Helium In Zircons Is Powerful Evidence For Young World

[Fred Williams 0]

Most YEC arguments center on problems with millions of years, such as salt in the sea, short-period comets, spiral galaxies, etc. These are all fine and good since a young world fits within the limits these clocks put on the earth. But there are a handful that actually point at or near 6000 years. Well, we now have another one, and it is powerful. Check out this graph:



Note that each data line represents predicted levels of helium diffusion given a 6000 year old model, and a 1.5 billion year old model. The RATE group has received their data from an independent lab, and look where the data lines up! If this isn't compelling evidence for a young world, I'm not sure if anything would convince Old Earthers. This is how science should work - A prediction is made, the experiment is run, and the result is checked against the prediction.

From the article:
 

  Quote

The experimenter, being a uniformitarian (believer in long ages) and not having read our prediction, had no idea what results we were hoping for. ... To our great delight, the data fell right on the "6,000 year" prediction! This alignment validates the young-age model even for readers who are not experts in this field, because the probability of such a lineup by accident is small. The data resoundingly reject the "1.5 billion year" model. The experimenter, whose name is in one of our articles, stands by his data, even though as a uniformitarian he does not like our interpretation of them.

Link

Fred

[chance 1]

  Fred Williams said:

Most YEC arguments center on problems with millions of years, such as salt in the sea, short-period comets, spiral galaxies, etc. These are all fine and good since a young world fits within the limits these clocks put on the earth. But there are a handful that actually point at or near 6000 years. Well, we now have another one, and it is powerful.

 

From the article:

Link

 

Fred

2446[/snapback]

As I read the link one thing immediately leapt out at me

  Quote

However, in this case I want to take the opportunity to share updated information about our research which will appear later this year in the RATE[3] “results†book[4] and in the accompanying book for laymen.[5]  I also plan to submit technical details of this reply to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ).  If Henke chooses to sling yet more mud, let him try to do so in a scientific journal.

Accusations aside, I don’t see how this is going to be possible unless Dr Humphreys first gets his article accepted by his peers, and by peers it understood to be the mainstream scientific community (which is the real meaning of peer review) not just a group of like minded individuals. Dr Humphries is confusing the terms, if he wants his work accepted by mainstream science then his peers are by default in the mainstream community. Saying the article has received peer review when it has only been review by his own or affiliated organisation IS NOT peer review.

 

  Quote

The RATE helium research has been peer-reviewed and published in several different scientific venues.

I wonder if that is strictly true, as it all depends on who Dr Humphries considers to be his peers. When in fact opinion does not count, your peers are determined by the group you wish to submit. Basically if it’s science your peers are scientists. If it’s theology your peers are theologians.

 

I’ll see if I can find any technical problems with the article at a later date, as I’m not fully conversant with the argument.

[Guest Admin3]

  Quote

Accusations aside, I don’t see how this is going to be possible unless Dr Humphreys first gets his article accepted by his peers, and by peers it understood to be the mainstream scientific community (which is the real meaning of peer review) not just a group of like minded individuals. Dr Humphries is confusing the terms, if he wants his work accepted by mainstream science then his peers are by default in the mainstream community. Saying the article has received peer review when it has only been review by his own or affiliated organisation IS NOT peer review.

O my, and science get's their stuff reveiwed by who? Like minded individuals . I just have to laugh at that one.

 

This is a fine example of how science thinks they know it all, and only others have rules applied to them that they would not apply to themselves.

[Guest 92g]

  chance said:

I wonder if that is strictly true, as it all depends on who Dr Humphries considers to be his peers.  When in fact opinion does not count, your peers are determined by the group you wish to submit.  Basically if it’s science your peers are scientists.  If it’s theology your peers are theologians.

I don't know what venues they are publishing in, but they are not taking this to people with creationist views only.

 

  Quote

Three RATE scientists presented posters at the American Geophysical Union Fall Conference in San Francisco in early December

.

.

.

The three papers were controversial but were accepted for poster presentations by the AGU organizing committee and were well received by those who interacted with the authors. The RATE scientists were greatly encouraged by the good reception they received. Some of the scientists who visited and talked with them were from radioisotope laboratories at the University of California at Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Yale, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Michigan, etc. The visiting scientists did not necessarily agree with the conclusions but the authors received no major negative comments. Some visitors actually offered suggestions to assist in future research. We hope these researchers will spread the word that Creationist scientists are conducting quality work and have solid evidence for a completely different paradigm about the age of the earth.

Rate AGU Summary

 

And,...., I'll have to 2nd Admin3's opinion about peer review. Peer review is fine, but it can also be part of the problem if the community is suffering from a false paradigmn, which is essentially what the whole debate is about.

 

Terry

[chance 1]

  Fred Williams said:

Well, we now have another one, and it is powerful.

