Bill Nye the Ignorant Guy

2/5/2014

This morning, I directed my web browser to debatelive.org and watched the recording of the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. The question being posed to the two opponents was “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham argued in the affirmative that the creation model should have a place in scientific discussions of origins, and Nye argued in the negative that the creation model proposed by Ham is detrimental to scientific progress. I thought that Ham did an excellent job of supporting his view with credible examples, but I was awestruck by the level of ignorance that Nye displayed in regards to the creation model.

Throughout the discussion, Nye made claims about the creation model and creationists themselves that had absolutely no grounding in reality. And while Ham addressed some of these claims during the surprisingly short rebuttal period, several of them were simply left on the table. This will likely cause many of those on Nye’s side of the debate to claim that his statements were ignored because they are irrefutable from the creationist perspective. Thus, I would like to take a few moments to present scientifically documented answers to just a few of Nye’s claims.

I.    Polystrate and Out-of-Sequence Fossils

Several times throughout the debate, Nye made the claim that if a creationist were ever to discover a single instance of a fossilized animal being in the wrong strata, then that individual would be hailed as a hero of the scientific community and would instantly sway the consensus in favor of the creation model. Then, he would proclaim in exasperation that such fossils have never been found. Well, I have to say that Mr. Nye is very much mistaken on both accounts. Creationists have found several out-of-sequence fossils, and the scientific community has yet to laud any of these scientists as heroes.

Nye could have discovered this for himself if he had simply searched for lists of out-of-sequence fossils in the creationist literature. Walt Brown, for example, includes a list of significant out-of-sequence fossils at this link: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html, and Creation.com also lists several out-of-sequence discoveries on their website: http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place.

In addition to the out-of-sequence fossils there are also what are known as polystrate fossils. Polystrate fossils are fossils which span multiple layers of strata thus proving that those layers could not have been laid down over periods of millions of years. One of my favorite polystrate fossils is the fossilization of a single school of jellyfish which spans seven layers of strata. You can read about this fossil at Youngearth.com here: http://youngearth.com/school-jellyfish-fossilized-7-million-year-layers. Youngearth.com also has an article on polystrate whale fossils as well as one on polystrate petrified trees.

II.    Rapid Sedimentation

The existence of these polystrate fossils proves that it must be possible for the sedimentary layers to be laid down rapidly instead of requiring the millions of years that Nye insisted on. Creationists have claimed that rapid sedimentation is possible ever since Henry Morris published his 1961 book The Genesis Flood, and in 1986, Guy Berthault proved that this is true in a paper published in the proceedings of the French Academy of Sciences. Berthault’s paper is now available online in English at this link: http://creation.com/experiments-on-lamination-of-sediments.

III.    Predictions of the Creation Model

Berthault’s work demonstrates another flaw in Nye’s positions. Nye repeatedly claimed that the creation model makes no testable predictions about future discoveries. This has been disproven time and time again. The creation model makes just as many predictions about future discoveries as the evolution model, and many of those predictions have been proven correct. Berthault’s paper is just one example. We could also consider Dr. Humphreys’ work on the Pioneer Effect which can be read online at: http://creation.com/creationist-cosmologies-explain-the-anomalous-acceleration-of-pioneer-spacecraft, and Answers in Genesis themselves have a list of several successful predictions from the creation model on their website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions. Additionally, Walt Brown made 50 predictions in his book In the Beginning and several of them have now been proven true. Brown’s list of predictions can be found under the term “predictions of hydroplate theory” of the books index and can be viewed online at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningIX18.html. The most recent of Brown’s predictions to be proven correct was featured on last Friday’s broadcast of Real Science Radio which can be found at this link: http://kgov.com/bel/20140131.

This gives us three areas of documented scientific research that are very damaging to Nye’s position. Judging purely by the manner in which Nye presented his claims, I do not believe that he was being deceptive in his presentation. Rather, I think that this simply reveals that Bill Nye the Science Guy came to this debate in complete ignorance of his opponent’s position.

38 Comments

Danny

2/5/2014 02:20:44 am

The bottom line is, just because we humans don't understand something or can't explain it scientifically, doesn't mean the Bible ceases to be accurate. It just means that we haven't learned enough to know how to explain something scientifically through a biblical perspective. The blaring example that comes to mind (which I'm surprised was not mentioned in the debate), is that everyone thought the earth was flat at one time, even though biblical research proved it was round. I'm so glad for one young man who was willing to believe God rather than man! You know, there's a book.......

Andi

2/5/2014 12:39:19 pm

Danny, I too have always thought of Columbus and the theory that the earth was flat...it causes me to realize that there may be other accepted false beliefs. I missed the debate so, I'm grateful this link was posted by a friend. :)

Martha Paxson

2/5/2014 04:32:58 am

My faith will never be shaken by Bill Nye or any other super-intelligent, well-read scientist or critic of the Bible. I purposely did not watch or listen to the debate because I don't think that anyone was going to have their mind changed by that match-up. My faith in God is faith because I CAN'T prove everything. If I knew everything about the Bible and creation and God, then I would no longer be human. I would be God. I have chosen to place my faith in the God that is revealed in Scripture. I don't need Bill Nye's approval to keep my faith in God. No, I'm not some wild woman who doesn't know anything. I have a Master's in Education and have been teaching school for 15 years. However, this whole debate between a creationist and an evolutionist has simply driven a wedge between those who may have wanted to know more about the God of the Bible and those who could show them. If that helps you strengthen your faith, I am happy for you. I prefer to gain strength in my spiritual life by studying the Scripture, prayer, fellowship with other believers, and doing good works that let people know I love God and trust Him.

David Wright

2/5/2014 04:40:59 am

The whole issue is very easily resolved for me when I consider "The Illusion of Age at Creation".

So many "scientific" arguments center around various methods of determining age. And while I'm willing to believe these are perfectly good methods, I also believe they only render valid results back to the time of Creation. Beyond that, you get false results.

Consider: In Genesis 1:11, the earth already has grass, the herb already yields seeds, the fruit trees are not saplings but are already bearing fruit. Bill Nye could have been standing there that day and concluded each of those things were more than a day old.

But he'd be wrong.

In verse 20, the birds are already mature enough to fly. So what we have, at the very moment of Creation, is the appearance of age.

What really sold me on this concept was verse 16.
Let's say a star in space is ten million light years away and is visible from Earth. A scientist could logically conclude that means the universe is at least ten million years old.

And while I'm willing to believe it really is ten million light years away, what we see in Genesis 1:16 is that **at the moment of Creation** the stars were already visible from Earth!

This simple concept destroys most Old Earth arguments I hear, and based on the article I read, I'm not sure anything Nye said recognized this.

Sean Killackey

2/5/2015 02:39:31 pm

First of all I am an "old earth" creationist. But your point was interesting and logical (by the way I believe Adam existed and the flood sweep the wicked away). Of course just because your points are true doesn't mean God created everything in seven days, but I have been slowly for a few months considering young earth creationism. In any even if God spread his creation of a few days or few million years when he created them they were fully formed.

If you are right about dating being accurate only to creation (C14 they say is accurate to only about 40,000 years and I am not sure if they addressed flucating levels and the original carbon amount) then your argument holds water, until I hear more about that I'll stick with my belief.

Dante

2/5/2014 04:45:23 am

A creationist, being wrong? who'd have thought.
Polystrate fossils, and who you don't get the current evidence: http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2842

does creationism make succesful predictions? Nope, and i couldn't be arsed to search the complete science regarding every prediction, but here's a debate where some other guy already bothered to lay down the facts: http://www.debate.org/debates/Creationism-has-made-verified-predictions./1/

Is Bill Nye ignorant? considering that everything you stipulated has already been addressed and proven to be false, nope. You just need to do more reading.

Bill Fortenberry

2/5/2014 07:46:09 am

Thank you for commenting, Dante. I appreciate your willingness to voice your disagreement, but I am afraid that you are mistaken on both accounts.

In regards to polystrate fossils, the article which you referenced only deals with polystrate trees. It offers no explanation for polystrate whale fossils or the polystrate fossilization of a school of jellyfish. But even what it says of the tree fossils does not address the creationist claims which I presented. The ICR article mentioned in the link that I provided lists nine arguments "that the trees have been moved to this location, washed in during a time of extensive and massive sedimentation." The article that you provided does not address a single one of these arguments.

