Zircon fission track dating humphreys

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).

(2003a), are actually consistent with a date of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons.

As indicated in the Acknowledgments, my essay has been peer-reviewed.

Humphreys stresses that his YEC conclusions must be correct because Figure 2 in Humphreys (2005a) shows a supposedly strong correlation between his creation model and helium diffusion measurements from Humphreys et al. Although Humphreys (2008b) accuses his critics (including me) of supposedly ignoring his diagram, I have long-argued that Dr.

Humphreys' claims originate from old-Earth creationist and materials engineer Dr. Humphreys' claims and his underlying assumptions are oversimplistic, inconsistent and erroneous, and that Dr. Humphreys' Q values from Loechelt (2008c) are based on data from Zartman (1979) and utilize the alpha-correction procedure in Meesters and Dunai (2002b).

Copyright 2005-2010 This document is also available in PDF format.

[Original version: March 17, 2005] [Revisions: November 24, 2005; July 25, 2006 and June 20, 2010] The following material may be distributed as long as the author is acknowledged, the material is not sold and the text and its internet links are not altered or edited. Humphreys has not silenced his critics, we are waiting for him to answer our numerous questions.

Any effort to nullify the entire field of geochronology and promote radical changes in our fundamental understanding of nuclear physics would require far more than a single pretty diagram produced from incomplete data, invalid assumptions and numerous faulty interpretations. Gary Loechelt in Loechelt (2008c; 2009a) also argues that since the beginning of the project, Dr.

Humphreys and his colleagues have "tuned" their creation model and its assumptions so that the "consistency" between the creation model and the helium diffusion data is not the decisive result that Humphreys (2005a) and Humphreys (2008b) want us to believe. (2003a) are clearly based on many questionable assumptions (including: isotropic helium diffusion in minerals, constant subsurface temperatures over time, ignoring the possibility of extraneous helium, etc.).

Leave a Reply