Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today |  Daily Wingnut | 
TalkRational  

FAQ Rules Staff List Calendar RSS
Go Back   TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Life Science Discussions Biology, Natural History, etc.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-08-2010, 07:26 PM   #1046188  /  #1376
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
excession
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 28,488
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I think it's like this ... imagine a small bucket inside a large bucket and we pour water in the small one. Humphreys thought that the small bucket had 10 holes in the bottom and the large bucket had 2 holes. He made a prediction of the rate of outflow from the bottom of the large bucket. Turns out he got the rate right, but it was actually the big bucket with the 10 holes and the small bucket with 2 holes. Either case gives the same answer. Now I may be off on my analogy, but it seems right.
interesting choice of analogy. If humphreys can understand water flowing through holes in buckets, then why can he not understand the problems of secular equilibrium in his AND models? To be honest this discussion with Loechelt is fascinating of course, but completely pointless, because Humphreys' underlying assumptions do not even stand up to the most basic scrutiny, even before we get to the bother of determining helium diffusion rates.

This by the way is a classic example that you are not at all interested in understanding the truth, you continuously cheerlead and white knight the likes of humphreys, because he says what you want to hear. As soon as someone like me talks about an area that humphreys explicitly avoids, you avoid talking about it too, because you, like he, are just not interested in anything that will undermine his model. You mock people for the RAFH says it you believe it thing, but this is precisely what you are doing with humphreys.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 08-08-2010, 07:28 PM   #1046189  /  #1377
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
excession
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 28,488
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Well, no. Not really. Because I haven't seen where the model - and, more importantly, the corresponding mathematics - was rederived to take into account the critical difference that I outlined: the difference between a homogeneous cavity (of essentially infinite diffusivity, where really all that matters is the surface area) to a sphere of very low diffusivity, where the geometry (not just the surface area) matters a lot. I don't see how changing the radius from 22 to 30 µm is justified (by anything) and I certainly don't see how it takes care of the problem I'm getting at.
Well, that's kind of the point. Changing the radius isn't justified. It's just a fudge to bring the results in line with observation.
this is precisely the basis of the whole AND model too. They are basically changing the leak rates between buckets to fit their observations, and also completely ignore other ramifications of changing those leak rates. Dave ignores this too, because dave just can't bear the idea that humphreys is wrong.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 08-08-2010, 07:31 PM   #1046193  /  #1378
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 37,911
VoxRat
Default

Maybe Dave can explain it. After all, he seems to think Humphrey's prediction is (a) valid and (b) verified.

Dave? Can you explain how Humphreys modified his model to take into account that the only aspect of geometry that matters for the "cavity" model is the surface area, whereas the geometry matters a lot for the solid sphere model and this difference needs to be reflected in the math? Can you explain that for me? Because, till someone does, I have to conclude that this "prediction" is kind of meaningless.
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 08-08-2010, 11:16 PM   #1046351  /  #1379
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonF View Post
...
I believe he's saying that if you substitute "whichever material is the rate-limiting factor" for "biotite" in Humphreys' RATE I analysis and prediction, then you get a valid prediction that is, in Dave's opinion. borne out by the later measurements. I.e. Humphreys' made a mistake thinking that biotite was the rate-limiting material but that error doesn't really invalidate the overall analysis.

If that were all there was to it, IMHO Dave would have a point worth considering, at least....
Maybe "worth considering" - for a moment, anyway. But I still have trouble - I've been trying to articulate this over several posts now, and I don't think I've succeeded. Let me try one more time.

Assuming we're sticking with this "spherical zircon embedded in biotite" model, if diffusion through zircon is the limiting factor, you have to model the kinetics of travel of helium from every point within the sphere to the surface. It's going to take a lot longer for the He atoms in the center to wend their way to the surface than the ones right at the edge. If biotite is the limiting barrier, the sphere is essentially a homogeneous bubble of helium, and all you need to do is model the rate at which the He in the bubble irreversibly enters the biotite matrix; position of the He within the bubble is immaterial, since all the He atoms will be bouncing around at every point within the bubble gazillions of times before finally entering the biotite matrix. And then the dimensions of the stuff that's supposed to be limiting - the biotite - doesn't enter into it at all.

So it seems to me leaving the mathematics - and the model - the same, but just relabeling the limiting substance from "biotite" to "zircon" just makes no sense at all.

Does anyone understand my point here? Has everyone understood all along, and it's just my imagination I'm not getting it across? Am I wrong?
VoxRat, I will try to answer what I think your question is. The way I look at it is that Humphreys' change in models is rather strange for several reasons. Among the many unanswered questions that advocates of his position fail to answer, the most curious one for me is how can you fundamentally change a diffusion model geometry and boundary conditions without changing the numerical result by more than 0.5%? Humphreys notes this peculiarity but offers no explanation as usual. Also, I conceptually understand his 2000 biotite model but not at the mathematical level. He never published the model equations, and I never bothered to look up the reference. When I came across the RATE 1 book, Humphreys' 2003 ICC conference paper had already been published, so I started immediately with his new model. Also, I created the "alternate model", so there are actually three models to consider here.