In regards to creationist predictions, I think that you have simply missed the point that I was making. Nye claimed that creationists make no testable predictions about the future. I demonstrated that this is incorrect by providing a few lists of predictions made by creationists. The debate that you linked in response to me was to a debate in which several creationist predictions were put to the test and supposedly found to be incorrect. Do you not see how the very link which you provided proves my point? If Nye were correct about creationists making no testable predictions, then the debate which you provided would not be possible. The very fact that some creationist predictions have proven to be incorrect is evidence that creationists make predictions which can be tested.

Josh Duncan

2/5/2014 12:25:21 pm

I wish the guy who wrote the post you linked to on the Jellyfish knew how to spell the word "empirical" correctly. It's hard to take that source seriously for reliable information.

Dan Bandimere

2/5/2014 08:49:09 pm

During this debate and the many others in previous years the "old earth" evolutionist repeatedly attack the validity of the Bible's authenticity and accuracy. My question is simple, Bill Nye or anyone else, please produce documents, studies or a single book supporting your theories that dates back 2,000 years.
Better yet can one be found even 1,000 or 500 years ago in which the writings or subject matter without fails corroborates their position today?
What is indeed true, according to God and the Bible can be found as a prediction of the future in: Isaiah 34 : 4 "All the stars in the sky will be dissolved and the heavens rolled up like scroll; all the starry hosts will fall like withered leaves .....
Revelation 6 : 14 "The heavens receded...and every mountain and island was removed....
Day of The Lord - Isaiah 2 :20 - 22 " in that day man will cast away his idols of silver and gold, which they made to worship for themselves ... to go into the clefts of the rocks from the terror of The Lord and the glory of his majesty when He (God) arises to shake the earth mightily .
Sever yourselves from such man who's breath is in his nostrils; for of what account is he?

I find it interesting that the Big Bang theory will come to pass, according to God, but it will be their end - not the beginning or origins!!!

Mike G.

2/5/2014 11:31:46 pm

There are a number of misleading claims made in this piece:

1) Out of sequence fossils hardly prove the Creationist model. If Nye actually made such a statement, then he was grossly mistaken. With everything we know about geology and tectonic shifts, it would be surprising if some fossils weren't found to be out of sequence. A simple radiometric dating, however, would prove that the fossils in the upper layer are actually older than the ones found in the lower layer. The rarity of these out-of-sequence finds only strengthens the "old-Earth" theory.

2) Regarding polystrate fossils, we can observe numerous examples of slow-forming deposits today, and there is no reason to believe that these same types of naturally-occurring events didn't occur in the past as well.

3) Likewise, we see modern-day examples of rapid sedimentation when a tree is buried as a result of an earthquake, volcanic eruption or mudslide. The tree is instantly covered in sediment that was formed through numerous eras. There are trees in Yellowstone Park that were buried alive during a prehistoric volcanic eruption, and they still stand today.

4) I don't have the time to refute all of the claims made in the "Predictions of the Creation Model" section, so I'll just discuss one. This notion that the rate of decay in Earth's magnetic field suggests a young Earth has already been refuted a number of times. The problem is that this theory assumes a constant rate of decay, and there is no proof whatsoever that this is true. In fact, all evidence suggests a constantly fluctuating rate of decay.

The problem I find with Creationist claims isn't a lack of evidence; it is an erroneous interpretation of the evidence. It also requires ignoring evidence that contradicts the Creationist theory, and requires wild assumptions such as the notion that EVERY radiometric dating that has ever been performed is false. This belief requires the assumption that radiometric isotopes do not decay at a steady rate, which is an assumption that contradicts all observable evidence.

The Creationist belief also requires one to assume that either all observable stars in the night sky are no further away than 6,000 light years (which further requires a refutation of all measurements of distance) or that the speed of light is not constant (which would not only refute all known evidence but also shatter all laws of physics.)

Creationism requires so much effort to deny the evidence at hand that I don't understand why it even exists as a theory. Why not simply accept the laws of physics and the evidence at hand, and credit God with creating those laws and evidence?

2/6/2014 03:00:55 am

"The Creationist belief also requires one to assume that either all observable stars in the night sky are no further away than 6,000 light years ...or that the speed of light is not constant"

Not true. Read my post above. Genesis 1:16 tell us that the stars were already visible from Earth on the very day of their creation.

Stars millions of light years away already visible, birds that can fly (verse 20), fruit trees already bearing fruit (verse 11) clearly paints a picture of a newly created world already in a state of maturation. An illusion of age that would deceive any scientific observation.

2/6/2014 06:23:52 am

I'm trying to understand your meaning here, David. Are you suggesting that the stars were created after the Earth, and positioned millions of light years away from us in order to create an illusion of time and intentionally deceive us? This is a perfect example of the type of mental gymnastics you have to perform in order to believe in Creation, and perfectly illustrates what I wrote earlier.

If scientific observation cannot be used to explain the universe, then please stop using science to attempt to explain your theory of Creation.

2/6/2014 10:02:59 pm

"I'm trying to understand your meaning here, David. Are you suggesting that the stars were created after the Earth, and positioned millions of light years away from us in order to create an illusion of time and intentionally deceive us?"

I am merely suggesting that it happened exactly as the first chapter of Genesis presents it. The observation that visible stars are more than 6,000 light years away is rendered insufficient as evidence in an Old Earth argument by Gen 1:16.

There is no intention to deceive anyone: that is precisely why it is explained to us in God's preserved Word. Just because throughout the years scientists have trusted their own wisdom over Scripture, does not mean God ever desired or attempted to deceive. Quite the opposite, Genesis has been there all along.

2/6/2014 12:09:21 pm

Thank you for commenting, Mike. I appreciate your willingness to present a contrasting viewpoint.

I agree with you that Nye was mistaken to claim that out-of-sequence fossils would validate the creation model. However, you are mistaken as well in assuming that the fossils in question could be explained by layers of sediment shifting and sliding out of order. I'm not aware of any creationist who considers this category of fossils to be out of sequence. The fossils that I am referring to are the ones in which an organism from one period is fossilized in rock from another period. While such fossils are not proof positive of the truth of the creation model as Nye seems to think, they are certainly consistent with it.

In regards to the polystrate fossils, let me point out that, while slow deposition may be a reasonable hypothesis for fossilized trees, it is certainly not reasonable to suggest that a whale could have been fossilized by a process of slow deposition of diatomites. Additionally, the polystrate tree fossils in Joggins show abundant evidence of being "moved to this location, washed in during a time of extensive and massive sedimentation" as explained in the ICR article at: http://www.icr.org/article/445/.

For your fourth point, let me simply point out that in order for you to refute any of the predictions of the creation model, that model must first have made some predictions which can be tested. Whether or not those predictions are proven true does not negate the fact that testable predictions have been made.

You briefly mentioned the creationist rejection of the long age results from radiometric dating calculations. I would recommend that you read the publications of ICR's RATE project. The RATE results are the most conclusive creationist statement on radiometric dating currently available. You can find more information at: http://www.icr.org/rate/.

It's interesting that you mentioned the starlight problem. Several creationists have proposed solutions to this problem which neither require the stars to be less than 6000 light years away nor that the speed of light not be constant. The most popular solution is probably the one proposed by Dr. Russell Humphreys in his book Starlight and Time. Humphreys proposes a solution based on a finite and bounded universe subject to gravitational time dilation in accordance with Einstein's theory of relativity. I actually developed a similar solution while studying cosmology on my own a few years after Humphreys' published his book, and I first learned of Humphreys' work when a friend of mine asked me if I had gotten my ideas from him. This solution fits the observable data far better than the evolutionary model of a finite but boundless universe which has its own starlight problem known as the horizon problem. You can read a brief overview of Humphreys' book at: http://www.icr.org/article/446/

2/6/2014 10:16:07 pm

I generally find that these types of debates are counterproductive and a waste of time for both sides. You give me several lengthy reading assignments, and I respond with several reading assignments for you. On and on it goes. It's the equivalent of saying "you're wrong because Stephen Hawking." It gets us nowhere, and we both walk away unenlightened.

I understand that these are complex questions with complex answers. The world is not filled with astrophysicists for a reason. But I believe that we can achieve understanding of complex questions by simply employing rationality and good old fashioned common sense.

The problem I have (well, one of many) with Creationism is that it requires one to dismiss not just one point of evidence, and develop a new explanation to fit the Creationist theory, but that it requires MANY such dismissals and explanations -- and then explanations to explain the glaring holes in the original explanations.

We know the universe is roughly 14 billion years old because it passes EVERY test of measurement that has ever been conceived. Great minds have spent centuries developing new ways to measure the age of the universe, and they always arrive at roughly the same number no matter how it is measured. This is how we know that this number is most likely accurate. If even one of those tests had failed, then it would invalidate all of the others.

