that the fission track ages for the Paleozoic rock are the result of accelerated decay. However, such an event would have heated the rock far above the annealing temperature. Therefore, the fission tracks could only have formed after that event, when decay rates had returned to normal. As a result, the fission track results the RATE team obtained for the Paleozoic rock cannot be attributed to a burst of nuclear decay, leaving little grounds to dispute those ages. This indicates that, if decay was accelerated as the RATE team claims, the event must have occurred over 60 to 75 million years ago based on their findings.

It should also be noted that the RATE team only examined Flood rock (based on their classification of the geologic column). Fission tracks are also found in Precambrian rock in the Grand Canyon (pre-Flood rock based their classification) and yield ages of over a billion years.⁸⁵ According to RATE model, this rock would have been located at, or near, the surface at the time of the Flood. Therefore, if nuclear decay was accelerated early in the Flood, it would have been heated above the annealing temperature, erasing any previous fission tracks. As a result, the fission tracks in the Precambrian rock should yield ages comparable to the Paleozoic rock. The fact it yields much older ages would seem to contradict the accelerated decay hypothesis.

It is common for fission track ages to disagree with the absolute ages of rock. Such discordance merely indicates the rock has experienced heating events following its formation. This is precisely what the RATE data reveals. Rather than supporting a recent creation and the accelerated decay hypothesis, the study findings agree perfectly with the mainstream view of the geologic history of the Grand Canyon Colorado Plateau region.

V. Nuclear Decay Theory

Background

The accelerated decay hypothesis represents an entirely new paradigm that challenges the mainstream view of nature. If it is correct, nuclear decay rates must have been increased by as much as a billion-fold in some cases. Therefore, in order for the hypothesis to be taken seriously, it must be demonstrated that nuclear decay on such a massive scale is feasible.

One problem is there is no known mechanism that can account for such an enormous change in nuclear half-lives. Radioactive atoms have been subjected to extremes of pressure, temperature, chemical alteration, magnetism and electric fields in an attempt to modify nuclear half-lives. Those results indicate half-lives are very stable and those that do change usually change by only a few percent or less.⁸⁶ This is not nearly the magnitude required by the RATE model.

A second problem is the impact of such an event on the Earth. Calculations indicate the heat generated by a burst of accelerated nuclear decay would be many tens of thousands of degrees-hotter than the surface of the sun and sufficient to vaporize entire rock masses.⁸⁷ The radiation would also be lethal to creatures on the Earth. Thus, the RATE team must explain how Noah's family and the animals aboard the ark were able to survive such an event (and other creatures according to the local Flood view).

The goal of this RATE project was to conduct a search of scientific literature to develop plausible models for accelerated nuclear decay and offer possible solutions to the heat and radiation problem.

Approach

The RATE team proposes two mechanisms for accelerated decay. The first focuses on the alpha decay process where an alpha particle is emitted. The second focuses on the beta decay process where a beta particle is emitted.

The alpha decay proposal involves what is known as the nuclear potential well. This "well" represents the forces that bind an atom together and the energy an alpha particle must achieve to escape the atom. Based on theoretical calculations of changes to the well, the RATE team found a ten percent decrease in well depth (the radius of the atom) could decrease half-lives by as much as 100 million, while a ten percent increase in alpha particle energy could decrease half-lives by 100,000 times. Therefore, the RATE team hypothesizes that rapid nuclear decay could have been caused by temporary changes to the well depth and alpha particle energy for the various radioactive isotopes.⁸⁸

The beta decay proposal involves what is known as "string theory." This theory postulates that all matter consists of tiny vibrating loops of energy, trillions of times smaller than atoms. These "strings" are in the fabric of space-time and may involve as many ten extra hidden dimensions. According to string theory, there is a direct relationship between the size of these hidden dimensions and the Fermi constant that governs the interaction of the elementary particles in an atom. Because the rate of beta decay is very sensitive to the Fermi constant, the RATE team hypothesizes that beta decay could have been accelerated by small, temporary adjustments to the size of the hidden dimensions.⁸⁹

