So what your arguments still come down to is that creationists aren't peer reviewed. They have two peer reviewed publications, but that isn't good enough because peer review by creationists isn't valid.

You guys are pretty slick, the way you run things. Creationists can't quote creationists because you won't believe it. But if creationists base their claims on evolutionists, then they're taking them out of context (even if the context is crystal clear). I show you two peer reviewed publications for creationists, but it isn't good enough because they're just 'patting each other on the back.'

There's absolutely no way for creationists to win. Even if we play by all of your rules, you'll find some other loophole to dismiss us with. This is getting rather redundent.


Second, I've mentioned several times that you're talking nonsense when you say creationists don't understand the problems with accelerated decay. If you're just going to keep repeating yourself and not figure out that creationists understand the problems and that they're researching with the problems in mind.

If your response to this is that creationists don't know about the problems, then there's no reason to continue on about that.

Quote:

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.



Seriously, if you read the 'zircons' page on talk origins, the first 2/3 of his article are an ad hominem attack filled with religious bigotry. Then in that same article he says he won't submit anything for peer review because he doesn't want to give humphreys any time to defend himself. What a BS excuse. Maybe he knows that if he actually has to submit for peer review his article will be reduced to its bare bones (no attacks on religion or humphreys), and when this happens humphreys will be able to destroy his 'criticism.' If this isn't the case, then why not embarrass Humphreys? It would be a crushing blow to YECs. If creationists are really in such a down-and-out position as you guys (have been lead to believe) claim, then why not finish us off?

As for the rest of your points. Gas pressure and whatnot.

Henke doesn't dwell on gas pressure from what I can see. You'll have to point out what you're talking about. In fact, that section where Henke talks about vacuum problems shows how disengenous he really is. Quoting irrelevant papers to make his point discredits just about everything else he says. Then he goes on to dwell on points like the soviet data that Humphreys already responded to. I haven't poured over the paper, but even if Henke was right and Humphreys did manipulate the Soviet data, it doesn't affect the outcome.

Quote:

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.



Where does Henke even approach this?

Quote:

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.



Again, I read the trueorigin.org response and traced that back to Henke's accusations and what you're saying sounds like it has nothing to do with what Henke said.

Anyway, what I see is Humphreys respond to pretty much every point Henke makes, then Henke makes the point again, except this time he's said it a little bit more than before. Then he comes up with one new irrelevant point and suddenly Henke wins (according to you) after Humphreys destroys that point. You apparently were reading a different paper than me, unless you can point out what I missed.

Quote:

Henke pointed out numerous other flaws, for instance Humphreys diffusion formula was totally wrong.



Specifically? I mean something like quote what Henke says about this.

Quote:

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.



Humphreys only reponse to this was about 'garbage' data giving 'garbage' results, so I guess I'm screwed because I don't have time to run through the equations and results myself.

Unless Humphreys elaborates on this, then its possible Henke is right and that the dates fit into the hundreds of thousands.

But unless Henke was being purposefully misleading, then it would be logical to conclude that these results are actually a problem. He quotes his irrelevant pressure argument as providing some extra leverage towards the uniformitarian model. I would imagine he wouldn't have to make that claim unless the results were actually a problem.


Henke has made several dubious claims in his original essay, and second essay, which Humphreys was polite enough to point out. Most of which relied, apparently, on the reader being ignorant of Humphreys paper.


Then to sum up why I don't make an idol of peer-review, here's Henke's own words.

"In contrast to peer-reviewed technical journals that have relatively few readers and little space for adequately detailed discussions and calculations, Talkorigins provides a peer-reviewed science forum that has a potential audience of millions and no page limits."

Peer-review is as good as the talk.origins internet forum. I'm not saying it isn't peer-reviewed, or that the forums are bad. But you can accurately call a internet forum 'peer-reviewed'. There's nothing magical about it.