I can't help but notice that every link you post, and every reference you make to scientific claims that validate your beliefs, is from a Creationist organization. And I can't help but wonder if you ever step outside of that box and question whether these claims are as accurate as you believe they are. There is a danger of living inside an echo chamber where only one point of view is ever heard, and that danger is ignorance -- the same type of ignorance that you accused Bill Nye of having about Creationist theories. You may be correct that Nye is ignorant of Creationist claims. But are you equally ignorant of scientific facts?

Just as one example, you have mentioned this fossilized whale a couple of times now in your comments. Generally, when I encounter a story that seems completely implausible, the first thing I do is a quick Google search to verify the story and learn more about it. It only took me a few seconds to learn that this whale story is a myth that has been repeated over and over within the Creationist echo chamber since the 1970's. The fossilized whale that you refer to was not found in a vertical position, but at an angle of 40-50 degrees, and oriented in parallel to the strata. In other words, the whale died in a horizontal position, was buried in that strata, and that strata was later uplifted and folded into its present position.

Rather than research this any further or question the veracity of this claim, you simply accepted it as truth, because it fit your theory. And this is the issue I have with all Creationist claims. Creationists begin with a theory, and then search for evidence to fit that theory (and tossing aside whatever doesn't fit.) This is the exact opposite of the scientific method, which is to collect ALL of the evidence, and then develop a theory to explain the evidence.

At this point, we can keep going around and around in circles or we can simply agree to disagree. I opt for the latter.

2/7/2014 03:28:05 am

Well, Mike. I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on nearly every point. I generally find my discussions with evolutionists to be very productive. The Bible says that a wise man will hear and will increase learning. I have made a habit of applying that verse to every conversation that I have regardless of whether I agree with the person that I'm speaking with. For the sake of time, I have directed you toward specific articles by other creationists, but if you would rather have me present those arguments in my own words, then I would be willing to do so. In contrast, if you would prefer to presents arguments from people who support your perspective as I have done, then I have no problem devoting the time to read those arguments. In fact, I've already read much of Hawking's works along with Gamow and several others, and I would be comfortable discussing any of their claims.

Now, you are very much mistaken to claim that every measurement supports the 14 billion year age of the universe. I could list dozens of measurements which contradict that claim. Just to pick one off the top of my head, you could go to http://youngearth.com/star-clusters to read about the lack of collision evidence which would be needed in order for the old age date to be correct.

And yes, I realize that I just provided you with another link to an article written by a creationist. That does not in any way mean that I only read creationist literature. I am simply referencing articles which provide information that supports my position, and I expect you to do the same. I'm not going to complain if all of your supporting references are to articles written by evolutionists. You think that those undividuals present the best information and argumentation, and it would very childish of me to insist that you quote creationists who support your position.

As for the whale fossil, it appears that you have jumped to a false conclusion regarding my argument. You have mistakenly taken a poor argument presented by some creationist on the web and have attacked that argument rather than mine. My argument is that the whale could not have been fossilized by the slow deposition of diotamites. This argument is valid regardless of whether the whale was verticle or horizontal during its burial.

2/7/2014 04:51:41 am

Bill, do you have any sources that discredit the measurement of the age of the universe outside of Creationist sources? Do you have any sources to back your claim that radiometric dating is inaccurate, other than Creationist sources? Do you have any sources to agree with your theory of polystrate fossils other than Creationists? This is entirely my point: the only people who believe these things are Creationists.

I'm not an astrophysicist, so I'm not even going to pretend to debate you on that topic. I don't know anything about you, but I assume that you aren't an astrophysicist, either. (Although you claim you're able to dispute the findings of Stephen Hawking, who just may be the most brilliant genius the world has ever known, so you must have quite a resume!) Given that, I don't see the point of us having an in-depth discussion on astrophysics (or molecular biology or genetics or geology or any other topic that would require a lifetime of study and experience to fully understand.)

My point is simply this: to believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old, you have to pretend that every measurement that has ever been devised by a non-Creationist is wrong. And not just wrong, but wrong by about 13,999,999,994 years! That is such an incredible (and arrogant) assumption -- on its own -- that I can't imagine how you or anyone could possibly be so convinced that you are right, and the rest of humankind is wrong.

Next, you have to believe that the light that we see from distant stars isn't millions of years old, but that it is "new light" that has been warped by spacetime and gravity to appear much older by all known measurements. This is the stuff of science fiction.

Next, you have to believe that dinosaurs walked side-by-side with humans, despite the fact that no dinosaur fossil has ever been discovered in the same strata as a human fossil, and despite the fact that all radiometric dating places the last dinosaurs at roughly 60 million years before the first humans. All of that evidence must be discarded or explained away with some alternate theory.

Next, you have to believe that all radiometric dating -- and carbon dating -- is inaccurate. You have to believe that radioactive isotopes do NOT degrade at a steady and predictable rate. You have to believe that carbon-14 atoms do not decay at a steady and predictable rate. And your proof for this belief must rely upon evidence that has already been discredited by every reputable scientist that has ever studied the topic.

If you also happen to be a believer in the "Great Flood", then you have to place your disbelief in a permanent state of suspension, and swallow the story that 40 days of rain caused the Grand Canyon (all 5.5 TRILLION cubic yards) to flood and every mountain in the Alps to be covered in water. You have to believe that an enormous ship could be built by one man and his sons, and that this ship -- built out of wood -- would actually float. And you have to believe that this family somehow imported that wood from neighboring regions, since there wasn't nearly enough wood available in their region to erect a ship of that size.

You have to believe that this family somehow gathered a pair of animals -- and a mating pair, at that! -- from each and every one of the nine million species of animals on the planet -- and stored them on this boat. (I suppose you have to believe that all of the world's plants were just left to die underwater, and that they somehow sprung back to life after the tide receded.)

You have to believe that these animals apparently either starved during the flood, or that they became vegetarians, or that their unique and complex dietary needs were somehow met on a daily basis by this one family, and that this family also cleaned up the animals' waste and made sure to take them out on walks to get them exercise.

You have to believe that dinosaurs were also stored on this boat, but then they somehow became extinct after the flood. You have to believe that kangaroos and koala bears were somehow collected by this Middle Eastern family, and somehow returned to Australia after the flood. You have to believe that this Middle Eastern family with no knowledge of the Americas and no means of transporting there, could somehow collect animals that are native only to the Americas and transport them back to the Americas after the flood.

I could go on and on. Isn't it far more likely that the flood was just a story, and that the universe really is 14 billion years old? Why go through all of these mental gymnastics? I really don't understand the motivation of the young-Earth Creationists to believe what they believe. Believing that the universe is 14 billion years old and that the flood never happened doesn't discredit the message of the Bible or the importance of an almighty God. Why go through all of this trouble?

2/7/2014 10:20:18 am

It seems to me that you are trying to avoid an honest evaluation of the facts. For example...

You challenged my reference to out-of-sequence fossils, and I explained that the fossils in the links I provided were real out-of-sequence fossils in which organisms from one period were fossilized in rocks from another period. Now, you appear to have abandoned this challenge. Does that mean that you now recognize that true out-of-sequence fossils really do exist?

You challenged my statements about polystrate fossils, and I have provided you with evidence that the polystrate tree fossils were formed by rapid deposition and that the polystrate whale fossil was formed by rapid deposition. Additionally, the evidence which I originally presented regarding Guy Berthault's proof of rapid sedimentation demonstrates that the rapid deposition required for polystrate fossil formation is not only possible but able to be repeated under laboratory conditions. Do you now agree with the evidence that these fossils were the result of the rapid deposition of multiple layers of strata?

In regards to radiometric dating, I provided you with a link to the results of the RATE project, but you appear to have completely ignored this. Have you ever read the RATE report? This report contains the results of multiple empirical tests on the validity of current radiometric dating methods. Yes, these tests were conducted by creationists, but their methodology and data are published in the report, and their results can be verified by anyone willing to do so.

You've also ignored the solution which I provided for the distant starlight problem as well as the evidence from star clusters which disagrees with the supposed 14 billion year age of the universe.

Now, instead of addressing any of the evidence which I've presented, you've launched into this ignorant diatribe against creationists.

If you are at all interested in learning why creationists disagree with you in these points you could check out the documented evidence of dinosaur soft tissue at: http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue. Or you could read this article about empirical evidence that dinosaurs lived with men: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2416. Or you could read one of my own debates on the Kachina Bridge Petroglyph at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwkcjuGxVoJZSlVSeHI0SmZtY1E/edit. You could also read this chapter from Dr. Walt Brown's book to get an accurate understanding of how creationists think the Grand Canyon was formed: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon2.html. And you can read the biblical account itself to find out how creationists propose that Noah "somehow gathered" all the animals on the ark.