To deal with the enormous heat that would be generated by a tremendous burst of accelerated decay, the RATE team proposes a concept called "cosmological cooling." This is highly theoretical and involves general relativity, higher dimensions and a rapid expansion of space. Simply put, the RATE team hypothesizes that a temporary universal stretching of space occurred during the Flood-an expansion 20-fold times or greater-and the heat generated by accelerated nuclear decay was drawn into the fabric of space.⁹⁰

Finally, regarding the radiation issue, the RATE team claims the Flood waters would have provided some protection from accelerated underground radiation. However, they admit this would not be sufficient to limit the level of two radioactive elements in the environment which living creatures are very sensitive to: potassium-40 and carbon-14. Therefore, they hypothesize that creatures living at the time of the Flood did not incorporate significant amounts of potassium-40 into their bodies and the level of carbon-14 decay was much lower than the other radioactive isotopes.⁹¹

Discussion

The RATE claim that nuclear decay rates were millions or billions of times greater in the past is not a minor issue. Such a change in decay rates would require a variation in the fundamental forces of nature and the relationship of matter and energy itself. In fact, if nuclear decay rates were accelerated, the RATE findings are meaningless. Under such a condition, we really cannot know with certainty the past decay rate of any isotope or isotope series and it becomes impossible to assign any significance to any radiometric data or phenomena.⁹¹

Both mechanisms the RATE team has proposed for accelerated decay are extremely speculative. For the alpha decay hypothesis to be valid, the well depth and alpha particle energy for each radioactive isotope would have to be individually adjusted. The same issue applies to the beta decay hypothesis. Temporary adjustments to the size of the hidden dimensions would have to be individually adjusted for each isotope to produce the required changes in the Fermi constant.⁹³ There is no known means for how such individualized adjustments could have occurred naturally, nor has the RATE team proposed any.⁹⁴ As a result, until the RATE team addresses this issue, these cannot be considered credible models.

The cosmological cooling hypothesis is equally speculative. While a stretching of the space around the Earth sounds impressive, it creates more problems than it solves. Such an enormous, universal expansion of space would alter the fine-tuned parameters that make life possible on the Earth. For example, the fine-tuning of the Sun-Moon-Earth system would be disrupted, the interior of the sun would dramatically cool and nuclear burning would be shut off for a period of time, and other things. Even the RATE team admits such an extreme alteration of the physical universe might drop the temperature too far resulting in a frozen Earth.⁹⁵ Thus, not only is there is no evidence of such a stretching of space in the past 6,000 years, but it is unlikely anything on Earth would have survived such an event.

Finally, the RATE hypothesis that radiation poisoning was not a problem because creatures living at the time of the Flood did not incorporate significant levels of potassium-40 into their bodies is pure conjecture. If today's creatures are extremely sensitive to current level of potassium-40 in the environment, it is difficult to imagine that creatures living a few thousand years ago (based on their model) would have been able to survive a 500-million-year burst of potassium decay.⁹⁶ Before this proposal can be taken seriously, the RATE team must identify the biological mechanism(s) that would have allowed creatures to survive such levels of potassium-40 and explain why subsequent generations of creatures lost this special ability.

[The RATE proposal that carbon-14 poisoning was not a problem because carbon-14 decay was relatively modest is based on a study conducted by one of the RATE team members. Basically, they claim the carbon-14 found in fossil fuels demonstrates carbon-14 decay was minimal. They also claim the carbon-14 in the pre-Flood world was greatly diluted because there was much more carbon-12 than today. Those issues will be discussed in the next section.]

The problems facing the RATE accelerated decay hypothesis are mind-boggling. While the RATE team contends these problems are not insurmountable, they also admit they are nowhere close to solving them.⁹⁷ This is a striking admission after five years of research. Until the RATE team puts forth a workable model that offers tangible solutions to these things, accelerated decay remains an interesting, but dubious, concept.

