Quote:

So let me get this straight. Your only rebuttle to actual peer-reviewed work is to quote attacks based on non-peer-reviewed criticism?


So let me get this straight: Your only remaining argument against the debunking of the "helium" myth is the fact that the rebuttal was "non peer reviewed"?

How about then showing me a single peer reviewed creationist article?

Quote:

Which I'm sure is a fact four collaborating scientists with Ph.Ds in the various fields (including physics) just happened to overlook.


"Scientists" that are not able to see that a million times accelerated nuclear decay would also increase the fission heat a million times? Hmm, now I understand why those four found their refuge in creationism.

You don't need to be a scientist to see that the "accelerated nuclear decay" is nonsense: It can't be caused by natural causes because the half-life of an element is determined by it's mass and charge. For altering the decay rate by a factor of a million, you need to alter its mass or charge accordingly. If God somehow manages to change those values by a miracle, the world of matter we know would cease to exists. Apart from the fact that, as I pointed out, his creation would have been roasted by the excess fission energy.

Apart from all the other contraditions of the young earth faith, like the 3 major problems listed in another thread on this forum.

Quote:

Humphreys responds, at length, about the absolute lack of any problem with using less pressure to test the results.


Yes, really at length, yet he managed not to answer at all to the arguments in Henke's rebuttal. In his only argument that was not ad hominem he apparently confused gas pressure with pressure on the crystal structure.

If you want to use his pamphlet as an argument, you should really read it and especially its utter destruction by Henke. It is a beautiful example of "creationist science".

Imagine a cluster of zircon crystals. They contain helium, which diffuses. Obviously the helium flow through a certain area is proportional to the helium pressure difference between both sides of that area. If a crystal contains the same helium density as its neighbor crystal or the material it's embedded in, no helium will diffuse. I think this is understandable?

Ok, when you now have a cluster of crystals, the helium will diffuse only from the outer crystals, and only if there's a helium density difference to the outer area. Even if this is the case, we'll then get a helium density gradient with the maxiumum helium amount in the center, and less helium at the border of the cluster. Which means that you can measure any helium amount you want in a crystal cluster. It just depends on at which place you were measuring it.

Which makes Humphreys helium article complete bunk. He takes the position of the crystals not into consideration, nor the helium concentration in the surrounding matter. Both however determine majorly the helium amount in the zircons.

While the mentioned helium gradient is caused by the gas pressure difference of the helium, Humphreys talks in his responses about the pressure on the zircon crystal from the surrounding rock. He didn't even understand this flaw in his article.

Henke pointed out numerous other flaws, for instance Humphreys diffusion formula was totally wrong. And the best part is that even if his measurements were correct, his announced 6000 years result is complete phantasy! Using his own data and formula, you'd get an age distribution of his zircons between 460.000 years and zero.

As a resume: It's ok to firmly believe in something, even in strange things, but then you better separate faith and science. It is really funny what bizarre theories people are forced to come up with in order to make their superstitions look "scientific"...