"The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with "science" that is based upon man's fallible assumptions. True science will always support God's Word.
Based on the measured helium retention, a statistical analysis gives an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This age agrees with literal biblical history and is about 250,000 times shorter than the conventional age of 1.5 billion years for zircons. The conclusion is that helium diffusion data strongly supports the young-earth view of history."
This may, in fact, be true. I'll have more to say on it later. But I want to highlight something right now, so as not to distract from later discussion.
The last paragraph is a cIassic example of making the evidence fit the narrative, of begging the question. The whole point of the article seems to be to find an alternative to radiometric dating that gives acceptably "young" results, rather than actually presenting a coherent argument against the accuracy and effectiveness of radiometric dating (there is a pronounced shift in tone toward helium diffusion in the last few paragraphs of the article, almost like a punch-line to a joke).
Oh, some discussion takes place in the article which attempts to demonstrate the "inaccuracy" of radiometric dating. One example given purports to do this by demonstrating that radiometric dating methods gave an age of at least 270,0000 years (corrected from: 35,000 -- my bad for quoting from memory only) to a rock which had "formed" during a volcanic eruption within the last century.
Of course, there's a few flaws in that kind of analysis, because the volcanic rock is not, in some senses, "new" rock; it is very old rock which has been in a liquid (magma) form for some time. And even if portions of the rock were newer, it's still wholly possible that the flow of lava either contained older material within it, or else that it picked up older rock inclusions as it flowed.
Either way, the fact that "new"-looking rock shows up as being substantially older -- and then only in four (corrected from: one) rather suspect example for which references have not been fully published -- is not an automatic disproof of the utility and accuracy of radiometric dating. Especially since many dozens of examples of radiometric dating giving consistent, accurate (within acceptable error) results exist to drown this one counter-example that Young Earthers cling to.
Four aberrant results out of hundreds. Yes...clearly it's the rest of the scientific community who have it dead wrong. ;)
(Update: I see that someone else is, predictably, talking about this from the opposing view. Too bad he's posting material that's already been dismissed above.)
It may well be that the data concerning helium diffusion "supports the young-earth view," but does that mean that "the young-earth view" is correct, even in the face of other modes of analysis (such as radiometric dating) which suggest that the Earth is old? Or is this simply a case of Young Earth Creationists discarding that evidence which they cannot argue against, and putting forth only that evidence which looks like it might support their side of things?
Indeed, the same thing could be said of the article in general; based on only four potentially erroneous samples, the article ignores the hundreds of instances in which radiometric dating has given accurate results that matched predictions and were consistent with dates for geological formations gleaned from non-radiometric methods.
Parting thought: no "old-Earther" I know -- and certainly, not I, myself -- discards evidence which doesn't fit the Old Earth model out of hand. That's a Young Earth Creationist trick, and not one which honest scientists engage in. Granted, I'm an engineer, not a scientist, but mine is likewise a profession which depends on its members being honest in their work and findings, and I can respect the principles under which good science is conducted.
Evidence which suggests a young Earth is not discarded out of hand...but neither is it a "gotcha" that carries in itself more weight than all the other extant evidence which suggests an old Earth. Remember: there is a very large body of evidence which suggests that the world is old, and only a handful of localized examples which suggest that the Earth is young.
And the results of tests done on these samples are suspect; there may have been olivine inclusions in some of the samples, which fix argon at a higher concentration than the surrounding "lava rock." Or it may be that Young Earthers just don't get that some of these dating methods can't actually be used on things which are very young; one sample from Mount St. Helens was sent to a lab that openly states that it cannot date samples accurately which are younger than two million years.
It may even be that the helium levels incorporated in the aforementioned zircon were indicative of some manner of helium contamination in the rock, perhaps due to intrusion by hydrothermal veins. One other problem: if what looks like a billion years of radioactive decay happened in only a week, then surely a billion years worth of radioactive heat must have been produced. Which probably would have rendered the Earth uninhabitable.
The point is this: occasional samples which disagree with the vast majority of collected data are not reasons, in and of themselves, to go back and discard all the rest of that collected data in favour of the few odd results. First, honest scientists need to look at whether the odd results they achieved were not tainted by some manner of error. And as it turns out, where radiometric dating and helium-fixing in zircon are concerned, Young Earthers have made a staggering number of errors.