1. Humphreys' 2000 RATE 1 Model: The key features are a zircon cavity with a dimension of a = 22 um in a presumably infinite biotite matrix. The only critical parameters are D of the biotite and a of the sphere.

2. Humphreys' 2005 RATE 2 Model: This model was first published in his 2003 ICC conference paper. The key features are a zircon sphere inside a larger biotite sphere. Although Humphreys' own data shows that the two materials have vastly different diffusivities, he treated them both the same, so for all practical intents and purposes you can treat the problem as diffusion through a homogenous material of diffusivity D looking at how much helium remains inside the inner radius. The critical parameters are D, a, and b (diameter of the biotite sphere). Formally speaking, this model has one extra parameter (read fudge factor) to work with.

3. My Alternate Diffusion Model: This model takes into account the orders of magnitude difference in diffusivity between zircon and biotite by ignoring the biotite altogether. Although this approximation is not strictly correct, it is much more physically reasonable than treating them equal as in model #2. The geometry of the model is a solid zircon sphere of radius a = 22 um like in model #1. Likewise, the only critical parameters are D of the zircon and a of the sphere.

Now Dave Hawkins' argument is that it does not matter whether the zircon or the biotite is the limiting factor to diffusion -- It is all the same. Mathematically, that means using the same value for D in all three models regardless of whether it is zircon or biotite. I question the reasonableness of doing this on physical grounds. Never-the-less, it is a well-posed problem mathematically.

Now we come to what I think is your underlying question, if I understand it correctly. Suppose we substitute the same value for D in the three models above, would we then expect them all to arrive at the same answer? The answer is a categoric NO! Even with the same diffusivity D, the models have different geometries, hence different mathematical forms, and also different physical dimensions. Quite clearly, models #1 and #3 give entirely different answers, which is no surprise. More surprisingly, models #1 and #2 give essentially the same answer. It is not clear a priori why this would be the case.

If you are really dying to know why, then the only answer is to look up the equation to model #1 and perform a formal mathematical analysis comparing it to model #2, which has its equation published in the RATE 2 book. I am totally capable of doing the analysis. I have not done it because 1) I did not look up the reference. 2) I do not have the time. 3) I am not really that interested. Humphreys' helium in zircon dead horse has already taken a severe beating. Never-the-less, I still like math a lot. Therefore, I will make a deal with you. If you will look up the reference to model #1 for me (Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959, pp. 256-257 -- see the RATE 1 book for details), I will perform the mathematical analysis. Intuitively, I can see the comparison taking one of two branches. (I assume that numerically models #1 and #2 do agree to within 0.5% or so. Amazingly, I still trust Humphreys to get a few things right.)

1. Perhaps in a limiting case, the two models are not that different. After all, in model #1 the helium gets a "free ride" for 22 um and then has to diffuse at a rate of D into an infinite space. In model #2 the helium has to diffuse at a rate of D through at most 30 um of zircon before diffusing again at a rate of D through 1000 - 30 = 970 um of biotite. One could argue that since there is 33x the amount of biotite to zircon, the extra zircon does not slow the helium loss by that much. It is primarily the biotite restricting the loss of helium which is opposite the claim which Humphreys makes. Self-consistency was never a strong point for young-earth creationism.

2. Perhaps the size of the zircon core makes a significant difference mathematically. Then, apparently the combination of a = 22 um for model #1 and a = 30 um and b = 1000 um for model #2 happen to cancel, or at least mostly cancel. If this is indeed the case, then one could reasonably accuse Humphreys of fudging, since the parameter a was changed arbitrarily and the parameter b is not well constrained. (How can one be reasonably sure that all these zircons came from biotite flakes of the same size?)

Basically, I believe those are your two options. The remarkable agreement between models #1 and #2 is either artificial or contrived. I really don't care which one it is, but if you provide the reference, I will do the math!
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 08-08-2010, 11:25 PM   #1046358  /  #1380
MartinM
Godlike
 
MartinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,455
MartinM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
If you are really dying to know why, then the only answer is to look up the equation to model #1 and perform a formal mathematical analysis comparing it to model #2, which has its equation published in the RATE 2 book. I am totally capable of doing the analysis. I have not done it because 1) I did not look up the reference. 2) I do not have the time. 3) I am not really that interested. Humphreys' helium in zircon dead horse has already taken a severe beating. Never-the-less, I still like math a lot. Therefore, I will make a deal with you. If you will look up the reference to model #1 for me (Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959, pp. 256-257 -- see the RATE 1 book for details), I will perform the mathematical analysis. Intuitively, I can see the comparison taking one of two branches. (I assume that numerically models #1 and #2 do agree to within 0.5% or so. Amazingly, I still trust Humphreys to get a few things right.)
The Carslaw and Jaeger text is freely available online.
MartinM is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 12:18 AM   #1046390  /  #1381
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Since the "last stand" argument for Humphreys' helium in zircon theory has been the "remarkable agreement" to measurement of a "specific and risky" prediction, I would like to address this claim from a different point of view. I would also like to see a thoughtful reply from advocates of Humphreys. Specifically, recent posts to this thread have addressed the numerous ways in which Humphreys changed his model and prediction along the way, thereby invalidating his claims. However, the numerical agreement of the original 2000 RATE model to the final diffusion experiment published in the 2004 CRSQ paper and the subsequent 2005 RATE 2 book has received less discussion. I want to now question directly the underlying premise that there is in fact a "remarkably good agreement" betwen the 2000 RATE model (or the 2005 RATE model) and experiment. When viewed from a larger perspective, is the agreement between Humphreys' model and experiment really that impressive? Consider the following questions:

1. Why does the trend line from the majority of the diffusion data in the experiment diverge from the model predictions and extrapolate to the vicinity of the uniformitarian model?

2. Why is the supposedly good agreement between model and experiment only supported by 4 measurements taken at the lowest temperatures? See the following figure for reference.



3. Why is Humphreys relying on experimental data below 300 C, when other researchers in the field only consider measurements above 300 C?

4. Why is no support for Humphreys' model found from any of the helium diffusion experiments recently published in the scientific literature?

5. Why did intermediate diffusion experiments performed by Humphreys and the RATE team fail to support Humphreys' model? In what way were they "ambiguous"? Why were results from these experiments never published? Why is the laboratory report for the final experiment not published?

6. Why did the RATE team not try to confirm their findings with a follow-up diffusion experiment?

Scientific discoveries can only be confirmed through verifiable and reproducible evidence. The experimental data "supporting" the RATE model has not been verified or reproduced, but instead comprises only four data points from a single, selectively chosen experiment conducted in a temperature regime of questionable validity. The experimental evidence supporting the Humphreys' RATE model is at best very weak.

In contrast, my "old-earth" model is well supported by verifiable and reproducible evidence. Consider my first post to this thread. The main point of that post is that I could reproduce the results of my diffusion model for the Fenton Hill zircon using experimental diffusion data from two different sources.



Subsequent work by Wolfe and Stockli (2010) confirm the previous diffusion work of Reiners (2004), and hence indirectly support my model as well. So my model has been verified using essentially three different sources for the experimental data, whereas Humphreys' model is supported by only 4 data points from one poorly documented, selectively chosen experiment. I am not impressed!
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 02:37 AM   #1046469  /  #1382
Tension
Member
 
Tension's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 88
Tension
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Since the "last stand" argument for Humphreys' helium in zircon theory has been the "remarkable agreement" to measurement of a "specific and risky" prediction, I would like to address this claim from a different point of view. I would also like to see a thoughtful reply from advocates of Humphreys. Specifically, recent posts to this thread have addressed the numerous ways in which Humphreys changed his model and prediction along the way, thereby invalidating his claims. However, the numerical agreement of the original 2000 RATE model to the final diffusion experiment published in the 2004 CRSQ paper and the subsequent 2005 RATE 2 book has received less discussion. I want to now question directly the underlying premise that there is in fact a "remarkably good agreement" betwen the 2000 RATE model (or the 2005 RATE model) and experiment. When viewed from a larger perspective, is the agreement between Humphreys' model and experiment really that impressive? Consider the following questions:

1. Why does the trend line from the majority of the diffusion data in the experiment diverge from the model predictions and extrapolate to the vicinity of the uniformitarian model?

2. Why is the supposedly good agreement between model and experiment only supported by 4 measurements taken at the lowest temperatures? See the following figure for reference.



3. Why is Humphreys relying on experimental data below 300 C, when other researchers in the field only consider measurements above 300 C?

4. Why is no support for Humphreys' model found from any of the helium diffusion experiments recently published in the scientific literature?

5. Why did intermediate diffusion experiments performed by Humphreys and the RATE team fail to support Humphreys' model? In what way were they "ambiguous"? Why were results from these experiments never published? Why is the laboratory report for the final experiment not published?

6. Why did the RATE team not try to confirm their findings with a follow-up diffusion experiment?

Scientific discoveries can only be confirmed through verifiable and reproducible evidence. The experimental data "supporting" the RATE model has not been verified or reproduced, but instead comprises only four data points from a single, selectively chosen experiment conducted in a temperature regime of questionable validity. The experimental evidence supporting the Humphreys' RATE model is at best very weak.

