New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay

edge writes: And you will notice that he has NO mechanism for such an acceleration. None. Why did it not occur at the formation of the earth? Why did it wait until Noah? And then, why did it stop, not to be observed in any process since? Don't you get the least hint that you are being duped, TB?

If I could add questions to this list, I've always wondered about some additional things:

• Why was the amount of acceleration greatest in layers deposited first by the flood, gradually declining with each additional layer?
  ​
• Why isn't there a clear discontinuity in radiometric age between the lowest layers of the flood and the preexisting layers upon which flood deposits were laid?
  ​
• Why was the effect local to the earth and not detectable in any astronomical evidence from electromagnetic radiation emitting objects 5,000 to 10,000 light years away?
  ​
• How did life survive the neutron bombardment from billions of years of radiometric decay occurring in a single year?
  ​
• How did the earth avoid melting from the billions of years of radiometric decay occurring in a single year?

--Percy

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