Frenemies of TalkRational:
Nontheist Nexus |  Rants'n'Raves |  Secular Cafe |  Council of Ex-Muslims |  The Skeptical Zone |  rationalia |  Rational Skepticism |  Atheists Today | 
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 05-30-2010, 09:48 PM   #949463  /  #176
damitall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,657
damitall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Black View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
YECs are despised. Just read the posts in this forum.
Dave, this forum is not representative of what people think of Young Earth Creationists.

Most scientists don't even know anything about them.
Yes, that rings true.

And if they are introduced to Yeckery, their first reaction is incredulity, followed by hilarity, followed by a sort of dull, uncomprehending anger about how anyone with a functioning brain could actually believe that stuff, let alone promulgate it; and the thought that if they are doing, they should stop it RIGHT NOW.

For goodness' sake - these people believe that the first human being was created from dust! No water, even!
damitall is online now   topbottom
Old 05-30-2010, 10:52 PM   #949526  /  #177
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
If you don't think CRSQ is a legitimate scientific journal, then why did you submit your work to them? Are you not a legitimate scientist? Do you think the people running CRSQ are not legitimate scientists also? Did they get fake PhD's?
Perhaps it never occurred to you that my submission to the CRSQ was an honest way to discover if they are a legitimate scientific journal. If they had published my article, I would have held them in much higher regard. In case you did not notice, I am not questioning the scientific credentials of these people as much as their integrity. Having a Ph.D. does not guarantee honesty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
As for concealing their identity to the lab, do you think law enforcement officers are wrong for posing as drug users in order to do a bust? I consider people like Farley who refuse to do work for YECs to be very unethical. So yes, Humphreys is justified to hide his identity in order to "bust" him.
I am appalled that you take the point of view that anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is almost criminal in nature. There were other reasonable alternatives to get the experimental data. Consider, for instance, that Reiners published the diffusivity of helium in zircon in 2004, the same year that Humphreys published the CRSQ paper. If they would have been willing to wait just a couple of years, they could have used data from the literature without resorting to any deceptive tactics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
As for listing Farley as a co-author, I'm sure Humphreys would have been glad to, except for the small detail that had he known it was Humphreys, he wouldn't have done the work. So it was not possible to list Farley as a co-author.
I do not see "the end justifies the means" as being a proper Biblical behavior. As a Bible believing Christian, my disagreement with young-earth creationism goes way beyond the age of the earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
As for the misreading of the graph, I think you make too much of it. It seems that the real issue is this multi vs. single domain issue. And I still don't yet understand your reasons for thinking Humphreys is wrong on this. I'll re-read your post.
The misreading of the graph is a reflection of the quality of the peer review by the Creation Research Society Quarterly.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 05-30-2010, 11:37 PM   #949600  /  #178
Crazalus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,222
Crazalus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
If you don't think CRSQ is a legitimate scientific journal, then why did you submit your work to them? Are you not a legitimate scientist? Do you think the people running CRSQ are not legitimate scientists also? Did they get fake PhD's?
Perhaps it never occurred to you that my submission to the CRSQ was an honest way to discover if they are a legitimate scientific journal. If they had published my article, I would have held them in much higher regard. In case you did not notice, I am not questioning the scientific credentials of these people as much as their integrity. Having a Ph.D. does not guarantee honesty.
Dave knows this... after all, he keeps on insisting that the vast majority of people with Ph.D's are all lying and covering up oodles of evidence.

The fact he automatically believes any shit someone comes out with if they happen to believe the same crap Dave does, speaks volumes for Dave's integrity... and gullibility.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
As for concealing their identity to the lab, do you think law enforcement officers are wrong for posing as drug users in order to do a bust? I consider people like Farley who refuse to do work for YECs to be very unethical. So yes, Humphreys is justified to hide his identity in order to "bust" him.
I am appalled that you take the point of view that anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is almost criminal in nature. There were other reasonable alternatives to get the experimental data. Consider, for instance, that Reiners published the diffusivity of helium in zircon in 2004, the same year that Humphreys published the CRSQ paper. If they would have been willing to wait just a couple of years, they could have used data from the literature without resorting to any deceptive tactics.
Personally, I'm appalled that Dave thinks it's ethical to take the work someone has done, then twist the results to make it look like it says what it doesn't... but thinks it UNethical to refuse to do work for people who do just that.