But since you apparently have no interest in reading any evidence for a 6,000 year old earth if that evidence is presented by someone who actually agrees with his own findings, then I suppose that it would just be a waste of time to share all this with you.

2/7/2014 12:43:59 pm

Again...please provide me with an example of an "out of sequence" fossil that does not derive from a Creationist source. You've mentioned a whale fossil several times, but there is no way for me to know which whale fossil you are referencing.

Once again, I am not an archaeologist, nor do I pretend to be one, nor do I play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So my knowledge of whale fossils is limited only by my common sense. And common sense tells me that even if we were to somehow discover a whale fossil that transcended multiple strata, there would be a logical explanation for it other than "the universe is only 6,000 years old."

Because -- again -- to believe such in such a ridiculous notion, you would not only have to believe that the whale fossil was buried in an epic flood, but you would have to also believe in all the other completely ridiculous nonsense that goes along with it. You cannot believe that radiometric measurements are unreliable OR that distant stars are only 6,000 years old. You have to believe both.

I've already explained to you that "rapid deposition" of allegedly "polystrate fossils" is observable in nature today, and therefore it stands to reason that it would have occurred in history. For whatever reason, you've chosen to ignore this. We could continue to argue this point endlessly, or you could simply acknowledge that, regardless of how they are formed, polystrate fossils are incredibly rare, and that the vast majority (99.99999%) of fossils follow a predictable pattern, where the deeper a fossil is found, the more simplistic it is.

I also couldn't help but notice that you used another young-Earth Creationist (Guy Berthault) to "prove" your point. Again, I beg you to please produce ONE reputable source to prove your points other than the same, tired, old Creationists that you all consistently rely upon.

It is for this reason that I have not read the "RATE" report, nor will I ever read it. Again, please provide me with a source of information outside of the Creationist echo chamber that doubts the accuracy of radiometric dating, and I will be more than happy to read that report. Reading a Creationist's version of science is as informational as reading a child's version of the Tooth Fairy.

I haven't "ignored" your solution to the distant starlight "problem." I have simply stated that ANY alleged "solution" to this "problem" resides outside of the realm of all reality and observational evidence. Again...if you are to believe that the universe is 6,000 years old, then you are required to toss aside EVERY method of measurement and EVERY piece of evidence to the contrary. NO ONE outside of your tiny Creationist community believes such a thing.

As far as my "ignorant diatribe against Creationsts", I can't help but wonder what is ignorance of ignorance. I don't need to understand your version of reality any more than I need to understand a mental patient's version of reality. You're free to believe whatever you choose to believe. The only reason I became involved in this conversation was because you chose to use the word "ignorant" to describe the point of view of a person who happens to agree with mine on this topic. I am a firm believer in your right to express your viewpoint, but if you do so while disrespecting a view that I uphold, then I can't help but object. I am not a Bill Nye fan by any means; in fact, I think he is a terrible debater. But when you call him "ignorant", then I take that personally.

2/7/2014 11:44:26 pm

Mike, let me say first of all that I never use the word "ignorant" to mean anything other than the proper definition of that word. The word "ignorant" literally means "a lack of knowledge." I do not use it to mean "lacking the ability to understand" as it is sometimes used among uneducated youths. Thus, when I said that Bill Nye was ignorant of his opponent’s position, I was saying that he was lacking in his knowledge of the creation model. Your recent diatribe displayed a similar lack of knowledge which is why I referred to that diatribe as being an ignorant one. I was not in any way attacking your character or the character of Bill Nye. I was merely observing a deficit in your awareness of certain facts.

The fact that you are deficient in your knowledge of the creation model is obvious from your own words. You have admitted that you have never read the RATE report. You apparently have not read the link which I provided in regards to the polystrate whale fossil which, of course, means that you have not read the referenced article by Dr. Andrew Snelling which presents photographic evidence of this fossil. And you know nothing about Dr. Russell Humphreys' work on distant starlight. I would even venture to say that you are so ignorant (or so lacking in your knowledge) of the creation model that you think that all creationists are stupid (the proper word to use for one lacking the ability to understand), and it's likely that you have never taken the time to look up the credentials and accomplishments of the scientists who hold to that model.

The reason for your ignorance is clearly visible in your comments. You have frequently accused me of ignoring vast amounts of evidence which is contrary to my position, and I have responded by saying that I am willing to consider any such evidence which you can present. For example, I assured you that I would be comfortable discussing any of the claims of Stephen Hawking. I am very familiar with his work, and I can guarantee you that he has not provided any evidence which contradicts the creation model. Hawking's position is philosophical in nature not scientific. He explicitly states this when he admits, "We have no scientific evidence for or against [Friedman's] second assumption" (A Briefer History of Time, 2005, pg 62). I am both knowledgeable of and willing to discuss the works of people who disagree with me on this topic, but you are not. You did not just admit ignorance of the RATE report. You adamantly refused to read it at any time in the future for no other reason than that it was written by people who disagree with your position. Thus, your ignorance of the creation model is no accident. You are intentionally ignorant because you refuse to even consider anything which exists outside of your "echo chamber" of evolutionism.

2/7/2014 11:45:12 pm

Now, for the benefit of those reading this conversation who are interested in empirical evidence for creation, let me present the following facts:

1) The very first link which I provided on the topic of out-of-sequence fossils was to a list of such fossils compiled by Dr. Walt Brown which includes several references to non-creationist sources. One of those references is to the article "Pushing Back Amber Production" by David Grimaldi which appeared in the journal Science on October 2, 2009. Grimaldi reported on a specimen of amber which is claimed to be 320 million years old that is chemically identical to amber produced by plants which were not supposed to have been around before 120 million years ago. Thus, this amber is out-of-sequence by about 200 million years. Grimaldi's solution to this was to speculate that some completely unknown species of plant must have been in existence 320 million years ago which left no evidence of its existence except for a single piece of amber which is chemically identical to a more modern species. This bit of fiction is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the evolutionist.

The Grimaldi article can be found online at: http://web.mst.edu/~jkmq53/school/Spring_2010/Chem_02/files/51.pdf

2) The polystrate whale fossil that I have made reference to is clearly identified in the link that I provided as being "an 80-foot long fossilized baleen whale in a diatomite deposit at the Miguelito Mine in Lompoc, California." That link cites a paper by Dr. Andrew Snelling which was published in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal in 1995. Dr. Snelling personally examined this fossil and cited numerous non-creationist sources in support of his findings. Most of the arguments against the rapid burial of the Lompoc whale focus on a comparison between the Lompoc fossil and a 1989 discovery of a whale carcass being slowly buried by sediment in the Santa Catalina Basin. Dr. Snelling does an excellent job of explaining the differences between the Lompoc fossil and the Santa Catalina carcass. But if you would like to compare the two for yourself, you can follow the two links below.

Dr. Snelling's article can be found at:
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Whale-Fossil-in-Diatomite-Lompoc-California.pdf

And the Santa Catalina Basin article is available here:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2400991

3) The solution to the distant starlight problem which creationists have developed is based on the fact that all of the galaxies which we can observe are situated around us in concentric shells similar to the valence shells of an atom. The photo on the cover of this book http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/BookJacket.asp?isbn=9780300165081 provides a helpful illustration. The fact that observational evidence shows our galaxy to be in the center of this sphere is admitted by Stephen Hawking in pages 55-62 of his book A Briefer History of Time. The fact that the other galaxies form concentric spheres around ours was proven by Dr. John G. Hartnett in an article published in November 2008 edition of the journal Astrophysics and Space Science. When we apply Einstein's theory of general relativity to this model of concentric shells of galaxies, we find that, from the perspective of an observer on earth, the light from the outermost shells would travel toward the center extremely quickly even though an observer travelling with the light itself would measure the light as if it were travelling at the standard speed of light. This effect is known as gravitational time dilation, and it was proven experimentally by four non-creationists who published their report in the September 24, 2010 edition of the journal Science.

You can read Dr. Hartnett's proof of the concentric spheres of galaxies at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4885

And you can find the Science article proving gravitational time dilation at:
http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2447.pdf

2/8/2014 01:24:28 am

I'll play in this sandbox a little longer. At your incessant urging, I did a little reading on the RATE project. Here is what I have discovered about it:

The results of this study have never been submitted to any peer-reviewed journal, and thus have never been subjected to the scrutiny of the legitimate mainstream scientific community at large.

The legitimate physicists and scientists that have looked at the study have determined that the conclusions were skewed by inaccurate modeling of helium diffusion rates in the zircons, numerous invalid assumptions, and unfounded increases in radioactive decay rate.

