skip to content »

Zircon fission track dating humphreys

zircon fission track dating humphreys-2

(2003a), are actually consistent with a date of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons.

zircon fission track dating humphreys-26

[Original version: March 17, 2005] [Revisions: November 24, 2005; July 25, 2006 and June 20, 2010] The following material may be distributed as long as the author is acknowledged, the material is not sold and the text and its internet links are not altered or edited. Humphreys has not silenced his critics, we are waiting for him to answer our numerous questions.(2003a) provide ridiculous answers that range from hundreds to over one million years (an average and two standard deviations of 90,000 500,000 years old, using only one significant digit; see below for details). Humphreys did not even read and comprehend the vast majority of my criticisms. Humphreys also fails to properly deal with many problems and questions raised by other critics, especially Loechelt (2008c; 2009a).This essay contains additional evidence and discussions that demonstrate that Dr.In the current June, 2010, version, I extensively updated and reorganized the essay to: 1) include materials from other critics of Dr.Humphreys' work, 2) address criticisms from additional peer-reviewers of this essay, 3) respond to Humphreys (2008a), Humphreys (2008b), Humphreys (2010) and statements from Dr.Contrary to Humphreys (2005a), his mistakes are not petty or peripheral, but completely discredit the reliability of his work. Humphreys needs to perform spot analyses for values may be obtained.

Finally, Loechelt (2008a; 2008b; 2008c; 2009a; 2009b) shows that multi-domain helium diffusion models, which are far more realistic than the "creationist" and "uniformitarian" models presented by Humphreys et al.

Humphreys' allies at the Creation Wiki webpage, and 4) discuss new revelations on how Dr.

Humphreys unethically manipulated results in Magomedov (1970) to protect his YEC agenda. Humphreys' growing number of critics includes physicists, engineers, and geologists.

Rather than recognizing my peer-reviewers, many of which are scientists, Humphreys (2005a) repeatedly challenges me to publish my criticisms of his work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Humphreys' publication record on this topic (e.g., Humphreys et al., 2003a; 2003b; Humphreys, 2003; Humphreys et al., 2004, etc.) that he has no real interest in fully presenting his ideas for critical scrutiny from some of the world's authorities on zircon and helium chemistry. Humphreys screams about the importance of peer-review, he needs to follow his own advice.

He needs to openly (Humphreys et al., 2003b: where any controversies could be minimized or entirely avoided in the abstract and then presented unpeer-reviewed in the poster session, see Loechelt, 2009a), YEC proselytizing materials edited by his friends and/or fellow RATE members (e.g., Humphreys, 2003), and the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ), whose "peer-review" system and scientific quality have even been discredited by YECs (Whitmore et al., 2007). Humphreys is really sincere about his devotion to peer-review, let him wean himself off the reliance on miracles for his "accelerated" radioactive decay claims, honestly recognize and correct his numerous mistakes, thoroughly answer the numerous questions from his critics, and submit what's left as a detailed article in a real science journal, where he doesn't have friends that will rubber stamp his work. Humphreys in Humphreys (2005a) and Humphreys (2006) thinks that he can just read through the abstract of my original essay or other brief snippets of my work, throw out some insults, try to trivialize his serious mistakes, make bold assertions without any calculations to support them, make a couple of minor corrections here and there, misrepresent critical details in the literature, invoke several irrelevant analogies (e.g., lead self diffusion in Humphreys, 2006), ignore the details, promise better answers in the future (e.g., Humphreys, 2005a), repeatedly rely on his deceptive figure (i.e., Figure 2 in Humphreys, (2005a), and then hope that his readers will just go away on faith. Humphreys has had more than five years to make a thorough and air-tight case for his claims and produce the detail calculations that he promised in Humphreys (2005a).

There are also serious ethical questions about how Dr.