This speaks more than just volumes about Dave's honesty, integrity and morals...
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
As for listing Farley as a co-author, I'm sure Humphreys would have been glad to, except for the small detail that had he known it was Humphreys, he wouldn't have done the work. So it was not possible to list Farley as a co-author.
I do not see "the end justifies the means" as being a proper Biblical behavior. As a Bible believing Christian, my disagreement with young-earth creationism goes way beyond the age of the earth.
Though I would disagree on whether it was proper Biblical Behaviour (the OT seems to think the ends do justify the means sometimes, at least in my eyes) that is a topic for another time. (See Dave... that's how you mention something without derailing a thread) I would say though, that failing to give credit to the person who did the work... especially since deception was used to get the work done... would be theft.

Dave, I think it's professional ethics NOT to publish UNLESS you have the permission of the person who did the work for you... or unless you at least list them as co-author.

By not doing that, Humphreys showed a complete lack of morals, integrity, ethics and honesty... and by defending that action, you show that you have that same lack of morals, integrity, ethics and honesty.

Small wonder people despise you, isn't it?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
As for the misreading of the graph, I think you make too much of it. It seems that the real issue is this multi vs. single domain issue. And I still don't yet understand your reasons for thinking Humphreys is wrong on this. I'll re-read your post.
The misreading of the graph is a reflection of the quality of the peer review by the Creation Research Society Quarterly.
Dave's continual lack of understanding is a reflection of Dave's ability to learn...


Dave, I'm gonna make this simple... Humphreys conclusion is based on the foundations of Heat/Temperature History of the samples, and on the "leakiness" of the Helium.

If you made an image, what would it look like? Well, pretty easy to work out, isn't it?

Now Dave... what happens if one of those foundations is shown to be upsidedown? (which is basically what Humphreys managed to do)

See? Anything built on such a foundation falls simply because it doesn't work!


It's incredibly simple Dave... if Humphreys got a vital part of his calculations so badly wrong, then his calculations are WRONG AND INVALID. No amount of fucking about with the "leakiness" or arguing over if it should be single or multi-domain means a damn, since it's still gonna be invalid when it's all said and done.

THAT is why the graph is such a big deal Dave... until that is dealt with, nothing based on it means a thing.



The even better thing? You're busy telling an expert that he's wrong on what he's an expert in, when you've admitted that you don't understand the subject! Arrogant or what?
Crazalus is offline   topbottom
Old 05-30-2010, 11:43 PM   #949609  /  #179
alicejohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 331
alicejohn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post

I do not see "the end justifies the means" as being a proper Biblical behavior. As a Bible believing Christian, my disagreement with young-earth creationism goes way beyond the age of the earth.

Of course, people have been pointing this out to Dave since day one. He believes our sin of correctly interpreting God's creation is way worse than his continuously dishonest behavior.

Go figure.
alicejohn is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 12:25 AM   #949631  /  #180
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

For the sake of Dave and anyone else who still has questions about this single-domain versus multi-domain issue, let me try to explain things one more time in perhaps a different way. Since Humphreys' figure 16 seems to have a captivating effect on some people, let's start with his picture.






I have created an annotated version of this figure to facilitate my discussion.






The figure is an Arrhenius plot of helium diffusivity versus inverse temperature. Consider the following two dataset on this plot. First, there is the diffusivity that was determined by a direct laboratory measurement. This dataset is labeled as such on the graph. It has a characteristic form in which the diffusivity increases with higher temperature (i.e. lower inverse temperature). If the diffusion was by means of a simple kinetic mechanism, theory predicts that all the data should lie along a straight line. In fact, it does not. The data has a distinct kink around 300 C (1/T = 1.8). This kink implies that more than one kinetic mechanism is at work. Since the shape of the curve can be well described by two lines, a two-component mechanism is inferred. I have circled the two components as a high temperature regime and a low temperature regime.