A number of physicists have criticized the validity of Humphreys' claims, and his response to those criticisms has been superficial and irrelevant, and lacking the mathematical and technical details necessary to defend his conclusions.

Basically, Humphreys and his group began with an answer, and then looked for ways to skew the data to fit that answer. The RATE group even admits this as their stated goal in their "Statement of Faith." This isn't science. It's pseudo-science.

But I'm guessing this won't deter any Creationists from continuing to cite Humphreys and the RATE project in the future defense of their beliefs. Facts never seem to impede ideology.

2/8/2014 06:40:55 am

It's good to see you stepping outside of your comfort zone, Mike, but let me suggest that you research the RATE project a little bit further.

You are mistaken to conclude that the results of the RATE project "have never been submitted to any peer-reviewed journal." Most of the material in the RATE book has been published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly journal. The CRSQ is a peer-reviewed journal that has been in publication since 1964.

Judging by the statements you made about the "legitimate physicists" who have looked at the study, I am going to assume that you are referring to the criticisms from Gary H. Loechelt. Humphreys and Loechelt have written several articles in response to each other's claims. I've read these articles, and I found Loechelt's criticisms to be less than honest.

For example, in his 2009 article, Loechelt paraphrased Humphreys as saying:

"The loosely bound helium in my model would have been exhausted during the initial heating ramp of the diffusion experiment, and cannot explain the high diffusivity that was observed at low temperatures later in the experiment."

Then Loechelt said "Humphreys made this claim apparently without performing any calculations." What Humphreys actually said, however, was:

"he (Loechelt) overlooked part of one of his own quotes, in which an expert pointed out that loose helium would only affect the initial steps of the laboratory measurement, because after the initial steps the loose helium would be gone."

Humphreys was pointing out a flaw in Loechelt's earlier statement in which Loechelt ignored the calculations of his own cited authority. Humphreys was not making any statement about his personal calculations in this particular article. He was simply pointing out that Loechelt ignored the calculations of his own expert.

Unfortunately, this type of subterfuge is very common in Loechelt's various criticisms, but I don't expect you to just take my word for that. You can read the dispute between these two online at the following links:

Humphreys, 2005:
Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Young-Helium-Diffusion-Age-of-Zircons.pdf

Loechelt, 2008:
Helium Diffusion in Zircon: Flaws in a Young-Earth Argument
http://www.reasons.org/articles/helium-diffusion-in-zircon-flaws-in-a-young-earth-argument-part-1-of-2

Loechelt, 2008:
Fenton Hill Revisited: The Retention of Helium in Zircons and the Case for Accelerated Nuclear Decay
http://www.reasons.org/files/HeliumDiffusionZirconTechnicalpPaper.pdf

Humphreys, 2008:
Helium evidence for a young world continues to confound critics
http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics#endRef35

Loechelt, 2009:
A Response to the RATE Team Regarding Helium Diffusion in Zircon
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/helium-gl4.htm

Humphreys, 2010:
Critics of helium evidence for a young world now seem silent
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_1/j24_1_14-16.pdf

Loechelt, 2010:
Critics of helium evidence for a young world now seem silent?
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_3/j24_3_34-39.pdf

Humphreys, 2010:
Response is included in the Loechelt, 2010 link

Humphreys, 2011:
Argon diffusion data support RATE’s 6,000-year helium age of the earth
http://creation.com/argon-diffusion-age

Loechelt, 2012:
Argon diffusion data support RATE’s 6,000-year helium age of the earth
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_2/j26_2_45-49.pdf

Humphreys, 2012:
Response is included in the Loechelt, 2012 link

As far as I know, this is a complete list of the discussion between Humphreys and Loechelt over the RATE results regarding helium-argon dating. I would recommend that you read all of it if you really want to know whether this particular aspect of the creation model has successfully defended against its critics. Reading these articles should also demonstrate that Humphreys' responses to his critics have not been "superficial and irrelevant" as you claim.

Gary Loechelt

5/19/2014 04:34:55 pm

Please see my comment on 05/18/2014 8:26pm. I should have replied under this section instead of the bottom of the page.

2/8/2014 11:01:05 pm

And now, apparently, we're having a debate about a debate, which is exactly what I was hoping to avoid. I know absolutely nothing -- nothing -- about the helium diffusion rate of zircons. And unless you have an advanced degree in this field of study and have worked with helium zircons in a laboratory setting, neither do you. So what this now boils down to is a he-said/he-said back-and-forth argument over whose expert is smarter. I have neither the time nor inclination to have such a discussion.

This is why, when it comes to subject matter outside of my realm of knowledge, I let the experts battle it out. And the way they do that is through peer review. It is unfathomable to me that you believe the CRSQ is a "peer-reviewed" journal. Sure, the work published in that journal is peer-reviewed...BY OTHER CREATIONISTS! In fact, in order to belong to this society, you have to sign a statement of belief in a young Earth and the Flood. Please point me to any other scientific society in the world that requires its members to sign such a statement of belief.

This is exactly what I referred to earlier about that echo chamber. Creationists develop theories that are reviewed by other Creationists, and then spread throughout the Creationist community.

Loechelt is only one of many physicists that have pointed out the many flaws in Humphreys' work. If you need names, the ones I found are Whitefield (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/helium-rw.pdf), Isaac and Christman (http://www.oldearth.org/RATE_critique_he-zr.htm).

If you're looking for something to read on a lazy Sunday, Kevin Henke has posted a lengthy summary of this entire debate at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Bill, I don't claim to know anything about radiometric isotopes. I can simply apply logic and reasoning to conclude that Humphreys is wrong, without knowing anything about his work. For example, if Humphreys is correct, and all isotopes on the planet decay at a rate of no greater than 6,000 years, what would be the implications? Well, for starters, Earth wouldn't exist. A planet filled with so many quickly-decaying isotopes would melt to its core before it ever had a chance to cool. Since that didn't happen, logic tells me that Humphreys is wrong. I don't even need to understand the science to know that he is wrong.

Similarly, if Humphreys is correct, then no radioactive isotope with a half life of more than 75 million years would exist. And yet, in nature, we find ONLY those isotopes with half lives of 75MM+, and not a single isotope with a shorter half life. The logical conclusion is that shorter-lived isotopes have fully decayed. Again, this is simple logic that doesn't require any knowledge of science to understand.

I'm sure that Creationists have some wild and unsubstantiated theory to explain this as well. And then I would have to go through the trouble of developing a rational explanation for why that theory doesn't work, either. This is an endless discussion filled with endless refutations.

5/18/2014 01:26:11 pm

"Judging by the statements you made about the 'legitimate physicists' who have looked at the study, I am going to assume that you are referring to the criticisms from Gary H. Loechelt. Humphreys and Loechelt have written several articles in response to each other's claims. I've read these articles, and I found Loechelt's criticisms to be less than honest."

As a Christian, the saddest part is not that fellow brothers and sisters in Christ disagree with me on a matter of Scriptural interpretation and scientific study, but that my character is a target for mean-spirited attack. I extensively researched the RATE study and documented my findings as objectively as possible. Yet comments like these ignore my legitimate criticisms and and attack my person.

You rightly comment that I took liberty to paraphrase Humphreys. My motive was not to create a "subterfuge", as you suggest. Instead, Humphreys refutations were so vague and ambiguous that I found it hard to even articulate a reply without attempting to reword his comments in a more coherent fashion. If you think otherwise, then please consider again Humphreys exact words.

"he (Loechelt) overlooked part of one of his own quotes, in which an expert pointed out that loose helium would only affect the initial steps of the laboratory measurement, because after the initial steps the loose helium would be gone."

If you would be so kind, please answer the following questions about this quotation.

1. Please provide a reference to the quote from the expert mentioned above. Include not only a full reference to the paper, but identify the exact paragraph and section that is relevant.

2. Please show me where in this paper, as you suggestion, that the expert performed calculations which would be relevant to the specific RATE diffusion experiment (and not some other experiment) that would demonstrate that my error.

3. Please show me where in my paper(s), I committed an error in my calculations. You have the full references before you and have read my work and found it wanting. Please give me instruction in this area that I could be wiser. I will humbly correct any errors you find in my math and retract what I have publicly written if you can show that they would change the conclusions to my study.

5/22/2014 02:16:12 pm

Is Bill Fortenberry going to answer any of these questions?

5/22/2014 09:56:28 pm

Dr. Loechelt,

I am honored that a man of your standing would condescend to comment on my lowly blog, and I apologize for not responding with the swiftness that your status deserves. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I'm somewhat confused, and I wonder if you would be so kind as to help me clarify a few things.