In contrast, my "old-earth" model is well supported by verifiable and reproducible evidence. Consider my first post to this thread. The main point of that post is that I could reproduce the results of my diffusion model for the Fenton Hill zircon using experimental diffusion data from two different sources.



Subsequent work by Wolfe and Stockli (2010) confirm the previous diffusion work of Reiners (2004), and hence indirectly support my model as well. So my model has been verified using essentially three different sources for the experimental data, whereas Humphreys' model is supported by only 4 data points from one poorly documented, selectively chosen experiment. I am not impressed!
what is this last graph supposed to be of? becasue it shows humphreys as agreeing with the measurement rather than reiners. Is this the graph Humphreys himself published?
Tension is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 03:02 AM   #1046478  /  #1383
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tension View Post
what is this last graph supposed to be of? becasue it shows humphreys as agreeing with the measurement rather than reiners. Is this the graph Humphreys himself published?
Sorry for the confusion. My mistake. All three colored data points are calculated from my model, not Humphreys' model. The legend refers to where the source for the diffusion data was published.

Blue Circles: My model + diffusion data published in Humphreys 2004 CRSQ paper.
Yellow Triangles: My model + diffusion data published in Reiners 2004. The average of several runs is used.
Red Stars: My model + diffusion data published in Reiners 2004. Data from sample 01CS15z 66 um is used.

The point that I was trying to make is that my model plus diffusion data from a variety of published sources, including Humphreys 2004, results in good agreement to measured helium retention data by Gentry, whereas Humphreys' model was only compared to one particular data set.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 03:29 AM   #1046487  /  #1384
Tension
Member
 
Tension's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 88
Tension
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tension View Post
what is this last graph supposed to be of? becasue it shows humphreys as agreeing with the measurement rather than reiners. Is this the graph Humphreys himself published?
Sorry for the confusion. My mistake. All three colored data points are calculated from my model, not Humphreys' model. The legend refers to where the source for the diffusion data was published.

Blue Circles: My model + diffusion data published in Humphreys 2004 CRSQ paper.
Yellow Triangles: My model + diffusion data published in Reiners 2004. The average of several runs is used.
Red Stars: My model + diffusion data published in Reiners 2004. Data from sample 01CS15z 66 um is used.

The point that I was trying to make is that my model plus diffusion data from a variety of published sources, including Humphreys 2004, results in good agreement to measured helium retention data by Gentry, whereas Humphreys' model was only compared to one particular data set.
Ok but didn't you say Gentry was wrong? I thought that was one of the problems with Humphreys model, that he based part of it on Gentry who turned out ot be worng or maybe I misread?
Tension is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 03:43 AM   #1046490  /  #1385
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tension View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tension View Post
what is this last graph supposed to be of? becasue it shows humphreys as agreeing with the measurement rather than reiners. Is this the graph Humphreys himself published?
Sorry for the confusion. My mistake. All three colored data points are calculated from my model, not Humphreys' model. The legend refers to where the source for the diffusion data was published.

Blue Circles: My model + diffusion data published in Humphreys 2004 CRSQ paper.
Yellow Triangles: My model + diffusion data published in Reiners 2004. The average of several runs is used.
Red Stars: My model + diffusion data published in Reiners 2004. Data from sample 01CS15z 66 um is used.

The point that I was trying to make is that my model plus diffusion data from a variety of published sources, including Humphreys 2004, results in good agreement to measured helium retention data by Gentry, whereas Humphreys' model was only compared to one particular data set.
Ok but didn't you say Gentry was wrong? I thought that was one of the problems with Humphreys model, that he based part of it on Gentry who turned out ot be worng or maybe I misread?
Sorry once again for more confusion. I made a "best guess attempt" at correcting Gentry's data. I should have said that the results were compared to my correction of Gentry's data. I think that I have been spending so much time on this topic that statements that are obviously clear to me need a little more explanation for others to follow. Most of the background is contained in my technical paper. I am just exploring various "what if" scenarios.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 03:50 AM   #1046493  /  #1386
Tension
Member
 
Tension's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 88
Tension
Default

