New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay

Where?

Thread moved here from the Geology and the Great Flood forum.Should have been done years ago. AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-23-2005 02:33 PM

I have been lurking here and believe I have read most of the posts. Several things about Humphreys' experiments really puzzle me. Correct me if I am wrong, this is not my area of expertise.The Helium diffusion studies were done in the lab, correct? Was it possible to collect the samples and do the diffusion studies without introducing variables (pressure, temperature differences, surrounding substrate) that would make any "results" meaningless?Second, why would we give more weight to helium diffusion results than to the amount of lead found in the samples when it seems to me that the quantity of lead in the samples is going to be much more stable (not subject to diffusion in or out) and thus a much better indicator of age. As for the "accelerated decay rates" of uranium, 1)why hasn't this been observed elsewhere? 2)wouldn't this "show up" in the proportional amounts of intermediate decay products? 3)why invoke a miracle when the age determined by the decay rates is a tested method while helium diffusion rates is a novel and untested method?Third - Reading several critiques of Humphrey's "work", it seems that the calculations of the He diffusion rates are highly suspect, to say the least. Shouldn't he be able to publish this part in a reputable journal if everything is on the "up and up"?

The in situ conditions were measured/calculated and the diffusion experiments were carried at under a variety of conditions. In fact the only way you can not require accelerated decay is if the sampels were siting at cryogenic temperatures for the last billion years. So the full spectrum has been well and truly considered. The mainstream result is 5 orders of magnitude out.Yes it flies in the face of radiodating if you assume constant decay.Why has it not been seen elsewhere? Because you need encasement of helium (such as in biotites). No doubt both mainstream and creationist work will expand on this over time.

IOW, the answer to the question "Was it possible to collect the samples and do the diffusion studies without introducing variables (pressure, temperature differences, surrounding substrate) that would make any "results" meaningless?" is "We aren't sure that our results are meaningful but we did our best to make them so". Note that many (e.g. Dr. Henke, of whom you may have heard ... the one about whom Humphreys made that ad-hominem "part time" remark) feel that their best was pretty pathetic. Sorry, flat-out wrong. There are other possibilities besides 6,000 year age or cryogenics. As it stands, there isn't much reason to do further investiation until Humphreys et al respond to Henke's substantial criticisms, e.g. Table 5 and Table 6. The vast weight of evidence still supports radioisotopic dating, an ancient Earth, and ancient life; it's going to take a lot more than one or a few controversial results to change that. A model for how Humphreys et al's hypotheses are consistent with quantum mechanics is one requirement, since there are different decay schemes involved in radioisotope dating and nobody can see how they can vary and produce 99.99999999% consistent results of thousands of radioisotope measurements and and produce the Oklo reactor and produce the observed behavior of stars and agree with the tens to hundreds of thousands of tests of QM and on and on and on ...Oh, I forgot, Humphreys et al explicitly explain this by a most-scientific miracle¹, in in which all the possible incompatibilities were resolved by the intervention of a hypothetical posited entity (the HYPE) that, at some unspecified time, by some unspecified mechanism, poofed into existence exactly that which Humphreys et al want poofed into existence.² And it flies in the face of radiodating, quantum physics, astrophysics, and many other well-established areas if you assume inconstant decay that is in any way compatible with the physics we think we know. Since that physics appears to work damn well across an incredibly broad spectrum of problems, YECs have a long way to go to try to establish an alternative. Coming up with a viable non-poofing alternative is step 1, and we're still waiting. Because, so far, it's pseudoscientific cr*p.-------------------¹See, e.g., Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay . IIIRC even stronger claims were made in Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. Error | The Institute for Creation Research and in Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003b, "Precambrian Zircons Yield a Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years," American Geophysical Union Fall Conference, Abstract V32C-1047. Dr. Humphrey's AGU Helium Poster from AGU Conference | The Institute for Creation Research ... but these are no longer at those URLs and I can't find them with the ICR search engine or Google advanced search.²After Hershey (2005).

On the issues debated by Henke (Tables 5 & 6) Humphreys points out that evrn if Henke is right he is quibbling over a factor of 2 compared to the 100,000 he needs to find: From http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.aspWhere factors of 100,000 are involved scientists don't quibble about factors of 2. That's utterly pointless.You are falling for Henke's bury the basic result technique!This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-23-2005 09:49 PM

That was only one of many examples of criticisms Humphreys has ignored.That quote does not pertain to all the calculations of Henke's tables 5 and 6. Henke showed that Humphreys et al's numbers and methods led to a factor of 100 difference in "measured ages", a mean of 20,000 years, and a 2-sigma error of 53,000 years. Yes, these numbers are incredibly different from mainstream numbers and that's the basic result. But also these are far from the numbers that Humphreys et al, who have pledged themselves to a 6,000-year-old Earth, reported; and an explanationof that anomaly is required.The basic result is indeed an anomaly. As I wrote, if and when Humphreys et al (or anybody) comes up with a non-poofing explanation that's consistent with 99.99999999% consistent results of thousands of radioisotope measurements and explains the Oklo reactor and produces the observed behavior of stars and agrees with the tens to hundreds of thousands of tests of QM and on and on and on ... then they'll have something interesting. Until then, the best and most parsimonious explanation of the result is observer error and/or measurement error and/or model error. Projection. Henke addressed the basic result in detail and in particular. Humphreys produced a largely-irrelevant and pathetic reply.The basic result here is that you and Humphreys et all are claiming that QM is 100% wrong. And the only competing theory you've got is that a hypothetical posited entity (the HYPE) at some unspecified time, by some unspecified mechanism, poofed into existence exactly that which you and Humphreys et al want poofed into existence.The basic result flies in the face of radiodating, quantum physics, astrophysics, and many other well-established areas even if you assume inconstant decay that is in any way compatible with the physics we think we know. Since that physics appears to work damn well across an incredibly broad spectrum of problems, YECs have a long way to go to try to establish an alternative. Coming up with a viable non-poofing alternative is step 1, and we're still waiting.I repost essentially all of my previous post to emphasize how you've tried the "bury the basic result" technique.

