A funny mistake by ICR and example of poor scholarship

Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchIn this article (which is fast becoming a legend) Russ Humphreys claims that a 'cryogenic earth' is needed to retain He in zircon. Unfortunately, Humphreys mis-transcribed (this seems to be a problem of his: re Magnetic field discussion) the relevant temperatures cited in the article by Reiners et al. (2002). Reiners et al. cite a diffusion temperature of +190 C which Humphreys reports as -190 C ( a difference of nearly 400 C!). Then Humphreys claims that such a cryogenic earth would not be habitable. This is typical creationist scholarship and one of the many reasons why they do not publish in the mainstream literature.CheersJoe Meert

Joe, I will try to give this a little more attention and look up in the Enginerring libe the Tectonphysics article assuming I do not need interlibe loan to look at it but let us THINK that diffusion with respect to temperature IS at scientific issue between creationists and evolutionists in some sense. What I, BSM, am reading is this confusion arises merely from @best@ two words "classical" and "fiasco" both of which adjectivize discipline of statistical mechanics.Are you saying the the alternative reality to mechancis (speed of light constant etc) that ICR scientists (by working with two models rather than one??) seem to output regularly can not fit in a Wolfram style *network* space?I do think that this kind of work (for instance re-working strog electrolytic theory in the presence of DNA etc) COULD lead to standard publication lists but remeber that WOLFRAM was ALSO sent a "crank" letter from NATURE even though Ste. Wolfram does not allow the contradication that Debye did to appear in a sentence. He simply banned GOD. ICR work tends to allow GOD and I do not see yet (becasue I am not suffiently schooled in pHYsics) that Wolfram's kind of science is not able to have ICR's Baraminology as the biologica end when saying nothing yet of the light cone etc.The philosophy of science with respect to temperature DOES NOT need to fit into a uniform association that would allow peace to both sides butcould not via WOlfram us be seeing a reptition in c/e argumentation that is going to reach a stable attractor with the end of the economic war on the student of both??

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research

​

In this article (which is fast becoming a legend) Russ Humphreys claims that a 'cryogenic earth' is needed to retain He in zircon. Unfortunately, Humphreys mis-transcribed (this seems to be a problem of his: re Magnetic field discussion) the relevant temperatures cited in the article by Reiners et al. (2002). Reiners et al. cite a diffusion temperature of +190 C which Humphreys reports as -190 C ( a difference of nearly 400 C!). Then Humphreys claims that such a cryogenic earth would not be habitable. This is typical creationist scholarship and one of the many reasons why they do not publish in the mainstream literature.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Unbelievable! Do you think the Impact article was 'peer reviewed' (heh, heh)? Do you think Humphreys will ever tire of being embarrassed? Just who are this guy and his RATE colleagues accountable to?

GOD?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
GOD?

---

Is that a question or an answer? Who is paying for this 'research'?

I just want to make sure I understand the chain of logic plus a couple additional aspects of the Humphreys article.Humphreys says that geologists believe that helium within the earth should have long since diffused into the atmosphere, that the leakage rate into space is slow, and that therefore there should be a higher percentage of helium in the atmosphere than we actually find.Is that actually true?Humphreys goes on to say that geologists did not expect to find high levels of helium with zircons.Is that true?Lastly, about the mistake you were writing about, Reimans published a paper in Tectonophysics this year where they measured the rate of He diffusion in zircon recovered from within the earth and found that the amount of helium was consistent with geochronology if the temperature of the zircons did not exceed 374^oF (sorry, I still can't think in Centigrade). But Humphreys thought he saw a minus sign and thought it was -310^oF, which is impossible at great depths, of course, so he went off crowing about it before anyone reviewed his article.Do I have it right?If I've got all this right, the error must be so painfully obvious, why has ICR left the article up?--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I just want to make sure I understand the chain of logic plus a couple additional aspects of the Humphreys article.

​

Humphreys says that geologists believe that helium within the earth should have long since diffused into the atmosphere, that the leakage rate into space is slow, and that therefore there should be a higher percentage of helium in the atmosphere than we actually find.

​

Is that actually true?