The second dataset is a model diffusivity. The model diffusivity was determined by Humphreys' inverse modeling approach in which he inverted the model equation for his uniformitarian model (equation 16) and solved for diffusivity. The parameters in the uniformitarian model equation are the helium retention fraction (Q/Qo), the domain radius (a), the diffusivity (D), and the time (t). Notice that temperature does not enter into the model equation. Humphreys used the data from Gentry to set Q/Qo, 30 um for a, 1.5 billion years for t, and solved the equation for D. Depending on the sample, the value for D ranged from 1x10-20 to 1x10-23 cm2/s. Despite Humphreys' multiple mistakes, this estimate of his is actually reasonable.

Now the task is to compare the two diffusivites on the Arrhenius curve. However, there are two fundamental problems. First, the model dataset has no temperature. The model sets its vertical position on the y-axis but provides no constraint for its placement on the x-axis. I depict this fact with the black horizontal arrows spanning the width of the plot. Humphreys had to use some heuristic argument to set the temperature. You can see different choices for his temperature by his "sliding" the dataset both left (hot) and right (cold) from the present temperatures.

The second fundamental problem is that the diffusivity measured in the laboratory did not extend down to 1x10-20 cm2/s. The reason for this limitation is simple. The helium leakage rates are too slow at this diffusivity to have any measurable signal in any reasonable length of laboratory time. Because of this limitation, the laboratory data has to be extrapolated down to lower diffusivities in order to make a comparison to the model. Humphreys extrapolated the low-temperature data (blue line) to the level of the model diffusivity (filled blue circle), and concluded that subzero temperatures would be required to make the uniformitarian model work. Since this was clearly impossible, he argued, an old-earth interpretation can be rejected.

However, Humphreys failed to discuss a second possibility. The high-temperature laboratory data (red line) can also be extrapolated to the level of the model diffusivity (filled red circle). If this is done, it intersects the model diffusivity at reasonable temperatures which are representative of where geologic data indicates that these samples spent most of their time over the last 800 million years. This is the uniformitarian interpretation that Humphreys should have addressed, but conveniently chose to ignore. Like most young-earth arguments, uninformed people can be swayed by them if they don't know enough to ask the right questions. We have enough information to ask these kinds of questions now.

Why did Humphreys extrapolate from the low-temperature laboratory data instead of the high-temperature laboratory data?

Since his writings do not address this question, let's search the relevant scientific literature for clues.

1. The laboratory experiment was pioneered by Fechtig and Kalbitzer. Consider what they said regarding the interpretation of the experimental data.

Quote:
... it is, therefore, allowed to extrapolate the straightline which represents the volume diffusion down to the temperatures investigators are most interested in. (Fechtig, H., Kalbitzer, S., 1966. The diffusion of argon in potassium-bearing solids. In Potassium Argon Dating, Schaeffer, O.A., Zähringer, J. (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 101.)
If you read the context of this statement and the preceding case studies, it is clear that by "volume diffusion", they are referring to the high-temperature (not low-temperature) portion of the laboratory data.

2. The RATE experiment was performed by Reiners and his associates. Consider the fact that in his published work on helium diffusion in zircon, he did not take his samples below 300 C. He explicitly chose to work with only high-temperature laboratory data.

Given the precedence against Humphreys' interpretation of the laboratory data, I would like to hear an explanation as to why an extrapolation of the low-temperature laboratory data is valid. Dave, do you have any answers? Please "walk us through" this question.
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 12:53 AM   #949650  /  #181
mac_philo
fully krausened
 
mac_philo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: rantsnraves.org
Posts: 6,591
mac_philo
Default

D'ya think I could interest you in a pair of zircon-encrusted tweezers?
mac_philo is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:04 AM   #949657  /  #182
JonF
Accoster of Tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,709
JonF
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
1. The laboratory experiment was pioneered by Fechtig and Kalbitzer. Consider what they said regarding the interpretation of the experimental data.

