/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3466596]

Can someone please show me what is wrong with this article, besides the unscientific writing style? Ignore the website and just point out methodological flaws in the article. If you can.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium_lo_res.pdf

Image hopefully unrelated.

[Anonymous No.3466614]

>Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis
of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically
accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during
the earth’s recent past.
Fucking lol.

[Anonymous No.3466625]

Holy shit they are retarded
>Diffusivity
They don't even know how halflife works. Their just like hurr zircon decays = 6000 a gurr duurr.

[Anonymous No.3466631]

>>3466625
They're actually arguing for accelerated half lifes.

[Anonymous No.3466632]

wasn't there some genius kid in new york that said there wasn't enough He in the atmosphere to support an old earth theory recently?

[Anonymous No.3466639]

>>3466632
duuno, was there?

[Anonymous No.3466652]

>>3466639
shhh, you, reading the article. fascinating stuff.

lol @ op for his bias, one way or the other

lol @ the unscientific dismissal of actual data and evidence due to perceived bias

[Anonymous No.3466668]

>>3466652
OP here. I actually though "ignore the website" and "point out methodological flaws. If you can" was fairly balanced. Seems to me like you're the one with the bias here, but whatever.

[Anonymous No.3466676]

>>3466668
"Interesting article showing evidence for a young earth. Enjoy"

[Anonymous No.3466685]

Wouldn't cosmology render this quackery moot?

[Anonymous No.3466688]

I like when they say 6000 years plus or minus 2000 years

Their margin of error is 33%

[Anonymous No.3466693]

>>3466688

>someone who has never studied statistics

[Anonymous No.3466698]

>>3466693

What? Ive studied statistics.

Anyway, I just read the abstract, and then I read the first sentence of the intro "Under the deep blue skies or New Mexico"

lul at professionalism

[Anonymous No.3466719]

>>3466693
Neophyte here
What's wrong about his statistics?

[Anonymous No.3466733]

>>3466698
> I read the first sentence of the intro "Under the deep blue skies or New Mexico"
>what is wrong with this article, besides the unscientific writing style?

[Anonymous No.3466735]

>>3466733

Nothing wrong. This is a piece of scientific marvel. With the exception of starting the introduction with "Under the deep blue skies of New Mexico"

[Anonymous No.3466743]

>>3466688
they could easily have a 95% confidence that the true age is 6000 years +/- 2000 years

that does not mean they have an error rate of 33%

what do they teach you kids in school these days?

[Anonymous No.3466748]

>>3466735
i love how you pretend to discredit all of the hard science in the article by the introductory piece of prose

stay classy, /sci/

[Anonymous No.3466751]

>>3466743

Okay I understand. I was wrong to say margin of error. I remember that from my statistics class. I just thought it was funny how big it was in proportion.

[Anonymous No.3466761]

>>3466748

Discredit?!

I am currently printing up 17,923 copies of this to wall paper my house with it. I only pointed out its one and only flaw to deter others from committing suicide in the sight of what appears to be the most perfect document every conceived of.

Allahu Akbar

[Anonymous No.3466765]

>>3466761
lold

Also, for you OP: captcha: NEEDS EDUTUT

[Anonymous No.3466771]

So they found some zircons in 1982 with helium in it that could only have got there if it decayed really slowly but we know that it doesn't decay that slowly so god must have sped up the decay rate nowdays which means the earth must be 6000 years old.

Makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous No.3466772]

>>3466761
you have one big ass house, or you want to live in a big ass pinata

i prefer the latter

[Anonymous No.3466777]

>>3466771
>why read the article when i can strawman it lulz

[Anonymous No.3466778]

1. Subsurface pressure and temperature conditions affect how quickly the helium diffuses out of zircons. D. R. Humphreys et al. selected a rock core sample from the Fenton Hill site, which Los Alamos National Laboratory evaluated in the 1970s for geothermal energy production. The area is within a few kilometers of the Valles Caldera, which has gone through several periods of faulting and volcanism. The rocks of the Fenton Hill core have been fractured, brecciated, and intruded by hydrothermal veins. Excess helium is present in the rocks of the Valles Caldera (Goff and Gardner 1994). The helium may have contaminated the gneiss that Humphreys et al. studied. In short, the entire region has had a very complex thermal history. Based on oil industry experience, it is essentially impossible to make accurate statements about the helium-diffusion history of such a system.
(1/derp)

[Anonymous No.3466782]

>>3466778
2. Scientific studies, especially those with radical implications, do not mean much until the results have been replicated by others. Many scientific claims have disappeared entirely when others could not get the same results. Confidence in this particular paper is reduced by certain points:
* Most measurement errors and variabilities are not reported. Therefore, we do not know how accurate the results are.
* Humphreys et al. claimed that they studied zircons and biotites from depths of 750 and 1,490 meters in the Jemez Granodiorite. However, Sasada (1989) showed that at those depths, the samples came from a gneiss, an entirely different rock type.
* Because of math errors, the Q/Q0 values (fraction of helium retained), used by Humphreys et al. to derive their dates, are too high.
* Humphreys et al. (2003) failed properly to total their data in Appendix C, which means that they grossly underestimated the total amount of helium released by their 750-meter-deep zircons. The amount of helium in the zircons greatly exceeds the amount that would be expected from the radioactive decay of uranium over 1.5 billion years. The high helium concentration may be due to samples that were abnormally high in uranium and/or to the presence of excess helium.
* Much is made of the fact that samples five and six retained the same amount of helium, even though the amounts are probably at the limit of what could be measured. The possibility of measurement error accounting for the results is never mentioned.
* If one discounts sample five, which is likely at the limit of measurable precision, the conclusions of Humphreys et al. (2004) rest on just three samples. Such a small data set may be the basis for further research, but not for drawing firm conclusions.
* Humphreys et al. (2003, note 9) referred to correcting "apparent typographical errors" in the raw data, casting suspicion on the validity of all the data.
(2/derp)

