Frenemies of TalkRational: 
Nontheist Nexus  Rants'n'Raves  Secular Cafe  Council of ExMuslims  The Skeptical Zone  rationalia  Rational Skepticism  Atheists Today  

Life Science Discussions Biology, Natural History, etc. 

Thread Tools  Display Modes 
08082010, 07:26 PM  #1046188 / #1376  
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,237

Quote:
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


08082010, 07:28 PM  #1046189 / #1377  
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,237

Quote:
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution


08082010, 07:31 PM  #1046193 / #1378 
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799

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. 
08082010, 11:16 PM  #1046351 / #1379  
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674

Quote:
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. Nevertheless, it is a wellposed 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. Nevertheless, 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. 256257  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. Selfconsistency was never a strong point for youngearth 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! 

08082010, 11:25 PM  #1046358 / #1380  
Godlike
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,498

Quote:


08092010, 12:18 AM  #1046390 / #1381 
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674

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 followup 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 "oldearth" 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! 
08092010, 02:37 AM  #1046469 / #1382  
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 88

Quote:


08092010, 03:02 AM  #1046478 / #1383  
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674

Quote:
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. 

08092010, 03:29 AM  #1046487 / #1384  
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 88

Quote:


08092010, 03:43 AM  #1046490 / #1385  
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674

Quote:


08092010, 06:08 AM  #1046530 / #1387  
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674

Quote:
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. Volumeintegrate (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. 234235 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. Youngearth 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:
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. 

08092010, 08:16 AM  #1046555 / #1389  
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,237

Quote:
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution


08092010, 08:19 AM  #1046559 / #1390 
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,237

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

08092010, 10:03 AM  #1046585 / #1392  
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799

Quote:
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. 

08092010, 11:58 AM  #1046622 / #1393  
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799

In light of today's revelations, I think it's worth revisiting Humphreys's words on the subject. From RATE 1 (electronic version):
Quote:
Quote:


08092010, 03:53 PM  #1046800 / #1394 
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 15,487

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. 
08092010, 04:15 PM  #1046823 / #1395  
Senior Member

Quote:
Ya', those are superawesome...... 

08092010, 04:59 PM  #1046857 / #1396  
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,799

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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 online 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:
Quote:
Name just one that you can actually defend. Quote:


08092010, 05:20 PM  #1046882 / #1397  
Robot Architect From Hell
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lori's Place.
Posts: 24,161

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Invent the Future Last edited by RAFH; 08092010 at 05:50 PM. 

08092010, 05:21 PM  #1046885 / #1398  
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,801

Quote:
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 

08092010, 05:38 PM  #1046913 / #1399  
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: On an Island of Paradise within a sea of Iniquity
Posts: 7,167

Quote:
Quote:
YET  Davie CLAIMS to understand Humpfreys !!!! FLIPFLOP
__________________
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 

08092010, 05:40 PM  #1046916 / #1400  
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 29,237

Quote:
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



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  