Quote:
... it is, therefore, allowed to extrapolate the straightline which represents the volume diffusion down to the temperatures investigators are most interested in. (Fechtig, H., Kalbitzer, S., 1966. The diffusion of argon in potassium-bearing solids. In Potassium Argon Dating, Schaeffer, O.A., Zähringer, J. (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 101.)
If you read the context of this statement and the preceding case studies, it is clear that by "volume diffusion", they are referring to the high-temperature (not low-temperature) portion of the laboratory data.
Or in the quote I think Humphreys' meant and which is so beloved by Davie:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiners
Although such modeling does not prove such a mechanism for these non-Arrhenius effects, it suggests that only a small proportion of gas resides in domains that exhibit anomalously high diffusivity, and therefore this phenomenon may not significantly affect the bulk closure temperature or He diffusion properties of most natural zircons. (Reiners, 2005, p. 154)
{Emphasis courtesy of Dave Hawkins, redness by me}

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt
Given the precedence...
I bet you mean precedents.

Quote:
... against Humphreys' interpretation of the laboratory data, I would like to hear an explanation as to why an extrapolation of the low-temperature laboratory data is valid. Dave, do you have any answers? Please "walk us through" this question.
Davie mostly confines himself to parroting. When he decides to think for himself, it's usually pretty obvious and amusing. Such as when, in the precursor to this thread, he decided that Humphreys' backwards reading isn't important because the graph in question is symmetrical and is therefore the same read forwards or backwards.

I've learned quite a bit here, but we're not going to learn anything unpublished about Humphreys' model unless Humphreys shows up.
JonF is online now   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 02:02 AM   #949697  /  #183
JamesBannon
Back by popular request
 
JamesBannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Somewhere to the left of sanity
Posts: 11,640
JamesBannon
Default

Dave,
If you ever get back to this thread, here's a little thought experiment you can do. It doesn't require any particular mathematical knowledge, just some basic common sense.

Imagine a perfect spherical "crystal" of a given diameter D, with a single atom of Helium at its centre. The helium atom is free to move in any direction, so we can say, I think, that, for any given temperature, the time it takes for the Helium to diffuse across the boundary will be proportional to the diameter. With me so far? Now ask yourself a question, what will happen if the diameter of the sphere doubles?

Having done that, go back to Humphreys' paper and look at the diameter he chooses for his volumetric equivalent of the Zircon crystal. Do you think that it will under or over estimate the time it takes for our Helium atom to diffuse?

That's just one mistake Humphreys made. Can you spot any more?
__________________
Rimmer: What's that poem? Now weary traveller rest your head, for just like me you're utterly dead.
JamesBannon is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 02:17 AM   #949704  /  #184
Flint
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,181
Flint
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazalus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
If you don't think CRSQ is a legitimate scientific journal, then why did you submit your work to them? Are you not a legitimate scientist? Do you think the people running CRSQ are not legitimate scientists also? Did they get fake PhD's?
Perhaps it never occurred to you that my submission to the CRSQ was an honest way to discover if they are a legitimate scientific journal. If they had published my article, I would have held them in much higher regard. In case you did not notice, I am not questioning the scientific credentials of these people as much as their integrity. Having a Ph.D. does not guarantee honesty.
Dave knows this... after all, he keeps on insisting that the vast majority of people with Ph.D's are all lying and covering up oodles of evidence.

The fact he automatically believes any shit someone comes out with if they happen to believe the same crap Dave does, speaks volumes for Dave's integrity... and gullibility.
These can be slippery terms. We are applying a different test to the data. We ask whether Dave is saying something Dave knows to be false, which is OUR definition of honesty. But Dave is saying whatever he thinks passes a theological litmus test. If it does, it's Truth even if it contradicts what he knows to be accurate.

In all the things he's written, I have NEVER seen Dave knowingly accept anything that conflicts with his theology, or confect any tall tales, however preposterous, that conflict with his theology. Indeed, I've never even seen Dave ADDRESS any data or arguments anyone makes, unless he sees some way to misrepresent it to support his theology, or change the subject to support his theology. In this sense, his integrity is beyond reproach.
Flint is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 03:40 AM   #949747  /  #185
osmanthus
Bent member
 
osmanthus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,965
osmanthus
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mac_philo View Post
D'ya think I could interest you in a pair of zircon-encrusted tweezers?
I'd like to sterilise Dave with a lighter. The thought of him breeding again is quite worrying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JonF View Post
Davie mostly confines himself to parroting. When he decides to think for himself, it's usually pretty obvious and amusing.
I wonder if Loechelt would be interested in learning about the preservation of spider tracks due to tsunamis.
__________________
I always knew I'd find the source of all evil in a vegan bakery.
osmanthus is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 03:43 AM   #949748  /  #186
Loechelt
Senior Member
 
Loechelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 674
Loechelt
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonF View Post
Davie mostly confines himself to parroting. When he decides to think for himself, it's usually pretty obvious and amusing. Such as when, in the precursor to this thread, he decided that Humphreys' backwards reading isn't important because the graph in question is symmetrical and is therefore the same read forwards or backwards.