Thanks Dr Loechelt, dont worry, you have doen an excellent job with this.
Tension is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 06:08 AM   #1046530  /  #1387
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
If you are really dying to know why, then the only answer is to look up the equation to model #1 and perform a formal mathematical analysis comparing it to model #2, which has its equation published in the RATE 2 book. I am totally capable of doing the analysis. I have not done it because 1) I did not look up the reference. 2) I do not have the time. 3) I am not really that interested. Humphreys' helium in zircon dead horse has already taken a severe beating. Never-the-less, I still like math a lot. Therefore, I will make a deal with you. If you will look up the reference to model #1 for me (Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959, pp. 256-257 -- see the RATE 1 book for details), I will perform the mathematical analysis. Intuitively, I can see the comparison taking one of two branches. (I assume that numerically models #1 and #2 do agree to within 0.5% or so. Amazingly, I still trust Humphreys to get a few things right.)
The Carslaw and Jaeger text is freely available online.
Thanks Martin. I got it and tried looking up the equation. Boy, I am really losing confidence in Humphreys' work. It is far worse than I thought, if that could even be possible. When I went to pp. 256-257 of the reference by Carslaw and Jaeger, it was not clear to me how it applied to the problem at hand. Therefore, I double checked my printed copy of the RATE 1 book to make sure that I read the reference correctly. Sure enough, it lists pp. 256-257 as the reference (page 347 of the RATE 1 book). Then I had a wild idea. What is the reference in the electronic PDF copy of the RATE 1 book. It is pp. 234-235, not pp. 256-257. No kidding! The page numbers for the reference have changed between the printed and the electronic copies of the book. Does anyone recall a correction statement for the electronic copy?

I thought that maybe Humphreys had just corrected a typo in the printed copy, so I decided to see if there was any indication in the endnotes.

Printed Version: Carslaw, H. S., and J. C. Jaeger, Conduction of Heat in Solids, second edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1959. The solutions apply just as well to diffusion of He as they do to diffusion of heat. Volume-integrate (o to a) eq. (6) on p. 257.

Electronic Version: Carslaw, H. S., and J. C. Jaeger, Conduction of Heat in Solids, second edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1959. The solutions apply just as well to diffusion of He as they do to diffusion of heat. Apply case IV, p. 235, to eq. (8) on p. 234.

So the difference is not just a correction of a typo, but a change in the actual equation and method he used for his calculation. Very interesting. Furthermore, when you go to the reference in the printed version, the section heading reads "the instantaneous point source". It discusses "the temperature in an infinite solid with initial temperature f(x,y,z) as due to liberation of heat at t = 0 over the volume of the solid". Ignoring the difference between heat and He diffusion, the remarkable statement is that these equations pertain to "an infinite solid", not a hollow cavity. It looks like Humphreys did not even use the correct equation from Carslaw and Jaeger in his 2000 model. Printed version we must add.

But wait, there is more. He used a different equation for his 2000 model. Electronic version we must add. What do we find on pp. 234-235 of his reference this time? The section heading reads "the sphere 0 < r < a with initial temperature f(r), and surface temperature phi(t)". In other words, this section does not discuss a hollow cavity either, but a solid sphere. Go figure. Equation (8) on p. 234 is for the average temperature inside the sphere. However, the average temperature is not the same as the temperature inside a cavity of uniform temperature. So not only did Humphreys change his equation from the printed version to the electronic version of the RATE 1 book, he screwed up the equation a second time. No where in either reference from either the printed or electronic version of the book do I find the correct equation for diffusion from a cavity into a surrounding medium.

Young-earth creationism relies upon miracles, and we have just witnessed another one take place. Humphreys made a "specific and risky" prediction in the printed version of the 2000 RATE 1 book, used the wrong equation for his helium filled spherical cavity model, changed the equation he used in the electronic version of the RATE 1 book, used a different wrong equation for his helium filled spherical cavity model, further changed his model again in his 2005 RATE 2 book to be two concentric spheres with identical diffusivities even though they are vastly different materials, claimed that his prediction applied to zircon now instead of biotite, and amazingly got the same numbers he published back in 2000. A miracle has happened!

If that isn't enough for you. Humphreys defends his work in 2008 claiming that experimental data had confirmed his remarkable prediction back in 2000! To top it off, he boast that

Quote:
This contrasts starkly with the RATE helium project. It was a multi-author effort, and it had more than seventeen reviewers and editors as it appeared in five technical publications, one of which is non-creationist.
So these reviewers and editors did not notice or object to all these erratic changes. Dave, I would like to see how you defend Humphreys in light of these new revelations.

But I know you will. After all, it is a little too harsh to criticize the work of a creation scientist just because he reads graphs backwards, changes the material he uses in predictions after he has the data, uses the wrong equations for his models, changes the contents of electronic documents from their printed originals without any clear notice, and publishes other people's data without their knowledge or permission, because in the end the only thing that matter is that it was published by his peers and supports the conclusion of a young earth.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 08:06 AM   #1046553  /  #1388
damitall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,482
damitall
Default

To make a specific, but not very risky prediction:-

There will now ensue a deafening creationist silence on this subject.

