<p>Any mineral grain that contained original atoms of U-238 (the most common natural Uranium isotope) will accumulate 8 Helium atoms for each atom of Uranium before that individual atom reaches stability as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lead</a> in particular Pb-206. The <em>first</em> decay in the long chain from U-238 to Pb-206, U-238 to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Thorium</a> (Th-234) has a half-life of 4,468,000,000 years, that's about as long as we think the world has been around, that transition produces 1 Helium atom per Uranium atom involved. There is a <em>constant</em> production of Helium inside Zircons. As Uranium is the only element in the decay chain that will be incorporated into Zircon as it forms this means that we can count the Helium <em>or</em> the daughter isotopes (which is the more usual approach) in order to work out the age of formation so any Helium diffusion would make no difference whatsoever.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-09-01T03:14:50.037Z
2024-09-02T02:36:03.177Z
2024-09-02T02:36:03.177Z
Ash
<p>One of the creationist claims for a young Earth is that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Helium</a> is found in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Zircons</a>, which are dated to be over 100,000 years old. They say no Helium should be left because it would have diffused out of the rock or fossil. In a rock containing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Uranium</a>, wouldn't Helium continue to be produced even to this day? Why is this not an argument against the presence of Helium indicating a young Earth? The arguments I read concern themselves with the diffusion of Helium, not its continued production.</p>

<dating>
creationism and helium
Mitchell Kaplan
# creationism and helium

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-08-31)

One of the creationist claims for a young Earth is that [Helium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium) is found in [Zircons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon), which are dated to be over 100,000 years old. They say no Helium should be left because it would have diffused out of the rock or fossil. In a rock containing [Uranium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium), wouldn't Helium continue to be produced even to this day? Why is this not an argument against the presence of Helium indicating a young Earth? The arguments I read concern themselves with the diffusion of Helium, not its continued production.

**Tags:** dating


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2024-09-01. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

Any mineral grain that contained original atoms of U-238 (the most common natural Uranium isotope) will accumulate 8 Helium atoms for each atom of Uranium before that individual atom reaches stability as [Lead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead) in particular Pb-206. The *first* decay in the long chain from U-238 to Pb-206, U-238 to [Thorium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium) (Th-234) has a half-life of 4,468,000,000 years, that's about as long as we think the world has been around, that transition produces 1 Helium atom per Uranium atom involved. There is a *constant* production of Helium inside Zircons. As Uranium is the only element in the decay chain that will be incorporated into Zircon as it forms this means that we can count the Helium *or* the daughter isotopes (which is the more usual approach) in order to work out the age of formation so any Helium diffusion would make no difference whatsoever.


---

