<p>Alright, I'll try a link:
<a href="http://www.icr.org/headlines/humphreys_to_hanke.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.icr.org/headlines/humphreys_to_hanke.pdf</a></p>
<p>opps. i made a boo boo in my post. I meant constitution, not confederation.</p>
<p>of course, after they bat this back and forth, the answer is still up in the air (but you are willing to admit that, right?)</p>
<p>umm, are yuo talking to me?</p>
<p>no...just as a comment on my link...I think it's pointless...they'll never look at it with an open mind...</p>
<p>I looked at it with an open mind . . . and an open book. Below is an excerpt. I'll spare you the 53 pages of figures, explanations, and calculations (a section your creationist preacher decided was too complex to include...)
[quote=<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html</a>]
</p>
<p>The results in Humphreys et al. (2003a) and related YEC documents are clearly based on numerous invalid assumptions, flawed arguments, and questionable data, which include:</p>
<pre><code>* invoking groundless miracles to explain away U/Pb dates on zircons,
misidentifying samples as originating from the Jemez Granodiorite,
performing helium analyses on impure biotite separations,
dubiously revising helium measurements from Gentry et al. (1982a),
relying on questionable Q/Q0 (helium retention) values from Gentry et al. (1982a),
failing to recognize that the Q0 values (maximum possible amount of radiogenic helium in a mineral) for their samples were probably much greater than 15 ncc STP/μg,
inconsistently interpreting already questionable helium concentrations from samples 5 and 6 to make them comply with the demands of their "models,"
seriously underestimating the helium concentrations in the zircons from 750 meters depth and not realizing that their Q/Q0 value for this sample (using Q0 = 15 ncc STP/μg) would be greater than one and therefore spurious,
not properly considering the possible presence of extraneous ("excess") 3He and 4He in their zircons,
listing the average date and standard deviation of their 2004 results as 6,000 ±2,000 years when a standard deviation (two-sigma) of ± 4,600 years is more appropriate.
"fudging" old Soviet data that should have been ignored,
deriving "models" that are based on several invalid assumptions (including constant temperature conditions over time, Q0 of 15 ncc STP/μg, and isotropic diffusion in biotite),
failing to provide standard deviations for biotite measurements (b values) and then misapplying the values to samples from different lithologies,
inserting imaginary defect lines into Arrhenius plots, and
deriving and using equations that yield inconsistent "dates."
[/quote]
I'll grant that the pictures were pretty. . .
</code></pre>
<p>Did you read the refutation of that summary you posted? Scroll down to page 4 (I think) of the PDF document...</p>
<p>And even I can tell that "* listing the average date and standard deviation of their 2004 results as 6,000 ±2,000 years when a standard deviation (two-sigma) of ± 4,600 years is more appropriate." is a moot point, because whether the upper bound is 10,600 or 8,000, that's not the point of the paper...</p>
<p>Yes, I did read the refutation. You did not read the first several paragraphs of the article I linked to. The excerpt I pasted refers to "Humphreys et al. (2003a)." In later paragraphs, the document confronts Humphreys et al. revisions "2003b" and "2003." The near book-length refutation disembowels the zircon claim with a meticulous attention to detail and scientific honesty.</p>
<p>
[quote=<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html</a> (same source)]
</p>
<p>In 2003, many Christian fundamentalists became very excited about YEC statements in Humphreys et al. (2003a), Humphreys et al. (2003b) and Humphreys (2003). Humphreys et al. (2003a) claim that zircons from the "Jemez Granodiorite" (Fenton Hill rock core, New Mexico, USA) contain too much "radiogenic" helium to be billions of years old. By "modeling" the helium diffusion rates in the zircons and assuming some unfounded miraculous increases in radioactive decay rates, Humphreys et al. ( 2003b, 2004) concluded that the zircons are only "6,000 ± 2,000 years old." Not surprisingly, their results conveniently straddle Bishop Ussher's classical 4004 BC "Genesis creation date" for the world.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"The near book-length refutation disembowels the zircon claim with a meticulous attention to detail and scientific honesty."</p>
<p>OK, I'll be honest, I can neither verify nor refute either side's calculations, but I should mention the saying "quality over quantity"...a book-length refutation is not necessarily right</p>
<p>Also notice that with his readjustments, the largest date that Henke could pull was 3,100,000 years, which is as many orders of magnitude away from the 1,500,000,000 years evolutionists predict as the 6,000 years creationists predict. My conclusion: NOT definitive evidence either way; the result is still very strange...</p>
<p>Anyhow, his readjusted calculations are based on the premise that average atomic weights have remained constant over the years. Given that we haven't been able to measure atomic weights for up till about a century or two ago, how can we prove that it was the same 6000 years ago, let alone 1.5 billion years ago, as it is now?</p>
<p>There are these things called "constants." Learn to love them. It takes pretty zany physics to upset this notion.</p>
<p>EDIT: What I was saying about the length was that it included verifiable CALCULATIONS.</p>
<p>"There are these things called "constants." Learn to love them. It takes pretty zany physics to upset this notion."</p>
<p>Erm, according to Big Bang, at the beginning, the average atomic weight of U was a big fat 0. Now it's around 238. I may not know my physics, but I do know that something that was 0 and now is 238 is not "constant."
According to Bible, it's quite possible that the "flaming sword" in Genesis 3 introduced new elements to Earth, and if that were true, then any initial average atomic weight could have been possible. But wait, you don't approve of the supernatural, do you? That's why creationism is out the door from step 1, since it requires the supernatural to get started.</p>
<p>But I'm not going to waste anymore of your time with this. Believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want <em>goes back to more lighthearted threads</em></p>
<p>you see you were doing alright until you got to</p>
<p>"According to Bible"</p>
<p>the bible has no place in a scientific discussion</p>
<p>"I'll believe what I want "</p>
<p>go ahead and do so, and then try to do graduate studies in physical anthropology. You will be laughed at and ridiculed.</p>
<p>just to lighten the mood</p>
<p>this was posted on another thread but I thought it was funny</p>
<p>"Three nuns were talking. The first nun said, "I was
cleaning in Father's room the other day and do you know what I found? A
bunch of pornographic magazines." "What did you do?" the other nuns
asked. "Well, of course, I threw them in the trash." The second
nun said, "Well, I can top that. I was in Father's room putting away
the laundry and I found a bunch of condoms!" "Oh my!" gasped the other
nuns. "What did you do?" they asked. "I poked holes in all of them!"
she replied. The third nun fainted...."</p>
<p>I'm embarassed that I had to read that joke twice before I got it. . .</p>
<p>^ Me too. =P</p>
<p>good joke sempitern. i for one got the joke the first time.</p>
<p>Round of applause for seth blue?</p>
<p><em>bows and acknowledges applause</em> thank you.</p>
<p>Creationism. It's turtles all the way down.</p>
<p>Nice Joke. But what happened to the discussion? That seems to have become another joke.
And abt this cretionism theory everyone here are saying "according to tthe bible" ...blah blah blah.
What happened to other religions and scriptures. They have different theories of the same creation. Creationism find complications in religion itself.</p>