I wonder if 57 finds it amazing that the 17 supposed "peer-reviewers" ( I use that term in the loosest sense) of Humpty Dumpty's helium work also missed the backwards graph and the falsification of the Russian paper. I guess that's what happens when you're loose with the term peer and use it to id anyone who agrees with yoru magical book fairytale thinking instead of as a recognized specialist in that field as used in the sciences.

57: How do you intend to prove the nuclear decay rate has always been the same?

It's easy enough to show that the rates of nuclear decay could not have occurred at the tremendously accelerated rates needed tro make YECism viable.  For instance, we can examine the inescable fatal problems that must accrue if known decay rates are accelerated to fit into the non-existent YEC model.  Your own RATE crew pointed out those problems, 57, as I have posted earlier: release of heat sufficient to boil away the oceans and radiation sufficient to kill all life on Earth.

These aren't trivial problems, 57, and they can't be explained away by whining about mainstream science --- your own people admit that the YEC model of nuclear decay could not have happened as is necessary for the YEC "model" to work.

So, feel free to keep hiding behind the strongly discredited helium red herring if you want; the fact remains, if you can't refute the RATE work, then YECism is dead.

I look forward to reading your refutation.

Feb 19, 2012 -- 6:04PM, EarthScientist wrote:

57 confuses fact with model, no surprise.

Answer yes or no to each question 57.

1) If Humphreys used a thermal history graph backwards in his computation of what an old-earth model would say about helium retention, then we can't trust that number?

2) If Humphreys falsified "incorrectly" used a mathematical function from a Russian paper for what helium in young-earth zircons shoudl be, then we can't trust that number.

Once again unsupported claims are presented...and you call yourself a scientist?

Feb 19, 2012 -- 5:17PM, EarthScientist wrote:

Helium is there, but Humphreys failed model doesn't explain it, so no, you didn't provide any FACTS.

Since we're discussing uranium-lead and zircons, I'll ignore the rest of your red-herring change of subject.

Once again claims with no support. 

As i said before...nevermind.

Feb 19, 2012 -- 5:02PM, EarthScientist wrote:

I didn't think it was my responsibility to reiterate what is common knowledge in science. You're the one proposing the rates have changed, I just brought up a few little snags in your idea.

And you still never answered the question.

I brought up the FACT  there was still helium in the crystals.  The heliem should not be there.....then you made some sort of nonfactual claim. 

What can I say? 

The same could be said for carbon 14 still in coal and diamonds as well as the dino "tissue" discovered.