Re: [asa] RATE's Radioactive Thorium Plot (was Ancient Universe)

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Sat May 19 2007 - 07:48:28 EDT

As a public service, I've put some images of the graphs up at:

When you get to the page, click on "Slideshow" and you'll get an animated
commentary on what happens at each stage.

- unusual aside "Tohuwabohu" is a German colloquial word for messy chaos.
A German friend of mine had not seen it written down, but pronounced it
"Towabou". She was unaware of the Hebrew origins of the word.


On 5/19/07, Michael Roberts <> wrote:
> Thank you for this superb exposition of the most profound work ever
> produced on Radiometric age-dating.
> For that you deserve an honorary D.Sc from Liberty College
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Steven M Smith <>
> *To:* ;
> *Cc:*
> *Sent:* Friday, May 18, 2007 11:15 PM
> *Subject:* [asa] RATE's Radioactive Thorium Plot (was Ancient Universe)
> Apologies for the late response on this thread. I am about a week behind
> in reading posts on the ASA list.
> On Sunday, May 13, 2007, Robert Schneider asked ...
> >> Has the RATE team come up with a graph plotting the rate
> >> of decrease of radioactive thorium? Enquiring minds want to
> >> know. (With apologies to The Vicar--but I'm a Lay Reader.)
> On Monday, May 14 2007, Randy Isaac replied ...
> > The RATE Vol. II report has five entries for thorium in its
> > index. Four of those pertain to references that have the word
> > thorium in the title of the article. The other simply mentions
> > that where thorium radiohaloes are found, they are far
> > outnumbered by uranium radiohaloes. I could not find a
> > reference to thorium in their chapter on isochron discordances.
> Although I have not read the RATE Vol. II report, I was asked by a friend
> to read and comment on RATE's summary book for the layman reader --
> "Thousands ... not Billions." The thorium graph that you want to see was
> NOT in that book either. However, from the information given in this book
> we can easily construct a general graph that illustrates the increase in
> decay rates for any of the long lived radioisotopes (V-50, Nd-144, Hf-174,
> Pt-192, In-115, Gd-152, Te-123, Pt-190, La-138, Sm-147. Rb-87, Re-187,
> Lu-176, Th-232, U-238, K-40, or U-235).
> Because of the limitations of my email account and the ASA archives, I am
> going to briefly describe how to construct the graph. On a piece of paper
> draw a vertical line for our X axis. Label the bottom as 0 and the top of
> the line as 4.65 billion years. Title this X axis "Apparent Radioisotope
> Age". RATE admits that today's Apparent Radioisotope Age of the Earth is
> actually about 4.65 billion years.
> Now from 0 on the X axis draw a horizontal line to the right for our Y
> axis. Label the left end of the line 0 and the right end as 6,000 years.
> Title this Y axis "RATE Determined Age". RATE also determined that the
> true age of the Earth is only about 6,000 years. ("One principle agreed on
> by all the RATE members is that the earth is young, on the order of 6,000
> years old. This is not simply a working hypothesis to be tested as to
> whether it is true or false. Instead, it is a basic conclusion drawn from
> the biblical record of creation as written by the only One who was present,
> God himself." p. 174).
> In The Beginning, both our Apparent Radioisotope Age and our RATE
> Determined Age would be 0. So for our graph, plot a point at the origin.
> On page 138 of "Thousands ... not Billions", Don DeYoung tells us: "The
> RATE research concludes that the primary explanation for the large amount of
> daughter products now present in the earth's rocks are two periods of highly
> accelerated nuclear decay, with about 90 percent of the total occurring
> during the early part of creation week ... " Earlier in the book, we are
> told that this burst of accelerated nuclear decay probably took place on
> Days 1 & 2 of Creation. This gives us our second point on the graph. On
> Day 2 (or about 0.005 years on the "RATE Determined Age" Y axis) plot a
> point at about 4.1 billion years for the "Apparent Radioisotope Age".
> Using a rounded figure of 1,500 years between Creation and the Flood and
> the rest of DeYoung's statement ("... and the remainder during the year of
> the Genesis flood.") we can finish our graph. For a RATE Determined Age of
> 1,500 years plot another point at 4.1 billion years for the Apparent
> Radioisotope Age. (The actual age would be 4.1 billion plus 1,500 years
> but that just rounds to 4.1 B.Y. on our graph). Then because of the
> second burst of decay, in RATE year 1,501 we can put a point at 4.65billion years for the Apparent Radioisotope Age. Finally our last point is
> plotted at 6,000 years for RATE and 4.65 billion years for the "Apparent
> Radioisotope Age".
> When finished you should have a graph with 2 stair steps. For those you
> want to know how this fits in the Geologic Time Scale, label the first step
> as Precambrian and the second step as "Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic
> combined". The guts of your graph should look something like this ...
> (unless web formatting destroys my 'artwork').
> __________|"Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic combined
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | Precambrian
> |
> |
> |
> |
> And that's it. That is the main conclusion drawn by the RATE team from
> their $1.25 million project.
> Steve
> (Blame me and not my employer for these statements.)
> _____________
> Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey
> Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
> Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200
> Email:
> -USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-

After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 19 07:49:04 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 19 2007 - 07:49:06 EDT