In your "Response to the RATE Team Regarding Helium Diffusion in Zircon," you criticized Dr. Humphreys for making a claim "without performing any calculations." However, the claim that Dr. Humphreys made did not require him to make calculations in order to determine its validity. He did not accuse you of faulty calculations; he accused you of a faulty citation. According to Dr. Humphreys, you overlooked a statement by your own cited authority which contradicted your conclusion. Now, Dr. Humphreys' claim may be true, and it may be false; my criticism of your paper remains valid in either case. The criticism which I presented was that you failed to answer Humphreys charge and attempted to deflect it by rewording his claim in a way that eliminated the real accusation.

Now, in your comment on this blog post, you have presented me with the questions that you should have presented to Dr. Humphreys five years ago, and my question in return is simply, Why? Why didn't you challenge Dr. Humphreys back in 2009 to produce the exact quotation from the expert that he referenced? Why didn't you make an attempt to determine which statement he was referring to and provide that quotation yourself? Why did you shift the focus away from Humphreys' real accusation? And why are you asking your questions now after Dr. Humphreys has retired instead of then when he could have responded quickly?

5/24/2014 06:36:05 am

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. I welcome an open dialogue on this matter, since I have invested no small amount of personal time in researching in depth the claims of the RATE study, reading the relevant background literature, and creating my own model. I also appreciate that fact that since I responded to an old article, it would not have immediately caught your attention. Therefore your delay in response is completely understandable.

Let me preface my comments with a verse from the Bible. Jesus asked, "Why do you attempt to remove a speck in your brother's eye, when there is a log in your own eye?" I have written many pages in my critique of the helium diffusion RATE study, covering the mathematics of diffusion, material properties, and the geologic history of the site. Yet, you have essentially rejected my work because of the sentence, "Humphreys made this claim apparently without performing any calculations." It is only one sentence out of many pages of critique that I have written on the subject.

I will address your questions in later in this post, but first I will speak to a couple of the statements you made in the preceding paragraph.

Statement: "Now, Dr. Humphreys' claim may be true, and it may be false; my criticism of your paper remains valid in either case."

Reply: Strictly speaking you are correct, in the same way that my statement that Humphreys failed to perform any calculation is correct. Just as he accused me of a faulty citation, I am accusing him of lacking mathematical rigor, which is a legitimate scientific criticism, irrespective of what he said about me. Furthermore, your statement above, though rhetorically correct, is in reality an appeal to ignorance. You concede that Humphreys' unsubstantiated allegation may be completely false and that you made no effort to check his facts. Isn't determining the truth of the matter now more important than hiding behind your statement, regardless of its validity?

Statement: "The criticism which I presented was that you failed to answer Humphreys charge and attempted to deflect it by rewording his claim in a way that eliminated the real accusation."

Reply: By your own words you will be judged. You attempted to deflect my exposure of your failure to verify Humphreys' unsubstantiated allegation by barraging me with more questions. Your position is that I should have challenged Humphreys regarding his lack of citation years ago. Regardless of what I should have done in the past, the question has now been raised and is still valid, even after five years. Instead of answering it, you evaded the problem by asking me more questions. I have encountered this situation numerous times in my interaction with the young-earth creation community. So often when I ask legitimate questions, I am barraged with only more questions in return. This tactic attempts to shift the burden of proof to me after I have made a solid case. I am shifting the burden of proof back to you: PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.

I will now answer your questions, though you have left mine completely unanswered.

Question: "Why didn't you challenge Dr. Humphreys back in 2009 to produce the exact quotation from the expert that he referenced?"

Reply: At the time I thought the statement was so frivolous that it was not worth the effort. After all, who would take seriously a criticism to the effect (I am paraphrasing here) "there is an expert who says you are wrong, but I am not going to tell you who that person is, what he exactly said, where he said it, or how it specifically applies to your work." In retrospect, since people like you did take Humphreys seriously, I should have said something.

Question: "Why didn't you make an attempt to determine which statement he was referring to and provide that quotation yourself?"

Reply: This is a classic example of the tactic of unfairly shifting the burden of proof back to me. Humphreys made the allegation - it is up to him to produce the proof. What you are asking of me is essentially no different than the prosecution walking into a court room unprepared and telling the defense that they need to produce the evidence for its own conviction. How absurd.

Question: "Why did you shift the focus away from Humphreys' real accusation?"

Reply: From my point of view I shifted the focus back to the real question. You seem to confuse science with debate and rhetoric. Scientific questions are settled on the basis of data, not words. You are skilled in clever wording and debate. That is not what science is about. The essence of Humphreys' criticism was that the loosely-bound helium would be exhausted early in the experiment. I addressed that criticism not by using debate tactics, but by appealing to mathematics, which is the solid language of the physical sciences. My challenge to Humphreys was for him to come up with the same level of scientific rigor, especially since he provided no reference to s

Admin

5/24/2014 10:03:19 pm

Here is the portion of Dr. Loechelt's comment which exceeded the character limit:

Question: "Why did you shift the focus away from Humphreys' real accusation?"

Reply: From my point of view I shifted the focus back to the real question. You seem to confuse science with debate and rhetoric. Scientific questions are settled on the basis of data, not words. You are skilled in clever wording and debate. That is not what science is about. The essence of Humphreys' criticism was that the loosely-bound helium would be exhausted early in the experiment. I addressed that criticism not by using debate tactics, but by appealing to mathematics, which is the solid language of the physical sciences. My challenge to Humphreys was for him to come up with the same level of scientific rigor, especially since he provided no reference to support his unsubstantiated allegations.

Question: "And why are you asking your questions now after Dr. Humphreys has retired instead of then when he could have responded quickly?"

Reply: Keep in mind that when I wrote my paper back in 2009, Humphreys did not respond to it at all. He deliberately ignored it, even though I made the effort of bringing it to his attention, which he candidly acknowledged. This exchange is all documented in the endnotes of your references above [Loechelt 2010, endnote 5; Humphreys 2010, endnote 4]. If Humphreys had raised the concerns that you mentioned above in his 2010 Journal of Creation paper, I would have had the opportunity to say then what I have written now. Instead, Humphreys' claimed that he had "silenced his critics", even though he deliberately ignored the recent work of one of his critics. And you accuse me of being "less than honest"! I ask you the question now. If the charges that you bring against me are so serious, why didn't Humphreys ask these questions back in 2010 when I could have readily answered them?

5/24/2014 11:24:52 pm

Come now, Dr. Loechelt. Answering Dr. Humphreys' claim directly should not have been as difficult as you are making it out to be. In your recent comment, you paraphrased Humphreys as claiming that some random, unidentified expert contradicted your conclusion, but that isn't even close to what he actually said, is it? No, what he actually said was that you ignored part of a quote which you provided in your own paper. Surely, it would not have been difficult for you to read your own paper and identify which quotation Dr. Humphreys was referring to. Nevertheless, you are correct in pointing out that Dr. Humphreys should have shouldered the burden of proof and identified the specific quote for you. Please allow me to make up for his error by providing you with the quotation here. On page 12 of your 2008 technical paper, you provided the following quote from Reiners' 2005 article:

"Zircons with a wide range of ages and radiation dosages exhibited approximately the same degree of non-Arrhenius behavior in initial diffusion steps. Although such modeling does not prove such a mechanism for these non-Arrhenius effects, it suggests that only a small proportion of gas resides in domains that exhibit anomalously high diffusivity, and therefore this phenomenon may not significantly affect the bulk closure temperature or He diffusion properties of most natural zircons."

Now, take a moment to consider the first sentence of this quotation: "Zircons with a wide range of ages and radiation dosages exhibited approximately the same degree of non-Arrhenius behavior in INITIAL diffusion steps." This is the sentence which Dr. Humphreys accused you of overlooking, and I have taken the liberty of emphasizing the word which plays the most significant part in this sentence. According to Reiners, the loosely bound helium would only affect the INITIAL portion of the experiment.

Now, if we go back to what Dr. Humphreys' said in his 2008 response (which, by the way, was published just a little more than 2 months after your paper), we can see that he directly addressed your failure to consider the implications of the first sentence of the Reiners quote. Dr. Humphreys wrote:

"He overlooked part of one of his own quotes, in which an expert pointed out that loose helium would only affect the initial steps of the laboratory measurement, because after the initial steps the loose helium would be gone. That is one reason diffusion experts recommend ignoring the initial steps. Our experimenter recommended that, and that is exactly what we did. Thus he felt free to tell us that the rates he measured were accurate depictions of the leakiness for the other 98% of the helium. Ironically, our expert is one of those that Loechelt cites in his section about this issue. Loechelt either completely misunderstood the experts, or he deliberately distorted their meaning."