[Anonymous No.3466786]

>>3466772

Actually my house is about 10 square feet. But I if I wall paper just one layer of this document there will be white portions. If I paste multiple layers you can read multiple documents by seeing one document behind the first layer of document in the translucent spaces in between the letters.

[Anonymous No.3466790]

>>3466778
um, they addressed those critics in the article, but you keep on' keepin' on

[Anonymous No.3466791]

>>3466778
>>3466782
The helium results could easily be due to an aberrant sample. They could be an artifact of the experimental or collecting method (e.g., defects in the zircons caused by rapid cooling) or from just plain sloppiness. We cannot know for sure until others have looked at the issue, too.

3. Producing a billion years of radioactive decay in a "Creation week" or year-long flood would have produced a billion years worth of heat from radioactive decay as well. This would pretty much vaporize the earth. Since the earth apparently has not been vaporized recently, we can be confident that the accelerated decay did not occur. (Humphreys recognizes this "heat problem" but is currently unable to provide a solution.)

4. If helium concentrations stay high around the rocks, it is possible for helium to diffuse into voids and fractures in the zircons, or at least high helium pressures could reduce the rate at which helium diffuses out. Either of these scenarios would invalidate the helium diffusion calculations in Humphreys et al. (2003, 2004). Helium concentrations within the earth become high enough for commercial mining. The sample measured by Humphreys et al. came from an area that is probably helium enriched. Helium deposits are common in New Mexico, and excess helium has been found just a few miles from where the sample was taken (Goff and Gardner 1994). To test for the presence of excess helium in their zircons, Humphreys et al. should look for 3He.
(3/derp)

[Anonymous No.3466801]

>>3466778
>>3466782
I love you. Please continue.

[Anonymous No.3466803]

>>3466778
>>3466782
>>3466791
5. Uranium does not decay directly to lead; rather, it proceeds through a series of multiple intermediate radioactive elements (Faure 1986, 284-287). It takes about ten half-lives of the longest lived intermediate to achieve secular equilibrium (i.e., each intermediate having the same activity). The uranium decay series contains elements with half-lives well over 10,000 years. If the decay rates changed suddenly, we would not expect the various elements to be in a secular equilibrium. Humphreys et al. should test for this in their zircons. Other uranium ores are at secular equilibrium, indicating a constant decay rate for at least the last two million years.
(derp/amounofderping)

But really, nice try.

[Anonymous No.3466806]

>>3466786
make sure you print it out in color so your house can be the blue sky under New Mexico blue

[Anonymous No.3466820]

>>3466777
lol not a strawman, they're actually claiming god must have accelerated the decay rate, that is how they account for it all.

I mean come on bro this is not very good trolling.

[Anonymous No.3466831]

>>3466806

Oh Dear Lord you are right. How do I cancel this. I have a canon photo-genie 430 does anyone know how to cancel on this

[Anonymous No.3466845]

>>3466831
unplug

[Anonymous No.3466865]

>>3466801
you actually are sucking Mark Isaak's dick, and he writes this shit to sell books and spread his rabid anti-creationist viewpoint.

but you keep on suckin'

lol

[Anonymous No.3466879]

>>3466865

[Anonymous No.3466895]

>>3466879
mark isaaks. where most of the rabid anti-creation "science" gets copy pasta'd here.

[Anonymous No.3466921]

>>3466895
2 sides on this type of debates:

Anti-creation "science" for one side,
Actual Science for the other side

No wonder you can't understand each other.

[Anonymous No.3466926]

>>3466921
both sides have actual science, but the creation scientists don't dismiss out of hand any evidence that points to a young earth, or an ancient universe

"scientists" routinely dismiss any evidence of a young earth, because "we all know the earth is x years old, so that evidence must be herp derp."

[Anonymous No.3467032]

>>3466926
>"scientists" routinely dismiss any evidence of a young earth

The reason they do that is because most of the evidence actually points to an earth that is not herp-a-derp 6000 years old lol

Not to mention cosmology shows the universe is around 13.7 billion years old

But no, you are right, those once off zircons they found must mean that god changed the decay rates to account for a 6000 year old earth.

I mean, what are you stupid? Or just a troll?

[Anonymous No.3467047]

>>3467032
the universe is about 6,000 years old

anything "proving" it to be billions of years old is wrong

Q.E.D.

[Anonymous No.3467086]

>>3467047
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

[Anonymous No.3467096]

>>3467086
>another example of wiki being wrong

[Anonymous No.3467119]

Trolls. Trolls everywhere.

Universe is about 13.7 billions years old. Fact. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.3467130]

>>3467096
>implying there aren't 20 external references in that article