Other Issues

The RATE team also examined carbon-14 dating. Although this was not one of the five original RATE projects, their findings were included in the RATE book.⁹⁸ For this reason, a brief discussion of this issue is warranted.

Background

There are two stable carbon isotopes on Earth: carbon-12 and carbon-13. There are also tiny amounts of the unstable (radioactive) isotope carbon-14. Most carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere as cosmic rays hit nitrogen atoms.⁹⁹ Carbon-12 and carbon-14 are continually taken into living organisms. Because the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio in the environment is fairly constant, the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio in living things is also relatively constant.

However, when an organism dies, it stops incorporating carbon into its tissues and the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio changes as the carbon-14 decays away. Thus, scientists can date material from formerly living things by determining the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio of the material. This is the process known as carbon-14 dating.¹⁰⁰ Because the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, the current maximum radiocarbon dating limit lies between 58,000 and 62,000 years (approximately ten half-lives). This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual carbon-14 is too low to be distinguished from background radiation.¹⁰¹

Approach

The RATE team examined ten samples of coal dated to the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras (which they classify as Flood deposits) and 12 diamonds. Both contained detectable levels of carbon-14. The RATE team contends this is strong evidence for a young earth because all of the carbon-14 should have decayed away if coal and diamonds are hundreds of millions of years old as mainstream scientists claim. They maintain the carbon-14 is from biomass (plants and animals) that was buried during the Flood (approximately 4,500 years ago based on their chronology).¹⁰²

The RATE team claims the reason carbon-14 dating of coal and diamonds yields ages of hundreds of millions of years is carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio scientists use in the dating calculations is incorrect. They maintain that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 was less during pre-Flood times because the biomass was much greater than today (i.e., there were many more plants and animals prior to the Flood)-as a result, there was more carbon-12 in the biosphere and the carbon-14 was greatly diluted because it was absorbed by more living things. By applying what they believe to be a more accurate carbon-12/carbon-14 ratio, they obtained carbon-14 ages for coal and diamonds of a few thousand years.¹⁰³

Discussion

The RATE claim that the pre-Flood biomass was greater than today is based on the young-earth view that nearly all the plants and animals in the fossil record were killed by the Flood. The problem with this view is there are far too many animal fossils to represent a single generation of creatures that was on the Earth simultaneously. Based on the number of creatures in the fossil record, conservative estimates indicate there would have been at least 2,100 animals per acre and the Earth simply could not support that many organisms.¹⁰⁴ In addition, if the fossil record is a result of the Flood, one would expect to find a conglomeration of creatures in the so-called "Flood layers." Instead, the layers contain very distinct creatures.

To support the contention that the pre-Flood carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio was lower, the RATE team points to the fact that the total carbon found in fossil fuels is at least 100 times greater than the total carbon found in the world today.¹⁰⁵ Again, this is based on the young-earth view of the Flood. They believe these deposits formed from biomass that was buried by the Flood, thus all the carbon they contain was in the pre-Flood world. Of course, if these deposits were formed over millions of years as mainstream scientists contend, they are the accumulation of millions of years of carbon. Thus, the RATE claim of a lower pre-Flood carbon14/carbon-12 ratio is not something rooted in empirical science, but a function of their Flood model.

Scientists have found fossil fuels vary widely in carbon-14 content. Some have no detectable carbon-14; some have quite a lot. This correlates with the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly uranium-thorium decay series isotopes. As a result, most scientists believe carbon-14 in fossil fuels comes from the local decay of radioactive isotopes. Another hypothesis that is being explored is carbon-14 is produced by bacteria that grow in fossil fuels. Although it has not been demonstrated these organisms produce carbon-14, researchers believe it is very likely because they are known to produce other isotopes of carbon.¹⁰⁶