2446[/snapback]

Upon further reading on the subject, it appears that the helium argument is not new, see this LINK

 

The article just published is part of an ongoing debate between Humphries and Henke.

 

The original work from Humphries is unchanged from 2003, (and if memory serves was discussed in this forum before). One would expect that if such a rebutting attack on Humphries work was put forward, then two courses of action are deemed essential:

 

Review the original material for errors.

Redo the science to eliminate the original objections.

 

The original objections were, unrepresentative samples, sloppy methods, etc

[chance 1]

  Admin3 said:

O my, and science get's their stuff reveiwed by who? Like minded individuals  . I just have to laugh at that one.

 

This is a fine example of how science thinks they know it all, and only others have rules applied to them that they would not apply to themselves.

2468[/snapback]

Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it too! Because Humphries article is reviewed by the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ). So, has Humphries fallen for the same trap as a mainstream scientist?

 

Is not the purpose of creation science based on the belief that biblical evidences can be found in the real world using mainstream science to prove a young Earth? If this is so, then your peers are mainstream scientist, these are the people that need convincing, so the flow down affect will reach the universities then high schools.

 

As a counter example lets revers the situation a little. I’m sure you familiar with the recent publication of “The Da-Vinci Codeâ€ÂÂ, this book was not peer reviewed by specialists in the field of history and theology (to the best of my knowledge) instead it was just published. The reception of this book from serious historians, clergy etc is one of utter incredulity that such a load of nonsense could get printed (one they recovered from hysterical bouts of laughter) The correct procedure for submitting “The Da-Vinci Code†for serious consideration would be the specialists in the field.

[chance 1]

  92g said:

I don't know what venues they are publishing in, but they are not taking this to people with creationist views only.

Rate AGU Summary

 

And,...., I'll have to 2nd Admin3's opinion about peer review.  Peer review is fine, but it can also be part of the problem if the community is suffering from a false paradigmn, which is essentially what the whole debate is about.

 

Terry

2470[/snapback]

An interesting report from the ICR, I would like to see a similar report from the AGU for balance. Currently I have had no luck in finding a reference in the AGU web site, but I’ll keep searching.

 

But from reading the ICR article you posted I get the impression that the ICR put some posters on the wall, had some pleasant discussions, were treated with respect, and from this the ICR felt encouraged.

[Guest 92g]

  chance said:

The original work from Humphries is unchanged from 2003, (and if memory serves was discussed in this forum before).  One would expect that if such a rebutting attack on Humphries work was put forward, then two courses of action are deemed essential:

 

Review the original material for errors.

Redo the science to eliminate the original objections.

 

The original objections were, unrepresentative samples, sloppy methods, etc

 

I'm not sure what it is your looking for, but IMO, that's exactly what he did in the article that Fred posted.

 

Terry

[chance 1]

  92g said:

I'm not sure what it is your looking for, but IMO, that's exactly what he did in the article that Fred posted.

 

Terry

2486[/snapback]

I don’t think so, from the ICR link the material in question is ICC 2003 and CRSQ 2004, the bulk of the article is given over to rebutting Henke. As far as I can see there is no new data. In the link I posted the subject rebuttal is listed with a note to say a rebuttal of the rebuttal is pending.

[Fred Williams 0]

  chance said:

Upon further reading on the subject, it appears that the helium argument is not new,

2483[/snapback]

I did not say this was new! We in fact have discussed the helium in zircons here a while ago. What is new is the confirmed prediction that Humprheys pre-released that is illustrated in the graph I posted. As Humphreys wrote:

 

"This sequence of events places the burden of disproof on the critics, because they must explain how, if there is no truth to our model, the data “accidentally by sheer coincidence just happened by blind chance” to fall right on the predictions of our model."

 

Is anyone here prepared to explain how an independent, secular lab could produce, by sheer blind luck, the results that line up perfectly with the YEC model?

 

Isn't this confirmation of a prediction from an independent source a good example of how science is supposed to work?

 

Fred

 

[Guest Admin3]

  chance said:

Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it too!  Because Humphries article is reviewed by the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ).   So, has Humphries fallen for the same trap as a mainstream scientist? 

 

Is not the purpose of creation science based on the belief that biblical evidences can be found in the real world using mainstream science to prove a young Earth?  If this is so, then your peers are mainstream scientist, these are the people that need convincing, so the flow down affect will reach the universities then high schools.

 

As a counter example lets revers the situation a little.  I’m sure you familiar with the recent publication of  “The Da-Vinci Codeâ€ÂÂ, this book was not peer reviewed by specialists in the field of history and theology (to the best of my knowledge) instead it was just  published.  The reception of this book from serious historians, clergy etc is one of utter incredulity that such a load of nonsense could get printed (one they recovered from hysterical bouts of laughter) The correct procedure for submitting “The Da-Vinci Code†for serious consideration would be the specialists in the field.