Good forensics, Dr. Loechelt!
damitall is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 08:16 AM   #1046555  /  #1389
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
excession
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 28,488
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Febble ...
Quote:
evolutionary biology journals do not insist that the papers they publish support a foregone conclusion.
Yes they do. It's just that they are secretive about what this foregone conclusion is. All papers have to support (or at least not be critical of) the leading paradigm which currently is Millions of Years and No Divine Foot in the Door. If you mention anything about the Book of Genesis or Creation or the Flood or Michael Behe or CRSQ, you can forget getting your paper published. If they were honest, they'd have a statement to that effect at the front of their journal. At least the creationist journals tell you up front what you're dealing with.
that's paranoia, dave.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 08:19 AM   #1046559  /  #1390
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
excession
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 28,488
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

you know, I think Dr Loechelt's work there would be a rather nice analysis of the shoddy scholarship of the creationists in its own right.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 08:20 AM   #1046560  /  #1391
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
excession
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 28,488
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

this needs a meme... the Humphreys Hoparound, maybe
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 10:03 AM   #1046585  /  #1392
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 37,911
VoxRat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
..[answer to my question about how Humphreys adjusted his model from cavity to solid sphere]...
Thanks for the sleuth work - above and beyond the call of duty! Now I don't feel so stupid for pushing the point.

It looks like the "specific, risky prediction" was that no one would bother trying to track down his math. Not all that risky if the target audience is nothing but Dave Hawkinses. But a little too risky if the audience includes competent knowledgeable scientists. Persistent competent knowledgeable scientists.
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 11:58 AM   #1046622  /  #1393
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 37,911
VoxRat
Default

In light of today's revelations, I think it's worth revisiting Humphreys's words on the subject. From RATE 1 (electronic version):
Quote:
Next we can plug each of these models into the well-understood equations for diffusion [Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959, pp. 234-235]. For simplicity, I assume the zircons to be He-filled spherical cavities in the biotite.
So it turns out the "well-understood equations for diffusion" are not so well understood - at least by Humphreys - that he knows which ones to apply. Nor are they even "equations for diffusion"; they're equations for heat conduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat
I normally think of diffusion equations as telling me how much stuff travels how far how fast through other stuff. I think of them as predicting concentration gradients. It's not immediately obvious to me how I apply them to how much material crosses a phase boundary per unit time, and I find Humphreys's omission of these equations - referring to a 50 year old inaccessible reference which may or may not answer my question - suspiciously facile.
Think of that as a "specific, risky prediction"
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 03:53 PM   #1046800  /  #1394
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 11,838
Dave Hawkins
Default

I have a suggestion, Dr. Loechelt ... why don't you put all this in a paper and submit it to a "real science" journal. If you get published, then I will know that at least someone with a reputation at stake has looked through your work and found it to be sound. Voxrat tells me that mentioning CRSQ or Humphreys or other YEC related things should be no problem. They should publish your paper anyway. Frankly, my head hurts wading through all this detail ... I am happy to leave all this excruciating detail to people with PhD's. You guys fight it out in the science journals and let me know the executive summary when you figure it out. As for the million dollar question of whether Humphreys is wrong or not, all I can say is ... it's inconceivable to me that Helium can be retained in those zircons for 1.5 billion years ... but what do I know. From everything I've read of yours, it seems to me that you are nit picking at this and that which Humphreys did wrong and missing the elephant in the room that he made a specific, risky prediction and it was confirmed by experimental data. If by some miracle, Humphreys is eventually proven to be wrong, then oh well. There's umpteen other evidences for a young earth. It's not like YEC rises or falls on this one. BTW ... have you had a look at Don Batten's 101 Evidences for a Young Earth? You asked me one time for a list like that.
__________________
“The modern literature is full of funny ideas about the state of the natural sciences in antiquity. Those funny ideas can only come up if somebody does not study very carefully ... " --Dieter Lelgemann, Researcher at the Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Technical University of Berlin.
Dave Hawkins is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 04:15 PM   #1046823  /  #1395
tabula rasa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 363
tabula rasa
Send a message via Yahoo to tabula rasa
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
IBTW ... have you had a look at Don Batten's 101 Evidences for a Young Earth? You asked me one time for a list like that.
You mean the 101 evidences you've done nothing but backpeddle away from at light-speed when asked to actually post any actual, empiricle information? The PRATT's of yours that have been refuted/destroyed across multiple message boards over the last several years only to watch you pop up, take a piss, and run away once you've had your arse handed to you?