---

It appears that Humphreys is trying to say this, though he is vague about who believes it. On the other hand I have never hear a geologist say that all helium should have escaped into the atmosphere. In fact, it is fairly common knowledge that helium is constantly created in the earth's crust and the mantle may contain significant amounts of helium.As to the leakage rate from the atmosphere, I cannot remember the argument. It seems that someone here has treated this problem quite effectively and will perhaps give us the actual data once again.

quote:

---

Humphreys goes on to say that geologists did not expect to find high levels of helium with zircons.

​

Is that true?

---

Though I am not familiar with current theories, I have never heard of anyone thinking that there should be no helium in zircon. After all, as Humphreys points out, it is created by the decay of uranium which is often concentrated in zircon. That means that the amount of helium would be related to the uranium composition of the zircon in question. It wouldn't make much sense to say that there is no or little helium in a zircon crystal. My guess is that this is another belief of evolutionists that has been invented by creationists.

quote:

---

Lastly, about the mistake you were writing about, Reimans published a paper in Tectonophysics this year where they measured the rate of He diffusion in zircon recovered from within the earth and found that the amount of helium was consistent with geochronology if the temperature of the zircons did not exceed 374^oF (sorry, I still can't think in Centigrade). But Humphreys thought he saw a minus sign and thought it was -310^oF, which is impossible at great depths, of course, so he went off crowing about it before anyone reviewed his article.

​

Do I have it right?

---

That is my understanding. Sure doesn't say much for creationist peer review does it?

quote:

---

If I've got all this right, the error must be so painfully obvious, why has ICR left the article up?

---

Probably because they know that their main audience will not see the rebuttals and wouldn't accept them anyway. Humphreys' article is clearly intended for the untrained, uncritical masses. ICR is impervious to embarrassment and they don't really care if a few of their layman believers are ambushed by this revelation.Another case of deliberate deceit because they can get away with it? We'll have to watch and see if the article is removed or modified somehow. I just hope that our resident creationists see this error and deceit, and begin to question their gurus just once in a while...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I just want to make sure I understand the chain of logic plus a couple additional aspects of the Humphreys article.

​

Humphreys says that geologists believe that helium within the earth should have long since diffused into the atmosphere, that the leakage rate into space is slow, and that therefore there should be a higher percentage of helium in the atmosphere than we actually find.

​

Is that actually true?

---

JM: Yes, and it goes a bit beyond that. They actually argue that helium cannot escape the atmosphere so there must be VAST amounts of helium in the atmosphere on an old earth.

quote:

---

Humphreys goes on to say that geologists did not expect to find high levels of helium with zircons.

​

Is that true?

---

JM: That's false. Geologists are returning to U-He dating (one of the 'original' dating methods) because of it's ability to date young events. The closure temperature of helium to zircon is ~200 C (the article in question states ~190 C). At temperatures above ~190 C, helium begins to diffuse out of the lattice structure. Basically, if a rock resides at less that 7-10 kilometers depth (depending on local thermal conditions), zircons remain closed to helium diffusion.

quote:

---

Lastly, about the mistake you were writing about, Reimans published a paper in Tectonophysics this year where they measured the rate of He diffusion in zircon recovered from within the earth and found that the amount of helium was consistent with geochronology if the temperature of the zircons did not exceed 374^oF (sorry, I still can't think in Centigrade). But Humphreys thought he saw a minus sign and thought it was -310^oF, which is impossible at great depths, of course, so he went off crowing about it before anyone reviewed his article.

​

Do I have it right?

​

If I've got all this right, the error must be so painfully obvious, why has ICR left the article up?

​

--Percy

---

Well, I've e-mailed ICR and have not yet gotten a response. This type of error seems to be something to watch for in Humphreys articles. Recall that he reversed the archeomagnetic graph in McElhinny's book and added a zero line. Here, he claims that the -190 C closure temperature is supported by the Tectonophysics article when it is +190 C. I'll let you know if ICR responds.CheersJoe Meert

Percy,You can read my excruciatingly painstaking attempts at explaining these concepts to bob b over at theologyonline... Update on the "argon" problem (should be helium of course)Reiners himself puts in a word at the end.If you ask me, bob is loosing his grip on reality. How old is bob, anyway? Is he suffering from some kind of dementia?