Your own post demonstrates that neither you or Henke can discredit the basic result.We do not argue that QM is wrong. We argue that the decay rates were under dynamic control as has recently been prposed for the fine-structure constant by mainstream researchers.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-23-2005 10:12 PM

I'm quickly becoming very concerned about your approach, TB. Here, once again, we have a mispresentation of mainstream scientific views from you. Mainstream scientists have not proposed that the fine structure constant is under dynamic control. In addition, the finding that the fine structure constant has changed over time has been called into question because subsequent investigations have not supported it, and I believe the team that originally made the claim is now being very circumspect.If mainstream science really accepted Baumgardner's models, and if mainstream science really believed that the laws of the universe were under some kind of control, then that would mean that the evolutionists here just haven't been keeping up with recent developments. It would mean that you've largely won the debate because some significant Creationist views have become accepted within mainstream science, and now your only chore is to bring the Neandertals at EvC Forum up to date.But that's not an accurate description of the situation, is it. Mainstream science does not accept Baumgardner's models, nor dynamic control of physical laws. So please stop saying that it does.I'm not taking sides in the discussion. I would say the same thing to someone who claimed that ICR accepted an ancient earth.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

TB you have not answered this question of mine:"3)why invoke a miracle when the age determined by the decay rates is a tested method while helium diffusion rates is a novel and untested method?"In other words, to accept your position, you need to throw out accepted science (radioactive isotope decay)in favor of a novel untested method subject to many variables (He diffusion rates). What would be the logic of that? The whole thing reminds me of the "moon dust" and "population growth" arguments promoted by some YECs. Ad hoc arguments that ignore basic physics, chemistry, geology and/or biology are the reason why YECs have so much trouble getting taken seriously by mainstream science imo.

Admin, I have no idea of the specific claims of dynamic control of whatever the discussion was, and have not read the whole thread, but I am a little puzzled in one respect about the views of mainstream physics or science in general.QM was presented and discussed with quite bit of metaphysical or even mystical type ideas such as the need for a universal observer potentially, and Max Plank even attributed the manifestation of matter to a Mind directed by an Intelligent Force.But if anyone dares speak in those terms, evolutionists are very disparaging and suggest no credible scientist would do so, that it is not real science, etc, etc,.....You especially see this type a priori dismissal in reference to IDers.But Max Plank, Niels Bohr, John Wheeler and men like that were or are, imo, real scientists conducting real science, and made statements about the logical conclusions of what they observed in physics, and those observations were often touching on what might be termed metaphysical concepts.It seems to me often disingenious on the part of evolutionists when they speak of "science" or mainstream science because they often would deride the thinking of men like Wheeler or Max Plank, as far as what they believed QM pointed to.

I think there is a big difference. Max Plank and others took their arguments to their fellow scientists. they published their results, they argued at meetings. The work was transparent and available for anyone to challenge. Most creationists (including Humphreys) don't make a legitimate attempt to legitimize their work. On a positive note, I did notice they presented at AGU. Comments from colleagues were less than positive regarding the work based on its shoddy science and not on his relationship to ICR. Let's see if he makes an attempt to publish in something other than the 'feel good' rags of ICR.CheersJoe Meert

I heard about the posters Humphreys and Baumgardner presented at AGU/2003. I wasn't able to find any reactions to the posters from the scientific community on the Internet.I'm surprised their posters were accepted by AGU. If AGU conferences are anything like conferences in the computer sciences, poster presentations are reserved for work that is more speculative or less rigorous or less compelling, but even by diminished standards its difficult to understand how such poorly supported ideas could make it into AGU. Was there anything else ever presented by Creationists at AGU conferences?While poking around I discovered that Humphreys is now full time at ICR.I also tried to find something addressing Baumgardner's claim that diamonds contained non-zero concentrations of ¹⁴C but came up dry. Any info there?--Percy

Missed your post while on vacation, just noticed it now. Hopefully, when evolutionists speak of science they are speaking of what scientists said when speaking scientifically. I don't think you'll find much of the metaphysical in the technical papers of Wheeler and Planck.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Acceptance of posters is usually done in the complete absence of anything other than an abstract to evaluate them on in many cases. If the abstract sounds uncontroversial or the poster diverges significantly from the content of the abstract there isn't much the organisers can do about it.In many cases people are expected to write abstracts several months in advance, I had to write the abstract for my 1st poster at a major conference before I had actually done any of the experiments for it.I would suspect that for many conferences poster submissions are hardly ever rejected, the constraints of space for posters being much less than those of time for speakers, but I don't know that for a fact.TTFN,WK