Ya', those are super-awesome......
tabula rasa is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 04:59 PM   #1046857  /  #1396
VoxRat
humble rodent
 
VoxRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 37,911
VoxRat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I have a suggestion, Dr. Loechelt ... why don't you put all this in a paper and submit it to a "real science" journal.
We've been through this before, Dave. Real-world science journals are not terribly interested in publishing papers on the track record of fortune cookies, the claims of crystal powers, the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, or the writings of D. Russell Humphreys. There needs to be some hint of a reason to believe X, before debunking X is worth publishing in anything other than a tabloid.
Quote:
If you get published, then I will know that at least someone with a reputation at stake has looked through your work and found it to be sound.
Do you think anyone with a reputation at stake has looked through Humpy's work, and found it to be sound? And, no, you wouldn't know any more about who looked through Dr. Loechelt's work than you know now. It would be some anonymous scientists, presumably physicists, rounded up by the journal's editors. It could be Jet Black.
Quote:
Voxrat tells me that mentioning CRSQ or Humphreys or other YEC related things should be no problem.
I said mentioning them would not necessarily be a problem. I gave you the example of Behe, who has been mentioned (and cited) in legitimate journals. But a focus on fortune cookies, L. Ron Hubbard's work or Humpy's work? Big problem.
Quote:
They should publish your paper anyway.
Why? What would showing Humpy to be wrong add to the world's understanding of helium diffusion in zircons beyond what the world already knows from the work of people like Reiners et al?

Quote:
Frankly, my head hurts wading through all this detail ... I am happy to leave all this excruciating detail to people with PhD's. You guys fight it out in the science journals and let me know the executive summary when you figure it out.
Great. In the meantime, I trust you'll stop using Humphreys and helium and zircons as "an evidence" that the earth is less than billions of years old. Tell us the truth now: have you used this in your Sunday school classes? If so, will you be issuing a correction?
Quote:
As for the million dollar question of whether Humphreys is wrong or not, all I can say is ... it's inconceivable to me that Helium can be retained in those zircons for 1.5 billion years ... but what do I know.
Pretty much nothing relevant to this question.
Quote:
From everything I've read of yours, it seems to me that you are nit picking at this and that which Humphreys did wrong and missing the elephant in the room that he made a specific, risky prediction and it was confirmed by experimental data.

Dave. The only value in a confirmed prediction is saying that the model from which the prediction was derived is compatible with reality. What we've just learned is that there IS no model from which that prediction was derived. The equations that Humpy allegedly "plugged his models into" make no sense for the problem at hand. We don't even know which equations they were. He changed his story between the printed and on-line versions of the paper. Which equations do you contend were validated by the experiments??? If you can't answer that question, you have no business proclaiming his "model" validated; you have no business even claiming that he has a model.

Quote:
If by some miracle, Humphreys is eventually proven to be wrong, then oh well.
Wrong about what? What is this model that he's supposed to be "right" about? Is it the one with equations cited in the printed version? Is it the one with equations cited in the pdf? Does it matter at all?

Quote:
There's umpteen other evidences for a young earth.
Oh brother. Here we go again.
Name just one that you can actually defend.

Quote:
It's not like YEC rises or falls on this one. BTW ... have you had a look at Don Batten's 101 Evidences for a Young Earth? You asked me one time for a list like that.
Yes, we've looked at that. In fact the helium/zircon story that we've just seen to be completely indefensible is #59 & #60. And we've asked you if you can defend a single one of those 101 items. And we've learned that you can't. We've also learned that you don't understand why the faggot fallacy is a fallacy.
__________________
'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.' - Bertrand Russell

"I already know the answer of course, being scientific" - F X
VoxRat is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 05:20 PM   #1046882  /  #1397
RAFH
Robot Architect From Hell
 
RAFH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lori's Place.
Posts: 21,588
RAFH
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I have a suggestion, Dr. Loechelt ... why don't you put all this in a paper and submit it to a "real science" journal. If you get published, then I will know that at least someone with a reputation at stake has looked through your work and found it to be sound. Voxrat tells me that mentioning CRSQ or Humphreys or other YEC related things should be no problem. They should publish your paper anyway. Frankly, my head hurts wading through all this detail
Sure that isn't just your brain cramping from having to ignore all the evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
... I am happy to leave all this excruciating detail to people with PhD's.
Dr. Loechelt has a PHD. So do Vox, Jet Black and numerous others here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
You guys fight it out in the science journals and let me know the executive summary when you figure it out.
It's been figured out, Bluffoon, you just were passed out on stupid when it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
As for the million dollar question of whether Humphreys is wrong or not, all I can say is ... it's inconceivable to me that Helium can be retained in those zircons for 1.5 billion years ... but what do I know.
Inconceivable? To you? Yeah, that's a serious reason to doubt. The person who's been shown repeatedly to be wrong about everything. Yeah, what do you know? Apparently not much, and you are intent on keeping it that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
From everything I've read of yours, it seems to me that you are nit picking at this and that which Humphreys did wrong and missing the elephant in the room that he made a specific, risky prediction and it was confirmed by experimental data.
Then obviously you haven't been reading what Dr. Loechelt and the rest here have posted, it's not nit-picking. Humphreys has fucked up, big time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
If by some miracle, Humphreys is eventually proven to be wrong, then oh well.
He wasn't even right in the first place you twit, by his own admission. He just tweaked and fiddled enough with his model to make fit his earlier, mistaken results. But as you say, "oh well".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
There's umpteen other evidences for a young earth.
There are? Present them, as you have been asked to do numerous times and have repeatedly failed to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
It's not like YEC rises or falls on this one. BTW ... have you had a look at Don Batten's 101 Evidences for a Young Earth? You asked me one time for a list like that.
And we've already torn it apart, though you don't seem to have comprehended that. Ya know, Bluffoon, that's all you really have going for you, determined ignorance.
__________________
Invent the Future

