New helium retention work suggests young earth and accelerated decay

quote:

---

That means - at a basic level - we have the same expectation as you.

---

It's not hard to think of differences. For instance your model provides no reason to suppose that the different elements used in readiometric dating should give consistent dates tot he extent that they do.Also you claim that carbon dating is affected, too. This requires a longer "tail" to the supposed effect that the 10 years of the "Ecological Zoning Model" (probably longer than the 500 proposed by "Recolonisation Model").Moreover there are questions like the time taken to form features like the Deccan Traps. Assuming a constant "acceleration rate" spreading 4.5 billion years over the 500 years of the "Recolonisation Model" 1,000,000 years becomes a little under 7 weeks. That doesn't sound very plausible and obviously it is far worse for the "Ecological Zoning Mode" which only has 10 years instead of 500.

Well I've compared a few points from Henke's critique and Humphreys reply. I find that in general Humphreys does not adequately deal with Henke's points.To take a simple one, Henke states: Humphreys quotes Baumgardner as claiming that : No explanation is offered for the disagreement between Henke's reading of Sasada and Baumgardner's statement.Or to take another obvious - and very serious - issue, Humphreys reply stops BEFORE getting to Henke's section titled:"MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS, INCONSISTENCIES AND OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE HUMPHREYS ET AL. "MODELS"
Major parts of Henke's criticism are not addressed at all.

quote:

---

[Re your acceleratoion calc: in 500 years we would need to achieve about 500-700 million years of decay becasue the layers below that I would assign to the origin of land on creation day 3].

---

Then you have another problem - explaining the range of radiometric dates from the entire Precambrian. The naive assumption would be that all Precambrian rocks would show the same age and that would represent the full effect of the accelerated decay. If you have a range of over 3 billion years just for terrestrial rocks (and more when meteorites are considered) then I don't see a scientific alternative to assuming that the ages shown by the Precambrian rocks are largely real age.

quote:

---

We of course expect that accelerated decay was the geophysical trigger for the creaiton day 3 event.

---

There's no "of course" about it. But lets get this clear, you are now arguing for 3 billion years worth of decay in a single day ?

I guess you didn't read the quotes I provided:Baumgardner claims that the samples were granodiorite and that there are only occasional veins of other rock.Henke's reading of Sasada claims that the rocks at that depth are not granodiorites.It is absolutely obvious that Humphrey's naming of the formation is not part of the issue I raised at all.Anbd surely you can't think that the Humphrey's simple assertion is an adequate answer to a major section. Humphreys claims that one of the assumptions mentioned can't account for the entire difference. And that's it.There is no doubt that Humphrey's reply is entirely inadequate.

quote:

---

I did read the quotes. Humphreys empatically states that the geophysicist Baumgardner claims they are grandiorite!

---

That's an interesting response. Are you admitting that you knowingly tried to brush me off with an answer that didn't address the point, or are you just unwilling to admit that you didn't read the quotes.Be that as it may you still don't rebut the point - that the disagreement between the paper and Sakada is unexplained.And since I don't expect a geophysicist to be an expert in identifying rocks I have no reason to assume that Baumgardner is correct.

quote:

---

You need to read Humphreys rebuttal because he covers all of Henke's 'assumption' points.

---

So basically you admit that you were wrong to claim that the section I referred to was dealt with in the place you said it was - and now insist that the points raised are dealt with somewhere else. Well that shows serious carelesssness on your part (any sensible person would have realised that the small section of text you referred to was unlikely to be an adequate reply to a major section of Henke's critique). It also happens not to be true.As for the people working on the project none of them are "ultra-successful". And Snelling in the least has a history of making dubious claims. Both Baumgardner and Humphreys have produced low-quality work to support their YEC beliefs - and in Humphreys case we have his inadequate "rebuttal" to Henke to consider as well. So if the authors reputation is an issue, it is one which weighs against you.