5/24/2014 11:26:13 pm

You claimed that this statement from Humphreys was frivolous, but I think that he was actually showing you a great deal of kindness. If he had wanted to do so, he could have also pointed out that you didn't just overlook the import of Reiners' comment that the effect is limited to the initial steps of the experiment, but in fact, you overlooked similar statements from several sources cited in your paper and even mentioned this limitation several times yourself all while claiming that this effect taints the data throughout the entire experiment. For example, you quoted Shuster et al. as saying:

"The presence of more than a single diffusion domain complicates a diffusion experiment. Gas INITIALLY extracted from a distribution of diffusion domains will be a mixture: a larger fraction from less retentive domains and a smaller fraction from more retentive domains. Since the mathematics of Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) assume that the gas is derived from a single domain, the presence of a small volume fraction of low retentivity domains will result in values of D/a2 that are INITIALLY higher than the mean for a given temperature." (emphasis mine)

And here are a few of your own statements from your paper which acknowledge that you understood that this effect is limited to the initial, low temperature steps of the experiment:

"At LOW TEMPERATURES, the small fraction of atoms near a defect will be mobile (depicted by the bold arrow), whereas the vast majority of atoms will only begin to move at higher temperatures. Essentially, there are two distinct populations of helium atoms in the solid (A and B), each with different diffusion properties." (emphasis mine)

"Anomalously high diffusivities were observed in the INITIAL low temperature steps of helium diffusion experiments on titanite (Reiners and Farley, 1999) ... Since only a tiny fraction of gas was attributed to the less retentive domain (less than 1% in some cases), negligible influence was expected on the bulk diffusion and closure temperature of the system, despite the high diffusivity of the secondary domain at LOW TEMPERATURES." (emphasis mine)

"Specifically, anomalously high diffusivities were seen in the EARLY, LOW TEMPERATURE stages of a stepwise heating diffusion experiment." (emphasis mine)

"When titanite samples from the Fish Canyon tuff were analyzed using this technique, excess 3He and 4He was released during the INITIAL LOW TEMPERATURE steps of the experiment (Shuster et al., 2003)." (emphasis mine)

"In summary, there are several important observations to note regarding these studies. First, anomalously high helium release is frequently observed during the LOW TEMPERATURE steps of diffusion experiments involving minerals which are of geologic interest." (emphasis mine)

This amazing collection of statements is what Dr. Humphreys referred to as you overlooking part of one of your own quotes. Surely you can see that this is a legitimate criticism of your claim and not mere frivolity. Dr. Humphreys was not accusing you of a calculation error. He was accusing you of ignoring the well established fact that the effect which you attribute to the entire experiment process only shows up in the initial, low temperature steps. The RATE team took that effect into account by eliminating the low temperature steps from their calculations.

5/26/2014 10:03:21 pm

I would like to thank Bill Fortenberry for his kind and thoughtful reply to my previous post. I sincerely wish I could have had this type of dialogue with Dr. Humphreys. The responsiveness of Bill Fortenberry on this blog makes an intelligent discussion possible. Since my last post exceeded the word limit for this blog, I will try to keep this response short.

When interpreting results from the technical literature, or from any experiment for that matter, it is important to keep in mind the assumptions used in the analysis. The assumption underlying the previous two posts is that the results from a particular set of experiments ̶ that loosely-bound helium is depleted during the initial heating ramp, for instance ̶ universally apply to all such experiments. Note that the authors of these papers never made such broad claims. This is not a “well established fact” as Bill Fortenberry asserts. Rather, it is simply an observation pertaining to their own particular experiments.

How did these scientists conclude that the loosely-bound helium was depleted in the first place? The evidence they used was from the pattern of diffusion data on an Arrhenius plot. The effect of the loosely-bound helium was no longer significant when the diffusion data trended along a straight line. To illustrate this point, consider the following quote by Reiners. Using Bill Fortenberry’s emphasis, this quote reads,

"Zircons with a wide range of ages and radiation dosages exhibited approximately the same degree of non-Arrhenius behavior in INITIAL diffusion steps."

I would rather emphasize this quote as,

"Zircons with a wide range of ages and radiation dosages exhibited approximately the same degree of NON-ARRHENIUS BEHAVIOR in initial diffusion steps."

The importance is not so much where the non-Arrhenius behavior occurs, but rather the fact that it occurs at all. In these particular experiments, the non-Arrhenius deviation from straight-line behavior happened to be observed in the initial heating steps.

How should we interpret, then, the RATE diffusion experiment, where unlike the previous experiments, non-Arrhenius behavior was observed AFTER the initial heating steps? According to Bill Fortenberry, and presumably Dr. Humphreys, the non-Arrhenius behavior cannot be attributed to loosely-bound helium because it was not observed past the initial heating ramp in other diffusion experiments. However, this interpretation is illogical because the non-Arrhenius behavior was used in the previous experiments as the indicator of the depletion of the loosely-bound helium in the first place. The more logically consistent interpretation is that if loosely-bound helium is the cause of non-Arrhenius behavior, then it is still present whenever deviation from straight-line behavior is observed on the Arrhenius plot.

Dr. Humphreys’ terse “he overlooked part of one of his own quotes, in which an expert pointed out that loose helium would only affect the initial steps of the laboratory measurement …” statement glosses over this important issue, when a more in-depth discussion would have been appropriate.

5/28/2014 02:13:31 pm

Would you mind clarifying your claim just to make sure that our readers understand what you are saying? Dr. Humphreys provided several different Arrhenius plots in his 2005 article. Could you point out which of those plots you are referring to as displaying non-Arrhenious behavior after the initial heating steps and explain which points on that plot are non-Arrhenious?

5/28/2014 10:11:34 pm

Yes, I am quite happy to provide these details. From the reference

Humphreys, 2005:
Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Young-Helium-Diffusion-Age-of-Zircons.pdf

look at Figure 13 and also Table 2. The non-Arrhenius points are the low temperature measurements below 300 degrees Celsius (steps 15-19) with diffusivities under 1.0e-15 cm**2/s. These are the low temperature steps in the experiment past the initial heating ramp which lie above the straight line drawn through the higher temperature data points.

Note that in your previous post, you emphasized LOW TEMPERATURE at least five times, as many times as you emphasized INITIAL or EARLY. My contention is that the low temperature is a critical factor in observing this non-Arrhenius behavior, not just the initial heating ramp. This effect was not observed in the other experiments you cited because unlike the RATE experiment, their heating schedules did not go below 300 degrees Celsius after the initial heating ramp. The RATE experiment was unique in this respect, and Humphreys described in detail the extra efforts they took to get that low temperature data. Since this is uncharted experimental territory as far as the technical literature goes, one should not naively assume that all of the loosely-bound helium was removed simply based upon quotes from other papers (as Humphreys did). A more rigorous analysis is warranted (such as the calculations I performed).

6/3/2014 09:49:57 pm

Dr. Loechelt,

I contacted Dr. Humphreys and provided him with a copy of our discussion along with a request that he answer your claim regarding non-Arrhenius behavior in Figure 13 and Table 2 of his paper. Here is the response which I received:

"Hi Bill:

Thanks for slugging it out with Loechelt. This particular problem, the alleged “presence of non-Arrhenius data in steps 15-19,” is easy to answer. If you look at Figure 5 on page 35 of the same chapter in the RATE II book to which you refer, you’ll see a typical Arrhenius plot showing common diffusion data in minerals. Any straight line on such a plot represents Arrhenius behavior. The presence of two straight lines of different slopes just indicates two different diffusion mechanisms going on simultaneously throughout the crystal. I explained that on page 34 and in eq. (3) (the 2nd exponential should have a minus sign, as does the 1st exponential).

My Girifalco reference on page 35 shows the same two-slope behavior in his Figure 48 (his page 102) and gives the same explanation. Girifalco called the high-temperature line the “Intrinsic region (high activation energy)”; he called the low-temperature line the “Impurity controlled extrinsic region (low activation energy).” The “intrinsic” behavior is that of a pure crystal; the “extrinsic” behavior is due to impurity atoms distributed throughout the crystal. Elsewhere Girifalco describes several other mechanisms which give a low-slope low-temperature line, such as defects or dislocations throughout the crystal.

The plot in my Figure 15 shows exactly the same two-slope behavior, except that the data-determined slopes are not as different as I made them (for clarity) in Figure 5. Thus the data in Figure 15 do indeed show Arrhenius behavior.