I've learned quite a bit here, but we're not going to learn anything unpublished about Humphreys' model unless Humphreys shows up.
Speaking of learning something unpublished about Humphreys' model, here is another inconsistency that I just noticed today. (I am surprised that after all the time I have put into studying this body of work, new questions arise when I continue to scrutinize it.) I consider the RATE II book to be Humphreys' final and official presentation of the subject. (Humphreys, D.R., 2005. Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay. In Vardiman et al. (2005), Chapter 2, pp. 25-100.) Everything he has published subsequent to the RATE II book contains no additional data, and is merely a defense of his work. Consider now the following.

Section 5 covers data obtained before 2003. Reasonable enough.

Section 6 covers the most recent diffusion data. Again, that is a reasonable order of presentation. His 2003 dataset supercedes his earlier 2002 dataset. I have no problem with a scientist basing conclusions on the most recent experiment when multiple datasets are available. Everything is pretty conventional so far. Now here is where things get interesting.

Section 11 covers the matter of "closure temperature". It is placed in an appropriate place in the chapter after presenting results of his model. Now Humphreys is trying to wrap-up loose ends and close loopholes. What I find fascinating, though, is that he quotes a closure temperature of only 128 C which was derived from his earlier 2002 dataset. Why not quote the closure temperature from the latest 2003 dataset?

Finally, appendix C is a copy of the laboratory report for the 2002 experiment. In the conclusion, Farley mentions that

Quote:
The most reasonable conclusion from the data is that the main body of the experiment, steps 15-44, yields the best estimate of the closure temperature, about 130 C. This is somewhat cooler than we have observed before in zircons though the database is not large.
How Humphreys got a closure temperature of 128 C when the report specified 130 C is not clear, but that is not my point. My question is where is the report for the 2003 experiment and why is not even the closure temperature reported? Perhaps he did not want to embarrass Farley further, but that does not make sense because he unethically published the data in Table 2. Based upon the two-slope nature of the curve, only two closure temperatures are really possible. If it was calculated from the low-temperature portion of the curve, it would be lower than 130 C and make the young-earth case look better. If this was true, would not Humphreys want to publish the result? If, on the other hand, it was calculated from the high-temperature portion of the curve, it would be higher than 130 C and match the historical database much better. That would fatally destroy Humphreys' argument because it would show that a respected researcher in the field, when subjected to a blind experiment, rejected the low-temperature laboratory data in the final analysis. What was really in the laboratory report for the 2003 experiment, and why were the results not publicized like the 2002 experiment?
Loechelt is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 03:52 AM   #949756  /  #187
osmanthus
Bent member
 
osmanthus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,965
osmanthus
Default

Interesting, indeed. Perhaps Dave would be so kind as to extract that information from Humphreys.
__________________
I always knew I'd find the source of all evil in a vegan bakery.
osmanthus is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 08:56 AM   #949897  /  #188
damitall
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,657
damitall
Default

I don't think anyone here really thinks that Humpy will show up. Too many questions with embarrassing answers.....
damitall is online now   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 08:58 AM   #949898  /  #189
Spode
Reformed Ascetic
 
Spode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,281
Spode
Default

My cat's name is Zircon.
Spode is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 09:03 AM   #949902  /  #190
Jet Black
Finding Things Out
Mod: ASS, LSD, Phys Sci
 
