— A publication of the Creation Research Society — Zircons: God’s Tiny Nuclear Laboratories

... continued on p. 3... continued on p. 2 R ecently, I was asked how lead getsinside zircon crystals. The evolu-tionists claim that there was no lead present during the creation of the crystals, and that the lead which is present is a result of radioactive decay of Uranium 238, which has a half-life of 4.46 billion years. They argue that if the earth were only 6,000 years old, there would not be as much lead present in the zircon crystals as is currently found. Retelling the story This looks like a good time to re-tell the story of zircons and radioactivity since, after seven years of publicity about the RATE project [see reference], there are still some people who haven’t yet appreciated this marvelous evidence for creation. I say “marvelous ” because it seems as if God designed zircons as microscopic nuclear laboratories specifically to show some of the amazing things He did with radioactivity. First, in molten granitic rock today, there are lots of silicon and oxygen ions (electrically charged atoms), and some zir-conium, uranium, and lead ions (as well as many other types of ion). As the melt cools, the first crystals to start forming are zirco-nium silicate, or zircon (ZrSiO4), because zircon has the highest melting point of all the minerals common in granite. Each When zircons form, they chemically attract uranium atoms and chemically reject lead atoms. Afterward, the uranium decays, depositing both lead and helium within the crystal. E arth’s Moon is a fascinating objectin space whose surface has beencarefully examined by telescopes for centuries. Its rocks, collected by the Apollo lunar missions decades ago, continue to intrigue scientists. Naturalists contend that it originated 4.55 billion years ago subsequent to an impact on Earth by an object twice the size of Mars. In contrast, young-earth creationists believe it was created by God on Day Four of the Creation Week (Froede, 2010a). Re-cent radiometric age-dating of some non-mare igneous crustal rocks has raised seri-ous questions about the popular “Magm