Humphreys has responded to my 'feedback' e-mail. To be fair, we are both guilty of misunderstanding each other. I have placed a link to his response and my response to his claim at
More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation ResearchIn essence, he claims that it was not a transcription error on his part. That's fair enough, but given the context and the magnitudes of the numbers it was a realistic, if hasty, conclusion to reach regarding his study. The second point is that for some reason, Humphreys is asserting that zircons will reach steady-state ages based on their effective radius (so far as I can tell from what he supplied). Anyway, let me know if clarification is needed on any points.Cheersjoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Humphreys has responded to my 'feedback' e-mail. To be fair, we are both guilty of misunderstanding each other. I have placed a link to his response and my response to his claim at
More Faulty Creation Science from The Insitutute for Creation ResearchIn essence, he claims that it was not a transcription error on his part. That's fair enough, but given the context and the magnitudes of the numbers it was a realistic, if hasty, conclusion to reach regarding his study. The second point is that for some reason, Humphreys is asserting that zircons will reach steady-state ages based on their effective radius (so far as I can tell from what he supplied). Anyway, let me know if clarification is needed on any points.Cheersjoe Meert[/B][/QUOTE]I don't get this. How does Humphreys know the amount of He there should be in a zircon? I think his point is that it should have diffused out of the crystal over long periods of time but there is still some there. Has he actually calculated some He balance? Wouldn't the actual rate of diffusion depend on a number of factors other than simple grain size? Doesn't the amount of He also have something to do with the U-composition of the zircon after it passed through closure?

Depends on what you "search" for. If one knows that some things remain the same and yet one wants to know why MAN MADE choas(randomness) is being "injected" into society from "outside" than looking at radioactivity is not uncalled for but I thinl that the research choice was more pedestrian stemming from INTERNAL creationist disagreements but you should ask some closer to the work. I know as much as anyone who simply reads what is publically available.

quote:

---

I don't get this. How does Humphreys know the amount of He there should be in a zircon? I think his point is that it should have diffused out of the crystal over long periods of time but there is still some there. Has he actually calculated some He balance? Wouldn't the actual rate of diffusion depend on a number of factors other than simple grain size? Doesn't the amount of He also have something to do with the U-composition of the zircon after it passed through closure?

---

JM: It's all really weird. I am working out some calculations that I can show you this weekend when I am in town if you want. basically, his diffusion ideas can also easily be interpreted to signify that all radiometric ages we calculate are minima! That is hardly something ye-people would desire.CheersJoe Meert

Hi Joe!I read the thread We linked to over at Theology Online where he had a discussion about this with "bob b", and while bob occasionally responded to a point, most of it was evasive "I'm trying to help you but you won't be helped" type of stuff.Then there's your exchange with Humphreys. While I believe the actual modeling can be complex, the actual issues should be simple. There's a rate of production of helium within zircons, and there's a rate of diffusion of He out of the zircon that is a function of temperature. If one knows the rate of production of He, and the rate of diffusion of He at the measured temperature, and the actual amount of He in the zircon, isn't it simple to arrive at an answer? Humphreys must of course be correct to say that the diffusion is also dependent upon the zircon's volume/surface-area ratio, and I didn't read it all, but perhaps it was also somewhere mentioned that diffusion is a function of concentration on both sides of the diffusion boundary.But these considerations are all small potatoes in light of the 6,000 vs 3 billion year difference in viewpoints. Despite all the little details, at the first order this is a simple problem, isn't it? And therefore isn't all Humphrey's discussion just obfuscative detail?Taken all together, the material at your website and the material that Humphreys posted at ICR are far too complex for the layperson. Can this be explained more simply?--Percy

Hi again, Joe!I gave up too soon. I was closing browser windows, and when I came to the Humphreys reply I decided to give it a better go than I gave it the first time. It's not as complex as I thought. Basically he's saying that after a short period, less than thousands of years, the He concentration within the zircon would have reached equilibrium. I didn't try to check Humphreys math about the time period, but let's say he's correct. In that case the zircons are not evidence either way for either a young or old earth.So why does he claim otherwise in his impact article?--Percy