Jet Black's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 28,824
Jet Black has disabled comments
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damitall View Post
And if they are introduced to Yeckery, their first reaction is incredulity, followed by hilarity, followed by a sort of dull, uncomprehending anger about how anyone with a functioning brain could actually believe that stuff, let alone promulgate it; and the thought that if they are doing, they should stop it RIGHT NOW.
When I have talked with people who didn't know about YECism, it's got as far as the incredulity, followed by hilarity, followed by them forgetting about this irrelevance and getting back to their work. Most people feel as much anger for YECism as they do any other creation myth, from Scientology to the Kalevala, and treat it with the same level of relevance to their lives as air traffic control in New York treats gnats in Scotland.
__________________
The Feynmann Algorithm: (1) Write down the problem (2) Think real hard (3) Write down the solution
Jet Black is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 12:48 PM   #949997  /  #191
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 14,257
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
If you don't think CRSQ is a legitimate scientific journal, then why did you submit your work to them? Are you not a legitimate scientist? Do you think the people running CRSQ are not legitimate scientists also? Did they get fake PhD's?
Perhaps it never occurred to you that my submission to the CRSQ was an honest way to discover if they are a legitimate scientific journal. If they had published my article, I would have held them in much higher regard. In case you did not notice, I am not questioning the scientific credentials of these people as much as their integrity. Having a Ph.D. does not guarantee honesty.
I see. So all those journals that Humphreys and Baumgardner and Snelling and Austin have submitted their work to and it got rejected are not legitimate scientific journals? That probably rules out Science and Nature as legitimate. Good to know.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
As for concealing their identity to the lab, do you think law enforcement officers are wrong for posing as drug users in order to do a bust? I consider people like Farley who refuse to do work for YECs to be very unethical. So yes, Humphreys is justified to hide his identity in order to "bust" him.
I am appalled that you take the point of view that anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is almost criminal in nature. There were other reasonable alternatives to get the experimental data. Consider, for instance, that Reiners published the diffusivity of helium in zircon in 2004, the same year that Humphreys published the CRSQ paper. If they would have been willing to wait just a couple of years, they could have used data from the literature without resorting to any deceptive tactics.
I'm not making a point about the relative seriousness of misdeeds. I'm comparing two situations in which someone poses as a different entity. One situation I would guess you approve of (the law enforcement official) and one you do not (Humphreys). This seems like a double standard to me. Also, the misdeed in question is not that Farley disagrees with me. The misdeed is discriminating against Humphreys. Humphreys is a paying client. Why should he not be served? Would you advocate refusing service to a Muslim client at a restaurant because you are a Christian? I wouldn't and you shouldn't and Farley should not refuse service because of religious beliefs.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
As for listing Farley as a co-author, I'm sure Humphreys would have been glad to, except for the small detail that had he known it was Humphreys, he wouldn't have done the work. So it was not possible to list Farley as a co-author.
I do not see "the end justifies the means" as being a proper Biblical behavior. As a Bible believing Christian, my disagreement with young-earth creationism goes way beyond the age of the earth.
You say you don't advocate "end justifies the means" but I think you just haven't thought through this issue. Are you against the idea of spies who dress up like enemy soldiers in wartime?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
As for the misreading of the graph, I think you make too much of it. It seems that the real issue is this multi vs. single domain issue. And I still don't yet understand your reasons for thinking Humphreys is wrong on this. I'll re-read your post.
The misreading of the graph is a reflection of the quality of the peer review by the Creation Research Society Quarterly.
[/QUOTE]You want to talk about stuff getting by peer review? Let's talk about the mainstream journals ...
Quote:
“Nearly one generation after the effort to reduce misconduct in science began, the responses by NIH scientists suggests that falsified and fabricated research records, publications, dissertations and grant applications are much more prevalent than has been suspected to date. Our study calls into question the effectiveness of self-regulation. We hope it will lead individuals and institutions to evaluate their commitment to research integrity.” –Nature 453, 980-982, 19 June 2008 (Illustration credit: J. Taylor) http://truthmatters.info/2008/06/20/...ously-thought/
Come on, Dr. Loechelt. When you are dealing with humans there will be errors.

But the important question on this thread is "would the helium still be there after 1.5 billion years." I have as my goal to answer that question and compare my answer with yours.
__________________
“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 online now   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 12:53 PM   #950003  /  #192
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,340
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spode View Post
My cat's name is Zircon.
This is one of the most informative, honest, and unbiased posts in this thread.

Thank You Spode, Thank You.
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 12:58 PM   #950009  /  #193
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 14,257
Dave Hawkins
Default

Just noticed this ...

Dr. Loechelt ...
Quote:
but [the editor of CRSQ] would only proceed to list more "objections" to my paper.
What WERE those objections? Can you list those here please?
__________________
“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 online now   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:01 PM   #950013  /  #194
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 14,257
Dave Hawkins
Default

Dr. Loechelt ...
Quote:
The RATE team has made radical claims which shake the foundations of physics.
Sig material.
__________________
“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 online now   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:03 PM   #950017  /  #195
Pingu
I did. F. Poste.
Admin; GLaDOS
 
Pingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 48,049
Pingu
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Dr. Loechelt ...
Quote:
The RATE team has made radical claims which shake the foundations of physics.
Sig material.
Quote mine.
Pingu is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:05 PM   #950022  /  #196
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 14,257
Dave Hawkins
Default

BTW ... what ever happened to Dr. Kevin Henke, the previous YEC vanquisher? No one here ever mentions him any more.
__________________
“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 online now   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:07 PM   #950024  /  #197
Pingu
I did. F. Poste.
Admin; GLaDOS
 
Pingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 48,049
Pingu
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Febble View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Dr. Loechelt ...
Quote:
The RATE team has made radical claims which shake the foundations of physics.
Sig material.
Quote mine.
Without even a link, moreover. Here's the source (typical that I had to use vbulletin search to find it):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
3. [CRSQ] censures papers which do not conform to its dogmatic beliefs.

The rejection of my manuscript is case and point. The RATE team has made radical claims which shake the foundations of physics. Should not the journal be open to debate this issue? As I pointed out already in my reply to Humphreys' criticism of my work

Quote:
I tried publishing in the CRSQ over three years ago, to no avail. The editor strung me out for over a year, leaving me the impression that my manuscript would be accepted as long as I agreed to certain changes. However, whenever I submitted a revision for his approval, he would raise new objections to the paper. After over a year of effort it became clear that the CRSQ was not going to publish my paper under any circumstance. Incidentally, the physics section editor at the time was also one of the three main editors for the RATE books, which raises serious conflict of interest concerns. Furthermore, since the CRSQ published one of Humphreys’ RATE papers, they have a moral obligation to the scientific community to allow scholarly criticism. They have not permitted one serious challenge to the RATE work in their forum, however.

..........

What we are left with, then, is a system of error created by the young-earth creationist community, seventeen reviewers and editors notwithstanding. Despite the appearance of a legitimate scientific effort, a popular research program can promote claims which shake the very foundation of the laws of physics without the possibility of even a single objection being admitted into their public forum. This is not science, but dogma.

(A Response to the RATE Team Regarding Helium Diffusion in Zircon)
Pingu is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:15 PM   #950031  /  #198
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,340
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
Dr. Loechelt ...
Quote:
The RATE team has made radical claims which shake the foundations of physics.
Sig material.
Why is that sig worthy?

RATE has made claims. Those claims go against our present understanding of physics. If RATEs claims are valid then physics as we know it would have to change.

Well Dave, thus far RATEs claims are so much just-so stories that have been falsified. So really you should add a second line....

"But RATEs claims don't stand scrutiny and are falsified by existing evidence."

Now THAT would be sig worthy.
Mike PSS is offline   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:16 PM   #950034  /  #199
Dave Hawkins
Senior Member
 
Dave Hawkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO Area
Posts: 14,257
Dave Hawkins
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loechelt View Post
For the sake of Dave and anyone else who still has questions about this single-domain versus multi-domain issue, let me try to explain things one more time in perhaps a different way. Since Humphreys' figure 16 seems to have a captivating effect on some people, let's start with his picture.

<snipped massive image>

The figure is an Arrhenius plot of helium diffusivity versus inverse temperature. Consider the following two dataset on this plot. First, there is the diffusivity that was determined by a direct laboratory measurement. This dataset is labeled as such on the graph. It has a characteristic form in which the diffusivity increases with higher temperature (i.e. lower inverse temperature). If the diffusion was by means of a simple kinetic mechanism, theory predicts that all the data should lie along a straight line. In fact, it does not. The data has a distinct kink around 300 C (1/T = 1.8). This kink implies that more than one kinetic mechanism is at work. Since the shape of the curve can be well described by two lines, a two-component mechanism is inferred. I have circled the two components as a high temperature regime and a low temperature regime.

