Lets start with the first one.
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
I note that it was published in 1998.
Let us start with a simple fact about science. Strongly supported ideas are not thrown out on the basis of a single anomaly. There are huge problems with a young Earth and even if it could be shown that there was no hope of solving the Helium problem it would still be jumping to conclusions to insist that the Earth is young.
Another basic requirement of science is that it should be up to date. Excluding creationists, the most recent scientific source quoted dates from 1987. More than ten years old at the time the article was published.
In fact an important paper on another mechanism - ion outflow had been published in 1996 - refernced here:
CE001: Not Enough Helium?Sarfati completely ignores this mechanism.
So the claim that there is insufficient Helium loss to space is rejected because Sarfati ignored an important fact that was certainly known to the scientific community at the time the essay was written. He therefore failed to show that his claims were true.
On the basis of these facts please explain why you claim that Sarfati's essay was wrongly rejected.
™ Version 4.2