Helium leakage dating dating women with kids advice

Posted by / 28-Sep-2017 20:01

Talkorigins permanently archived the original version of this essay after the first update on November 24, 2005 contrary to erroneous statements in footnote #25 of Humphreys (2008b).

I further revised my essay on November 24, 2005 to reply to Humphreys (2005a) and again on July 25, 2006 in response to Humphreys (2006).

Humphreys' work, 2) address criticisms from additional peer-reviewers of this essay, 3) respond to Humphreys (2008a), Humphreys (2008b), Humphreys (2010) and statements from Dr.

Contrary to Humphreys (2005a), his mistakes are not petty or peripheral, but completely discredit the reliability of his work. Humphreys needs to perform spot analyses for values may be obtained.

Finally, Loechelt (2008a; 2008b; 2008c; 2009a; 2009b) shows that multi-domain helium diffusion models, which are far more realistic than the "creationist" and "uniformitarian" models presented by Humphreys et al.

Rather than recognizing my peer-reviewers, many of which are scientists, Humphreys (2005a) repeatedly challenges me to publish my criticisms of his work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Humphreys' publication record on this topic (e.g., Humphreys et al., 2003a; 2003b; Humphreys, 2003; Humphreys et al., 2004, etc.) that he has no real interest in fully presenting his ideas for critical scrutiny from some of the world's authorities on zircon and helium chemistry. Humphreys screams about the importance of peer-review, he needs to follow his own advice.

He needs to openly (Humphreys et al., 2003b: where any controversies could be minimized or entirely avoided in the abstract and then presented unpeer-reviewed in the poster session, see Loechelt, 2009a), YEC proselytizing materials edited by his friends and/or fellow RATE members (e.g., Humphreys, 2003), and the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ), whose "peer-review" system and scientific quality have even been discredited by YECs (Whitmore et al., 2007). Humphreys is really sincere about his devotion to peer-review, let him wean himself off the reliance on miracles for his "accelerated" radioactive decay claims, honestly recognize and correct his numerous mistakes, thoroughly answer the numerous questions from his critics, and submit what's left as a detailed article in a real science journal, where he doesn't have friends that will rubber stamp his work. Humphreys in Humphreys (2005a) and Humphreys (2006) thinks that he can just read through the abstract of my original essay or other brief snippets of my work, throw out some insults, try to trivialize his serious mistakes, make bold assertions without any calculations to support them, make a couple of minor corrections here and there, misrepresent critical details in the literature, invoke several irrelevant analogies (e.g., lead self diffusion in Humphreys, 2006), ignore the details, promise better answers in the future (e.g., Humphreys, 2005a), repeatedly rely on his deceptive figure (i.e., Figure 2 in Humphreys, (2005a), and then hope that his readers will just go away on faith. Humphreys has had more than five years to make a thorough and air-tight case for his claims and produce the detail calculations that he promised in Humphreys (2005a).

helium leakage dating-61helium leakage dating-81helium leakage dating-45

One thought on “helium leakage dating”