Michael Tuite
Posts: 12
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
As a stable isotope guy, I don't consider myself qualified to comment on the details of Dr. Humphrey's findings. I will, however, relate what I learned directly from the horse's mouth. I attended Dr. Humphrey's polished and meticulously crafted presentation at last year's Creationism Megaconference in Lynchburg, Virginia. In brief, Dr. Humphrey's argument was this: While the Ur-Pb dating of a granite core sample indicated an age for the rock of 1.5 billion years, analysis of the He diffused from zircons into the surrounding biotite indicated a much younger age for the rock - mere thousands of years. This in itself was presented as confirming evidence of the young earth model despite the contradictory Ur-Pb date. In a bold leap, Dr. Humphrey's then recalculated the rate of decay of the radioactive Ur to conform with the so recently reconfirmed 6000 year age of the earth and proposed that god had increased the rate of radioactive decay during the creation week and during the Flood (~1600 years later), asserting that the water would have absorbed the excess radiation.
Additionally, consistent with a pattern that seems all too familiar, Dr. Humphrey's conceded that he had deliberately misrepresented his research affiliation to the testing lab in order to avoid anti-creationist bias in the outcome.
|
