Zircon fission track dating humphreys Jasmim live japon cam sov
In the current June, 2010, version, I extensively updated and reorganized the essay to: 1) include materials from other critics of Dr.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.
Humphreys (2008b) even admits that his critics not only include secular scientists, but a diverse group of young- and old-Earth creationists, including members of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA).
In particular, Humphreys (2008a) criticizes the religious diversity of ASA and briefly responds to criticism of his helium diffusion study from Isaac (2007, 2008a, 2008b). Loechelt applied multi-domain diffusion models to Dr Humphreys' and R. Gentry's data, which raise many new arguments that further undermine Dr. Loechelt (2008a; 2008b), which are at the old-Earth creationist Reasons to Believe website, are brief and less technical summaries of Loechelt (2008c).
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' helium diffusion data are actually consistent with a date of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons. Loechelt (2009a) is a detailed rebuttal of Humphreys (2008b) and Loechelt (2009b) is a less technical summary of his response to Humphreys (2008b). As shown in the calculations in my Appendix B of this essay, data from Gentry et al.Although Humphreys (2008b) and Humphreys (2010) briefly mention Loechelt (2008a; 2008b; 2008c), Dr. Most recently, Humphreys (2010) is a brief letter, where Dr. (1982b) provide better ranges of Q/Q values was derived from data in Zartman (1979).