The second dataset is a model diffusivity. The model diffusivity was determined by Humphreys' inverse modeling approach in which he inverted the model equation for his uniformitarian model (equation 16) and solved for diffusivity. The parameters in the uniformitarian model equation are the helium retention fraction (Q/Qo), the domain radius (a), the diffusivity (D), and the time (t). Notice that temperature does not enter into the model equation. Humphreys used the data from Gentry to set Q/Qo, 30 um for a, 1.5 billion years for t, and solved the equation for D. Depending on the sample, the value for D ranged from 1x10-20 to 1x10-23 cm2/s. Despite Humphreys' multiple mistakes, this estimate of his is actually reasonable.

Now the task is to compare the two diffusivites on the Arrhenius curve. However, there are two fundamental problems. First, the model dataset has no temperature. The model sets its vertical position on the y-axis but provides no constraint for its placement on the x-axis. I depict this fact with the black horizontal arrows spanning the width of the plot. Humphreys had to use some heuristic argument to set the temperature. You can see different choices for his temperature by his "sliding" the dataset both left (hot) and right (cold) from the present temperatures.

The second fundamental problem is that the diffusivity measured in the laboratory did not extend down to 1x10-20 cm2/s. The reason for this limitation is simple. The helium leakage rates are too slow at this diffusivity to have any measurable signal in any reasonable length of laboratory time. Because of this limitation, the laboratory data has to be extrapolated down to lower diffusivities in order to make a comparison to the model. Humphreys extrapolated the low-temperature data (blue line) to the level of the model diffusivity (filled blue circle), and concluded that subzero temperatures would be required to make the uniformitarian model work. Since this was clearly impossible, he argued, an old-earth interpretation can be rejected.

However, Humphreys failed to discuss a second possibility. The high-temperature laboratory data (red line) can also be extrapolated to the level of the model diffusivity (filled red circle). If this is done, it intersects the model diffusivity at reasonable temperatures which are representative of where geologic data indicates that these samples spent most of their time over the last 800 million years. This is the uniformitarian interpretation that Humphreys should have addressed, but conveniently chose to ignore. Like most young-earth arguments, uninformed people can be swayed by them if they don't know enough to ask the right questions. We have enough information to ask these kinds of questions now.

Why did Humphreys extrapolate from the low-temperature laboratory data instead of the high-temperature laboratory data?

Since his writings do not address this question, let's search the relevant scientific literature for clues.

1. The laboratory experiment was pioneered by Fechtig and Kalbitzer. Consider what they said regarding the interpretation of the experimental data.

Quote:
... it is, therefore, allowed to extrapolate the straightline which represents the volume diffusion down to the temperatures investigators are most interested in. (Fechtig, H., Kalbitzer, S., 1966. The diffusion of argon in potassium-bearing solids. In Potassium Argon Dating, Schaeffer, O.A., Zähringer, J. (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York, p. 101.)
If you read the context of this statement and the preceding case studies, it is clear that by "volume diffusion", they are referring to the high-temperature (not low-temperature) portion of the laboratory data.

2. The RATE experiment was performed by Reiners and his associates. Consider the fact that in his published work on helium diffusion in zircon, he did not take his samples below 300 C. He explicitly chose to work with only high-temperature laboratory data.

Given the precedence against Humphreys' interpretation of the laboratory data, I would like to hear an explanation as to why an extrapolation of the low-temperature laboratory data is valid. Dave, do you have any answers? Please "walk us through" this question.
Well ... I suppose it's valid because you're talking about LOW temperatures over the last billion years, are you not?
__________________
“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 online now   topbottom
Old 05-31-2010, 01:17 PM   #950035  /  #200
Mike PSS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,340
Mike PSS
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins View Post
BTW ... what ever happened to Dr. Kevin Henke, the previous YEC vanquisher? No one here ever mentions him any more.
YEC was vanquished. Henke went home and hung up his sword. At present we are just standing around the twitching of the headless body of YEC and poking it with sticks.

Kind of like ID after Dover.
Mike PSS 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 01:23 PM.


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