2484[/snapback]

Well, let's just face it. Regular science will always be against God and creation. And will only peer review what supports that. Just as creation science will be what it is, and will peer review what it wants as well.

 

And the Da-Vinci Code was someone attempt to make a buck. It's already been disproven. And the guy who wrote it has had his credibility hurt. I doubt anyone in their right mind would buy another book written by this author, only if to disprove another one. In every field there is, you always have the one's that are just to radical, or think they have more truth than another. This was just a fine example of it, and more of what's to come. New age is pushing it's way into the christian faith, and along with it comes the nut cases. So expect more that claim to be something their not, and write books like they are some type of authority on the subject.

[chance 1]

  Admin3 said:

Well, let's just face it. Regular science will always be against God and creation. And will only peer review what supports that. Just as creation science will be what it is, and will peer review what it wants as well.

2502[/snapback]

I truly wish I could persuade you that this is not the case for it is an important point at the heart of much of the mistrust.

 

  Admin3 said:

And the Da-Vinci Code was someone attempt to make a buck. It's already been disproven. And the guy who wrote it has had his credibility hurt. I doubt anyone in their right mind would buy another book written by this author, only if to disprove another one. In every field there is, you always have the one's that are just to radical, or think they have more truth than another. This was just a fine example of it, and more of what's to come. New age is pushing it's way into the christian faith, and along with it comes the nut cases. So expect more that claim to be something their not, and write books like they are some type of authority on the subject.

2502[/snapback]

I believe we have found some common ground.

[RockerforChrist14 0]

"Well, let's just face it. Regular science will always be against God and creation. And will only peer review what supports that. Just as creation science will be what it is, and will peer review what it wants as well."

 

I think I'm going to have to agree with Admin 3 here. Evolution "science" is used to support evolution regardless if it science or not. Of course if it supports evolution, it's science! Even if we presented an entire list of facts and scientific things that supported Creation, it would all just be explained away, "It happened by blind chance." Just remember that both theories require faith.

[Guest Admin3]

  chance said:

Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it too!  Because Humphries article is reviewed by the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ).   So, has Humphries fallen for the same trap as a mainstream scientist? 

 

Is not the purpose of creation science based on the belief that biblical evidences can be found in the real world using mainstream science to prove a young Earth?  If this is so, then your peers are mainstream scientist, these are the people that need convincing, so the flow down affect will reach the universities then high schools.

 

As a counter example lets revers the situation a little.  I’m sure you familiar with the recent publication of  “The Da-Vinci Codeâ€ÂÂ, this book was not peer reviewed by specialists in the field of history and theology (to the best of my knowledge) instead it was just  published.  The reception of this book from serious historians, clergy etc is one of utter incredulity that such a load of nonsense could get printed (one they recovered from hysterical bouts of laughter) The correct procedure for submitting “The Da-Vinci Code†for serious consideration would be the specialists in the field.

2484[/snapback]

If you really want to get technical. The age dating process does not work. Why? Because it relies on something that has to form first, and the object in question has to cool down before that can happen. And in the mean time, said object is racking up so called years of time.

 

I've heard the excuse for this is, how accurate you want to be? Science is always claiming how accurate they are, and even speak as if what they find is an absolute. Even to the point of calling everything else that disagrees, a lie. But when pinned down to the fundamentals of the core base of said experiment, test, or theory. They are made to face truth. That their preconceived ideas are no more closer to truth than the ones they claim are lying.

[chance 1]

The talk Origin archive has recently updated the article by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D, that responds to Dr Humphreys criticisms of talk origin criticisms, and so on. (it a bit of a slugging match). LINK

 

 

Henke’s main criticism is that Humphreys does not respond directly to criticism of his ideas

  Quote

Rather than properly deal with the numerous problems in his work, Humphreys (2005) refers to my detailed criticisms as "a torrent of hot air."

Yet the detail criticisms are quit specific. Extracts from the article’s conclusion:

  Quote

That is, he keeps making the same erroneous statements over and over again even though I thoroughly documented and refuted them in my original essay (e.g., refusing to recognize the presence of gneisses in his samples, failing to recognize possible contamination of his zircons with extraneous helium during cooling and not heating episodes, ignoring my Appendix B and its more realistic Q/Q0 results, using the wrong ("biased") equation to calculate standard deviations, etc.).  Rather than providing thorough answers, Humphreys (2005) exposes even more inadequacies in his laboratory methods (trying to identify rocks by merely relying on naked-eye observations, improper naming of rock units, sloppy handling of units of measure in Appendix C of Humphreys et al., 2003a, etc.).