Carbon-14 found in diamonds can also be attributed to outside sources. Diamonds form deep inside the Earth from virtually pure graphite/carbon. Because diamonds excavated from mines have not been exposed to the atmosphere, any carbon-14 they contain cannot be from the environment. Rather, it must come from the decay of nearby radioactive isotopes during, or after, the diamonds are formed. Therefore, radiation from uranium or other heavy metals must convert the carbon, or trace impurities like nitrogen, to carbon-14. For diamonds found on the Earth's surface, there is a different explanation. Once diamonds are on the surface, they are exposed to cosmic rays that cause conversions that can produce carbon-14.¹⁰⁷ In fact, the RATE data seems to confirm this because the diamonds from mines had lower carbon-14 levels than those from Placer deposits-diamonds found in streams and exposed to cosmic rays.¹⁰⁸

It should also be noted that the quantity of carbon-14 the RATE study found in the diamonds was extremely small, about one-third the level they found in the coal samples. This was detected by a technique known as accelerator mass spectrometry, or AMS, that counts the number of carbon-14 atoms. Because carbon-14 is present in the environment, there are many potential sources of trace amounts of carbon-14 and the levels detected could be the result of sample contamination and/or machine noise.¹⁰⁹

This RATE study poses no serious challenge to mainstream science. While little research has been conducted on the source of the carbon-14 in coal and diamonds, there are plausible explanations for its existence. Even the smallest amount of radioactive decay, exposure to cosmic rays, or contamination can account for the miniscule levels of carbon-14 the RATE team found. In addition, scientists have studied a wide variety of sources that record the history of carbon levels on the Earth. Not only is there no evidence of vastly different carbon levels prior to the Flood (4,500 years ago based on their model), but there is no indication of any significant event that altered carbon ratios over the past 20,000-plus years.¹¹⁰

Conclusion

Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old.¹¹¹ This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old.

Are the RATE findings sufficient grounds to reject mainstream science? What is known to science is radioactive decay would produce the quantity of daughter products on the Earth in a timescale of millions or billions of years. Unknown to science and lacking any independent verification is the idea that nuclear decay rates were accelerated in the past by five orders of magnitude (100,000 times) or more.¹¹² Thus, we are faced with a choice: either we can accept the vast majority of radiometric data that indicates the Earth is very old, or we can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old based on a handful of anomalous results. Looking at the data objectively, the RATE research does not meet the burden of proof necessary to demonstrate that radiometric dating is fallacious.

Some may contend that God accelerated decay rates supernaturally, so the evidence lies beyond the limits of scientific inquiry. That is possible. As the Creator, God is certainly capable of altering the laws of nature. However, such a claim is an argument from silence. The Bible says nothing about God changing nuclear decay rates during the Flood, or of God intervening in the world to safeguard His creatures from the lethal heat and radiation. Nor do the Flood chapters describe a cataclysm of the proportion required by the accelerated decay model, or that Noah found the Earth had been radically changed when he emerged from the ark. Thus, those who make such an appeal are reading something into the biblical text.

For young-earth creationists, there is an additional problem. Young-earth creationists have consistently maintained decay was not part of the original creation, but something God instituted at the Fall (i.e., at Adam and Eve's sin).¹¹³ This is a bedrock principle of the "no-death-before-the-Fall" theology. However, according to the accelerated decay hypothesis, some accelerated decay must have occurred during the creation week, long before Adam and Eve were created. Therefore, young-earth creationists who support the accelerated decay model will have to abandon, or revamp, that theology.

The RATE team has raised some interesting issues and perhaps the accelerated decay hypothesis holds promise. However, it is not only premature, but irresponsible, for young-earth creationists to claim RATE proves anything. Even the RATE team admits the hypothesis creates huge scientific and theological problems they are nowhere close to solving, and additional research is needed on nearly every issue they examined.¹¹⁴ Such a rush to judgment not only reflects poorly on the young-earth creationists making these claims, but also on the Christian community as a whole. To paraphrase the great Christian theologian Augustine, how can we expect unbelievers to trust our statements about spiritual things if we make outlandish statements about worldly things?¹¹⁵ Obviously, we can't. Thus, it is our public witness we should be most concerned about, not promoting our sectarian views of the age of the earth.