ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (afdave @ June 16 2006,10:02) | Eric... | Quote | | Dave, he didn't predict the diffusion rate over time, which is critically important to determining the age of the zircons. He didn't predict it, and he still doesn't know it. No one knows it, which is why everyone knows Humphreys' conclusions are suspect. Without knowing the diffusion rate into and out of the zircons throughout the entire time since their formation, he can draw no conclusions about how old they are. That's the entire point you don't seem to be getting. |
No. He predicted what it would be as a function of temperature when it was experimentally measured. He made his prediction based upon his hypothesis of recent creation and one or more accelerated nuclear decay events. The enormous point that you don't seem to be getting is "How in the world can there possibly be so much Helium left in these zircons?" It shouldn't be there if they are 1.5 Ga. |
And Dave, the point you don't seem to get is there's no way of knowing how much He should be in those zircons, and we've given you a dozen reasons why that is. He didn't pick Fenton Hills at random, Dave. We've told you why he picked Fenton Hills; it's because due to the geology of the area, he expected there to be a lot of helium in those zircons, and not because they're only 6,000 years old.
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