I’m amazed that Loechelt, who claims to be an expert in diffusion, does not appear to understand the beginner-level knowledge above. The above mechanisms are bulk phenomena at work throughout the crystal. Loechelt’s (alleged) mechanism, which I call “loose helium,” would be a surface phenomenon, easily dealt with by simply ignoring data from the first few steps of heating. You’ll note near the bottom of page 44 and the top of page 83, our experimenter) advised us to omit the first set of heating steps in order to eliminate a common surface problem. For the data of Table 2, that amounted to eliminating the first nine steps. I would think that would eliminate Loechelt’s alleged problem also. The fact that data from all the other up-and-down temperature sets overlie one another says to me that all surface problems were gone after the first nine steps.

Our experimenter, a world-recognized expert on helium diffusion in zircons, told us that his data, after the initial steps, reflect the true bulk diffusion properties of helium in the zircons we gave him. I don’t know why Loechelt, a self-proclaimed expert on non-helium diffusion in semiconductors, does not appear to be able to understand that. I think his desire to explain away these data has overwhelmed his capacity to think clearly about them."

6/4/2014 03:35:32 pm

First of all, I would like to give Bill Fortenberry my warmest gratitude for taking the initiative to facilitate this dialogue with Dr. Humphreys. THANK YOU!

Dr. Humphreys said, among other things, “I’m amazed that Loechelt, who claims to be an expert in diffusion, does not appear to understand the beginner-level knowledge above. The above mechanisms are bulk phenomena at work throughout the crystal.”

The point of contention here is whether I have failed to understand diffusion at a beginners level, or whether Humphreys, with his beginner’s knowledge, fails to understand the complexities of solid-state diffusion. One of his biggest misconceptions is that diffusion along defects is necessarily a bulk diffusion phenomenon. In many cases it is not. Bulk diffusion refers to 3-dimensional diffusion throughout the volume of the crystal. Many defects have a lower order geometry such as dislocations (1-dimensonal) and grain boundaries (2-dimensional). Diffusion along these structures is limited by their geometry, and cannot access the entire volume of the crystal.

Humphreys relies heavily upon his Girifalco reference, a dated work which, by the author’s own assessment, is for the "nonspecialist" and "intelligent layman". Why not rather consult a work devoted to practitioners in the field, like Fechtig and Kalbitzer, who pioneered the diffusion measurement technique employed by the RATE team? In their classic paper, these authors discuss at length the distinction between volumetric (i.e 3-dimensional bulk) and non-volumetric (i.e. 1 or 2-dimensional defect) diffusion mechanisms and recommend the practice of ignoring the defect line when extrapolating data on an Arrhenius plot to lower temperatures. [Fechtig, H., & Kalbitzer, S. (1966). The diffusion of argon in potassium-bearing solids. In O. Schaeffer, & J. Zähringer, Potassium Argon Dating, pp. 68-107. New York: Springer-Verlag, see pp. 74, 82-83, 91, 96-97, and 101 for details]

Instead of IGNORING this defect line, Humphreys RELIES upon it. In figure 16 of the RATE II book, only the last four data points are used to assess the “uniformitarian model”. A simple inspection of the graph shows that if Humphreys had instead extrapolated from the higher-temperature data points, as recommended by Fechtig and Kalbitzer, it would have passed in the vicinity of this model. Humphreys’ rejection of this “uniformitarian model” depends primarily upon his interpretation of just four data points!

What do modern researchers say about this subject? A comprehensive review of helium diffusion in zircon by Guenthner describes in detail the type of experiment we have been considering. [American Journal of Science, Vol. 313, March, 2013, P. 145–198, DOI 10.2475/03.2013.01] As previously discussed, they observed non-Arrhenius behavior in the initial temperature ramp.

“A striking feature in all of these plots is the non-linear behavior of diffusivities in the initial prograde temperature steps. Other studies have observed such behavior as well (Reiners and others, 2002; Reiners and others, 2004)”

However, this time they took their samples to lower temperatures after the initial ramp. Continuing, “interestingly though, a subtle return to this type of non-linear behavior was apparent in the lowest retrograde temperature steps of some slabs.” The non-linear behavior returned after the initial ramp, just as in the RATE experiment.

What caused this behavior? The authors suggested that “this type of non-Arrhenius behavior could be due to the interaction between radiation damage zones and the zircon surface, with the damage zones acting as grain boundaries or fast diffusion pathways”. What about the return to this behavior after the initial ramp? The authors continued, “if grain-boundary-like sites were re-occupied with He during high temperature steps, this could also explain persistent release of gas via grain boundary diffusion in later steps”. In other words, the loosely-bound helium was never fully depleted because of a recharge effect when taking the samples to higher temperatures. Under these artificial laboratory conditions, the helium released at low-temperatures is not representative of the true geologic conditions in the field, and the extrapolation should use the high-temperature data, not the low-temperature data, just as Fechtig and Kalbitzer recommended in the first place.

6/14/2014 02:55:44 pm

While we are waiting for Dr. Humphreys to reply, let’s consider his Girifalco reference in more detail. In his discussion of a two-sloped diffusivity curve, Humphreys relies heavily upon this reference, which was intended for the "nonspecialist" and "intelligent layman". What does Girifalco actually say?

Humphreys cites Girifalco twice in support of his interpretation of a two-slope curve [RATE II book, p. 35]. The first reference is to Girifalco, fig. 48, p. 102. This figure is in a chapter devoted to “diffusion in ionic crystals”. The figure in question pertains to the diffusion of charged ions in such materials. Clearly, this is hardly relevant to the diffusion of uncharged helium atoms in a covalently-bonded silicate mineral like zircon.

The second reference is fig. 61, p. 126. This figure is in a chapter devoted to “diffusion along grain boundaries”, a much more relevant topic. Humphreys noted that the likely cause of defects was radiation damage [RATE II book, p. 35]. Guenthner suggested that radiation damage zones could act as “grain boundaries or fast diffusion pathways” [see previous post].

In his discussion, Girifalco makes a distinction between high-temperature bulk diffusion and low-temperature boundary (or internal surface) diffusion rates. This phenomenon was attributed to “loose packing” of atoms in the boundary, Girifalco’s own words. Interestingly enough, Girifalco is using almost the same terminology that Humphreys criticizes me for using in my “loose helium” model, as he calls it. Consequently, support for my mechanism can be found in the very reference that Humphreys cites against me.

Girifalco goes on to discuss how one should interpret the results of a diffusion experiment in a solid with internal boundaries [pp. 127-129]. One cannot use procedures that were developed for systems “in which the diffusion coefficient is that same throughout”. Girifalco continues that “this condition is obviously not fulfilled in a polycrystal” and “it becomes necessary to solve Fick’s Second Law in such a way as to take grain boundaries into account”. Humphreys did not take these “obvious conditions” into account in his analysis of defect diffusion, but applied simple homogeneous diffusion methods instead.

Girifalco illustrates this problem of non-homogeneous diffusion in the next figure (62), which is similar in many ways to figure 6 of my technical paper [Loechelt, 2008]. The mathematical analysis involves the simultaneous solution of two different partial differential equations subject to reasonable boundary conditions [p. 129]. Again, this approach is conceptually similar to my multi-domain diffusion model. The final solution that is derived is a complicated formula that cannot be expressed using a simple sum of the two diffusivities (eq. 35.5). One cannot arrive at this result using Humphreys’ simple “sum of diffusivities” approach (his eq. 3 referenced above). In fact, Humphreys’ eq. 3 cannot be found anywhere in the book by Girifalco. One must wonder where Humphreys got that equation in the first place?

The bottom line is that after a careful reading of the Girifalco reference, more support can be found for my interpretation than Humphreys’ interpretation of a two-slope diffusivity curve, and that is without me having the benefit of even reading the book in the first place! Not only must one wonder how carefully Humphreys reads his sources, it also calls into question the quality of the peer review he received from the young-earth community. A rigorous peer review would have challenged Humphreys on his very loose reading of his references and required him to provide a more thorough explanation.

Again, a reply from Dr. Humphreys would be very much appreciated. Also, despite the fact that I have been criticized on this blog for being “less than honest” and frequently resorting to “subterfuge” tactics, I have always tried to address what I thought were the real issues honestly and in good faith. I want this to be an open forum debate. If anyone feels otherwise about my posts, I would politely ask him to point out where I am missing the real argument and give me a chance to clarify my position to avoid any further misunderstandings. I am waiting for a reply from either Bill Fortenberry or Dr. Humphreys.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Bill Nye the Ignorant Guy

Leave a Reply.

Search

Topics

Archives