Last edited by RAFH; 08-09-2010 at 05:50 PM.
RAFH is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 05:21 PM   #1046885  /  #1398
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
Senior Member
 
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,801
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
... have you had a look at Don Batten's 101 Evidences for a Young Earth? ...
You mean the 101 "evidences" that have been refuted at:
this site?
That bit of nonsense and special pleading?
Why should anyone look at it again?
Don't haul it out again until you can address the refutations.

More to the point, why do you keep trotting out things you don't understand in futile attempts to refute things you don't understand?

no hugs for thugs,
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo

no fall, no flood, no resurrection
Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 05:38 PM   #1046913  /  #1399
boba123
Senior Member
 
boba123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: On an Island of Paradise within a sea of Iniquity
Posts: 7,167
boba123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
I have a suggestion, Dr. Loechelt ... why don't you put all this in a paper and submit it to a "real science" journal. If you get published, then I will know that at least someone with a reputation at stake has looked through your work and found it to be sound. Voxrat tells me that mentioning CRSQ or Humphreys or other YEC related things should be no problem. They should publish your paper anyway. Frankly, my head hurts wading through all this detail ... I am happy to leave all this excruciating detail to people with PhD's. You guys fight it out in the science journals and let me know the executive summary when you figure it out. As for the million dollar question of whether Humphreys is wrong or not, all I can say is ... it's inconceivable to me that Helium can be retained in those zircons for 1.5 billion years ... but what do I know. From everything I've read of yours, it seems to me that you are nit picking at this and that which Humphreys did wrong and missing the elephant in the room that he made a specific, risky prediction and it was confirmed by experimental data. If by some miracle, Humphreys is eventually proven to be wrong, then oh well. There's umpteen other evidences for a young earth. It's not like YEC rises or falls on this one. BTW ... have you had a look at Don Batten's 101 Evidences for a Young Earth? You asked me one time for a list like that.
AND - in the TIME Honored Way (meaning that Davie DOES it Time, after Time, after Time) of Davie Dumplins doin' the ol' FLIP-FLOP - FIRST we see ol' Davie here -
Quote:
Originally Posted by boba123 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faid View Post
I do not think dave wants to talk about that subject anymore.

Actually I do. I'm waiting on Dr. Loechelt to send me a simplified model so I don't have to learn Eigen functions and reverse quantum vector analysis or what have you.
Flip-flop Dave is back. He wants a simplified version - to understand stuff. Yet, Dave CLAIMS that he understands the COMPLICATED stuff enough - to add his comments and critique to the complicated stuff.

Flip-flop. Flip-flop
Where Davie says that he's waiting for Dr. Loechelt to explain something to him - and also uses this waiting for the good Doctor as an excuse for NOT being able to understand HIGH SCHOOL Math - so that WHEN the good Doctor DOES explain the stuff that Davie's been waiting for - Davie NOW claims - that again - it's just TOO COMPLEX from him (Davie) to understand.

YET - Davie CLAIMS to understand Humpfreys !!!!

FLIP-FLOP
__________________
MattShizzle - using the word "MORON" - http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...772#post914772-- "Ignore the assholes. Assholes are the price we pay for being able to tell assholes they are assholes." = Febble - http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...599#post958599-- "Im a Satanist, Israel is a terrorist state, Hamas is the good guys." = S'hitman - http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...61#post1454961
boba123 is offline   topbottom
Old 08-09-2010, 05:40 PM   #1046916  /  #1400
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
excession
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 28,488
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
If by some miracle, Humphreys is eventually proven to be wrong, then oh well. There's umpteen other evidences for a young earth.

iow, heads I win, tails you lose.

see dave, you're just not interested in the actual truth, you already have your conclusion.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Closed Thread

  TalkRational > Discussion > Life Science Discussions

Tags
"algebras, a cromulent discussion, could sanshou be the one?, dave the king of science, don't mention sanshou, how do they work?", wishful thinking, would sandshoe tea be fun

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2008 - 2014, TalkRational.org