And

  Quote

I also show that Dr. Humphreys' miracle-based misconceptions about the ages of the Fenton Hill rocks are probably due to his misapplying laboratory vacuum helium diffusion data to the high-pressure subsurface conditions at Fenton Hill, ignoring the possibility of extraneous helium contamination in his zircons, and/or severely underestimating the Q0 values and the amounts of uranium and thorium in his zircons.

[Fred Williams 0]

Accusations of fraud will not be tolerated in this forum without overwhelming evidence to support it (I deleted the post). Both sides have watchdog groups that if a true fraud occurs, usually *both* sides will confirm it. In this case, it is just a vitriolic indivudual from the cesspool of Talk.Origns hurling the accusation, an accusation Humphries more than adequately responded to.

 

Henke's article links to Humphries response. You can also search for 'Helium' at

 

http://www.trueorigin.org/

 

Fred

[Fred Williams 0]

I've closed this thread and will only re-open if someone sends me a post that is on-topic. All posts related to the Haekel fraud, burning at the stake, evo morals, etc, have been deleted. It really went off topic with the Haeckel business but I left it intact back then mostly because I didn’t want to step on Admin3 (who has since left). But this recent venture into burning at the stake, Indian atrocities, evo morals etc was too much, and hence I burned about 8 posts at the stake from both sides that were completely off-topic for this thread.

 

If you have a post that is on-topic, email me and I'll re-open the thread for you.

 

Fred

[Fred Williams 0]

Thread re-opened.

[trilobyte 0]

Henke critized the math Humphreys used..said it was bad.

 

But he failed to tell us that the math was examined with a fine tooth comb and found to be error free.

[trilobyte 0]

Here are to more sites for Chance...and others to read that cast more doubt on henkes critique.

Henke tried to find error but the model and experiments of Humphreys stood the test.

 

check this out

 

and then click here for another article.

[trilobyte 0]

  chance said:

Upon further reading on the subject, it appears that the helium argument is not new, see this LINK

 

The article just published is part of an ongoing debate between Humphries and Henke. 

 

The original work from Humphries is unchanged from 2003, (and if memory serves was discussed in this forum before).  One would expect that if such a rebutting attack on Humphries work was put forward, then two courses of action are deemed essential:

 

Review the original material for errors.

Redo the science to eliminate the original objections.

 

The original objections were, unrepresentative samples, sloppy methods, etc

2483[/snapback]

 

Come on Chance

 

The research has been formally reviewed 4 times each time by 2 seperate people.

I believe some of the reviews were anonymous. Some of the reviews were also from non-creationist.

The math was checked 6 times.

There has been ten public critiques

There was also three co-authors who reviewed the research.

There's more reviews bu I trust you get the point and stand corrected.

[chance 1]

  trilobyte said:

Here are to more sites for Chance...and others to read that cast more doubt on henkes critique.

Henke tried to find error but the model and experiments of Humphreys stood the test.

 

check this out

 

and then click here for another article.

 

 

Old news I’m afraid. To which I point you too http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

 

 

But I did find this quote somewhat provocative

  Quote

The RATE helium research has been peer-reviewed and published in several different scientific venues

which tags on to your next post

  Quote

Come on Chance

 

The research has been formally reviewed 4 times each time by 2 seperate people.

I believe some of the reviews were anonymous. Some of the reviews were also from non-creationist.

The math was checked 6 times.

There has been ten public critiques

There was also three co-authors who reviewed the research.

There's more reviews bu I trust you get the point and stand corrected.

Have they indeed, do you think you could find where and when and who carried this out?

 

Just a word to the wise, please read Freds warning on post #16. There is no love lost between Henke and Humphries, and the language is somewhat ‘personal’, so rather than post links of who said what to whom you should paraphrase the science content. I think at this point we all know who is making what claims.

[digitalartist 1]

  Fred Williams said:

Most YEC arguments center on problems with millions of years, such as salt in the sea, short-period comets, spiral galaxies, etc. These are all fine and good since a young world fits within the limits these clocks put on the earth. But there are a handful that actually point at or near 6000 years. Well, we now have another one, and it is powerful. Check out this graph:

 

 

Note that each data line represaents predicted levels given a 6000 year old model, and a 1.5 billion year old model. The RATE group has recieved their data from an independent lab, and look where the data lines up! If this isn't compelling evidence for a young world, I'm not sure if anything would convince Old Earthers.  This is how science should work - A prediction is made, the experiment is run, and the result is checked against the prediction.

 

From the article:

Link

 

Fred

2446[/snapback]

That work was a reply to Kevin Henke's original essay and Henke's reply to Dr Humphrey is detailed here. Henke's Reply

[trilobyte 0]

And henke was shown to be wrong.

 

Do you have a problem with that?

[Adam Nagy 49]

I found this video and it fits perfectly in this thread: