Dr. Humphreys’ Young-Earth Helium Diffusion “Dates” from Zircons: After More than 20 Years, Still a Failure and Unable to Compete with Dr. Loechelt’s Alternative Uniformitarian Model: A 2020-2025 Update

Dr. Humphreys continues to dismiss or ignore numerous bad assumptions and flawed results in his RATE project and the Success of Dr. Loechelt’s Uniformitarian Model.

by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

September 7, 2020; Updated: January 15, 2021; March 28, 2021; May 30, 2021, August 10, 2021; September 11, 2021; February 28, 2022; April 17, 2022; October 26, 2022; November 23, 2022; December 15, 2022; January 9, 2023; October 1, 2023; January 19, 2024; June 8, 2024; January 1, 2025; August 16, 2025

[Original Talkorigins version: March 17, 2005]

[Revisions at Talkorigins: November 24, 2005; July 25, 2006; June 20, 2010 at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html ]

Copyright © 2020-2025, Kevin R. Henke. Unlike the original March 17, 2005 essay and the 2005-2010 updates at Talkorigins, this webessay now contains copyrighted material that may not be distributed.

Outline

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Dr. Humphreys’ Helium Diffusion in Zircons RATE Project

1.2 Criticism of Dr. Humphreys’ Claims: 2005-2020

1.2.1 My Essay and Its Revisions (2005-2020)

1.2.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Other Critics

1.3 The HOUR is Late (added January 15, 2021)

2.0 Background Information

2.1 Zircons and Their Chemistry

2.2 The Fenton Hill Test Site

2.3 Helium Diffusion Processes in Zircons

2.3.1 Multi-Domain Helium Diffusion

2.3.2 Which Curve Should be Used?

2.3.3 Confusion over “Non-Volumic” Diffusion? Including Comments from Dr. Gary H. Loechelt

2.3.3.1 What is “Non-Volumic” Diffusion?

2.3.3.2 The Effect of Initial Conditions

2.3.3.3 More on Extrapolating the High-Temperature Arrhenius (Intrinsic) Curve to Lower Temperatures: Comments from Dr. Loechelt

2.3.3.4 Dr. Loechelt Comments on the Misuse of Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) in Humphreys (2018a)

2.3.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Four Lower Temperature Measurements: Relevant or Not?

2.3.5 Uniformitarianism is Not Out in the Cold

3.0 Erroneous Geology from Dr. Humphreys and His Supporters, and the Consequences

3.1 Background Information

3.2 Misidentification of Fenton Hill Gneisses and the Serious Consequences for Dr. Humphreys

3.3 Outdated and Inaccurate Petrologic Claims at CreationWiki #1

3.4 Humphreys (2005b) Tries to Trivialize the Misidentification of his Gneisses

3.5 More Bad Science: Humphreys et al. Make Up their own Formation Names and Violate the Rules on Naming Rocks

3.6 Questionable Sample Processing

3.6.1 Grinding of Biotite Samples

3.6.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Impure Biotite Separations

4.0 Questionable, Absent, and Bad Measurements of Critical Parameters in the Fenton Hill Zircons and Biotites

4.1 Parameter Definitions and Other Background Information

4.2 Mysterious Modifications of the Helium (Q) Measurements from Gentry et al. (1982a): More Questions than Answers

4.2.1. Questionable Q Results

4.2.2. Interesting Insights from CreationWiki #1 and Humphreys (2005b)

4.3 Questionable and Unexplained Origin of R. V. Gentry’s and Humphreys’ Q0

4.4 Two Wrongs (Q and Q0) Don’t Make a Right (Q/Q0)

4.5 Humphreys (2005b) Corrects an Erroneous Unit of Measure in the Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a)

4.6 Missing and Questionable a Values

4.7 Poorly Defined Average b Value

4.8 Missing Data? With Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

5.0 Data Manipulation and Bad Math

5.1 Manipulation of Magomedov (1970) Data in Humphreys et al. (2003a)

5.1.1 Introduction

5.1.2 Equations in Magomedov (1970) Definitely Indicate the Use of Natural Logs

5.1.3 Lead Data in Magomedov (1970) Further Confirm the Use of Natural Logs

5.1.4 Distorted Magomedov Graph at CreationWiki #1

5.1.5 Dr. Humphreys’ Fudging of the Magomedov (1970) Data is Inexcusable and his Actions Show that He cannot be Trusted with Data

5.1.6 The Serious and Inconvenient Consequences of the ln D Magomedov (1970) Data to Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating Equations”

5.1.7 Dr. Humphreys Admits that the Magomedov (1970) Data are “Ambiguous.” So, Why Didn’t He Discard Them?

5.1.8 The Results of Dr. Humphreys’ Fudging Spreads into the Scientific Literature

5.2 Dr. Humphreys Hits Another Log Jam

5.3 A Factor Here and a Factor There Result in Huge Uncertainties for Dr. Humphreys’ Agenda

5.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Inconsistent Treatment of Samples 5 and 6 to Support his Creation Model

5.4.1 Data Points are Not to be Rejected Just to Protect Bad Models

5.4.2 Questionable Validity of Both Samples 5 and 6

5.4.3 Dr. Humphreys Confuses Area and Volume

5.4.4 Invalid Comparisons in Another Attempt to Eliminate Sample 6

5.4.5 Peer-Reviewer of an Earlier Version of this Essay Uncovers Another Error When the “Corrected” Data from Humphreys et al. (2004) are Utilized

5.4.6 The Dire Consequences of Removing Sample 5 to Dr. Humphreys’ 6,000 Year Old “Date”

5.4.7 The Real Issue Beyond the Numbers

5.5 Questionable Standard Deviations in Humphreys et al. (2004)

5.6 Dr. Humphreys’ Inaccurate Claims about Lead Diffusion in Zircons: Lead Loss is Compatible with Ancient Zircons

6.0 Complications Neglected or Inadequately Addressed by Dr. Humphreys

6.1 The Possibility of Extraneous Helium and Dr. Humphreys’ Invalid Lyell Uniformitarianism

6.1.1 Radiogenic, Excess, Inherited and Extraneous Noble Gases

6.1.2 Complications to All Helium Diffusion Models if Extraneous Helium is Present

6.1.3 Detecting Extraneous Helium

6.1.4 Too Many YECs only Invoke the Presence of Extraneous Inert Gases When the Gases Benefit Their Agenda

6.1.5 Important Comments from R.V. Gentry about Helium Sources

6.1.6 Evidence of Open Systems in the Fenton Hill Zircons

6.1.7 Dr. Humphreys’ Proposed Field Studies are Unnecessary and Magmas aren’t Needed to Produce Extraneous Helium

6.1.8 Extraneous Helium Identified in Nearby Valles Caldera

6.1.9 Dr. Humphreys’ Invalid Lyell Uniformitarianism

6.1.10 Evidence of Past Fluids in the Fenton Hill Rocks Refutes Dr. Humphreys’ Dry Lyell Uniformitarian Claims

6.1.11 An Extraneous Helium Hypothesis for Fenton Hill

6.2 Subsurface Pressure Effects on Zircons and Other “Hard” Silicates

6.2.1 Dr. Humphreys Fails to Consider Pressure Effects on Helium Diffusion in Zircons

6.2.2 Exponential Effects of Pressure on Diffusion

6.2.3 Dr. Humphreys Initially Ignored Potential Pressure Problems

6.2.4 Lack of Pressure Data in the Noble Gas Diffusion Literature

6.2.5 Humphreys (2006a) Cites Inconsequential Articles and Relies on an Irrelevant Curve in Carroll (1991)

6.2.6 The Information in Dunai and Roselieb (1996) that Dr. Humphreys Wouldn’t Want You to See: High Pressure Experiments Indicate that Helium in “Hard” Garnets Takes 10,000,000s to 100,000,000s of Years to Diffuse Even at Temperatures as High as 700oC

7.0 Flaws in Dr. Humphreys’ Dating Equations and Superior Uniformitarian Alternatives

7.1 Entering More Realistic a, b, D and Q/Q0 Values into Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations Fail to Support his YEC Agenda (Corrections Made to Dates in 2010)

7.1.1 Introduction: How Realistic are Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations?

7.1.2 The Problems with the Helium Diffusion “Dates” in Tables 5 and 6 of my Original Essay

7.1.3 Helium Diffusion “Dates” from Entering a, b, D and Q/Q0 Values from 2010 into Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations

7.2. More Realistic Helium Diffusion Models in Loechelt (2008c) Support an Ancient Earth and Refute Young-Earth Creationism

7.3 Helium Diffusion Results in Wolfe and Stockli (2010) and Other Peer-Reviewed Papers Fail to Support Dr. Humphreys’ YEC Agenda

7.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Overreliance on his Pretty Figure

7.5 Dr. Humphreys’ 1990s “Prediction” of Helium Diffusion in Zircons

8.0 Some Hot Topics

8.1 The Real Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface that Dr. Humphreys’ “Acts of Generosity” Can’t Dismiss

8.1.1 Thermal Conditions in the Subsurface of Fenton Hill

8.1.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Unrealistic “Generous Offer”

8.1.3 Dr. Loechelt Studies the Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface in Greater Detail

8.1.4 Dr. Humphreys Admits to Reading a Graph Backwards

8.2 Further Debates between Dr. Humphreys and Dr. Loechelt over the Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface

8.2.1 Overview

8.2.2 Dr. Humphreys Repeatedly Cites Bad Modeling Results and Outdated Information from Kolstad and McGetchin (1978)

8.2.3 More Arm-Waving from Dr. Humphreys on Fenton Hill Thermal History

8.2.4 More Problems for Dr. Humphreys from Sasada (1989) with Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

8.2.5 Humphreys (2012b) Finally Gets into Hot Water and Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

8.2.6 Humphreys (2010b; 2012b; 2018a) Summarizes his Flawed Uniformitarian Thermal Model

8.2.7 Three Invalid and Unnecessary Uniformitarian Thermal Models in Humphreys (2010b; 2018a)

8.2.8 Argon Diffusion Confirms Dr. Humphreys’ 6,000 Year Old Earth? Not so Fast!

8.2.9 Uniformitarian Models in Harrison et al. (1986) Work Better than the Young-Earth Model in Humphreys (2011)

8.3 Accelerated Radioactive Decay: Controversy among YECs and the Heat Problem

8.3.1 The Accelerated Radioactive Decay Controversy among YECs

8.3.2 The Accelerated Radioactive Decay Heat Problem: Initial YEC Proposals Fail to Solve It

8.3.3 Humphreys (2018b) Proposes a New “Physics” to Solve the Heat Problem

8.3.3.1 Background

8.3.3.2 The Biblical Interpretations in Humphreys (2018b) are Highly Questionable

8.3.3.3 Some Technical Problems and Inconsistencies with the Accelerated Radioactive Decay and Cooling Mechanisms in Humphreys (2018b)

9.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Misuse of Science, Misinterpretation of the Bible, and the Questionable Ethics of RATE

9.1 Dr. Humphreys Misunderstands and Misuses Science

9.2 A “Burden of Disproof”? That’s Not How Science Works Dr. Humphreys

9.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Actions are Religious and not Scientific

9.4 Second Peter 3:4: Often Misinterpreted by Dr. Humphreys and Other YECs

9.5 Ethical Questions Dealing with the Zodiac Minerals and Manufacturing Front Company

10.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Inappropriate Challenges for Laboratory and Peer-Review from His Opponents

10.1 Although it’s Not the Responsibility of Dr. Humphreys’ Critics to Do His Laboratory Work for Him, Dr. Humphreys’ Critics have Corrected Many of His Mistakes

10.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Inappropriate Challenges for Peer-Review, Which Dr. Loechelt and Me Have Already Done

10.2.1 Peer-Reviewing of this Essay. Talkorigins is Popular and Mainstream

10.2.2 Peer-Reviewing of Dr. Loechelt’s Articles

10.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Poor Record on Peer-Review and the Phony Peer-Review System at the Creation Research Society Quarterly

10.3.1 Dr. Humphreys’ Peer-Review Record on Helium Diffusivity

10.3.2 Peer-Review Issues Related to Humphreys et al. (2004)

10.3.3 Devastating Critiques of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and Its Peer-Review System from Whitmore et al. (2007) and Cosner and Carter (2020)

10.4 The Mixed Record of the Journal of Creation

10.5 Dr. Humphreys’ Peer-Review Hypocrisy

11.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Personal Attacks

11.1 Ad Hominem Fallacies, What They Are, and Who’s Using Them

11.1.1 Definition and Descriptions

11.1.2 Humphreys (2018a) Complains that his “Dogs of War” Opponents Use Ad Hominem Attacks plus a Response from Dr. Loechelt

11.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Personal Attacks on Me: The Failure of his Biblical Pop Psychology

11.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Attacks Dr. Loechelt’s Motives with a Further Response from Dr. Loechelt

12.0 Miscellaneous Issues

12.1 Background

12.2. Dr. Vardiman Abandons his YEC Atmospheric Helium Argument (Updated January 15, 2021)

12.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Aquatic Alchemy and Planetary Magnetic Fields

13.0 The Failure of Dr. Humphreys’ Helium in Zircons Project: The Long-Term Consequences

13.1 The Lessons of the Vapor Canopy

13.2 The Five Sides and the Possible Future of the Helium in Zircons Project and Associated Accelerated Radioactive Decay and Cooling

14.0 Conclusions

15.0 Acknowledgements

16.0 Appendices

A: Calculation of Q/Q0 Values Using the Questionable Assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a)

B: Calculation of More Realistic Q0 Values and Estimations of Q/Q0 Values for Individual Zircons from Samples 1, ~3, 5 and 6 Using Chemical Data from Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979) (Corrections Made in 2010)

C: Crucial Questions that Dr. Humphreys Can’t or Won’t Answer

C.1 Introduction

C.2 Questions by Section

D: 2 Peter 3: What It Really Says and Why the Evidence is Not What YECs Want to Believe

D.1 Introduction

D.2 What does 2 Peter 3:1-12 Say and What Does It Really Mean?

D.3 What is the Likely Reason for Why 2 Peter 3 was Written?

D.4 Who Wrote 2 Peter and Who was the Intended Audience?

D.5 When was 2 Peter Written?

D.6 What is the Relationship between 2 Peter and Jude?

D.7 What is Our Oldest Copy of 2 Peter and What is the Time Span between the Likely Date of the Oldest Copy and the Date When the Original was Written?

D.8 Could 2 Peter have been Deliberately or Accidentally Altered Copying?

D.9 What do Available Records of the Early Church Fathers Say about the Authenticity of 2 Peter and Its Acceptance into the New Testament Canon?

D.10 Currently, What is the Best Evidence about the Origin and Authenticity of 2 Peter?

D.11 Should Anyone Table the Contents of 2 Peter 3 Seriously in the Debate over Modern Uniformitarianism and Young-Earth Creationism?

17.0 References

List of Figures

Figure 1. The old Earth multi-domain (uniformitarian) model from Loechelt (2008c) better explains the current amount of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons represented by Q/Q0 values than Dr. Humphreys’ oversimplistic young Earth RATE model.

Figure 2: A photograph of a microscopic zircon.

Figure 3: Well-crystallized (euhedral) zircons are typically tetragonal prisms capped with four-sided pyramids.

Figure 4: This is a multi-domain diffusion model, where helium atoms diffuse from different domains or types of locations in a hypothetical mineral.

Figure 5: An Arrhenius diagram modified from Figure 13 in Humphreys (2005a) and Figure 2 in Humphreys (2018a) showing helium diffusivity values for the Fenton Hill zircons and the young- and old-Earth helium diffusion models from Humphreys et al. (2004).

Figure 6: Arrhenius diagram of an argon diffusivity curve for potassium chloride (KCl) (modified after Figure 12 in Fechtig and Kalbitzer 1966, p. 83).

Figure 7: Humphreys (2005a, his Figure 16, p. 62) argues that if the helium diffusion results based on helium measurements in the Fenton Hill zircons were to comply with his uniformitarian model, the zircons would have needed to have been at an impossibly cold temperature of -78oC in the deep subsurface for 1.5 billion years.

Figure 8: A typical granite (top), granodiorite (middle) and gneiss (bottom).

Figure 9: Geology of the Fenton Hill GT-2 and EE-2 cores…

Figure 10: Typical flakes of the mineral biotite.

Figure 11: Arrhenius plot of helium diffusion in zircons…

Figure 12: In an unsuccessful attempt to defend Dr. Humphreys’ manipulation of the Magomedov (1970) data …

Figure 13: Thermal history of a granodiorite at 2624 meters depth in the subsurface of Fenton Hill…

Figure 14: Subsurface pressures on Dr. Humphreys’ and R.V. Gentry’s zircons in the Fenton Hill cores…

Figure 15. This Arrhenius diagram is modified from Humphreys (2018a, p. 49).

Figure 16: Borehole temperatures and helium diffusion and U-Th/He radiometric dates for zircons from various depths in the German KTB borehole - copyrighted, used by permission.

Figure 17: The predictions of helium diffusivities in biotite made by Humphreys (2000)…

Figure 18: The one-billion year thermal history (blue line) of the Fenton Hill subsurface at a depth of 2900 meters based on calculations in Loechelt (2008c).

Figure 19: The thermal history of Fenton Hill borehole, New Mexico, USA, for the past 24,000 years…

Figure 20: Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.

Figure 21: Battleship Rock produced by the Banco Bonito volcanic eruption.

Figure 22: 40Ar/39Ar spectrum for microcline (feldspar) sample 5…

Figure 23: Martin Luther’s version of the biblical cosmos.

Figure 24. The magnetic moments in joules/tesla (J/T) versus the masses in kilograms of Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth…

List of Tables

Table 1: Temperature measurements with depth in the Fenton Hill boreholes, New Mexico, USA.

Table 2: Helium diffusivity values in cm2/sec at 87oC and 180oC from various studies in the literature.

Table 3: Information on the Fenton Hill, New Mexico, GT-2 and EE-2 well cores…

Table 4: Comparison of Q/Q0 values from Humphreys et al. (2004), Loechelt (2008c), and my Appendix B.

Table 5: Confirmation that lead diffusion results

Table 6: “Dates” for Fenton Hill zircons 1, ~3, 5, and 6… Corrections made in this table in 2010.

Table 7. A comparison of zircon helium diffusion data from 21st century published sources taken from Table 1 of Loechelt (2020a, p. 42) and the listed references.

Table 8: Diffusion lengths calculated for different times.

Table A1: Q/Q0 values for zircons in the Precambrian Fenton Hill, New Mexico well cores…

Table B1: Uranium and thorium atomic parts per million concentrations of seven zircons from the Fenton Hill well cores as stated in Gentry et al. (1982b).

Table B2: Concentrations of uranium and thorium and the total number of 238U, 235U, and 232Th atoms in the zircons from Zartman (1979).

Table B3: The amount of lead and helium daughter products in the Zartman (1979) zircons.

Table B4: Total radiogenic helium in the Zartman (1979) zircons.

Table B5: Mean length and width of zircons from the Fenton Hill cores (Heimlich 1976, p. 7).

Table B6: Calculated fraction of retained alphas in zircons using the equations from Tagami et al. (2003).

Table B7: Q/Q0 values for the Zartman (1979) zircons.

Table B8: Calculation of Q/Q0 values from uranium and thorium data of zircon 1A from Gentry et al. (1982b).

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Dr. Humphreys’ Helium Diffusion in Zircons RATE Project

For decades, young-Earth creationists (YECs) have desperately sought “scientific evidence” to attack radiometric dating and promote their religious views of Earth history. Although YECs claim to believe that the Bible is the “powerful word of God” (Hebrews 4:12-13), they fully realize that just quoting their scriptures is not going to convince secular geochronologists and other scientists to abandon their research and stream to church altars in repentance. Therefore, in 1997, a small group of YEC PhDs associated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the Creation Research Society (CRS) and Answers in Genesis (AiG) (then including what would later become Creation Ministries International, CMI) formed the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) committee (Vardiman et al., 2000, pp. 6-7; Humphreys et al., 2004, pp. 3-4). Simply put, their activities included combing the scientific literature and designing laboratory experiments that would somehow verify what they have already concluded. Namely, that a “literal” interpretation of Genesis is “The Truth” and that the Earth and the rest of the Universe were created in six-24 hour days only about 6,000 years ago. Furthermore, anything that conflicts with their biblical interpretations must be incorrect. As AiG personnel dogmatically admit in Section 4 of their Statement of Faith:

“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

Other YEC organizations and schools have similar statements and oaths.

One of the major projects of RATE was led by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a young-Earth creationist with a Ph.D. in physics (Sarfati 2021). He, along with J.R. Baumgardner, S.A. Austin, A.A. Snelling and others, investigated the diffusion of helium gas in the mineral zircon (zirconium silicate, ZrSiO4) (Humphreys 2000; 2002). Zircons typically contain small amounts of the radionuclides uranium (238U and 235U) and thorium (232Th). As the uranium and thorium radioactively decay, they produce a variety of other radionuclides as well as alpha radiation, which is the nuclei of helium-4 (4He) atoms. Depending on the size, temperature and other properties of a zircon grain, helium may accumulate the mineral.

Gentry et al. (1982a) listed some helium measurements for zircons taken from rocks collected from the Fenton Hill deep boreholes, New Mexico, USA (Section 2.2). Fenton Hill is located about 56 kilometers (km) west of Los Alamos. The zircons purportedly contained a lot of helium. Supposedly, up to 58% of their original radiogenic helium was still in the zircons. Uranium-thorium-lead dating of these zircons indicate that they are about 1.5 billion years old (Humphreys 2005a, p. 28; Zartman 1979, p. 1). The abundance of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons convinced Dr. Humphreys and other YECs that substantial radioactive decay occurred within these zircons. Unlike some YECs that deny any numerical meaning to radiometric dates (e.g., Woodmorappe 1999), Humphreys (2000, pp. 335-339; 2005a, p. 31) and many other YECs readily admit that the Fenton Hill zircons experienced 1.5 billion years’ worth of radioactive decay (Section 8.3). However, Humphreys (2008b; 2010b, p. 35) questioned how these tiny zircons could retain so much helium at high subsurface temperatures for 1.5 billion years. If the zircons are really no more than 6,000 years old as the Bible claims, then the helium and other radioactive daughter products must have resulted from one or more periods of accelerated radioactive decay in the past 6,000 years. Attempting to determine the “real”, biblically consistent age of the zircons became the focus of the Humphreys et al. RATE project. Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues would attempt to date the zircons by how quickly their radiogenic helium diffused out of them. They thought that gas diffusion should not have been affected by accelerated radioactive decay.

Like Gentry et al. (1982a; 1982b), Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2003b; 2004) and Humphreys (2005a) obtained their zircons from rock cores taken from the Fenton Hill GT-2/EE-2 borehole sites. By studying helium diffusion rates from the zircons, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 1 [Note: Page numbering of this reference varies with different internet copies. The page numbering here is based on the copy linked in the bibliography]) initially concluded that the zircons must only be 4,000 to 14,000 years old. Subsequently in Humphreys et al. (2003b; 2004) and Humphreys (2003; 2005a), the “age” of the zircons was further restricted to 6,000 ± 2,000 years (one sigma standard deviation using the “biased” equation [i.e., n and not n-1 in the denominator; Davis, 1986, p. 33; Keppel, 1991, p. 43-44, 58]; see Section 5.5). Not surprisingly, their new “age range” conveniently straddles Bishop Ussher’s classical 4004 BC “Genesis creation date” for the world (Sarfati 2015, pp. 128-129). Most YECs would cite Humphreys’ helium in zircon study as good evidence of “accelerated” radioactive decay either during Noah’s Flood and/or the Creation Week. For whatever reason, God supposedly sped up the radioactive decay of nuclides and produced millions and billions of years’ worth of helium and other daughter products in a brief amount of time. The helium diffusion model designed by Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), however, was not affected by these accelerated decay event(s) and accurately recorded the actual age of the zircons. As discussed in this essay and its references, the Humphreys et al. model has huge problems, including explaining how Noah or Adam and company could have ever survived the enormous amount of heat that would have been released by any supposed accelerated radioactive decay event (see Section 8.3).

Less technical summaries of Dr. Humphreys’ work are in DeYoung (2005, pp. 65-78) and Humphreys (2003; 2006b; 2012d). In general, YECs have overwhelmingly and uncritically supported Dr. Humphreys’ claims on helium diffusion in zircons (e.g., Wieland 2004; DeYoung 2005, pp. 65-78, 176, 180; DeYoung 2008, pp. 240-243; DeYoung 2023; Doyle 2020; Williams and Hartnett 2005, pp. 192-193, 197, 324; Humber 2007, pp. 1, 7-8; Riddle 2006, p. 123; Lindauer 2013; Oard 2009, p. 112; Oard 2019, pp. 86, 91-100; Reed 2013, pp. 123-124; Armitage 2007, p. 258; Sarfati 2014, pp. 214-215; Sarfati 2015, p. 135; CreationWiki #1-#3; Snelling 2009a, pp. 192-194; Snelling 2012a, pp. 152-153; Snelling 2012b; Snelling et al. 2013, pp. 122-125; Stenberg 2012a, p. 57; Baumgardner 2012a; Mason 2014, pp. 210-212; Cupps 2019a, p. 115; Cupps 2019b; Thomas 2025, p. 11; Hebert 2025, pp. 19-21; Ham 2008, p. 118; Patterson 2008, pp. 94, 98, 112; Vardiman 2008, p. 199; Vardiman 2011; Oard and Carter 2021, pp. 137-139; Walker 2024). Although too many YECs simply accept Dr. Humphreys’ claims without question (Proverbs 14:15; 2 Timothy 4:3-4) and simply parrot them, other YECs are far more cautious and would want to see Dr. Humphreys’ results confirmed with other studies (e.g., DeYoung 2005, p. 180; Williams and Hartnett 2005, pp. 192-193). Still other YECs have questioned some aspects of his results and even a few YECs have been very critical and doubt Dr. Humphreys’ claims, as listed in Table 1 of Humphreys (2010a, p. 15) and the discussions in Froede (2012) and Froede and Akridge (2012; 2013a; 2013b). It is important to recognize that there are YECs that see serious flaws in this RATE project and Dr. Humphreys’ results and conclusions.

1.2 Criticism of Dr. Humphreys’ Claims: 2005-2020

Contrary to Humphreys (2010a), he has not silenced his critics. After all these years, we are waiting for him to answer our numerous questions (e.g., Appendix C).

Considering how popular the results of Dr. Humphreys’ RATE project are with many YECs, many of his supporters would probably consider his project as one of the “crown jewels” of YEC research; that is, one of their best efforts. However, a careful evaluation of the claims and efforts of Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues indicate that the helium diffusion in zircons project is not what it first seems. Instead, it was an effort based on bad assumptions, numerous math errors, manipulation of data from the literature, and inappropriate and premature conclusions.

1.2.1 My Essay and its Revisions (2005-Present)

Many YEC articles and books present long lists of evidence for a “young” Earth or that supposedly indicate that the Earth must be far younger than 4.5 billion years old (e.g., Batten 2017). However, back in 2004, I noticed that Humphreys et al. (2004) not only argued for a young Earth, they actually claimed that helium diffusion in zircons provided an absolute date of 6,000 +/- 2,000 years old, which was consistent with the Ussher biblical chronology. As a geologist, I was fascinated by the claim and I began to investigate Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and related papers in great detail. I soon discovered that there were numerous bad assumptions, math errors, and other problems in Dr. Humphreys’ work. As a result, I wrote a detailed critique of Dr. Humphreys’ work on zircons and had the essay posted on Talkorigins in March, 2005. Contrary to disinformation in footnote #25 of Humphreys (2008b), my original essay is permanently archived at Talkorigins.

In my original and later editions of this essay, I documented numerous errors in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and related documents. In particular, the “dating” equations in Humphreys et al. (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.) that cannot be dismissed with any acts of “generosity” from Dr. Humphreys to the uniformitarians (e.g., Section 8.1). The vast majority of the a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in the “dating” equations of Humphreys et al. (2003a) are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate (Section 4.0). Using the best available chemical data on the Fenton Hill zircons from Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979), the equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a) provide ridiculous “dates” that range from hundreds to millions of years old (average: 90,000 ± 500,000 years old [one significant digit and two unbiased standard deviations]) and not 6,000 ± 2,000 years as claimed by Humphreys et al., 2004) (Section 7.1). (Notice that the standard deviation is far larger than the actual date from Dr. Humphreys’ equations. This is typical of bad results that are scattered over several orders of magnitude.)

In response to my Talkorigins essay, Dr. Humphreys wrote Humphreys (2005b), which is full of rash and inappropriate statements. Contrary to Humphreys (2005b), the vast majority of the errors and unsound assumptions in the Humphreys et al. documents are not “petty”, “peripheral” or a “mountain of minutiae”, but fatal mistakes that completely invalidate any confidence in their work and claims. On November 24, 2005, I updated and expanded my Talkorigins essay and responded to Humphreys (2005b). Humphreys (2006a) is a reply to that revision. I again revised my Talkorigins essay on July 25, 2006 and responded to the statements in Humphreys (2006a). Since then, Dr. Humphreys has largely ignored the revisions to this essay. Apparently, he hopes that by ignoring the problems, his followers will think that the problems either do not exist or have been satisfactorily answered (e.g., Humphreys 2010a). A careful review of the facts shows otherwise.

Other YECs also tend to ignore updates of my essay. As an extreme example, the CreationWiki #2 webpage completely ignores all of my 2005-2010 updates, even though this YEC webpage was last updated on November 24, 2015. The YEC author(s) should have realized long ago that their accusations against this essay are very outdated. Specifically, they still only link to the original March 17, 2005 version of my essay and incorrectly claim that I ignored Dr. Humphreys work after 2003:

“Kevin Henke, an instructor at the University of Kentucky, spent 25000 words challenging these results… [reference to my original March 2005 Talkorigins essay]. Humphreys responded in a 2005 report … [reference to Humphreys 2005b] should be noted that Henke's attack was on the 2003 model, not the putatively correct predictions found after the original report.”

It’s obvious that the author(s) of CreationWiki #2 (2015) is more concerned about cheerleading for Dr. Humphreys than being up-to-date and accurate.

CreationWiki #3 (2009) is another outdated and inadequate defense of Dr. Humphreys’ claims on helium diffusion in zircon. The author(s) primarily responds to Claim CD015 in Isaak (2005) at the Talkorigins archive, which deals with Dr. Humphreys’ helium diffusion in zircon project. Mark Isaak (2005) wrote short responses to various YEC claims. The main goal of his work was to briefly summarize and provide both uniformitarian (actualist) and YEC references on a particular topic, where interested readers can find more details on the topic. However, the discussions in Claim CD015 of Isaak (2005) are very outdated. Although Isaak (2005) summarized arguments from my original March 2005 version of this essay, it also does not include any subsequent information in my November 2005 to 2010 updates.

Dr. Humphreys’ early responses to me and his other critics (such as Humphreys, 2005b; Humphreys, 2006a; Humphreys, 2008a; Humphreys, 2008b; Humphreys, 2010a) were superficial, flippant, insulting, full of errors and totally lacked suitable mathematical and technical details to appropriate defend his procedures and YEC conclusions. Rather than dealing with most of his mistakes, it’s obvious from Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys (2006a) that Dr. Humphreys did not even read and comprehend the vast majority of my criticisms. Clearly, Dr. Humphreys in Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys (2006a) thinks that he can just skim through earlier versions of this essay, throw out some insults, try to trivialize his serious mistakes, make bold assertions without any calculations to support them, make a couple of minor corrections here and there, misrepresent critical details in the literature, invoke several irrelevant analogies (e.g., lead self-diffusion in Humphreys, 2006a; Section 5.6), ignore the details, promise better answers in the future, and then hope that his readers will just go away on faith. Now, some individuals might accept this type of arm waving, the invoking of “God did it!”, and the brushing off of serious criticisms, but individuals concerned about accuracy, including real scientists and editors of scientific journals, would not. Science doesn’t work this way and Dr. Humphreys should know better (Sections 9.1 and 9.2). Instead of relying on the evasion and ridicule of Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys (2006a) to deflect legitimate criticism, Dr. Humphreys needed to take some time to actually think about the numerous problems in his work. For example, he should, if technically possible, have done spot analyses for helium, lead, thorium and uranium on numerous zircons from all of his and R.V. Gentry’s samples so that realistic Q/Q0 values may be obtained. Dr. Humphreys has had more than 15 years to make a thorough and air-tight case for his claims and produce the detail calculations that he promised in Humphreys (2005b). As explained in this essay, he has wasted a lot of time and money, made a lot of empty claims and promises, and has utterly failed to support his YEC agenda.

In June, 2010, I again extensively updated and reorganized my essay to: 1) include materials from other critics of Dr. Humphreys’ work, 2) address criticisms from additional peer-reviewers of this essay, 3) respond to Humphreys (2008a), Humphreys (2008b), and Humphreys (2010a), and 4) discuss new revelations on how Dr. Humphreys unethically manipulated results in Magomedov (1970) to promote his YEC agenda (Section 5.1). The June 2010 version of this essay was then summarized in a journal article, Henke 2010, in the September-October 2010 issue of National Center for Science Education Reports.

As demonstrated in Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys (2006a), Dr. Humphreys has a tendency to superficially review the works of his critics. In response, I constructed a list of questions for him in an appendix of the July 2006 version of this essay. That way, when he skims, he could see the numerous problems with his work in a convenient list. At that time, I hoped that he would actually provide appropriate answers to these questions or do the research to produce the answers. In the June 2010 version, the list of questions was permanently moved to Appendix C and expanded.

For the 2020 and later versions, I have completely reorganized my essay and moved it to my own website, where I can readily update it. I have added more figures, expanded the list of questions in Appendix C, and included many new categories and discussions in response to 2010 and later statements by Dr. Humphreys, his allies and his critics. After all these years, Dr. Humphreys and his prominent allies continue to ignore the questions of Appendix C.

1.2.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Other Critics

Loechelt (2008c) demonstrates that Dr. Humphreys’ diffusion data actually support an age of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons, which totally refutes Dr. Humphreys’ claims for a “young” (6,000 years old) Earth and his need for “accelerated” radioactive decay.

Since 2005, a number of PhD physicists, geologists, and others have criticized the validity of Humphreys et al.’s claims (e.g., Loechelt 2008a; 2008b; 2008c; 2009a; 2009b; 2010; 2012; 2020a; 2020b; Loechelt and Henke 2018; Whitefield, 2008; Isaac, 2007; 2008a; 2008b; Christman, 2005; Dudás, 2020, pp. 381-387; also see the list of critics in Table 1 in Humphreys 2010a, p. 15). Humphreys (2008b) even admits that his critics not only include secular scientists, but a diverse group of young- and old-Earth creationists, including members of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA). As discussed later in this essay, Humphreys (2008a; 2008b; 2010a; 2010b; 2011; 2012a; 2012b; 2012c; 2012d; 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; 2020) are totally inadequate defenses of his work and ineffective responses to his critics. In one response, Humphreys (2008a) criticizes the religious diversity of ASA and briefly replies to criticism of his helium diffusion study from Isaac (2007, 2008a, 2008b). In another response, Humphreys (2010b, p. 35) completely misinterprets the motives of the critics of his RATE project. He thinks that we are worried that he may be right. No. We know that his claims are bogus. Despite their desires for Dr. Humphreys to be right, Humphreys’ YEC critics also obviously recognize that his efforts have serious flaws. Some people have a strong desire for truth and protest inaccuracies and misconceptions when we see them, and Dr. Humphreys’ RATE documents are full of inaccuracies, bad assumptions, and misconceptions that must be honestly addressed. Furthermore, secular and old-Earth creationist scientists don’t like to see our professions attacked and people misled by bogus claims about 6,000 year old zircons. Dr. Humphreys should realize that his opponents include a lot of people that sincerely hate to see people deceived and mislead by his errors. Truth matters.

Among his many critics, the most extensive and devastating criticisms of Dr. Humphreys’ claims originate from old-Earth creationist, materials engineer, and diffusion expert Dr. Gary H. Loechelt. Even by the time that Humphreys (2013c) was written, Dr. Humphreys was recommending Dr. Loechelt’s papers to individuals that were undecided about the helium and zircon controversy.

Dr. Loechelt applied multi-domain diffusion models to Dr Humphreys’ and R.V. Gentry’s data, which raise many new arguments that further undermined Dr. Humphreys’ YEC claims. Loechelt (2008a; 2008b) are brief and less technical summaries of Loechelt (2008c). Loechelt (2008c) is a detailed report that argues that Dr. Humphreys’ claims and his underlying assumptions are oversimplistic, inconsistent, and erroneous. Loechelt (2008c) corrects many of the equations and parameters in Dr. Humphreys’ documents. He further demonstrates that Dr. Humphreys’ diffusion data actually support an age of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons (my Figure 1), which totally refutes Dr. Humphreys’ claims for a “young” (6,000 years old) Earth and his need for “accelerated” radioactive decay. While the young-Earth claims in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and Humphreys (2005a) depend on supernatural-based accelerated radioactive decay, the model in Loechelt (2008c) demonstrates that the diffusion of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons can be entirely explained with the laws of chemistry and physics without relying on any magic. Loechelt (2008c, p. 8) also keenly points out:

“The RATE radiohalo theory proposes the following mechanism for the formation of polonium radiohalos. Radon gas escapes uranium bearing minerals, such as zircon, which are embedded in biotite crystals, and migrates to accumulation sites where it decays into polonium, thereby forming a radiohalo. This theory requires that the heaviest of all noble gases, radon, have the ability to leave its host mineral and travel scores of microns between biotite plates, all within the time constraint determined by the 3.8235 day half-life of 222Rn. On the other hand, the helium diffusion theory requires that this same biotite trap helium, the lightest of all noble gases, and hold it for thousands of years. Clearly, the RATE researchers were focused on two isolated phenomena (helium diffusion and radiohalos) rather than solving a more general problem, like noble gas migration in biotite. Ironically, the helium diffusion study and the polonium radiohalo study are published as consecutive chapters in the same [2005 RATE] book... [references from Vardiman et al., 2005 omitted].”

Figure 1. The old Earth multi-domain (uniformitarian) model from Loechelt (2008c) better explains the current amount of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons represented by Q/Q0 values than Dr. Humphreys’ oversimplistic young Earth RATE model. Unlike the RATE model, Dr. Loechelt’s uniformitarian model entirely depends on the known laws of chemistry and physics, and not on any magic involving accelerated radioactive decay. The sample numbers are from Gentry et al. (1982a) and Humphreys et al. (2004). Both Dr. Loechelt and I (my Appendix A) demonstrate that Dr. Humphreys’ Q0 value is too small, thus inflating his Q/Q0 or helium retention values for the zircons. More realistic Q/Q0 values from Loechelt (2008c) are based on data from Zartman (1979) and utilize the alpha-correction procedure in Meesters and Dunai (2002b). As shown in the calculations in Appendix B of this essay, data from Gentry et al. (1982b) also provide better ranges of Q/Q0 values for samples 1, 5 and 6 than the values used by Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys. For sample 3, my range of Q/Q0 values was derived from data in Zartman (1979). Zartman (1979) analyzed a zircon taken a few meters from sample 3 and probably from the same granodiorite. All of the models assume that none of their Q/Q0 values were elevated by contamination from extraneous helium (Section 6.1). This graph was modified from Figure 7 of Loechelt (2008c) with permission.

Although Humphreys (2008b; 2010a) briefly mentions Loechelt (2008a; 2008b; 2008c), he provides no detailed responses to Dr. Loechelt’s models. In response to Humphreys (2008b), Loechelt (2009a, p. 2) correctly concludes:

“For Humphreys to dismiss my work, which was thoroughly documented in a 37 page technical paper (Loechelt 2008c), with only three paragraphs of unsubstantiated rhetoric in a web article (Humphreys, 2008[b]) demonstrates his lack of serious scholarship.”

Readers should compare the equations and discussions in Loechelt (2008c) with the claims in Humphreys (2008b) for themselves.

In the subsequent disputes with Dr. Humphreys, Loechelt (2009a) is a detailed rebuttal of Humphreys (2008b), and Loechelt (2009b) is a shorter summary of some of the issues in Loechelt (2009a). Humphreys (2010a) is a brief letter, where he largely recycles the materials in Humphreys (2008b) and prematurely declares “victory” against the “dogs of war” without appropriately answering the numerous questions from his critics (e.g., my Appendix C). Loechelt (2010) is a response to Humphreys (2010a). Humphreys (2010b) then responded to Loechelt (2010).

During the subsequent eight years, Humphreys (2012a; 2018a; 2020) and critic Loechelt (2012; 2020b) exchanged additional brief letters in the Journal of Creation, over some of the many problems associated with Dr. Humphreys’ RATE study. Humphreys (2011) is an article, where he discusses argon diffusion in feldspars from the Fenton Hill cores and makes additional comments on Loechelt (2010). Vardiman (2011) then uncritically summarizes and defends Humphreys (2011). Loechelt (2020a) is an article that responds to Humphreys (2018a) along with other issues. Yet, as discuss in this essay and summarized in Appendix C, many more unanswered questions remain about the validity of Dr. Humphreys’ methodology, calculations, and conclusions.

YECs have also severely criticized Dr. Humphreys’ RATE efforts as indicated in the exchange of letters between Froede (2012); Humphreys (2012a); Froede and Akridge (2012); Humphreys (2013a) and Froede and Akridge (2013a; 2013b). The list of his critics in Humphreys (2010a) also includes other YECs.

In Humphreys (2018b), he attempts to solve the excess heat problem that has plagued proponents of accelerated radioactive decay for years (see Section 8.3). Also in 2018, Dr. Loechelt and I gave presentations critical of Dr. Humphreys’ RATE project on Steve McRae’s YouTube program, The Great Debate Community (Loechelt and Henke 2018). Rather than watching our presentations, Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) requested that outlines of our talks be sent to him via Steve McRae. This was done. An email from Dr. Humphreys printed in Loechelt (2020a, p. 48) further indicates that after reviewing the outlines, Dr. Humphreys was reluctant to watch our videos because he came to inappropriate conclusion that we had nothing “new” or “worthwhile” to say on the program:

“I’m reluctant to spend several hours watching the Hanke [sic, Henke]/Loechelt videos, because I have a strong feeling that they have said nothing new or worthwhile.”

In my 2018 video at Steve McRae’s The Great Debate Community, as well as earlier versions of this essay, I have repeatedly stated that Dr. Humphreys has failed to address the critical questions in Appendix C of this essay and many other questions from other individuals. Now, I repeatedly stressed that until these and other questions from his numerous critics are properly answered and the numerous gaps in his work filled, the scientific community will have absolutely no reason to take his grandiose claims about overthrowing nuclear physics seriously. However, by 2018 and long after his retirement, I came to realize that Dr. Humphreys was never going to properly answer these questions. Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) is correct when he states that I encouraged him via Steve McRae to deal with Dr. Loechelt’s issues raised in the program. That is, rather than overwhelm Dr. Humphreys at this late date in his retirement by again pleading for him to thoroughly answer all of the questions in Appendix C, I told Dr. Humphreys to concentrate on the issues in Dr. Loechelt’s video. I thought that if Humphreys (2018a) had satisfactorily answered Dr. Loechelt’s questions on this program, I would have been encouraged to approach him one more time about at least dealing with some of the questions on the long list in Appendix C. Unfortunately, his response (Humphreys 2018a) contains even more errors, which are addressed in Loechelt (2020a) and in this updated essay. Thus, the list of questions for Dr. Humphreys in Appendix C keeps growing. If YECs ever want to salvage Dr. Humphreys’ work, someone else is going to have to come forward, do the hard work and additional experiments, and try to answer these critical questions.

In an effort to dismiss the extensive criticisms of his work from a number of very qualified individuals, Humphreys (2008b) even suggested that his opponents are disorganized and disagreeing with each other:

“Another simple point is the number of critics and the long time they’ve been criticizing. Each one was unsatisfied enough with the previous criticisms (most are familiar enough with the others to borrow their arguments occasionally) to take the time to attack the helium data on their own.”

Even if Dr. Humphreys’ critics disagree, does that necessarily make Dr. Humphreys right? For example, if Dr. Humphreys says 2+2 = 5, and one critic says “no, it’s four” and another says “no, it’s six,” does that mean that Dr. Humphreys is automatically right because his critics can’t agree? Nevertheless, a review of the available documents from Dr. Humphreys’ critics shows a lot of agreement among us. For example, Whitefield (2008), Loechelt (2008c) and I all agree that Dr. Humphreys’ Q/Q0 values are inflated. Many of us have also protested against Dr. Humphreys’ mysterious changes in the Q values from Gentry et al. (1982a) and his inability to justify his Q0 value of only 15 nano cubic centimeters of helium at standard temperature and pressure per microgram of zircon (ncc STP/µg) despite the unfulfilled promise in Humphreys (2005b) to present his math “soon” in a Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) article (Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4). Had Dr. Humphreys been more open and honest with his math, adequately answered our questions about his work way back in 2005, and not been so flippant and evasive with the numerous problems with his results, the list of his critics might have been much shorter. Dr. Humphreys is also simply failing to realize that his critics have very diverse areas of expertise in physics, materials engineering and geology, and that each one of us had no difficulty discovering new errors and questionable claims in his work. As Loechelt (2009a, p. 8) concludes:

“The very thing that Humphreys criticizes, multiple people who are unrelated and unknown to each other bringing their different and sometimes conflicting ideas to the table, debating and even disagreeing with one another, is how true science works!”

Dr. Humphreys’ work is finally undergoing a thorough scientific peer-review that it never received from the bogus peer-review system of the CRSQ (Humphreys et al. 2004) or when he submitted his brief and vague abstract (Humphreys et al., 2003b) to the secular American Geophysical Union (Section 10.3). Unfortunately for him, Dr. Humphreys’ critics have shown overwhelming evidence that his study is flawed and useless, and perhaps even contrived to unfairly promote his creation model (e.g., Loechelt 2008c; 2009a, pp. 5-7; Section 7.5).

Now, it’s very important that all readers question and evaluate my claims, the claims of Dr. Humphreys, the claims of Dr. Loechelt, and everyone else on this and other topics. Far too many people just embrace ideas because the ideas seem to support their religious or political agenda. Over the past 40 years, I’ve seen some very sophisticated and apparently convincing YEC arguments evaporate once they are investigated in detail and, certainly, ex-YECs (including myself), physicists, and even some YECs would place Dr. Humphreys’ work in this category. However, to make an appropriate decision for yourself, you need to read the literature from various sides in this argument. This is a very complex topic and readers will need to extensively review the literature to comprehend many of the arguments.

1.3 The HOUR is Late (Section added January 15, 2021)

The Creation Research Society Newsletter of November/December 2020 announced that the society will be sponsoring another YEC helium in zircon project. The announcement states:

"CRS is contributing to Helium Outgassing from Uranium Radioactivity (HOUR) project. This study seeks to analyze zircons for their helium-retention levels. This data will then be used to measure the low-temperature helium diffusion properties of zircons. This study expands the original diffusion work done as part of the RATE project (a study of radiometric dating methods)."

This project is an update of Dr. Humphreys' helium in zircon project which formally ended in 2005 and which has been extensively criticized in this and earlier versions of the essay since 2005.

A brief update in the August, 2021Creation Research Society Newsletter indicates that HOUR is now one of three CRS projects that are underway and that the projects, as a group, have some funding. The August Newsletter says the following about the three groups as a whole:

"The Society seeks funds for these research initiatives from individuals, churches, and other interested groups that are willing to provide support with either one-time gifts or monthly donations. Through funds already received, work continues to progress and necessary equipment purchased. Future funds will allow the Society to expand the scope and extent of this important research."

The November, 2022 Creation Research Society Newsletter again mentions HOUR and states that the Creation Research Society is contributing to the project. However, still no further details on HOUR are available at this time. As further details become available, the project will be discussed at this website. It's likely that a separate webessay at this site will be written to review the HOUR project once results are published. A link to my review of the HOUR project will then be listed in this section. Hopefully, after all these years, the HOUR project will correct at least some of the numerous errors and misunderstandings in the RATE project - better late than never.

2.0 Background Information

2.1 Zircons and Their Chemistry

As briefly mentioned in Section 1.1, zircon is a zirconium silicate mineral (ZrSiO4; Figure 2). Zircons are usually microscopic. They may form in igneous and high-temperature metamorphic rocks, especially igneous rocks that are felsic; that is, relatively rich in silica, sodium, potassium, and aluminum. Because zircons are very hard and durable, they may also accumulate in sediments and sedimentary rocks (Klein 2002, p. 498).

Figure 2: A photograph of a microscopic zircon. Source: Chd, public domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon#/media/File:Zircon_microscope.jpg

When not considerably eroded, zircons often appear as four-sided prisms capped with pyramids (Figure 3). They typically contain 1-4% hafnium (Hf) (Klein, 2002, p. 498) and trace amounts of radioactive uranium (238U and 235U) and thorium (232Th). As the uranium and thorium radioactively decay, they release a variety of other radionuclides as well as alpha radiation, which are the nuclei of helium-4 (4He) atoms. Eventually, uranium and thorium atoms decay to helium and stable isotopes of lead, as follows (Gentry et al. 1982a, p. 1129; Dalrymple 1991, p. 101):

238U → 206Pb + 8 4He

235U → 207Pb + 7 4He

232Th → 208Pb + 6 4He

Each 238U, 235U, and 232Th atom releases a total of eight, seven and six 4He atoms, respectively, as they decay to their stable lead isotopes. Depending on the size of the zircon, its temperature and other factors, some of the helium may accumulate in the mineral.

Figure 3: Well-crystallized (euhedral) zircons are typically tetragonal prisms capped with four-sided pyramids. Mineralogists define two axes on all zircon crystals. The c-axis is longer and passes through the middle of the crystal parallel to the four faces on the prism. The a-axes are perpendicular to the c-axis. Because all four sides of the zircon’s prism are the same size, axes a1 = a2.

Helium has two natural isotopes: 3He and 4He. 3He only has one neutron per atom. The isotope is largely the product of the Big Bang (Delsemme, 1998, p. 22-23) and nuclear fusion in stars (Faure, 1998, p. 17). Small amounts of 3He were trapped within the Earth when our planet formed and the isotope is currently degassing from the Earth’s interior. Besides forming from radioactive decay, 4He, which has two neutrons in every atom, also formed during the Big Bang and stellar fusion (Delsemme, 1998, p. 22-23; Faure, 1998, p. 17).

Using analogous definitions for argon in McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 11), helium may be classified as “radiogenic” or “extraneous” (also see Section 6.1.1). Radiogenic helium refers to 4He that forms from the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in a mineral (such as a zircon) and then remains trapped within the mineral until its analyzed. In contrast, any 3He and ex-situ 4He are extraneous helium. That is, if 4He escapes from its source mineral and enters and contaminates surrounding fluids or rocks, it becomes extraneous. Volcanism and tectonic activity may cause 4He and very small amounts of 3He to rise from the Earth’s interior, accumulate in minerals in the upper crust, and then perhaps eventually escape into the atmosphere (also see Baxter, 2003).

2.2 The Fenton Hill Test Site

As mentioned in Section 1.1, Dr. Humphreys’ zircons came from rocks taken from deep boreholes at Fenton Hill, New Mexico, USA. In 1970, scientists and engineers at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, USA, developed a research project to evaluate the generation of geothermal power from hot subsurface rocks at Fenton Hill (Duchane and Brown 2002, p. 13). By 1982, four deep boreholes had been drilled at the site: GT-2, EE-1, EE-2, and EE-3. The first drill hole, GT-2, was produced in 1974 (Duchane and Brown 2002, p. 14). It went down to a depth of 2.93 km and had a bottom bole hole temperature of 197oC (Laughlin et al. 1983, p. 24). The depth of EE-1 was 3.06 km with a bottom hole temperature of 205.5oC. EE-2 had a true vertical depth of 4.39 km and a bottom hole temperature of 323oC. EE-3 had a true vertical depth of 3.98 km (Laughlin et al. 1983, p. 24). Igneous and metamorphic rock samples from the boreholes were archived at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Zircons were later extracted from some of the rocks and were utilized by Zartman (1979), Gentry et al. (1982a; 1982b), Humphreys et al., and others in their research projects.

2.3 Helium Diffusion Processes in Zircons

2.3.1 Multi-Domain Helium Diffusion

Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 4-5) and Loechelt (2008c) give overviews of how helium diffusion works in zircons. The crystalline structure of zircon is relatively complex. For better visualization, Figure 4 shows a simplified crystalline structure of a hypothetical mineral and where helium atoms could be located. The figure illustrates a multi-domain diffusion model; that is, the helium atoms diffuse from different domains or types of locations within the hypothetical mineral. The same relationships would then apply to zircons.

Figure 4: This is a multi-domain diffusion model, where helium atoms diffuse from different domains or types of locations in a hypothetical mineral. Most helium atoms, shown in red, are tightly bound within the crystalline structure of the mineral. A few loosely held helium atoms, shown in green, occur in defects, such as in fractures on the surfaces of the mineral.

In Figure 4, the non-helium atoms making up the crystalline structure are shown as blue circles. The intercrystalline or tightly bound helium atoms are in red and are well-surrounded by non-helium atoms. The green circles in Figure 4 represent loosely bound helium atoms in fractures on the surfaces of the hypothetical mineral. The vast majority of helium in the zircons would be located within the relatively more voluminous crystalline structure rather than in isolated fractures or other defects, which may go deeper into the mineral (Section 2.3.3.4).

As Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) points out, scientists don’t directly measure the diffusion of helium in minerals. They obtain diffusivities from a model. Scientists heat a sample and measure the amount of helium coming out of it at a given temperature. Now, if the scientists think that the helium is only coming from one type of location in the mineral, such as within the crystalline structure and not from defects, and if they further think that the situation only yields one activation energy value, they can then construct a diffusion model with the Arrhenius equation, as shown here:

Where:

D = Diffusivity of helium or another gas in a sample at a given temperature in cm2/sec.

D0 = Frequency factor or essentially the speed of the diffusion process at infinite temperature in cm2/sec.

E = activation energy of the sample or the minimum amount of energy required to remove a helium atom from its location in kcal/mol or J/mol.

R = the universal gas constant, which is either 1.987 x 10-3 kcal/K•mol or 8.3144 J/K•mol.

T = temperature in Kelvin.

The results are then plotted on an Arrhenius diagram like the one in Figure 5.

Figure 5: An Arrhenius diagram modified from Figure 13 in Humphreys (2005a) and Figure 2 in Humphreys (2018a) showing helium diffusivity values for the Fenton Hill zircons and the young- and old-Earth helium diffusivity models from Humphreys et al. (2004). The blue and green diamonds with two standard deviation (2σ) uncertainties are the helium diffusivity values derived from helium measurements of Dr. Humphreys’ Fenton Hill zircons at various temperatures. The intrinsic curve, representing helium diffusion from within the crystalline structures of the zircons (my Figure 4), is shown in light blue. A low-temperature curve is shown as a red line, which Loechelt (2020a) argues is a defect curve that should be ignored. The four lower temperature samples represented by green diamonds follow the low-temperature rather than the intrinsic curve. The predicted data points for the Humphreys et al. (2004) creation or 6,000 year old Earth model are shown as red diamonds with two standard deviations. This model well overlaps the low-temperature curve and its four helium diffusivity values for the Fenton Hill zircons at 175-300oC. The Humphreys et al. (2004) uniformitarian or 1.5 billion year old Earth model with two standard deviations is shown in purple and its predicted helium diffusivity values are at least 100,000 times lower than the low-temperature diffusivity values of the Fenton Hill zircons. Loechelt (2008c) argues that creation and uniformitarian models from Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) are fictitious and that the low-temperature curve resulted from defects and is irrelevant.

Under laboratory vacuum conditions, a zircon or other sample is heated in steps. As the temperature in the furnace initially rises or ramps up from room temperature, the usually small concentrations of loosely bound helium in fractures and other defects in the zircon is largely, but perhaps not entirely, released (green dots in Figure 4; Loechelt 2009a, pp. 2-3; 2009b). Because helium released by the initial temperature ramp up is generally not tightly bound within the crystalline structure and is in small concentrations, the concentrations are usually ignored. Scientists generally only want to know the diffusion of the dominant helium that is tightly bound within the crystalline structure of the zircon (i.e., the red dots in Figure 4). This is why Dr. Humphreys’ experimenter told him to ignore the results from the initial temperature ramp up steps 1-9 (50-450oC) for the analyses in Table II of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 6) and why any results below 300oC were ignored in Table C1 of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 17). Above about 300oC, temperatures are high enough that the relatively abundant and tightly bound intercrystalline helium atoms begin to escape in large numbers from the minerals and may be detected. As shown in steps 15-44 of Table C1 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 17), temperatures were then cycled up and down between 325-500oC to better dislodge the helium from the interior of the zircons. In some experiments, the remaining helium is entirely released from the zircon by heating it above about 1300oC, where the crystalline structure of the zircon is destroyed through melting (Wolfe and Stockli 2010, p. 74). This is a “fusion” step (Loechelt 2012, footnote 35, p. 50).

The high-temperature diffusion results for the intercrystalline helium are plotted on an Arrhenius diagram, such as the one shown in Figure 5. Typically, the results form a linear intrinsic curve. The slope of the intrinsic curve gives the activation energy (E) for the intercrystalline helium, which is the minimum amount of energy that is required to dislodge an intercrystalline helium atom from its position in the zircon sample. Loosely bound helium in fractures and other defects in the zircons is released at lower temperatures and may produce a shallower curve, like the red curve in Figure 5. Because its slope is shallower than the intrinsic curve, the low-temperature curve has a lower activation energy. That is, it takes less energy to remove helium atoms from fractures than from the deep intercrystalline interior of the zircon.

Loechelt (2020a) argues that the red curve in Figure 5 is indeed a defect curve; that is, it results from helium released from fractures and other defects. Thus, it should be ignored. However, Humphreys (2018a) disagrees with that interpretation. Dr. Humphreys argues that the low-temperature curve is very relevant. Without the low-temperature curve, Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model fails (Figure 5). This dispute is further discussed in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3.

As shown in Humphreys et al. (2004, Table I, p. 3) and my Table 1, the borehole temperatures for their Fenton Hill samples were 96-313oC. However, the initial laboratory diffusion study in Humphreys et al. (2003a, Table C1, p. 17) only went down to 300oC. Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues really wanted measurements below 300oC, so they had the experimenter perform another run at lower temperatures. These results are shown in Table II of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 6). However, the measurements only went down to 175oC (step 17). Although Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 5) asked their researcher for measurements at lower temperatures, Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) notes that in their literature, the researcher and his students never take measurements at lower temperatures. It’s very difficult for scientists to directly measure the amount of helium coming out of the intercrystalline sites at lower temperatures. The diffusion would be very slow and it could take far more than days to measure the helium concentration at a lower temperature even under a strong vacuum. Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) concludes that if lower temperature results are problematic, why would the researcher and his students waste time and money on those measurements?

Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) raises another complication with low-temperature measurements. Besides the possibility that a small amount of helium in defects could remain there after heating above 300oC (Loechelt 2009a, pp. 2-3), any intercrystalline helium released at higher temperatures or more slowly at lower temperatures may temporarily enter fractures and other defects in the zircon, where the helium released during the initial temperature-ramp up once resided (Loechelt 2020a, p. 46). Even if the helium atoms originated in intercrystalline positions, when they eventually leave the fractures and other defects at lower temperatures, they would produce a defect curve on an Arrhenius diagram. This effect could easily explain the red curve on Figure 5.

Loechelt (2020a) argues that scientists typically estimate the amount of intercrystalline helium that would diffuse out of zircons at lower temperatures by extrapolating from the high temperature intrinsic diffusion curve on an Arrhenius diagram (Figure 5). Humphreys (2018a) objects to this extrapolation. Notice, in Figure 5, that an extrapolation or extension of the intrinsic curve approaches Dr. Humphreys’ uniformitarian or old-Earth model.

2.3.2 Which Curve Should be Used?

Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-51) quotes a statement from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) on argon diffusion in potassium halide compounds and misapplies it to helium diffusion in zircons.

In his YouTube video at Steve McRae’s The Great Debate Community, Dr. Loechelt has a table that lists the helium diffusivity values for various zircons at 87oC and 180oC (Loechelt and Henke 2018; my Table 2). This information is also listed in his Table 1 of Loechelt (2020a, p. 42). Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) stresses that these diffusivity values were not obtained at those temperatures, but are “synthetic numbers” extrapolated down from the intrinsic curves at about 300oC and higher (Figure 5; my Table 2). Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) argues that the diffusivity values should have been based on helium measurements taken at those temperatures and not extrapolations. As discussed further below, Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) argues for using helium diffusivity values from his lower temperature curve (the red curve in Figure 5) rather than extrapolating from the higher temperature intrinsic curve (the blue curve in Figure 5).

Many zircons, including those in Humphreys et al. (2003a), have defect curves that have shallower slopes and lower activation energies than their intrinsic curves (e.g., Figure 5). Referring to statements in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966), Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) argues that when determining diffusivity at lower temperatures with zircons that have both an intrinsic and a defect curve, it’s best to extrapolate down from the intrinsic curve rather than using the defect curve (Figure 5). Although Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) refer to the diffusion of radiogenic argon in different minerals, Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) argues that the same arguments apply to helium in zircons. Both helium and argon are inert noble gases. The defect curve mainly represents the diffusion and activation energy of a relatively small number of helium atoms leaving fractures and other defects in the zircons and not the far more abundant and relevant intercrystalline helium (Figure 4). Again, extrapolating from the intrinsic curve is necessary because it would take a very long time to get measurable concentrations of intercrystalline helium leaving the interior of the zircons at low temperatures.

Humphreys (2018a, p. 51) strongly disagrees with this conclusion and states that the five quotations from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, pp. 82-83, 91, 96-97, 101) given to him by Dr. Loechelt only apply to “non-volumic diffusion” (Section 2.3.3). Humphreys (2018a, p. 51) then quotes the following statement from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) to argue against extrapolations from high to low temperatures:

“These results on this ‘simple’ system show that the diffusion of argon at low temperatures should not be calculated from high-temperature measurements, but that measurements have to be performed in the low-temperature interval.”

Humphreys (2018a, p. 51) thinks that this statement from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) generally applies to helium diffusion in zircons at lower temperatures, such as his defect curve produced by the four low temperature points in the Fenton Hill data (green diamonds in Figure 5). However, Loechelt (2020a, p. 44) argues that this statement by Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84), in context, only applies to the unusual case of argon diffusion in potassium halide compounds (e.g., potassium chloride, KCl) where the slope of the lower-temperature curve is actually higher than the slope of the higher-temperature curve (Figure 6). That is, the unusual case involving argon diffusion in potassium halide compounds is the “simple system” that Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) are referring to in the above quotation that Humphreys (2018, p. 51) takes out of context. With zircons, the intrinsic curve tends to have a greater slope and this slope should be extrapolated to a desired lower temperature (Loechelt 2020a, p. 44).

Figure 6: Arrhenius diagram of an argon diffusivity curve for potassium chloride (KCl) (modified after Figure 12 in Fechtig and Kalbitzer 1966, p. 83). Unlike helium diffusivity in zircons, the lower-temperature curve for argon in potassium chloride is steeper and has a higher activation energy than the higher-temperature curve. Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-51) makes the mistake of arguing that this unusual situation should be applied to lower-temperature (actually defect) curves for helium in zircons (e.g., Figure 5).

2.3.3 Confusion over “Non-Volumic” Diffusion? Including Comments from Dr. Gary H. Loechelt

2.3.3.1 What is “Non-Volumic” Diffusion?

Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) mention cases of “non-volumic” diffusion of argon gas in minerals and other solid materials. According to Loechelt (2020a, p. 44), “non-volumic diffusion” is an antiquated term for diffusion from surface and higher-order extended defects, which would produce a defect curve. These types of defects usually do not comprise the majority of the volume of a solid unless the solid is in a highly defective amorphous or amorphous-like state (e.g., extensive metamictism from radiation damage), hence the basis for the term “non-volumic.”

Dr. Loechelt sent me an extensive commentary on some relevant issues in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) and how Humphreys (2018a; 2018c) greatly misinterpreted this document. Humphreys (2018c) is an earlier draft of Humphreys (2018a). Except for changes in the title and some other minor differences in grammar, Humphreys (2018c) is the same as Humphreys (2018a). The commentary from Dr. Loechelt is fully quoted in the following subsections with his permission. The quotations of Humphreys (2018a), below, fully comply with the citation requirements of the Journal of Creation.

2.3.3.2 The Effect of Initial Conditions

Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 71) describe how the initial temperature ramp up of a diffusion experiment may produce diffusivities that deviate from a straight line on an Arrhenius plot (also see Section 2.3.1). They argue that the data from the later, high temperature steps in the experiment are valid provided that the total amount of noble gas released later in the experiment is far greater than any lost by the sample in its original geologic environment. Dr. Loechelt then comments on this statement in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 71):

“Although not explicitly discussed by Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 71), this statement provides the justification behind the practice of neglecting the initial temperature ramp in a diffusion experiment. Deviation of the initial concentration profile from an ideal square profile introduces an error in the calculation of the diffusion coefficient [see Fechtig and Kalbitzer 1966, p. 71, for details]. The impact of this error decreases throughout the course of the experiment as more and more gas out-diffuses. Strictly speaking, the condition that must be met is that the measured gas released in the experiment should be several times higher than the (usually) unmeasured and unknown original gas loss in the geologic environment. In practice, unless the sample was severely disturbed thermally, such as from a natural metamorphic event its past, this condition is often met after the initial temperature ramp.

Here is why this point is important. Humphreys (2018a) stresses multiple times the importance of neglecting the initial temperature ramp in the analysis. This point is not controversial by practitioners in the field. It is a simple and practical solution to the usual non-ideal initial condition. It does address that ONE problem. However, Dr. Humphreys makes too much of the method, basically claiming that it solves ALL the analytic problems with helium diffusion experiments. It does not. Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) never claimed that it did. This is a classic example of how Dr. Humphreys invokes a valid but specific technique to solve all his problems. More on this later.

As an aside, when there is initial gas depletion near the surface of a sample, the diffusivities that are measured in the early ramping steps of a diffusion experiment come out too low, and the activation energy too high, as noted in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966). This effect is the opposite of the low-temperature defect line often described by Dr. Humphreys. Clearly these are two different phenomena, and one would not necessarily expect the correction for one to be valid for the other.”

For argon-40 resulting from the radioactive decay of potassium-40, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 74) argue that low-potassium solids may produce flat Arrhenius curves with low activation energies due to argon-40 loosely trapped in grain boundaries. In substances where potassium is incorporated in the crystalline structure, loosely bound argon may also be located in grain boundaries, in areas where atoms have been dislocated, and other defects. Even with synthetic potassium chloride (KCl) crystals, very small amounts of loosely held argon have been observed.

Similarly, loosely bound helium-4 would occur in both potentially high uranium and thorium zircons and quartz, where uranium and thorium are expected to be nearly absent. As discussed in Section 6.1.3, this situation potentially has practical applications in detecting extraneous helium in zircons.

Dr. Loechelt further comments on the situation in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 74):

“Because Humphreys (2018a) misinterprets Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966), it is important to establish what they actually said and what they did not say. First, fractions of weakly bound gas are often found in diffusion experiments. This weakly bound gas manifests itself on an Arrhenius plot as a low-slope curve in the low-temperature region. By definition, the gas is weakly bound because the activation energy (i.e., slope) is lower than the main part of the curve; i.e., the intrinsic curve. Implicitly, this gas represents only a small fraction of the original gas. Although not immediately apparent on the Arrhenius plot, the majority of the gas is released at higher temperatures, not low temperatures, in a diffusion experiment. If a large fraction of the argon (or helium) in a sample is loosely bound, one would never observe the high-slope part of the curve. Instead, the low-slope curve would dominate at all temperatures.

Second, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) make no distinction between exhaustible and inexhaustible types of non-volumic diffusion. This is an invention of Humphreys (2018a, pp. 51-52). More on this topic later. For now, the important point is that the only distinction made by Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) is whether the radioactive parent atoms are part of the regular crystal structure or not. In the case of zircon, the radioactive uranium and thorium atoms readily substitute for zirconium in the crystalline structure (Section 2.1).

Third, for this case where the radioactive source atoms do constitute part of the regular crystal structure, as is the case for uranium and thorium in zircon, the loosely bound helium (or argon in potassium minerals) is explained by higher structural defects such as dislocations and grain boundaries. Note that these types of defects are not confined to the surface of the crystal, but often extend deep into the interior. Therefore, non-volumic diffusion should NOT be confused with surface diffusion. These higher-order crystalline defects can extend throughout the three-dimensional structure. However, even if they do extend into the interior of the crystal, they do not constitute the majority of the volume of the crystal, hence the use of the term non-volumic. Unless one is dealing with an amorphous or metamict sample, the majority of the volume of the sample is occupied by the regular crystal lattice, and a relatively smaller volume of the sample is occupied by defects.”

2.3.3.3 More on Extrapolating the High-Temperature Arrhenius (Intrinsic) Curve to Lower Temperatures: Comments from Dr. Loechelt

Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, pp. 82-83) discuss an example, where only several 10-5 parts of the total amount of argon were observed diffusing from a potassium chloride (KCl) sample at 107oC. This was only about 10 parts per million (ppm) of argon. They concluded that this low concentration of argon was due to non-volumic diffusion from structural defects in the KCl. If this small amount of argon is subtracted from the total amount of argon released in the experiment, the resulting diffusion constants match the value extrapolated from the volume diffusion process at higher temperatures (Fechtig and Kalbitzer 1966, pp. 82-83; also see Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2). Dr. Loechelt then comments on these results:

“This is the first of several examples in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) of extrapolating the high-temperature diffusivity on an Arrhenius (intrinsic) curve down to lower temperatures. First, note the amount of gas released – 10 ppm. This is very close to the amount of gas released in the four low-temperature points of the RATE experiment – 8 ppm (Section 2.3.4). Second, the adjective exhaustible was used in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 82) in a descriptive sense rather than a distinctive sense. In other words, the authors were not trying to distinguish between exhaustible versus inexhaustible mechanisms as Humphreys (2018a, pp. 51-52) proposes. Rather, they were simply observing that since an extremely small amount of gas was released at low temperatures, it is highly unlikely that rest of the argon in the sample could be released by the same mechanism. Third, and carefully note this point, the effect was still observed AFTER the sample was heated to high temperatures and quickly cooled. As emphasized earlier, the neglecting of the initial temperature ramp is done to minimize the error caused by the initial concentration profile not being uniform. It does not solve the problem of non-volumic diffusion. Figure 11 in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 83) is direct evidence that ignoring the initial temperature ramp is insufficient. One also has to neglect the low-temperature gas release from the analysis and rely upon the high-temperature data.”

Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 91) also discuss some argon diffusion experiments on felspars from Reynolds (1957), Fechtig et al. (1960), and Amirkhanov et al. (1959). In each of the three cases, there are multiple diffusion curves each with their own activation energy. Dr. Loechelt comments on the results from these three articles:

“Note that three case studies from three different research teams all followed the same basic practice. When multiple activation energies are observed on a “bent” Arrhenius plot, the typical practice is to neglect the low-temperature data and extrapolate the high-temperature diffusivity down to lower temperatures.”

Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, pp. 96-97) indicate that when minerals have “two different straight lines” on an Arrhenius curve, the steeper curve at higher temperatures would represent volume diffusion, whereas the less steep curve indicates non-volumic diffusion at lower temperatures. This is also the typical situation with helium diffusion in zircons. Contrary to the claims in Humphreys (2018a), Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 97) state:

“Assuming that practically the entire argon escape is due to volume diffusion, an extrapolation of the steeper part to the lower temperatures is appropriate.”

Dr. Loechelt then comments on statements in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, pp. 96-97) by stating:

“Once again, the authors advocate “extrapolation of the steeper part to lower temperatures” when “two different straight lines” are seen on an Arrhenius curve.” [his emphasis]

Concerning argon diffusion in potassium minerals, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 101) conclude:

“Although the situation is quite complex one can say that at least for minerals which have K homogeneously distributed throughout the mineral practically all the argon can escape only by volume diffusion, if we do not take into account any metamorphism. For such minerals it is, therefore, allowed to extrapolate the straight line which represents the volume diffusion down to the temperatures investigators are most interested in.”

For minerals, where potassium is a major component in its crystalline structure, the potassium would tend to be homogeneously distributed throughout the mineral to the point where the mineral could be effectively described with a single chemical formula containing potassium (e.g., Klein 2002, pp. 3-5). Dr. Loechelt then states:

“Note that this statement from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 101) was made in the conclusions section of the paper. It summarized the findings of the previous case studies, some of which were cited above (Reynolds 1957; Fechtig et al. 1960; etc.). The general practice is to ‘extrapolate the straight line which represents the volume diffusion down to the temperatures investigators are most interested in.’ The authors do qualify their statement because exceptions exist, particularly when the crystal undergoes structural changes at higher temperatures (also see Figure 6 and associated discussions in Section 2.3.2).”

Contrary to claims in Humphreys (2018a), Dr. Loechelt’s comments in this subsection indicate that with the exception of some potassium halide minerals discussed in Section 2.3.2, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) overwhelmingly endorse extrapolating downward from the high-temperature intrinsic or volume diffusion curve to determine the argon diffusivity at lower temperatures. This situation would also apply to helium diffusion in zircons, including the Fenton Hill zircons utilized by Humphreys (2005a; 2018a; 2018c) and Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004).

2.3.3.4 Dr. Loechelt Comments on the Misuse of Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) in Humphreys (2018a)

Next, Dr. Loechelt quotes a number of statements from Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-52) and comments on how Dr. Humphreys misinterprets statements in Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966). The statements in Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-52) are also in Humphreys (2018c). Dr. Loechelt begins by quoting Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-51), which states:

“[Dr. Loechelt] thinks Fechtig and Kalbitzer (hereafter abbreviated F&K) recommend that he ignore such measurements and that he should instead extrapolate down from the high-temperature measurements. [Dr.] Loechelt supplied me with five quotes from F&K which he thinks support what he says. But all of them appear to apply only to a special variety of ‘non-volumic’ diffusion, a variety which only affects a very small percentage of the total helium in the crystal. I will discuss that case in the next section.”

Dr. Loechelt then responds:

“Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-51) begins his misrepresentations. First, he dismisses my five quotations without actually taking the time to discuss and refute them. Second, nowhere do Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) discuss this “special variety of ‘non-volumic’ diffusion”. Humphreys (2018a) is just inventing technical terminology at this point. Note that Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) based their conclusions on (1) a solid theoretical understanding of material science and diffusion, and (2) extensive experimental case studies in the field. Dr. Humphreys has demonstrated competency in neither.”

Dr. Loechelt next quotes the following statement from Humphreys (2018a, p. 51):

“[Dr.] Loechelt did not send me the F&K quote below; it says exactly the opposite of what he wants … [see the relevant ‘simple system’ quotation from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) below and also see the discussions on this quotation in Section 2.3.2.] This appears to be a general principle which would reasonably apply to any situation in which significant amounts of a noble gas diffuse out of a crystal differently at low temperatures than at high temperatures. I.e. the diffusion experts prefer measurements over extrapolations. The next section shows why [Dr.] Loechelt thought otherwise.”

The relevant quotation from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) again states:

Dr. Loechelt replies:

“Section 2.3.2 in this essay does an excellent job of addressing this misrepresentation in Humphreys (2018a), so I will not belabor the point here. However, I do want to highlight one additional fallacy by Humphreys (2018a) on p. 51: “This appears to be a general principle which would reasonably apply to any situation in which significant amounts of a noble gas diffuse out of a crystal differently at low temperatures than at high temperatures.” What situation is Dr. Humphreys referring to when he talks about significant amounts of a noble gas diffusing out of a crystal at low temperatures? Only 8 ppm of helium were released in the four low-temperature points of the RATE experiment (see Section 2.3.4). The RATE experiment even fails to achieve Dr. Humphreys’ own self-invented criteria.”

Dr. Loechelt continues to quote Humphreys (2018a, p. 51):

“Non-volumic diffusion includes a special case I here call surface diffusion, meaning diffusion of small quantities of helium from at or near the surface of a crystal, including the surface of cracks in the crystal. This contrasts with volume diffusion: large quantities of helium coming from within the entire body of the crystal. Noble gas at or near the surface is often ‘weakly bound’ or 'loosely bound,’ and so ‘will diffuse out easily,’ say F&K (p. 74). ‘This exhaustible small amount’ (F&K, p. 82) of noble gas will normally be released in the earliest part of an experiment, when the experimenter increases the temperature in steps from a low temperature (say 100°C) up to a high temperature (say 500°C). When the experimenter then decreases the temperature in steps, the subsequent diffusion data will not follow the data from the first upward steps because the ‘loose’ gas has already left the crystal. Subsequent cycles up or down usually follow the data from the first downward steps. That means one can eliminate the surface diffusion data simply by ignoring the first set of upward steps. For a variety of reasons, [Dr.] Farley recommended that we ignore the data from those initial steps, and that is what we did. So the data we show do not include any surface diffusion. I’ll give a specific example a few paragraphs below.” [emphasis in original]

Dr. Loechelt again responds:

“There are numerous misrepresentations in this one paragraph alone. First, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) never discuss any special case of non-volumic diffusion, except for maybe the difference between radioactive source atoms being included in the crystal structure or not. Humphreys (2018a, p. 51) is inventing technical terminology to suite his purposes. Second, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) never mention anything regarding noble gas being ‘at or near the surface’ on p. 74. Once again, Humphreys (2018a) is just making stuff up. What Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) do discuss are things like dislocations and grain boundaries. These higher order structural defects extend throughout the volume of the crystal, and are not confined to just the surface. Furthermore, Dr. Kenneth Farley, who performed the RATE diffusion experiments, never mentioned anything about surface helium either. In the published lab report at the end of Humphreys et al. (2003a), Farley discussed (1) a rounded He concentration profile, and (2) the annealing of radiation damage. No mention of “loosely bound helium” or “surface diffusion” was made. Third, as previously discussed, the “exhaustible small amount” of gas discussed on pp. 82-83 of Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) was observed AFTER ‘the sample was heated at higher temperatures and quickly cooled down’, directly refuting Dr. Humphreys’ claim. Fourth, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) never claimed that ignoring the initial temperature ramp is a solution to eliminating the effect of all the loosely bound gas. And finally, as discussed earlier, Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) discussed how ignoring the initial temperature ramp can minimize the error caused by a non-uniform initial concentration profile, which is a very different problem than removing loosely bound helium from the surface (p. 71).”

Dr. Loechelt next quotes the following statement from Humphreys (2018a, p. 51):

“Unfortunately, F&K use a broader definition of non-volumic diffusion. It includes both surface diffusion and any other diffusion mechanism that gives a shallower slope … [reference to figure omitted] than the slope of the main high-temperature component … [reference to figure omitted]. Most of the other shallow-slope components, besides surface diffusion (which also has a shallow slope), are from sources that are usually distributed uniformly throughout the whole volume of the crystal, such as lattice imperfections (point defects, grain boundaries, dislocations, etc.) and impurities, all of which are very common in naturally occurring minerals. These mechanisms draw upon all the helium in the volume, merely offering different pathways of diffusion. We might call this variety of non-volumic diffusion inexhaustible diffusion, ‘inexhaustible’ by comparison with the much more exhaustible surface diffusion.”

Dr. Loechelt then responds to these statements:

“Humphreys (2018a) continues to invent and misuse terminology here. He is correct in stating that Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) did not differentiate between different types of non-volumic diffusion, as a careful reading of their paper will show. There is nothing unfortunate about this. These authors understood far better than Dr. Humphreys how crystal defects affect solid-state diffusion. The unfortunate confusion is on Dr. Humphreys’ end. Once again, he makes artificial distinctions where none exist. There is no distinction between surface non-volumic diffusion and non-surface, non-volumic diffusion. Likewise, there is no distinction between exhaustible non-volumic diffusion and inexhaustible non-volumic diffusion. Humphreys (2018a) is just making this up.

Perhaps in his defense, it appears that Dr. Humphreys has a major conceptual misunderstanding. He seems to associate non-volumic diffusion with surface diffusion, thinking along the lines of a surface versus volume distinction. That is not what Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) had in mind by the terminology. A better description of volumic versus non-volumic diffusion is to consider what fraction of the volume of the crystal is occupied by the structural feature. Volumic diffusion comprises the regular crystalline lattice and occupies a large fraction of the volume of the solid unless it is highly defective. In contrast, non-volumic diffusion comprises the remaining defective volume of the solid. Although both regions can coexist throughout the volume of the crystal on a macroscopic scale, they are spatially separated on the atomic scale. Therefore, contrary to Dr. Humphreys’ claims, this microscopic spatial separation prevents the defective regions from drawing upon all the helium in the volume. Instead, helium that is trapped in the regular crystalline lattice must diffuse according to the local diffusivity of that region before it can move throughout the crystal. It is this separation of diffusion domains at the atomic level which motivates the formulation of multi-domain diffusion models. Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966) understood the implications of these effects over a half-century ago. As an aside, the fact that the diffusion of a helium is governed by its local environment (i.e., crystalline or defect) is another argument against the adding of diffusivities, which is advocated by Humphreys (2018a, pp. 52-53).” See Section 5.2.

It should also be noted that zircons are often zoned (e.g., Pidgeon 1992; Reiners et al. 2004), which means that impurities (such as uranium, thorium, and their radiogenic helium) would not necessarily be uniformly distributed throughout the zircon as Humphreys (2018a, p. 51; 2018c, p. 4) believes. This explains why Gentry et al. (1982b) found uranium concentrations varying by more than an order of magnitude within single Fenton Hill zircons (see my Appendix B).

Dr. Loechelt continues by quoting the following statements from Humphreys (2018a, p. 52):

“This is the crucial problem I see with [Dr.] Loechelt’s reasoning: he seems to think that all diffusion with low slopes at low temperatures is exhaustible, as exhaustible as surface diffusion. He ignores the most likely mechanisms for low-temperature diffusion, which are as inexhaustible as volumic diffusion. So he thinks we should simply ignore [Dr.] Farley’s low-temperature data, because he thinks it represents only a tiny fraction of the helium in the zircon.” [emphasis in original]

Dr. Loechelt replies:

“Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) summarized the difference between our two interpretations fairly accurately in this paragraph. However, we need to draw attention to his unsubstantiated claim: ‘He ignores the most likely mechanisms for low-temperature diffusion, which are as inexhaustible as volumic diffusion.’ Where has Dr. Humphreys demonstrated that his proposed mechanism for the low-temperature diffusion is as inexhaustible as the primary ‘volumic’ mechanism? There is no experimental data supporting this claim. On the contrary, only 8 ppm of helium were released during the four low-temperature measurements (Section 2.3.4). How does Dr. Humphreys know that the rest of the 99.9992% of the helium in the sample could ultimately be released by this mechanism?”

Dr. Loechelt then cites the following section from Humphreys (2018a, p. 52):

“But [Dr.] Loechelt is ignoring important evidence against his assumption. The first nine steps of [Dr.] Farley’s experiment… [reference number omitted], whose diffusivities he told us to ignore, cooked out 4% of the total helium in the crystal. The very next step, number 10, 1 hour at 500°C, cooked out an additional 11%. I would think that any exhaustible diffusion mechanisms would no longer be represented after that point, and that the remaining 85% of the helium, whether measured at low temperatures or high ones, would be from sources as inexhaustible as volumic diffusion. So there is no reason to ignore [Dr.] Farley’s low-temperature data, as [Dr.] Loechelt wants to do.”

In response to these statements, Dr. Loechelt states:

“Dr. Humphreys raised a similar objection to my diffusion modeling work in Humphreys (2008b). I am not ignoring the evidence. Rather, Dr. Humphreys is ignoring my response. In Loechelt (2009a), I refuted Dr. Humphreys’ claims by direct calculation (see my section 2, question 1). Using a multi-domain diffusion model, I demonstrated that not all of the loosely bound helium would be out-gassed after the first temperature ramp. Remember, only 8 ppm of helium were released at the low temperature steps, so only a tiny amount of loosely bound helium had to remain later in the experiment. Diffusion is an inherently slow process, and even with a high diffusivity, the actual diffusion flux decreases with the concentration gradient. Therefore, it is possible that enough loosely bound helium remained later in the experiment to account for 8 ppm of gas released at low temperatures.

The calculations in Loechelt (2009a) have never been refuted. After posting Loechelt (2009a) on the website of the American Scientific Affiliation, I requested that Creation Ministries International, which hosted the Humphreys (2008b) web article, communicate my response to Dr. Humphreys. The next year Humphreys (2010a) was published by Creation Ministries International in their Journal of Creation. In this paper, Humphreys boasted about how he had silenced his critics. In early drafts of my response to Humphreys (2010a), I challenged the claim that Dr. Humphreys had silenced his critics when in fact he had ignored them. Time and again the editors of the Journal of Creation struck my statements from the draft. I eventually had to settle for the following simple sentence in the endnotes of my 2010 letter: “I had previously informed [Dr.] Humphreys of this reply through CMI in May 2009.”

Dr. Humphreys gave a more lengthy response in his reply to my letter: “As he mentions above, on 5/18/2009 he sent an e-mail to the editors of this journal, merely giving links to his two new articles. The editors forwarded it to me, asking if I wanted to reply on the CMI website or in Journal of Creation. I replied to the editors that in the new (non-peer-reviewed) articles [Dr.] Loechelt pointed to a complex theoretical analysis he did in a previous article (also not peer reviewed) to bolster his claim that we didn’t get rid of all of the “loose” helium (my term) in the zircons. However, my earlier reply (this reference) to the same issue is still quite adequate. I suggested to the editors that further replies from me should await [Dr.] Loechelt publishing a peer-reviewed article, especially one with a new experiment (not theory) to test his claims.” (Also see Section 10.0, which discusses Dr. Humphreys’ “peer-review” record and how Dr. Loechelt’s papers were peer-reviewed.)

Now after many years, Humphreys is repeating the same criticism that I ignored the effects of the initial temperature ramp in my diffusion model. On the contrary, I did not ignore the effects. I explicitly included them and got a better match to the entire RATE diffusion dataset than Humphreys’ own model (see section 4 of Loechelt 2009a including figure 6). Dr. Humphreys dismissed my “complex theoretical analysis” and yet relies on his own speculative reasoning like “I would think that any exhaustible diffusion mechanisms would no longer be represented after that point” and again “There is no reason to ignore [Dr.] Farley’s low-temperature data”. He rejects my work because it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, yet he is allowed to make statements lacking any scientific rigor, such as the two quotes cited above, in a so-called peer-reviewed young-Earth creationist scientific journal.

In addition, Guenthner et al. (2013) suggested another possible mechanism. Enough helium from the high-retentivity domain, which was activated during the high-temperature steps, could re-occupy the low-retentivity domains during the retrograde part of the ramp to account for gas released at low temperatures (also see Section 2.3.1). Therefore, there is more than one possible explanation. Note that the conclusions of Loechelt (2009a) were based upon rigorous mathematical calculations and the conclusions of Guenthner et al. (2013) were based upon years of extensive experimentation. In contrast, Dr. Humphreys’ claims are based upon neither.

Dr. Humphreys rejected Loechelt (2009a) because it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal and lacked new experimental data. Guenthner et al. (2013), in contrast, was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and contained some of the latest experimental data in the field. Will Humphreys finally take these concerns seriously, or will he ignore Guenthner et al. (2013) the same way he ignored Loechelt (2009a)?”

In additional discussions, Loechelt (2020a) relies on more recent results from Wolfe and Stockli (2010), Guenthner et al. (2013), and Cherniak et al. (2009) to supplement Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966). These more recent studies broadly support the earlier work of Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966). Guenthner et al. (2013), in particular, discusses diffusion under lower temperature conditions and offers some insight into the diffusion mechanism. Besides often misquoting and misinterpreting Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966), Humphreys (2018a; 2018c) also overly relies on Girifalco (1964). Dr. Loechelt further comments:

“Girifalco (1964) is particularly problematic in that the book discusses solid-state diffusion in very simplistic terms and does not address the specific issues faced by noble gas thermochronometry in general or the complexities of helium diffusion in zircon in particular.”

2.3.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Four Lower Temperature Measurements: Relevant or Not?

The issue then arises, was the helium released by the four low temperature measurements (green diamonds in Figure 5) significant and relevant “inexhaustible” non-volumic helium as advocated by Humphreys (2018a, pp. 51-52) or insignificant low concentrations associated with a defect curve as advocated by Loechelt (2020a)? Loechelt (2020a, pp. 46 and footnote 35, p. 50) did some calculations on the results from Humphreys et al. (2004, Table II, p. 6) and Humphreys et al. (2005a, his Table 2, p. 45). He demonstrated that the amount of helium released from the four low temperature analyses in Dr. Humphreys’ Fenton Hill data are not “significant” at all and indicate that the data points are actually associated with a defect curve that should be ignored (the green diamonds and red line in Figure 5). Referring to Table II in Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 6), the high temperature (355oC to 505oC) steps of 10-13 and 21-27 released 306 nano cubic centimeters (ncc) of helium or 22.58% of the total. Both Loechelt (2020a, pp. 46, 50) and Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) agree that the initial temperature ramp up (steps 1-2, 4-9 at 50-450oC) released about 4% of the helium from Dr. Humphreys’ zircons (due to problems measuring the temperature, step 3 is omitted from Table II in Humphreys et al. 2004, p. 6). Loechelt (2020a, pp. 46, 50) further lists the total amount of the helium released during the temperature ramp up phase as 56.5 ncc. While Humphreys (2020a, p. 52) prematurely ends his calculations here and assumes that the rest of the helium is relevant, Loechelt (2020a, pp. 46, 50) continues his calculations and discovers some important details. The intermediate temperatures (between 260oC and 350oC) at steps 14, 15, 20, and 28 released 0.118 ncc of helium (0.0087%). The four lower temperature steps (175-255oC) of 16-19 released only 0.0106 ncc of helium or 0.0008%, which is a typical result for measurements on a defect curve (green diamonds and red line in Figure 5). This is an important calculation that Humphreys (2018a) overlooked. The rest of the helium was released during the high temperature fusion step to yield a grand total of 1356 ncc of helium. Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) then asks an important question, what does the 0.0008% or 8 parts per million (ppm) of helium from the four lower temperature analyses tell us about the age of the Earth and the presence of past accelerated radioactive decay event(s)? Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) thinks not much. A few parts per million of helium are simply not enough to make any authoritative statements about the overall helium diffusion behavior of the zircons at 175-255oC (Loechelt 2008c, pp. 10-12). Furthermore, as discussed in Section 6.2, high subsurface pressures would tend to seal shut fractures and other defects in the zircons, expel the ppm of helium from the defects, and largely or entirely eliminate the defect curve. So, Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) wonders how Dr. Humphreys and his allies can justify using this tiny amount of helium from a laboratory study to rationalize their YEC diffusion model and argue that this is definitive evidence of past accelerated radioactive decay event(s).

2.3.5 Uniformitarianism is Not Out in the Cold

Humphreys (2005a, p. 61 and his Figure 16, p. 62; 2018a, pp. 53-54) also argues that the old-Earth model would only work if the Fenton Hill zircons were exposed to impossibly cold temperatures of about -78oC for 1.5 billion years. He illustrates his argument by extending his defect curve down to intersect the uniformitarian model as shown in Figure 7. Humphreys (2020a, p. 50) then argues that Dr. Loechelt only endorses an extrapolation with the high-temperature intrinsic curve because he thinks that the results favor the old-Earth or uniformitarian model. As shown in Figures 5 and 7, an extrapolation of the intrinsic curve more closely approaches Dr. Humphreys’ non-cryogenic uniformitarian model. Yet, as seen in discussions in the Sections 2.3.2 through 2.3.4, Dr. Humphreys has no justification in applying his low-temperature (actually a defect) curve to either his young- or old-Earth models. It is Dr. Humphreys, and not Dr. Loechelt, that is using the wrong curve to justify his dating model.

Humphreys (2018a, p. 53) further argues that even if extrapolating with the intrinsic curve (blue line) is appropriate, the curve still passes about 100oC too high for the three purple intrinsic points on his version of the old-Earth model (Figure 5). Humphreys (2018a, p. 53; 2012d) sees this as Dr. Loechelt’s motive for wanting cooling temperatures in the past subsurface of Fenton Hill (Sections 8.1 and 8.2). Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) further argues that even if the temperatures were lower and the three intrinsic points on Dr. Humphreys uniformitarian model coincided with the blue intrinsic curve, Dr. Loechelt would have to explain the three points on the left side of the uniformitarian model. However, as discussed in Loechelt (2008c; 2009a, pp. 2-3; 2009b; 2020a), the three points to the left are on a defect curve, which are not important because they would result from small amounts of helium in cracks and other relatively small numbers of defects (Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.4). Also, as discussed in Section 6.2, high pressures in the subsurface of Fenton Hill would have lowered the intrinsic curve and sealed at least some of the defects, which would largely eliminate the defect curve. Finally, Loechelt (2008c) used a more rigorous and appropriate version of the uniformitarian model and demonstrated that the diffusion of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons was totally compatible with that model (Figure 1). Dr. Humphreys’ uniformitarian model in Figure 5 is flawed.

Figure 7: Humphreys (2005a, his Figure 16, p. 62) argues that if the helium diffusion results based on helium measurements in the Fenton Hill zircons were to comply with his uniformitarian model, the zircons would have needed to have been at an impossibly cold temperature of -78oC in the deep subsurface for 1.5 billion years. Discussions in Loechelt (2008c; 2020a) show that this is not true. Dr. Humphreys erroneously comes to this conclusion by extending his defect curve shown in red. As discussed in Sections 2.3.2 through 2.3.4, any extrapolations of helium diffusion results to lower temperatures must be made on the intrinsic curve shown in blue. Unlike Dr. Humphreys’ flawed uniformitarian model, the more rigorous uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) is consistent with the Fenton Hill data.

3.0 Erroneous Geology from Dr. Humphreys and His Supporters, and the Consequences

3.1 Background Information

As a geologist, I see many statements in Dr. Humphreys’ articles, the CreationWiki #1-#3 internet posts, and other YEC documents on this topic that stand out as blatantly sloppy and wrong. Dr. Humphreys and his coauthors committed a number of fundamental errors related to the lithologies and mineralogy of their Fenton Hill samples. Despite some of them actually having Ph.D.’s in geology and claims by Humphreys (2013c) that he does not think that “geology is all that hard, once you get past the jargon”, the numerous geological errors in their papers demonstrate that Dr. Humphreys and his coworkers lack basic qualifications in geology, they utilized inadequate laboratory procedures in identifying and measuring samples, and that they did not have a sufficient understanding of the geology literature of the Fenton Hill site. Unfortunately, it is also obvious based on their statements, that too many of Dr. Humphreys’ supporters, such as at “Trueorigins.org” and CreationWiki #1-#3, also totally lack suitable qualifications in geology and the scientific method, tend to uncritically accept and defend whatever Dr. Humphreys says, and attack Dr. Humphreys’ critics without really understanding the issues or the criticisms. As a consequence, Dr. Humphreys’ and his supporters’ inadequacies in geology seriously impact their ability to obtain complete and accurate measurements on their biotites and zircons, as discussed in Section 4.0, which in turn ultimately affects their ability to construct realistic models of the origin and history of the Fenton Hill zircons.

3.2 Misidentification of Fenton Hill Gneisses and the Serious Consequences for Dr. Humphreys

Gneisses are not “Granites”, “Granodiorites” or other Igneous Rocks

When performing research, scientists must carefully follow all quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) procedures. Essential QC/QA procedures include properly collecting, identifying, labeling, storing, and monitoring all samples. If the collection site of a specimen is unknown or if it has been improperly stored and mishandled for several decades, any resulting data are often useless.

Unfortunately for them, Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues have failed to comply with the most fundamental QC/QA requirements. Throughout their paper, Humphreys et al. (2003a) claim to have studied biotites and zircons from samples of the “Jemez granodiorite” collected at a depth of 750 meters from the Fenton Hill borehole site. Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 5) and Humphreys (2005a) also referred to their samples from depths of 750 and 1490 meters as “granodiorite.” Granodiorites are igneous rocks that crystallize from melts (magmas) deep in the subsurface. As their name implies, they have intermediate chemical compositions between granites and diorites, which means that granodiorites tend to have more silica than diorites and more magnesium and iron than granites (Hyndman, 1985, p. 46).

A review of the scientific literature on the subsurface geology of the Fenton Hill borehole site indicates that about 75% of the GT-2 and EE-1 cores consist of gneisses (Laughlin, 1981, p. 308; Laney et al., 1981, p. 2) and that granodiorite is not encountered in the cores until depths of 2591 meters (my Figures 8 and 9) (Laney et al., 1981, p. 1; Laughlin et al., 1983; Burruss and Hollister, 1979). Gneisses are former igneous or sedimentary rocks that have been metamorphosed under relatively high temperature and pressure conditions (highly altered), but without melting (Hyndman, 1985, p. 442; Chernicoff et al., 2002, p. 128). Gneisses may be divided into orthogneisses, which form from the high-grade metamorphism of intrusive igneous rocks, and paragneisses, which result from high-grade metamorphism of sedimentary rocks.

Additional information in Laughlin et al. (1983) and other references clearly indicate that Humphreys et al.’s 750 and 1490-meter samples are gneisses (Figure 9). Even a figure in Sasada (1989, p. 258), an article that Humphreys (2005a; 2010b; 2011; 2012b; 2018a) frequently cites, identifies the rocks at the depths where Dr. Humphreys obtained his samples as gneisses. Thus, Dr. Humphreys has no excuse for misidentifying the host rocks of his samples.

The author(s) of CreationWiki #3 (2009) also has absolutely no excuse in frivolously dismissing criticisms of Dr. Humphreys’ bad geology by claiming that others and I were somehow looking at the geology from the “wrong location.” It’s obvious that the author(s) of CreationWiki #3 (2009) never bothered to check the diagram in Sasada (1989, p. 258) and our other references before throwing out such an uninformed claim.

Figure 8: A typical granite (top), granodiorite (middle) and gneiss (bottom). Notice the distinctive foliation ("layering") in the gneisses that is not found in granites and granodiorites. By definition, gneisses have metamorphic foliation, but granites, granodiorites and other igneous rocks do not. Photographs of the granite and granodiorite by Dexter Perkins at https://geodil.dperkins.org/. Photograph of the gneiss by Sim Sepp. The sample is the property of the University of Tartu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gneiss#/media/File:Gneiss.jpg

Figure 9: Geology of the Fenton Hill GT-2 and EE-2 cores based on information in Laughlin et al. (1983, p. 25, 26) and Sasada (1989, p. 258). The zircons and biotites utilized in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) are from gneisses and not granodiorites or other igneous rocks.

Even after being presented with evidence from the literature, Humphreys (2005b) still refused to admit that he and his colleagues misidentified gneisses as “granodiorites.” Despite unambiguous statements in Laughlin (1981, p. 308) and Laney et al. (1981, p. 2) that say otherwise, Dr. Humphreys continued to insist that most of the Precambrian sections of the Fenton Hill cores are “granodiorites.” In contrast, YEC R.V. Gentry readily admitted in Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1129) that their zircons, whose data Dr. Humphreys used in his studies, came from gneisses, as well as other rock types.

Humphreys et al.’s misidentification of the rock types in the Fenton Hill cores is not a trivial issue as Humphreys (2005b) claims. When Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) were under the delusion that the Precambrian rocks of the Fenton Hill cores largely consisted of only one rock unit (the “Jemez granodiorite”), they openly admitted that any mixing of experimental results from different rock types would be inappropriate for their modeling efforts:

“Measurements of noble gas diffusion in a given type of naturally occurring mineral often show significant differences from site to site, caused by variations in composition. For that reason it is important to get helium diffusion data on zircon and biotite from the same rock unit (the Jemez Granodiorite [sic]) which was the source of Gentry’s samples.” [my emphasis]

Of course, the sizes and chemistry of zircons and biotites can be highly variable depending on the host igneous or metamorphic rock. As late as Humphreys (2012c, p. 1), Dr. Humphreys failed to realize that gneisses, and not just “granitic rocks”, may contain zircons. Because zircons are very hard, insoluble in water and resistant to weathering, they may also readily accumulate in sediments and occur in sedimentary rocks (Klein 2002, p. 498). Thus, sediments that form paragneisses may have obtained zircons from the wind and water erosion of a large number of outcrops with vastly different ages, origins, and distributions over a large region. These zircons may then have survived metamorphism. To illustrate how zircons in sediments may have great diversity in age, chemistry, and physical properties, if the sediments at the Mississippi River delta in Louisiana are sampled, it’s highly probably that we would find microscopic zircons originating from the Precambrian rocks at the head waters of the Mississippi River in Minnesota, zircons originating from the Rocky Mountains and brought into the Mississippi River by the Missouri and Arkansas tributaries, and zircons from the western Appalachian Mountains and surrounding areas brought into the Mississippi River by the Ohio River and other tributaries (also see Faure 1998, pp. 353-354).

Heimlich (1976) concluded that the Fenton Hill zircons that he examined probably came from paragneisses. If some of the zircons in the samples of Gentry et al. (1982a; 1982b) and Humphreys et al. (2004) actually came from paragneisses, then it was even more critical that Dr. Humphreys should have paid close attention to the petrology of the host rocks and the chemistry of the individual zircons.

Because Humphreys et al. didn’t realize which lithologies they sampled and often did not know the precise sizes of their zircons, serious errors could easily be introduced into the a and b values that are used in their “dating” equations (13-14 and 16 in Humphreys et al., 2003a, pp. 9-10) (Sections 4.6, 4.7, and 6.1). Chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979) also suggest that the zircons from the different rocks of the Fenton Hill cores have highly variable concentrations of uranium and thorium, which would mean that Dr. Humphreys cannot accurately represent the zircons from different rock types at various depths with just one Q0 value (Section 4.3).

Rather than relying on information in Laughlin et al. (1983), Laney et al. (1981), and other detailed studies from the literature, Humphreys (2005b) responded to my criticisms by referring to the naked-eye observations of their samples by YEC and coauthor Dr. John Baumgardner. The following statements by Dr. Baumgardner are quoted in Humphreys (2005b):

“Yes, there are occasional veins of material other than the coarse-grained granodiorite that forms the vast majority [sic] of the core. In making the selections I made of what samples to use, I purposely avoided these occasional veins. In fact I tried to select sections of the core well removed from such veins. So at least from my vantage point, the samples of core we used for the helium diffusion measurements were indeed coarse-grained granodiorite, not gneiss.”

The quotation also uncritically appears in CreationWiki #1 (2011). Dr. Baumgardner’s statement that a “coarse-grained granodiorite” forms “the vast majority of the core” blatantly contradicts statements in Laughlin (1981, p. 308) and analytical data in Laughlin et al. (1983), which state that approximately 75% of the cores consist of gneisses (not granodiorite). The dominance of gneisses in the Precambrian rocks of the Fenton Hill cores is also obvious from my Figure 9. Because Dr. Baumgardner’s conclusions are inconsistent with the results of professional geologists that have examined and analyzed the cores in great detail, I emailed him back in 2005 with a list of questions about the samples that he had collected for Humphreys et al. In his kind reply, Dr. Baumgardner described the core as consisting of dark gneissic “veins” surrounded by an “unaltered granodiorite” consisting of “large (typically, 2-3 mm)” pinkish grains [my emphasis]. Although I requested any mineralogical (such as petrographic or X-ray diffraction analyses) or chemical data (that is, major oxides, minor and trace element analyses) that Dr. Baumgardner might have to support his claims, he provided none.

By definition (Hyndman, 1985, p. 442), gneisses consist of alternating dark- and light-colored bands and not “veins” (Figure 8). If “dark gneiss veins” [sic, bands] were present in Humphreys et al.’s samples as Dr. Baumgardner claims, where are the light-colored bands of the gneiss? By the definition of a gneiss, how can the Fenton Hill samples have dark gneissic bands and no light-colored gneissic bands associated with them? Dr. Baumgardner seems to have misidentified the light-colored gneissic bands as “unaltered granodiorite.” The light-colored layers of a gneiss often consist of blocky feldspar and quartz grains, but unlike igneous rocks, these layers form in a solid state and not from melts. Without detailed chemical and microscopic studies, feldspars and quartz in a light-colored gneiss can readily appear “igneous” and “unaltered” to the naked eye.

In a later email to me, Dr. Baumgardner generously sent photographs of a couple of Fenton Hill cores and described the 750-meter core as a “granite” on the basis of its “abundant” pink orthoclase (potassium feldspar) grains. He further argued that the 1490-meter core was a “granodiorite” because of its lack of pink orthoclase. However, identifying a mineral on the basis of color is unreliable. Orthoclase can come in many colors besides pink. Other minerals besides orthoclase are also pink. Furthermore, pink feldspars can be abundant in some gneisses and entirely absent in others. Even if the samples were igneous, Dr. Baumgardner’s naked-eye observations would not have been adequate enough to distinguish a granodiorite from a granite, monzonite, or any other intermediate or felsic intrusive igneous rock. Again, Humphreys et al. have yet to produce any definitive chemical or microscopic evidence to challenge the metamorphic identifications of their samples in Laughlin et al. (1983) and other documents. Finally, according to Feeley (2007), Dr. Baumgardner now admits that Dr. Humphreys’ zircons came from gneisses. Dr. Feeley attended one of Dr. Humphreys’ presentations of his helium in zircon work and wrote:

“Well, after the Q & A session Humphreys called me ‘evil’ for asking such a question (I thought it was a valid question, but Humphreys apparently didn’t and I don’t think he is a very nice man). I also told him that he had a problem because the core sample he showed in his talk from where his zircons were separated was clearly a gneiss and not a granodiorite (‘with schist veins through it’), as he claimed. I could see this from the back row, as could the undergraduate geology students in attendance. At this point he called me ‘dumb’ and asked if I had the guts to tell Baumgardner (who selected the core) that the sample was a metamorphic rock and not an igneous rock. Sure, I’d tell him. As we walked over to speak with Baumgardner, a young woman who identified herself as a Christian, scolded Humphreys for being mean and not behaving in a Christian-like manner by calling me evil and dumb. She didn’t think he was a very nice man either. To get back to the point, Baumgardner conceded that the core sample was indeed a gneiss and not a granodiorite. To his credit, Humphreys did begrudgingly apologize. Personally, I didn’t care about the apology, which wasn’t sincere anyway. I was more concerned that this guy was conducting expensive research on the age of the earth, yet couldn’t even tell the difference between a metamorphic rock and an igneous rock. Oh yeah, I forgot, he’s a creationist physicist and not a geologist.”

Yet, Dr. Humphreys has never publicly admitted his mistake in rock identification in his articles.

3.3 Outdated and Inaccurate Petrologic Claims at CreationWiki #1 (2011)

In an effort to cloud the issue on the petrology of the host rocks of Dr. Humphreys’ and R.V. Gentry’s zircons, the author(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) states:

“The claim that some of the rocks are gneiss is based on a couple of papers, one of which has a labeling of the upper portion as gneiss, but this conflicts with a paper from Los Alomos [sic, Alamos] labs that shows much of that portion to be granite and granodiorite. This paper clearly shows that Gentry’s samples 1, from a depth of 960 m (3149.6 ft), was in granodiorite. Now it does label the rock of RATE’s two new samples, depth 750 m (2461 ft) and 1490 m (4888ft) core, as granite.”

Due to inadequate referencing of this citation, the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) may be referring to a Los Alamos report by Purtymun et al. (1974) or perhaps another report by Laney et al. (1981), both of which appear in the bibliography of the CreationWiki #1 (2011) post. The information in Purtymun et al. (1974) is outdated and only relied on drill cuttings (fragments) to identify the Precambrian rock types. This report has been replaced by more thorough studies by Laughlin et al. (1983) and Laney et al. (1981) that used far more complete and reliable well cores. While drill cuttings from intrusive igneous rocks and gneisses are often difficult to distinguish, the well cores used Laughlin et al. (1983) and Laney et al. (1981) are easier to identify. Laney et al. (1981) mostly discuss the deeper EE-2 core rather than the GT-2 core, the source of R.V. Gentry’s sample 1 and Dr. Humphreys’ zircons. However, the information in Laney et al. (1981) blatantly contradicts the claims in CreationWiki #1(2011) that R. V. Gentry’s sample 1 and Dr. Humphreys’ zircons came from intrusive igneous rocks. The diagram in Laney et al. (1981, p. 17) clearly shows the presence of “Precambrian gneiss” at depths of 750, 960, and 1490 meters, where Dr. Humphreys’ and R. V. Gentry’s sample 1 zircons originated (Table 1).

Next, the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) cites some webpage definitions and attempts to claim that a “granodiorite” has a composition that is close enough to be called a “granite.” Of course, this argument has nothing to do with gneisses, which are metamorphic rocks and not granites or granodiorites. Although some might refer to granodiorites and granites as “granitoids” in the field, especially before the rocks have been analyzed for an exact classification, careful geologists don’t accept such a sloppy and interchangeable use of the terms granite and granodiorite to identify igneous rocks. Laney et al. (1981), which the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) cites, even contains a classification diagram on p. 10 that stresses the important mineralogical differences between granodiorites, granites and other intrusive rocks. So, there are definite chemical and mineralogical differences between granites and granodiorites that can and must be distinguished by geologists. In the end, the author(s) of CreationWiki #1 (2011) is being sloppy with rock terms and is trying to create a controversy where one has not existed since the work of Laughlin et al. (1983) and Laney et al. (1981). Misidentifying a gneiss (a metamorphic rock) as an intrusive igneous rock is no more acceptable than calling frogs “reptiles,” and referring to a granodiorite as a granite is like calling a gorilla, a “chimpanzee.”

3.4 Humphreys (2005b) Tries to Trivialize the Misidentification of his Gneisses

I predicted in my original essay that if Dr. Humphreys ever began to suspect that he and his colleagues sampled gneisses and not a granodiorite, he would try to trivialize his mistakes and argue that misidentifying a gneiss would not significantly affect their zircon diffusion studies or “dating” results. This is exactly what Humphreys (2005b) attempts to do. Humphreys (2005b) tries to argue that any misidentification of the rock types in the Fenton Hill cores would not be a serious mistake:

“The important point is that, regardless of the name we put on the rock unit [sic, rock units!, my Figure 9], the zircons throughout it have been measured to contain essentially the same amounts and ratios of lead isotopes [Gentry et al., 1982b], and therefore have undergone the same amount of nuclear decay. The uranium, helium, and lead levels in our samples are perfectly consistent with the corresponding levels Gentry reported for his. The effect of variation from sample to sample is probably smaller than the 2-sigma error bars around our prediction. So here Henke is making a distinction without a difference.”

First of all, two zircons can have identical U/Pb dates and Pb/Pb isotope ratios, but still greatly differ in size, which affects Dr. Humphreys’ a values (Section 4.6), and have radically different absolute concentrations of lead, uranium, thorium and helium (that is, very different Q/Q0 values; Section 4.0 and my Appendix B). Secondly, Dr. Humphreys makes several bold assertions in the above paragraph that are flatly refuted by the chemical data in the very reference that he cites (i.e., Gentry et al., 1982b). Gentry et al. (1982b) show that uranium and thorium concentrations in the Fenton Hill zircons can vary by more than an order of magnitude even if the zircons are taken from the same section of the cores (my Appendix B). In the case of zircon 1A in Table B1 of my Appendix B, the uranium concentrations vary by more than an order of magnitude within the zircon! Gentry et al. (1982b, p. 296) readily admit:

“Frequently, there were significant differences in the U and Th concentrations from two different locations on the same zircon.”

As shown in my Appendix B and associated discussions in this and my original essay, orders of magnitude variations in the uranium and thorium concentrations of the Fenton Hill zircons could produce orders of magnitude variations in lead concentrations and Q/Q0 values. Because Dr. Humphreys did not fully realize that his and R. V. Gentry’s teams had sampled zircons from a diverse group of igneous and metamorphic rocks (my Figure 9 and Table 1), Dr. Humphreys did not carefully consider that the uranium, Q/Q0, and a values of the zircons from these rocks could be extremely different, which would greatly impact his “helium diffusion dates.” This oversight alone nullifies the “helium diffusion date” of 6,000 years in Humphreys et al. (2004).

YECs might argue that because Precambrian granodiorites and gneisses were all magically zapped into existence during the six 24-hour days of the “Creation Week” (e.g., Snelling and Woodmorappe, 1998, p. 530), distinctions between Precambrian rocks really aren’t important. While most YECs invoke miracles to explain away most Precambrian intrusive rocks (e.g., Snelling and Woodmorappe, 1998, p. 530), Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 1-2) unintentionally admit that at least some intrusive rocks have significant histories when they claim that zircon crystals become imbedded in larger crystals as a magma “cools and solidifies.” So, Dr. Humphreys has the impossible task of explaining why the numerous metamorphic and igneous rocks in the Fenton Hill cores (my Figure 9) have complex structures and textures that indicate a long history (Laney et al., 1981, Laughlin and Eddy, 1977, Laughlin et al., 1983, Loechelt 2008c, and their references) rather than a supposed rapid and miraculous formation in only six 24-hour creation days. The properties of a metamorphosed rock often indicate an extensive and complex history involving erosion of precursor igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks; sediment deposition; deep burial of sediments; multiple cooling and heating events; various complex metamorphic reactions; faulting, and finally uplifting to where humans can have access to them.

Because Dr. Humphreys collected his zircons from gneisses and not granodiorites (Figure 9), he needs to realize that thermodynamic and other laboratory studies indicate that gneisses and their metamorphic zircons form under much greater metamorphic pressures than could ever have existed at depths of only 750 to 4,310 meters (Hyndman, 1985; Winkler, 1979). The gneisses at Fenton Hill were obviously uplifted from much greater depths. By definition, gneisses have gneissic banding, which requires minimum pressures of about 4,000 to 6,000 bars and temperatures of about 600-750°C to form. So, Dr. Humphreys’ gneisses and their zircons were once at depths of at least 15-22 kilometers (Winkler, 1979, p. 5), perhaps for a significant portion of their history. Loechelt (2008c) in his Appendix A also provides a detailed geologic history of the Fenton Hill cores, which is hardly consistent with a six 24-hour “Creation Week” or even a mere 6,000 years of history. Considering that the metamorphic rocks of the Fenton Hill cores probably spent a lot of their history at depths greater than 15 kilometers, Dr. Humphreys is sadly mistaken when he believes that his modeling of helium diffusion in some zircons from current depths of 750 meters to 4.3 kilometers yield valid information on the beginning of the Earth’s geologic history.

3.5 More Bad Science: Humphreys et al. Make Up their Own Formation Names and Violate the Rules on Naming Rocks

Humphreys (2005b) admits that he “invented” the term “Jemez granodiorite” to describe all of the diverse Precambrian rocks in the Fenton Hill cores. However, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Names Committee (Stamm et al. 2000) and The North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature (2005) long ago established rules that professional geologists and other scientists must follow if they want to introduce a name for a rock unit into the literature. The USGS Geologic Names Committee also maintains a searchable on-line database of accepted names for American geological units (National Geologic Map Database). Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues violated these rules when they lumped together all of the diverse Precambrian metamorphic and igneous rocks of the Fenton Hill cores and misnamed them the “Jemez granodiorite” (Figure 9). Dr. Humphreys has not only produced an inaccurate name to describe this diverse group of rocks that could eventually spread clutter and confusion in the literature, he has also shown his inability to properly identify rocks. Dr. Humphreys has further demonstrated that he is incapable of following established scientific rules (also see Sections 9.1 and 9.2).

Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys et al. (2003a, their Appendix B, p. 15) also mention the existence of a “Beartooth Gneiss.” Humphreys (2005a, p. 41) later refers to the rock as the “Beartooth Amphibolite”, an entirely different metamorphic rock. Nevertheless, the National Geologic Map Database and the literature databases Georef and Web of Science contain no references on the existence of the “Beartooth” or “Bear tooth” gneiss or amphibolite (accessed June 7, 2010 and March 6, 2020). These metamorphically diverse names were probably pulled out of the ether by YECs. Considering their inabilities to distinguish metamorphic from intrusive igneous rocks when they named the “Jemez granodiorite,” who knows if this Beartooth rock is even a gneiss or an amphibolite.

3.6 Questionable Sample Processing

3.6.1 Grinding of Biotite Samples

Humphreys et al. (2003a, his Appendix B, p. 15) states that the biotites from the “Beartooth Gneiss” (“Beartooth Amphibolite” in Humphreys, 2005a) and the “Jemez granodiorite” were extracted through “crushing, magnetic separation, and density separation with heavy liquids.” However, silicate minerals can lose much of their helium through crushing (Trull and Kurz 1993, p. 1314; Mussett 1969, p. 298). Allowing personnel from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) laboratory to grind the biotite specimens could have resulted in substantial helium loss and significant errors in Appendix B of Humphreys et al. (2003a). Some researchers cut rather than crush micas for argon diffusion studies (Dalrymple and Lanphere, 1969, pp. 147-148).

3.6.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Impure Biotite Separations

According to Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6, their Appendix B, p. 15) and Humphreys (2005b), the ICR laboratory extracted the biotite samples for the helium diffusion studies in Humphreys et al. (2003a). The results in Appendix B of Humphreys et al. (2003a) indicate that the Fenton Hill biotites were impure. As shown by candid statements from Austin (1996), the ICR laboratory has a history of not being able to consistently provide adequate mineral and volcanic glass separations (Henke c. 2001). As I stated in my original essay, which Humphreys (2005b) ignores, adequately pure biotite separations may not be possible for the Fenton Hill samples. Certainly, Humphreys (2005b) is correct when he states that different samples provide different degrees of difficulty in mineral separation. That is, another laboratory also may not have been able to adequately separate the biotites from the Fenton Hill samples either. However, considering the poor record of the ICR laboratory, Dr. Humphreys should have at least tried.

Humphreys (2005b) again tries to belittle his failures by claiming that the biotite separations are irrelevant. However, if these separations were not important, why did he bother having them done and the questionable helium analyses published? It’s also obvious that without these biotite analyses, Dr. Humphreys’ case is weakened even further. For example, sample #6 doesn’t fit into their modeling scheme (Section 5.4.2). So, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 7-9) used their questionable biotite analyses to argue that sample #6 is a “special case” and can be ignored in their models. Also, biotite and its helium diffusion properties have important roles in some of the models described in Humphreys et al. (2003a, especially their Figure 7), in deriving b (which is present in the dating equations of 12-14 and 17 in Humphreys et al., 2003a, Section 4.7), and in Dr. Humphreys’ invalid Lyell uniformitarian claim that current values of the diffusion of helium in his Fenton Hill biotites somehow rules out the possibility of extraneous helium contamination (Section 6.1.9).

Instead of adequately responding to the questionable Fenton Hill results from the ICR laboratory, Humphreys (2005b) challenged me to do a better job. But, why should I do his work for him? I simply have no interest in processing samples for Dr. Humphreys so that he can manipulate them to promote his YEC agenda just like he did with the data in Magomedov (1970) (Section 5.1).

4.0 Questionable, Absent, and Bad Measurements of Critical Parameters in the Fenton Hill Zircons and Biotites.

4.1 Parameter Definitions and Other Background Information

Besides helium diffusivity values, the dating equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 9-10) require accurate values for Q, Q0, a, and sometimes b. Q refers to the measured quantity of helium (presumably only radiogenic 4He) in a mineral. Q is typically measured in nanocubic centimeters of helium per microgram of zircon (ncc/μg) or 10-9 cc/ug at standard temperature and pressure (STP or 20oC and one atmosphere).

Once a mineral is below its helium closure temperature, Q0 is the maximum amount of radiogenic helium (4He) that is expected to accumulate in the mineral from the radioactive decay of its uranium and thorium. A certain percentage of alpha particles (4He nuclei) will escape from the host mineral during radioactive decay and this loss is normally considered when calculating the Q0 values. Q0 has the same units of measure as Q. Q/Q0 would then represent the fraction of radiogenic 4He remaining in a sample. Q/Q0 values are listed as a unitless fraction or percentage. Thus, valid Q/Q0 values must be ≤ 1 or ≤ 100%. Presumably, the Q/Q0 values would not include any extraneous helium (Section 6.1). The Q/Q0 value of a zircon would not only depend on its age, but also on its size, the number of fractures and metamict areas, its original uranium and thorium concentrations, subsurface temperatures, and a number of other factors.

In their modeling efforts, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 7-9, their Figure 7) assume that helium diffusion in zircons is isotropic (that is, spherical) and could be represented by a single effective radius, a, which typically has units in microns or 10-6 meters. According to Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8), Magomedov (1970) defined the a of a zircon crystal as one-half of its length (Figure 3). Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 7), Humphreys (2005a, p. 44) and Humphreys et al. (2003a, his Appendix C) adopted this convention for their isotropic helium model. In contrast, Reiners et al. (2004, p. 1859) describe a as the “average half-width of the tetragonal prisms” [my emphasis] (Figure 3). The width of a tetragonal prism may be readily determined by sieving, whereas the lengths cannot (this is why you can push a long strand of uncooked spaghetti through a window screen, but not a piece of typing paper of the same length).

The variable b is the radius of the biotite supposedly surrounding each zircon. This variable is important in some of the dating equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a); however, as discussed in Sections 4.7 and 5.4.3, the measurements of b in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) are extremely uncertain and Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) makes the serious mistake of treating helium diffusion in biotite as isotropic. Like a, b typically has units in microns or 10-6 meters.

As seen in Section 7.1, there are serious flaws in Dr. Humphreys dating equations. Even if these dating equations were acceptable, as discussed in this section, there are serious questions about the accuracy of the Q, Q0, a, and b values utilized in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Humphreys (2005a) and his other documents. Most of the measurements in Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Humphreys et al. (2004) simply fail to meet any acceptable scientific standards despite Dr. Humphreys’ claims about his results were “peer-reviewed” (Section 10.0). The situation in Dr. Humphreys’ documents can be best summarized as garbage values into garbage dating equations yield garbage dates.

4.2 Mysterious Modifications of the Helium (Q) Measurements from Gentry et al. (1982a): More Questions than Answers

4.2.1 Questionable Q Results

Gentry et al. (1982a) contains helium (Q) measurements of zircons from their Fenton Hill samples 0-6. While Humphreys (2000) simply listed the helium measurements from Gentry et al. (1982a), Humphreys et al. (2004) in consultation with YEC R.V. Gentry concluded that the helium measurements in Gentry et al. (1982a) had “typographic errors” (my Table 3). Their undocumented “corrections” to the measurements in Gentry et al. (1982a) usually included lowering most of the Q values by 10 times (my Table 3). As discussed in the following sections, there are still many unanswered questions about how the “typographic errors” were discovered and how they were reliably corrected. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.4.5, the corrections of Q in Humphreys et al. (2004) and his later documents, inadvertently undermined one of the important arguments in Dr. Humphreys’ attempts to justify the removal of Gentry et al. (1982a) sample 6 from his YEC dating calculations.

4.2.2 Interesting Insights from CreationWiki #1 (2011) and Humphreys (2005b)

As others (e.g., Isaac, 2008b) and I have noted, Dr. Humphreys has yet to reveal adequate details on how the “typographic errors” in Gentry et al. (1982a) were discovered and reliably corrected, and how the associated Q/Q0 values could remain unaffected. An unknown writer(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) makes the following interesting statement about the discovery of the “typographic errors” in Gentry et al. (1982a):

“The errors were discovered when Humphreys was doing the retention calculations for RATES [sic, RATE’s] sample. He noticed an order of magnitude discrepancy in the absolute helium amounts. When he contacted Gentry, Gentry agreed that they probably were typographical errors.”

It is not known whether this statement is based on a rumor or first-hand knowledge from Dr. Humphreys and/or R. V. Gentry. If this account is true, R. V. Gentry agreed that his paper “probably” contained typographical errors after Dr. Humphreys obtained his results and noticed a discrepancy between his results and the data in Gentry et al. (1982a). Humphreys (2005b) also admitted that:

“Gentry’s original calculations are no longer available.”

So, contrary to the hopeful speculation in CreationWiki #3 (2009), the original source of the information was not checked by Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues. Because Dr. Humphreys and R. V. Gentry did not have R. V. Gentry’s original calculations or laboratory notes, how do they know after more than 20 years that typographic errors had been made in Gentry et al. (1982a)? Was R. V. Gentry simply admitting to the possibility of “typographic errors” to help his friend, Dr. Humphreys, and the RATE project? Also, why were the Q values affected by the “typographic errors”, but not the associated Q/Q0 values? How would that mathematically work?

Correcting errors in previous manuscripts is certainly honorable. However, authors should not agree to any “corrections” unless they can first review their original laboratory notes and confirm that copying, analytical or other errors were indeed made. In other words, scientists should not admit to making mistakes before seeing the evidence.

As discussed below, there are numerous incidences where Dr. Humphreys has unjustly manipulated (e.g. a graph in Magomedov, 1970; Section 5.1) or sloppily handled data (e.g., the units of measure in Appendix C of Humphreys et al., 2003a; Section 4.5). Therefore, documenting the validity of the changes to the helium values from Gentry et al. (1982a) is critical. Dr. Humphreys needs to fully explain this issue and dispel any possible thoughts that “typographic errors” were invoked so that the data in Gentry et al. (1982a) could be modified (like the data in Magomedov, 1970) to comply with Dr. Humphreys and his YEC agenda. Until Dr. Humphreys gives a full and detailed account of what actually happened, we simply have no reason to trust any of the data in Gentry et al. (1982a) or any revisions of that data. Nevertheless, as discussed below, even if the revisions of the Q values in Gentry et al. (1982a) are completely justified, the problems associated with Dr. Humphreys’ other values (Q0, Q/Q0, a and b) and his “dating” methods remain.

Finally, the lack of documentation from Dr. Humphreys to justify changes in the published data of Gentry et al. (1982a) would never be tolerated in authentic scientific journals. Any editor or peer-reviewer of a legitimate scientific journal would demand a thorough and complete explanation of why these changes are justified before any revisions would be allowed to appear in their journals. Competent editors and reviewers would also insist that if the original laboratory notes had been lost, then the results must be discarded and the analyses redone from scratch.

4.3 Questionable and Unexplained Origin of R.V. Gentry’s and Dr. Humphreys’ Q0

Once a mineral cools below its helium closure temperature and remains below that temperature, Q0 is the maximum amount of radiogenic helium (4He) that is expected to accumulate in the mineral from the radioactive decay of its uranium and thorium. A certain percentage of alpha particles (4He nuclei) will always escape from the host mineral during radioactive decay and this loss is considered when calculating the Q0 values. My Appendix B, Loechelt (2008c), and their references discuss how alpha particle loss may be estimated.

Using a series of questionable and vague assumptions, Gentry et al. (1982a) derived a single maximum helium retention (Q0) value for their 1-6 samples and used it to calculate the amount of retained helium (Q/Q0 values) for the six samples. Humphreys et al. (2004) took the high Q/Q0 values from Gentry et al. (1982a) (which are essential in supporting his YEC model) and “corrected” the “typographic errors” in the helium measurements (Q), which yield a Q0 of about 15 nano cubic centimeters at standard temperature and pressure per microgram of zircon (ncc STP/μg). Using the available information from Gentry et al. (1982a) and ignoring the possibility of extraneous helium, I was unable to derive a Q0 of 15 ncc STP/μg for the zircons. Instead, I found that the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) yield a Q0 of 41 ncc STP/μg (Appendix A). Loechelt (2008c, p. 5) also concluded that the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) would yield a Q0 of about 40 ncc STP/μg and not 15 ncc STP/μg.

Meanwhile, Humphreys (2005b) still won’t adequately explain how he and supposedly Gentry et al. (1982a) calculated a Q0 of only 15 ncc STP/µg (also see my Appendix A) and why chemical data in another article by R. V. Gentry, Gentry et al. (1982b), indicate that Q0 is typically much greater than 15 or even 41 ncc STP/µg (perhaps almost as high as 800 ncc STP/µg; see Table B8 in my Appendix B). Rather than admitting that the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) do not support a Q0 value of 15 ncc STP/μg or his high Q/Q0 values, Humphreys (2005b) attempts to salvage his high Q/Q0 values by claiming that there are additional “misstated” numbers in Gentry et al. (1982a) related to the alpha particle loss percentage:

“In his Appendix A Henke derives his value for Q0, 41 ncc/µg (1 ncc = 1 “nano-cc” = 10-9 cm3 at standard pressure and temperature, STP). He is in the right ball park, but he is probably using too small a value for the percentage of alpha particles (helium nuclei emitted by the nuclear decay) escaping the zircons. The percentage came from Gentry’s paper, but Gentry may have misstated what he meant by the number.”

Certainly, there are plenty of questionable assumptions and unreliable numbers in Gentry et al. (1982a). So, why is Dr. Humphreys still willing to trust the Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a) after he’s admitted in Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys et al. (2004) that almost every other datum in this paper is a “typographic error” or “misstated” number? When will the list of errors in Gentry et al. (1982a) end? Clearly, Dr. Humphreys invokes “typographical errors” and “misstatements” in Gentry et al. (1982a) as a convenient excuse to avoid explaining his math and justifying his measurements. As further discussed in Appendix A, the dodging and delays in Humphreys (2005b) and his willingness to selectively alter the values and assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) to protect his high Q/Q0 values and support his YEC agenda do not add any public confidence in his ability to perform science. Dr. Humphreys either needs to thoroughly justify the Q0 value of 15 ncc STP/μg under the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) or admit that the approach in Gentry et al. (1982a) is wrong, the Q/Q0 values given by Gentry et al. (1982a) are unreliable and should be discarded, and a better way must be found to estimate Q0 and Q/Q0 values.

Humphreys (2005b) claims that revising the Q0 value from 15 to 41 ncc STP/μg as shown in my Appendix A would “only” reduce his Q/Q0 values by “a factor of two or so.” The author(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) goes even further and inexplicably claims that increasing the Q0 value to 41 ncc STP/μg would increase Dr. Humphreys’ “date” for the Fenton Hill zircons by “only” two orders of magnitude or from “6,000” to “600,000 years.” However, again, data in Gentry et al. (1982b) indicate that the Q0 value in some cases could be almost as high as 800 ncc STP/µg (see Table B8 in my Appendix B). Rather than recognizing the likelihood of Q0 values far greater than 41 ncc STP/μg or that Dr. Humphreys’ and R. V. Gentry’s errors associated with Q0 are just one of many problems associated with Dr. Humphreys’ work and claims, the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) attempts to dismiss this two orders of magnitude “dating” problem by invoking an inexplicable “heating event.” Exactly, how would a heating event help the YEC argument that the zircons are only 6,000 and not at least 600,000 years old? CreationWiki #1 (2011) doesn’t say. Again, Dr. Humphreys and his allies fail to realize that the errors associated with their Q0 value and the numerous other questions and errors associated with Dr. Humphreys’ equations and parameters only accumulate and illustrate how frail and unreliable his “dating” methods really are.

By just arguing over whether Q0 is 15 ncc STP/μg, 41 ncc STP/μg or some value in between, Humphreys (2005b) actually misses an important point that goes way beyond Appendix A. Certainly, Appendix A demonstrates that there are serious errors in the calculations of Gentry et al. (1982a). However, even if Gentry et al. (1982a) and I had obtained the same Q0 value, I would still argue that their approach and assumptions were flawed from the very beginning and that their Q0 and Q/Q0 values should be discarded. Gentry et al. (1982a) admit that their samples 1-6 came from a variety of rock types, which means that the uranium concentrations in the zircons from these various igneous and metamorphic rocks are likely to be very different, and so would the Q0 and Q/Q0 values at the different depths within the Fenton Hill rock cores. Indeed, Gentry et al. (1982b) even show that the uranium and thorium concentrations of the Fenton Hill zircons are highly variable within single zircons (Table B1 in my Appendix B). Thus, each zircon would need its own Q0 value. There is simply no justification for applying one Q0 value to all of the diverse Fenton Hill samples.

Loechelt (2008c, p. 4) admits that it is not a good assumption to apply only one Q0 value to all of the lithologically diverse samples from the Fenton Hill core. However, given the limited options with the data from Gentry et al. (1982a), Loechelt (2008c, p. 5) decided that the best way to test the validity of Dr. Humphreys’ models was to derive a single Q0 value (not corrected for alpha ejection) of 74 ncc STP/μg from the uranium and thorium data of a zircon from Zartman (1979) (~ sample 3 in Gentry et al., 1982a). While the calculations in Gentry et al. (1982a) and my Appendix B assume a percent alpha particle loss for a given zircon size, Loechelt (2008c, p. 5) advocates a different method from Meesters and Dunai (2002b), where the correction for the loss of alpha particles is done during the diffusion simulations. Loechelt (2008c, p. 13) explains the advantages of the Meesters and Dunai (2002b) method:

“Since the alpha-ejection depletes the helium in the surface region of the crystal, it takes comparatively longer for the remaining helium to escape because it is concentrated toward the center of the crystal. Hence, when the standard correction for alpha-ejection is made for samples which have also experienced loss due to diffusion, significant errors can result.”

Loechelt (2008c, pp. 4-6) then derives his own set of Q/Q0 values for each one of Dr. Humphreys’ and R. V. Gentry’s samples. Table 4 lists Dr. Loechelt’s values and compares them with the values in Humphreys et al. (2004) and my Appendix B. Like Dr. Humphreys, Loechelt (2008c, p. 16) applies his Q/Q0 values to his own “young-Earth” and “old-Earth” models. However, unlike Dr. Humphreys, Dr. Loechelt’s results strongly favor the “old-Earth” model (my Figure 1). Nevertheless, as stated above, the differences in the lithologies of the Fenton Hill core and the diverse chemical data of the zircons in Gentry et al. (1982b) demonstrate that Humphreys et al. (2003a), Humphreys et al. (2004), Gentry et al. (1982a), Loechelt (2008c), or anyone else simply cannot justify assigning only one Q0 value (whether 15 ncc STP/μg, 41 ncc STP/μg or whatever) to all of the Fenton Hill samples (also see Whitefield, 2008). Statistically valid ranges of Q0 and Q/Q0 values are needed for each sample, which (unfortunately) are not currently available. Until reliable a, Q/Q0 values, and other data become widely available for the rocks of the Fenton Hill cores, no “old-Earth” or “young-Earth” modeling results are definitive. Yet, all of the available evidence indicates that the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) is on the right track. The biggest flaw, and probably the only major flaw, in the models of Loechelt (2008c) is that Dr. Humphreys and Gentry et al. (1982a) never provided the high quality a, b, Q, and Q0 values that are required for any helium diffusion model to optimally work. Meanwhile, Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model needs to be propped up with groundless claims of accelerated radioactive decay and cooling miracles.

Isaac (2008b) also questions the validity of the Q0 value used by R. V. Gentry and Dr. Humphreys from a different perspective:

“It is not at all clear that Gentry’s theoretical concentration of helium can correctly be interpreted as an initial concentration Qo of helium. If so, how did Gentry make that calculation? What were his assumptions? If Gentry’s calculation is based on an estimate of all possible helium generated by alpha-emitters in the 1.5 billion year age of the zircon, corrected for near-surface losses, then the RATE team’s assumption that at some time in the past the zircon contained a helium concentration of Qo cannot be supported. That amount of helium was never concentrated in the zircon at the same time. [new paragraph] The physical mechanism that Humphreys proposes to explain an initial value of Qo with a subsequent decrease in concentration is that accelerated nuclear decay during Noah’s flood caused a very large alpha generation rate which then dropped to its current value. Subsequent discussion by the RATE team shows that the justification for speculating that accelerated nuclear decay occurred is based largely on a young earth as determined by helium diffusion in zircons. This is circular reasoning at best.”

4.4 Two Wrongs (Q and Q0) Don’t Make a Right (Q/Q0)

Without large Q/Q0 values, Dr. Humphreys’ dating efforts fail.

Rather than properly explaining the mysterious changes in the helium concentrations (Q) taken from Gentry et al. (1982a) or how Gentry et al. (1982a) supposedly obtained a Q0 of only 15 ncc STP/µg, Humphreys (2005b) tries to argue that any errors in Q0 would somehow “cancel out” and maintain the high Q/Q0 values that he considers “crucial”:

“But after discussing the matter with him [R. V. Gentry], I’m inclined to think that even if he [R. V. Gentry] had an error in Q0, the error canceled out when he calculated the ratio Q/Q0, which is the crucial quantity in this analysis.”

So, why does Dr. Humphreys consider the high Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a) to be “crucial”? The answer is clear. Unless the Q/Q0 values are high, Dr. Humphreys’ dating equations will not obtain a creation date of 6,000 years old and his creation model fails (also see Loechelt, 2008c). Nevertheless, the above statement from Humphreys (2005b) is no more than a pitiful attempt to argue that two wrongs (Q and Q0) can somehow make a right (Q/Q0). Just as he avoided explaining and justifying the mysterious changes in the Q values of Gentry et al. (1982a) (Section 4.2), Humphreys (2005b) provides no details or mathematical calculations on how the errors associated with Q0 could just happen to magically cancel out with his “corrections” in Q and maintain the high Q/Q0 values that are crucial to his creation model. Instead of promptly showing his calculations to quickly settle these critical issues, Humphreys (2005b) simply delayed the inevitable by making an empty promise to provide the necessary details in another Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) article sometime in the “near future”:

“The paper I plan to submit to CRSQ will discuss this issue more fully.”

“However I did not spell out the details of that calculation, so I plan to do that in the paper I intend to submit to CRSQ soon.”

Of course, after all these years, we’re still waiting for Dr. Humphreys’ promised paper with its critical calculations and justifications of his Q0 and Q/Q0 values. Because Humphreys (2005b) had no problem performing the necessary calculations and correcting his mistake in Table C1 of Humphreys et al. (2003a) so that he could promptly counteract some criticisms in my original essay (Section 4.5), why shouldn’t he be able to readily explain why Q0 is only 15 ncc STP/μg? Why the delay? The evidence indicates that after Dr. Humphreys discovered the “typographic errors” that allowed him to “correct” the Q values in Gentry et al. (1982a) to make them consistent with his results and after realizing that any decrease in the Q/Q0 values would harm his creation model, Dr. Humphreys was forced to accept a single Q0 value of only 15 ncc STP/μg that he couldn’t mathematically explain without circular reasoning or justify with the diverse uranium and thorium concentrations in the Fenton Hill zircons (Gentry et al., 1982b).

To derive accurate Q0 and Q/Q0 values for their samples, Humphreys et al. somehow need to obtain statistically representative uranium, thorium, lead, helium analyses on numerous individual zircons from each of their core samples. Until these accurate values become available, the best available chemical data for these calculations are in Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979). The data in Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979) indicate that the Fenton Hill zircons typically contain a lot more uranium and thorium than what Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Humphreys et al. (2004) realized. The uranium and thorium concentrations also show that Humphreys et al.’s Q/Q0 values are far more uncertain than the ± 30% (one sigma) as claimed by Humphreys (2005a), Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Gentry et al. (1982a) (see my Appendix B and Table 4). Specifically, Gentry et al. (1982a) lists the Q/Q0 value of sample #1 as 0.58. That is, the zircons of sample #1 supposedly still contain 58% of their radiogenic 4He excluding alpha-ejection. In contrast, the chemical data from Gentry et al. (1982b) indicate that the Q/Q0 for sample #1 is lower, perhaps as low as 1.1% (see my Appendix B and Table 4) or about 12% according to Loechelt (2008c) using the Meesters and Dunai (2002b) method to correct for alpha-ejection. As discussed in Section 7.1, when my lower Q/Q0 values are entered into Dr. Humphreys’ “dating equations”, they often raise Humphreys et al.’s “helium diffusion dates” to well above 6,000 years and, in some cases, over one million years. In other cases, the revised Q/Q0 values actually lower the “ages” of the zircons to ridiculous values of only 200 years. Meanwhile, Humphreys (2005b) and his subsequent documents never comment on the results in my Appendix B and how they have even greater negative impacts on his YEC model than the values in my Appendix A.

Despite the fact that Loechelt (2008c) would have been available to them in their 2009 update, the author(s) of CreationWiki #3 (2009) never bothered to check the contents of Loechelt (2008c), the diagram from Loechelt (2008c) as shown in my Figure 1, and other statements in the pre-2009 literature criticizing the Q/Q0 values in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Humphreys (2005a), and Gentry et al. (1982a). Instead the author(s), flippantly states that criticism of the Humphreys-Gentry Q/Q0 values is “a baseless claim.” They also want to see evidence of Dr. Humphreys’ math errors. But, again, these errors were extensively discussed in Loechelt (2008c) and the 2005-2006 versions of this essay. There is no justification for believing any of the Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys’ documents.

4.5 Humphreys (2005b) Corrects an Erroneous Unit of Measure in Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a)

In my original essay, I obtained some ridiculous Q/Q0 values using the “nmol/g” values from Table C1 in Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a). Humphreys (2005b) admits that the units should be ncc (nano cubic centimeters) rather than nmol/g. After correcting his mistake, Humphreys (2005b) chides me for not being skeptical enough of his work. In this case, Dr. Humphreys is right. There is no reason to ever trust Dr. Humphreys to properly handle any data.

4.6 Missing and Questionable a Values

Dr. Humphreys’ “dating equations” require accurate and well-defined values of a, which are currently unavailable. Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys et al. (2004, Table 1, p. 3) even admit that for their first (2002) data set they still do not know the average size of their zircons; that is, the zircons were never sorted by size and the vital parameter a was not measured!

In their modeling efforts, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 7-9, their Figure 7) assume that helium diffusion in zircons is isotropic (that is, spherical) and could be represented by a single effective radius, a. Of course, zircon has a tetragonal (anisotropic) rather than an isotropic crystalline structure, which would cause anisotropy in the diffusion of helium through the mineral (Figure 3). That is, helium would tend to diffuse more readily in certain directions in the zircon structure than others. Nevertheless, Loechelt (2008c, p. 6) cites Meesters and Dunai (2002a) and states:

“A rigorous diffusion model would use a realistic 3-dimensional geometry. It has been demonstrated through direct computation, however, that a simpler spherical geometry is a reasonably good approximation provided the effective radius is chosen such that the surface-to-volume ratio of the sphere is the same as the geometry...” [Dr. Loechelt’s emphasis]

Yet, more recently Cherniak et al. (2009, p. 162) concluded:

“Because of the anisotropy of He diffusion in zircon, simple calculations assuming spherical geometry and isotropic diffusion cannot adequately describe helium’s diffusion behavior.”

This is why helium diffusion parallel to the c or long axis is often orders of magnitude different than diffusion perpendicular to the axis (Cherniak et al. 2009, p. 155; Guenthner et al. 2013; Figure 3).

So, if Meesters and Dunai (2002a) are still correct and if Dr. Humphreys was careful in choosing his a shortcut, he might have gotten away with an acceptable approximation. Yet, how careful was Dr. Humphreys in choosing a? Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 15) respond to the issue of zircon anisotropy by claiming that switching the diffusion geometry of their zircons from an isotropic sphere to an anisotropic cylinder would change their results by less than a factor of two. This claim could be true. However, as usual, Humphreys et al. (2004) provide no calculations to support this claim. Dr. Humphreys is just piling yet another questionable assumption on top of his already numerous questionable assumptions and shortcuts (also see Section 5.3). Furthermore, many scientists would use the more rigorous equations rather than tolerate uncertainties as high as a factor of two.

Rather than always carefully measuring critical factors, such as the lengths and widths of his zircons, Humphreys (2005b) admits that the average size of the zircons in his 750-meter (2002) sample is unknown. Humphreys (2005b) states:

“I reported that as “~80” in Table I of CRSQ 2004 [Humphreys et al. 2004]. (I used the “~” sign because as I reported in CRSQ 2004, p. 5, the average size of the zircons in the 750 meter [2002] sample is unknown, making detailed comparisons with the other samples inappropriate.) … [footnote number omitted].” [my emphasis]

The footnote in Table I of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 3) further admits:

“All zircons were of length 50–75 μm, except for those from sample 2002, which were not sorted into size groups.”

In other words, Humphreys et al. never bothered to measure the critical parameter a of their 2002 zircons! Instead, they simply assumed that a was 30 microns (Humphreys et al. 2003a, p. 16). Gentry et al. (1982a) also does not contain adequate information on the lengths and widths of their zircons. Yet, Humphreys (2000, Figure 6, p. 347) previously gave an expected a of 22 microns for the Fenton Hill zircons. Rather than actually measuring the zircons, why did Dr. Humphreys increase his assumed size of a from 22 to 30 microns for his 2002 data set in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 8, 16)?

Heimlich (1976) performed numerous measurements on zircons from various sections of the Fenton Hill cores. Based on the widths in Heimlich (1976), the average half-width (a as defined by Reiners et al., 2004) of the zircons is probably close to 20 microns (also see my Appendix B). Loechelt (2008c, p. 6) also argues that a for the Fenton Hill zircons should be closer to 20 rather than 30 microns. Estimating a at 30 microns, 20 microns or a similar value may seem trivial. However, as shown in Table 6 of Section 7.1, simply varying a between 20 and 30 microns significantly affects the results that are obtained with Dr. Humphreys’ dating equations. Varying a would also have allowed Dr. Humphreys to zero in on a date closer to his desired value of 6,000 years (also see Section 7.5). For example, Humphreys et al. (2004, Table III, p. 8) claims an average “creation date” of 5,680 years ≈ 6,000 years with a = 30 microns for Fenton Hill samples #2-5. With a = 22 microns as originally stated in Humphreys (2000, Figure 6, p. 347) and otherwise using the same questionable variables and dating equations, the average “creation date” for samples #2-5 is only 3,050 years.

Discussions in McDougall and Harrison (1999, pp. 147-148) also demonstrate that poorly defined a values can introduce huge errors in the argon diffusion coefficients of feldspars, which are silicate minerals. Specifically, Mussett (1969) showed that improper estimates of a can cause the argon diffusion coefficients (D values) to vary by over seven orders of magnitude at a given temperature (also see McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 147). So, even if isotropic diffusion is a reasonable assumption for Dr. Humphreys’ zircons, inaccurate a values for the Fenton Hill zircons could introduce unacceptable errors into “dating” equations 12-14 and 16 of Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 9-10). Like many other issues dealing with Dr. Humphreys’ helium in zircon studies, the author(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) also fails to recognize the inadequacy of Dr. Humphreys’ measurements of a and the seriousness of poorly defined and inaccurate values of a, Q0, and other parameters to Dr. Humphreys’ YEC equations and agenda.

4.7 Poorly Defined Average b Value

Some of Dr. Humphreys’ “dating equations” require accurate values of b that are not currently available.

Biotite is a mica, which is a well-layered silicate mineral that resembles a stack of playing cards (Figure 10). Because of the well-developed and prominent cleavage planes between the biotite layers, the layers can be readily peeled off with fingernails. The cleavage planes also make biotite very anisotropic. Thus, helium would tend to migrate through the planes rather than perpendicular or oblique to them.

Figure 10: Typical flakes of the mineral biotite. Biotites have strong cleavage planes that cause them to peel off into flakes. Helium would tend to preferentially diffuse down these planes. Photograph by Dexter Perkins, https://geodil.dperkins.org/h/5.html

Obviously, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) made a serious mistake when they assumed that biotite is isotropic in their models. The models in Humphreys et al. (2003a) are further harmed because Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) failed to indicate how many biotite grains were measured to obtain b (the radius of the biotite supposedly surrounding each zircon as shown in their Figure 7). The variable b must be known in order to obtain “helium diffusion dates” from equations 12-14 and 17 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 9-10). Dr. Humphreys’ documents only list one b value, which is an average of ~1000 microns for an unknown number of biotites from the 750-meter (2002) sample (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 8). In my original essay, I criticized Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) for failing to indicate how many grains were measured to obtain this average, providing no standard deviations for this value, and then erroneously applying this one average (like he did with his Q0 value) to other samples from the Fenton Hill samples. Because descriptions in Laughlin et al. (1983) indicate that samples 1-6 in Gentry et al. (1982a) and samples 2002 and 2003 from Humphreys et al. (2004) were from diverse metamorphic and igneous rocks (my Table 1), it’s likely that the sizes, and therefore the b values, of the biotites from these different rocks were highly variable.

Rather than providing suitable measurements and standard deviations for b, Humphreys (2005b) again throws out the same old lame excuses. He tries to belittle his mistakes by claiming that accurate b values really aren’t important because the biotites supposedly only have minor effects on his results. However, Dr. Humphreys fails to remember that his single b value played a key role in his efforts to remove sample 6 from his models and obtain his desired “helium diffusion date” of 6,000 years (Section 5.4.4).

Even if accurate b values were not very important to his “dating” efforts, Dr. Humphreys’ omission of valid averages and standard deviations for any of his data is not a trivial issue. His lack of suitable averages and standard deviations exposes serious shortcomings in his laboratory procedures. Only after proper measurements of a and b are done and the results entered into the proper dating equations, could Humphreys (2005b) ever claim that the b values were unimportant.

Finally, Humphreys (2005b) replies to my criticisms of his b measurements with the following absurd statement:

“However, Henke has the raw data we published, so he can compute the standard deviations for himself.”

I need to remind Dr. Humphreys that his papers only contain one b value, which is supposedly an average as listed at Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8). Contrary to the claims in Humphreys (2005b), the necessary raw data to calculate a standard deviation for b are not present in any of his documents. So, how can anyone obtain an unbiased (n-1) standard deviation from only one number?! Calculating the standard deviation would lead to division by zero! This is yet another example of Dr. Humphreys flippantly trying to dismiss criticism without really thinking about the ridiculous implications of his rash retorts. Also see Section 5.5.

4.8 Missing Data? With Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

In slide #14 of his YouTube presentation in Loechelt and Henke (2018), Dr. Loechelt accuses Dr. Humphreys of not publishing all of his zircon data. Dr. Loechelt quotes Humphreys (2005a, pp. 41-42):

“After that, in the summer and fall of 2002, we tried several times to get lower-temperature zircon data. However, we only discovered several wrong ways to make such measurements. First, we asked the experimenter to do new runs on the same batch of zircons, but at lower temperatures. The results were ambiguous, an effect we decided was due to exhaustion of He from the smaller zircons in the batch, thereby increasing the effective radius of the remaining part of the batch.” [my emphasis]

This statement is also in Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 5).

In his presentation, Dr. Loechelt also cites the following 2011 personal communication from an anonymous YEC that claims that a 2003 final report exists and that it was never published:

“I have begun a dialog with Humphreys and I did receive the lab report. The only way he would give it to me was if I promised not to give it to you or anyone else without his permission. I don't know why he's so tight with it ... he seems to have some funny ideas about sharing information with non-YECs. He was real suspicious of me at first ... quizzing me about my YEC ‘credentials’ and such.”

So, Dr. Loechelt accused Dr. Humphreys of having a lack of transparency and hiding data that would perhaps damage his YEC agenda.

Humphreys (2018a, pp. 54-55) was offended by these accusations from Dr. Loechelt. Dr. Humphreys identified them as ad hominem attacks (also see Section 11.0). Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) then quoted a June 30, 2003 email from his experimenter indicating that there was no 2003 final report and that the last set of zircons and biotites had results that were similar to earlier samples:

“Here are the two data sets in excel format, on zircon and biotite. They look more or less the same as we have already seen. The basic outline of what I did is the same as in the past with the excpection [sic, exception] that I weighed the samples to get total He concentration, so I did not bother with another summary report.” [emphasis in Humphreys 2018a, p. 55]

In reviewing this section, Dr. Loechelt further comments on this situation:

“Although this correspondence does support Dr. Humphreys’ claim that no formal lab report was made for the final RATE experiment, it actually raises more questions than it answers. For instance, why was a formal lab report not written? The answer in Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) is that the results “look more or less the same as we have already seen.” The same as what, we might ask? Prior to publication of the final RATE experiment in Humphreys et al. (2004), the only other RATE data that were published were in Humphreys et al. (2003a). Unlike the experiment in Humphreys et al. (2004), the experiment in Humphreys et al. (2003a, appendices) did have a lab report, which gave an estimate of 128°C for the closure temperature, based upon an activation energy of 34.5 kcal/mol (p. 16). The report noted that the closure temperature was “somewhat cooler than we have observed before in zircons though the database is not large” (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 17).

Indeed, the database was not large in 2003. By the following year, however, this situation had changed with the publication of the paper on zircon (U-Th)/He thermochronometry by Reiners et al. (2004). In this seminal work, the best estimate for the closure temperature was given as 183°C with a corresponding activation energy of 40.4 kcal/mol. Dr. Humphreys never calculated the activation energy for the high-temperature diffusion data in Humphreys et al. (2004). Subsequently, Loechelt (2020a, his table 1, p. 42) calculated a value of 38.1 kcal/mol, which comes much closer to the 40.4 kcal/mol in Reiners et al. (2004) than the 34.5 kcal/mol reported in the initial RATE experiment of Humphreys et al. (2003a) (also see Table 7 in Section 7.3). The closure temperature reported in Humphreys et al. (2003a) is indeed low, but now that the database is much larger, we know that it is not typical of most recent experiments.

The correspondence in Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) now begs an interesting question – what is meant by the statement that the results “look more or less the same as we have already seen”? The closure temperature and activation energy certainly are not the same as the results in Humphrey et al. (2003a), which as we have already seen are atypically low. Are the results from Humphreys et al. (2004) being compared to Reiners et al. (2004)? Are they being compared to unpublished RATE data? This statement stands out as being strikingly peculiar since the reference data in question is not apparent.

This bring us to the second point. Consider again the statement that the results “look more or less the same as we have already seen.” Remember that Dr. Farley was deceived into performing this experiment, thinking that he was working for a mining company instead of a young-Earth creationists research group (see Section 9.5). Never-the-less, Dr. Humphreys achieved his goal of having a true blind experiment. Consider now the unbiased assessment of Dr. Farley in Humphreys (2018a, p. 55). There was nothing special, unusual, or remarkable about the RATE diffusion experiment, so much so that it was not even worth his time to write a lab report. How then does Dr. Humphreys find evidence to support the radical notion that nuclear decay rates were accelerated in the past when his own researcher finds nothing remarkable in the data at all? As demonstrated in Loechelt (2020a), there is indeed nothing unusual about the high-temperature RATE diffusion data when compared to the literature. The one exception is the four low-temperature diffusion data points, which are all-important to the accelerated nuclear decay argument, but are not even worth mentioning, much less explaining, by Dr. Farley.”

When asked about unpublished data, Dr. Humphreys, in an email to Steven McRae on May 24, 2018 that Mr. McRae publicly released, further denied that there was any unpublished data by stating the following (Loechelt 2020a, p. 48):

“Sorry that I’ve given this such a low priority, I’m reluctant to spend several hours watching the Hanke [sic, Henke]/Loechelt videos, because I have a strong feeling that they have said nothing new or worthwhile. For example, I think I’ve published (in the Rate II book, [Humphreys 2005a]) all the diffusion data that Dr. Loechelt is asking for, along with all the relevant parts of the lab reports we received. See particularly the appendices to my chapter in the book. Thus it seems to me that Dr. Loechelt is grasping at non-existent straws, which implies to me that he’s got nothing substantial. That in turn un-motivates me for spending more time on him.”

However, Loechelt (2020a, pp. 47-48) was not satisfied with these explanations and there’s also the question of why Dr. Humphreys or his experimenter never reported a closure temperature for Dr. Humphreys’ 2003 data (see the question in Section 4.8 of Appendix C). The above quotation from Dr. Humphreys to Steven McRae indicates that there are no unpublished data, but based on statements in Humphreys (2005a, pp. 41-42), Dr. Loechelt thinks that there are. Certainly, any results from zircons that were severely pitted or corroded during cleaning may not be published because the data would not be representative (e.g., Humphreys 2005a, p. 42). But, what about the zircons that gave the “ambiguous” results mentioned in the above quotation from Humphreys (2005a, pp. 41-42)? How large were these zircons and why weren’t their results published? Again, why was no closure temperature reported for Dr. Humphreys’ zircons from 2003 that were published in Humphreys et al. (2004)? Loechelt (2020a, p. 48) wonders if the unpublished data indicate that the RATE results were unreproducible. Sometimes, it’s best to publish the data, give an explanation for any ambiguous results, and see if the readers agree. That way, there’s no basis for charges of a coverup.

5.0 Data Manipulation and Bad Math

5.1 Manipulation of the Magomedov (1970) Data in Humphreys et al. (2003a)

5.1.1 Introduction

Without his log base-10 manipulation of Magomedov’s graph, Dr. Humphreys and his allies admit that Dr. Humphreys’ methodology provides ridiculous “creation” dates of only a few decades to centuries for Magomedov’s zircons.

Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) and Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 2) cite Magomedov (1970), a Soviet article, which contains some early data on helium diffusion in zircons. Only a brief abstract of Magomedov (1970) is readily available in English:

“Heating experiments at 1000 and 1150°C and up to 48 hours on zircon suggest loss of surface lead and helium is considerable during the first few hours. Estimates of activation energy of bulk diffusion are 58 kcal/mole for Pb in zircon, and only 15 kcal/mole for He.”

Dr. Humphreys, however, has an English translation of the entire Russian article, as he notes in his reference of Magomedov (1970) (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 14).

Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) describe a graph in Magomedov (1970, his Figure 3) and reproduce it in their Figure 5 (p. 6) (my Figure 11). The y-axis of the graph in Magomedov (1970) has the English units of “ln(D,σ),” where “ln” refers to natural log, D represents the diffusion coefficient and σ refers to electrical conductivity, which may influence diffusion in some crystals as cited in Girifalco (1964, p. 92-102), a reference used by Humphreys et al. (2003a). Based on helium diffusion results of zircons from the Fish Canyon Tuff, Colorado (which Humphreys et al. 2003a mislabel as being in Nevada!) (Reiners et al., 2002), Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) conclude that the units on Magomedov’s graph must be “incorrect” and that the actual units should be log base 10 D (log10 D). Based on this faulty assumption, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) manipulate the Magomedov (1970) data from natural log (ln) to log base 10 to comply with their data and the data in Reiners et al. (2002) (see my Figure 11). As further discussed below, Dr. Humphreys’ unjustified manipulation of the data in Magomedov (1970) exposes his inability to properly handle the literature, even with an English translation.

5.1.2 Equations in Magomedov (1970) Definitely Indicate the Use of Natural Logs

The equations in Magomedov (1970) clearly refute Dr. Humphreys’ log10 D interpretation of the Magomedov data. Equation 4 in Magomedov (1970) is the well-known, e-based Arrhenius equation, which was introduced in Section 2.3 and is shown here again as equation 1:

Magomedov (1970) even admits that he used his e-based Equation 4 to construct his Figure 3, which is the graph that Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) incorrectly claim has units of log10 D rather than ln D. Magomedov (1970) states:

“Используя формулу (4) можно определить значения E и D0, строя график зависимости ln D 1/T. На рис. 3 нанесены значения ln D в зависимости от обратной температуры для свинца и гелия. По углу наклона кривых рассчитаны соответствующие значения E.”

English Translation: “Using Equation (4), it is possible to determine the values of E and D0 by constructing a graph of the relationship ln D vs. 1/T. In Figure 3, ln D is plotted as a function of reciprocal temperature for lead and helium. The slope of the curves calculates the corresponding values of E.”

Magomedov’s Equation 4 is exactly the same as Equation 2 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 5). So, Dr. Humphreys should know that this equation is e-based and not base 10. (To use log10 D in Equation 4 of Magomedov, 1970, a conversion factor of 2.303 would have to be added to the equation, which yields: log D = log D0 – ((E/2.303R)(1/T)), see McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 144.)

From his Equation 4, Magomedov (1970) derives the following natural log (ln) equation (his Equation 5):

Figure 11: Arrhenius plot of helium diffusion in zircons from the Soviet Union (triangles; Magomedov, 1970), Fish Canyon Tuff, actually Colorado and not Nevada as labeled in Humphreys et al. (2003a) (black circles; Reiners et al., 2002) and the Fenton Hill core (black diamonds; Humphreys et al., 2003a) (based on Figure 5 of Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 6). Magomedov (1970) reported that the activation energy of his zircons was 15 kcal/mole, which is consistent with the slope of the intrinsic portion of the ln D curve (filled triangles with red line). When Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) improperly changed the diffusion units of the Magomedov data from natural log (ln) to log base 10 (log) (gray squares) to correspond with their and the Reiners et al. results, the activation energy of the intrinsic curve became approximately 40 kcal/mole, which contradicts the results in Magomedov (1970).

The steps for deriving Magomedov’s Equation 5 from his Equation 4 would be as follows:

5.1.3 Lead Data in Magomedov (1970) Further Confirm the Use of Natural Logs

Magomedov (1970) only shows a graph of his helium diffusion data and does not list any numerical results in a table. However, he does list his lead diffusion results in his Table 1, which conclusively demonstrate that Magomedov (1970) was using natural logs in his equations and graphs, and not log10 D as Dr. Humphreys desires. Specifically, Table 1 in Magomedov (1970) lists the diffusion of lead in zircon as D/a2 = 1.2 x 10-8 1/sec at 1000oC and D/a2 = 1.32 x 10-7 1/sec at 1150oC, or with a = 75 microns, D = 2.1 x 10-4 cm2/sec at 1000oC and 2.3 x 10-3 cm2/sec at 1150oC. If these data are entered into Magomedov’s natural log-based Equation 5, the activation energy for lead (E) is 58 kcal/mol, which is the exact value that is listed in the English abstract of Magomedov (1970). (Also, see my Table 5 and the English abstract above). If “ln” means log10 in Magomedov (1970), as Dr. Humphreys claims, Equation 5 would yield an incorrect value of E = 25 kcal/mol for lead (my Table 5). Also, there is also no reason to believe that Magomedov (1970) would inconsistently use “ln” to represent natural log in Equation 5, but have “ln” represent log10 on the y-axis of his Figure 3.

The use of ln as a natural log rather than log base 10 is also verified by further comparing the lead data at 1000 and 1150oC in Magomedov’s Table 1 with the ln graph in his Figure 2b. Natural log values from the results in his Table 1 correspond well with the points in the graph of Figure 2b in Magomedov (1970), but log base 10 values are far too small.

As an additional confirmation that Magomedov (1970) was using natural logs, when the temperature and diffusion coefficients from Magomedov’s Table 2 are entered into Magomedov’s Equation 5, the resulting activation energy (E) is 23.5 kcal/mole, which is very close to the value of 23.4 kcal/mol in his Table 2. The use of log base 10 diffusivity values with the data in Table 2 of Magomedov (1970) would yield an activation energy of only 10.2 kcal/mole.

Clearly, the data within Magomedov (1970) overwhelmingly indicates that he was using natural logs. Dr. Humphreys has absolutely no justification for arguing for a log base 10 interpretation of the Magomedov data and fudging Magomedov’s helium diffusion data to support his YEC agenda.

The high helium diffusion coefficients in the Magomedov (1970) are not surprising considering that Magomedov’s zircons were very metamict (damaged by a lot of radioactive decay). There is also an 11 order of magnitude difference (wow!) between the lead diffusion coefficients in the zircons of Magomedov (1970) and a gem-quality Sri Lankan zircon described in Lee et al. (1997). Considering how the physical and chemical properties of zircons may significantly vary from one specimen to another, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) simply has no justification for “correcting” the Magomedov (1970) data to comply with their helium diffusion results and the results in Reiners et al. (2002) (my Figure 11). While Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) boast that their log10 D interpretation of the Magomedov (1970) data is five orders of magnitude too high for their “uniformitarian model,” they forget to mention that before they “corrected” the Magomedov (1970) data, the Magomedov (1970) data were at least five orders of magnitude higher than their zircon results and the Fish Canyon Tuff data from Reiners et al. (2002) (my Figure 11).

5.1.4 Distorted Magomedov Graph at CreationWiki #1 (2011)

Even statements in Humphreys (2000) contradict the desperate efforts of the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) to conjure up a line with a 15 kcal/mol slope and salvage Dr. Humphreys’ manipulation.

In the process of fudging the units on the y-axis of Figure 3 in Magomedov (1970) from natural log to log base 10, Humphreys et al. (2003a) failed to realize that the slope of the intrinsic curve automatically changed (my Figure 11). Because the slope of the intrinsic curve determines the activation energy of the sample, the activation energy of the base 10 log intrinsic curve no longer complies with Magomedov’s value of 15 kcal/mole (see the above English abstract). Like the 29-44 kcal/mole results in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 7) and Reiners et al. (2002, p. 301), the activation energy of the base 10 log curve is now roughly around 40 kcal/mole (my Figure 11).

The author(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) are so desperate to salvage Humphreys’ log base-10 interpretation of the Magomedov (1970) graph, that like Dr. Humphreys, the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) completely ignores the equations, figures and tables of supporting data in Magomedov (1970) that conclusively indicate the use of natural logs. The author(s) attempts to defend Dr. Humphreys’ log base 10 interpretation of the Magomedov (1970) data by showing that an “activation energy” (E) of 15.53 kcal/mol could be derived by passing a line through two points from the combined Magomedov (1970) intrinsic and defect data in a log base 10 format (see my Figure 12). Although the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) claimed to have drawn a “best fit line” through the Magomedov (1970) data, it is difficult to believe that Magomedov (1970) would derive his activation energy for helium by passing a single line through only two points selected from his obviously diverse intrinsic and defect curves. Not even Dr. Humphreys supports the CreationWiki #1 (2011) approach for determining the activation energy of this sample (see Figure 6 in Humphreys, 2000, p. 347, where Dr. Humphreys clearly associates the 15 kcal/mol with only Magomedov’s intrinsic curve). In Section 5.2, Loechelt (2020a, p. 47) further explains why intrinsic and defect curves are treated separately on Arrhenius graphs (also see discussions in Section 2.3).

In reality, a statistically valid least squares (best) linear fit through all of the Magomedov (1970) helium data in a log base 10 format yields an activation energy (E) of about 20 kcal/mol, which is inconsistent with the 15 kcal/mol result from Magomedov (1970) (my Figure 12). In contrast, the slope of the intrinsic curve of the natural log distribution of the Magomedov (1970) data provides a better activation energy of 16-17 kcal/mol. Considering that numerical values of Magomedov’s D and temperature results are not listed and must be estimated from his Figure 3, an activation energy of 16-17 kcal/mol for helium is reasonably close to Magomedov’s value of 15 kcal/mol.

Figure 12: In an unsuccessful attempt to defend Dr. Humphreys’ manipulation of the Magomedov (1970) data and to obtain the desired activation energy of 15 kcal/mol listed in the text of Magomedov (1970), the author(s) of CreationWiki #1 (2011) contradicts the approach in Figure 6 of Humphreys (2000, p. 347), disregards the equations and data in Magomedov (1970), and “fits” a linear curve using only two of the seven Magomedov (1970) data points in a log base 10 format. Although the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) claims that his/her/their line is a “best fit”, a statistical least squares best linear fit for all of Magomedov’s data in a log base 10 format yields an unacceptable activation energy of 20 kcal/mol and not 15 kcal/mol.

5.1.5 Dr. Humphreys’ Fudging of the Magomedov (1970) Data is Inexcusable and his Actions Show that He cannot be Trusted with Data

Humphreys (2005b) accuses me of lying when I stated in my original essay that Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) fudged the Soviet helium diffusion data from Magomedov (1970). But, how else can we describe the actions of Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6)? Without any legitimate justification and in contradiction to the very equations, figures and tables of data in Magomedov (1970) and even his own e-based Arrhenius equation 2 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 5), Humphreys et al. (2003a) changed the units of measure on the y-axis of the Magomedov (1970) graph from natural logs to base 10 logs just so that the Soviet data lined up with their results and the results in Reiners et al. (2002) (my Figure 2; Figures 5 and 6a on pp. 6-7 in Humphreys et al., 2003a). Because Humphreys et al., (2003a, p. 14) admit in their reference that Dr. Humphreys had an English translation of Magomedov (1970) and Equations 4 and 5 in the original Russian manuscript of Magomedov (1970) are in an English format, Dr. Humphreys has no excuse for either ignoring or incompetently misinterpreting the equations and data in Magomedov (1970).

Dr. Humphreys’ willingness to alter results from the literature to suit his religious agenda is not a “ridiculous quibble” as he claims in Humphreys (2005b), but a serious act of ethical misconduct that illustrates how fast and loose he is with data. Contrary to Humphreys (2005b), there is NOTHING reasonable about him altering data to line up with his YEC expectations and “everybody else’s zircon data.” Since when does any scientist manipulate a data set to “line up with everybody else’s zircon data”? What happens if everybody else’s “view” of helium diffusion doesn’t apply to these highly metamict Soviet zircons? Even Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) admit that minerals from different locations should not have the same properties:

“Measurements of noble gas diffusion in a given type of naturally occurring mineral often show significant differences from site to site, caused by variations in composition.”

So, when individuals (like Dr. Humphreys) ignore their own previous warnings, unquestionably manipulate a data set from the literature to comply with the results that they want, and then boast that their results are “consistent” with the manipulation (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 10), THAT IS FUDGING. Dr. Humphreys’ misuse of the Magomedov data shows that he is willing to do just about anything if an opportunity arises to manipulate a data set to promote his anti-science agenda. One can only wonder if Dr. Humphreys used the same type of manipulation to convince R.V. Gentry to admit to “typographic errors” in his Q values so that R. V. Gentry’s values could also be “corrected” to comply with Dr. Humphreys’ results (Section 4.2). Also see Section 11.1.1 for further discussions.

The willingness of the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) to ignore the critical details in Magomedov (1970) and to desperately defend Dr. Humphreys’ manipulation at any cost also shows great carelessness and ethical misbehavior. It is far better for individuals to have opponents that provide useful and constructive criticisms, than groupies that are willing to go to any ridiculous extreme to cover up their mistakes.

5.1.6 The Serious and Inconvenient Consequences of the ln D Magomedov (1970) Data to Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating Equations”

The high helium diffusion rates in the Soviet zircons based on natural logs have dire consequences for Dr. Humphreys’ “dating” equations. Instead of discussing the Magomedov data in greater detail and adequately defending his manipulation, Humphreys (2005b) accuses me of just wanting to reject the Magomedov data because I find them “inconvenient.” In reality, it was Humphreys et al. (2003a) that found the extremely high helium diffusion results from Magomedov (1970) to be so inconvenient that they manipulated the units of measure and ignored the obvious natural log-based equations and data in Magomedov (1970) to protect their “creation date” of 6,000 years.

Although there is no justification for mixing analytical results from the Fenton Hill #1 zircons with entirely different Soviet zircons from a different continent, Humphreys (2000, p. 347) admitted that when he combined a = 22 microns and a Q/Q0 value of 0.58 from Fenton Hill sample #1 to the natural log helium diffusivity values from the Soviet zircons of Magomedov (1970), he got a ridiculous “creation date” of 23 years. Without providing any calculations to back up his opinion, YEC Armitage (2004, p. 19) is willing to push the creation date of the Soviet zircons back to a few centuries. Besides questioning the results in Magomedov (1970) and any other literature that they use, perhaps Dr. Humphreys and his followers should have also questioned his dating equations when they indicate that these Soviet zircons from the Ural Mountains somehow formed between the reigns of Ivan the Terrible and Joseph Stalin.

5.1.7 Dr. Humphreys Admits that the Magomedov (1970) Data are “Ambiguous.” So, Why Didn’t He Discard Them?

Although the natural log Magomedov data support my arguments by exposing the ridiculous nature of Humphreys et al.’s “dating” scheme, I still advocate discarding the Magomedov data because they were probably produced with antiquated equipment and the helium data were not clearly listed as numbers in a table. While Dr. Humphreys is willing to manipulate ambiguous data produced with old Soviet technology, scientists would want state-of-the-art results (for example, the results from Wolfe and Stockli 2010 in Section 7.3). Dr. Humphreys also admits in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) and Humphreys (2002; 2005b) that the Soviet data are ambiguous. So, if Dr. Humphreys recognized that these data are ambiguous, why didn’t he simply discard them rather than manipulate them to support his agenda?

5.1.8 The Results of Dr. Humphreys’ Fudging Spreads into the Scientific Literature

The deceptive effects of Dr. Humphreys’ manipulation of the Magomedov (1970) data have already gotten a foothold in the mainstream science literature via a 2004 article by YEC Mark Armitage. Armitage (2004, p. 19) claims that the Reiners et al. (2002) data “lined up well” with the results from Magomedov (1970). Of course, the Magomedov and Reiners et al. results ONLY “lined up well” after Magomedov’s data had been fudged as shown in Figure 5 of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) (also see my Figure 11). While scientists generally know better than to quote literature from YEC organizations, Armitage (2004) is in a legitimate analytical chemistry journal.

5.2 Dr. Humphreys Hits Another Log Jam

Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 34) wanted to determine the overall helium diffusivity of the Fenton Hill zircons at a given temperature involving results from both his high- (intrinsic) and low- (defect) temperature curves (my Figure 5). To achieve this goal, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 5) presented the following equation:

Where:

D = supposed total helium diffusivity for the zircons

D0 and E0 are the diffusion prefactor and activation energy, respectively, using the high-temperature or intrinsic curve.

D1 and E1 are the diffusion prefactor and activation energy, respectively, using the low-temperature, actually a defect, curve.

R = the universal gas constant in kcal/K•mol or J/K•mol.

T = temperature in Kelvin

It should be stated that Humphreys (2005a, p. 34) accidently omitted a negative sign from this equation, but that the sign is correct in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 5) and Humphreys (2018a, p. 52).

Loechelt (2020a, p. 47) argues that diffusivity values associated with the defect and intrinsic curves should not be added because the values along these different curves typically result from different processes or mechanisms. Loechelt (2020a, p. 47) uses this car analogy to clarify his argument:

“The problem with this naïve equation [2] is that one typically cannot add diffusivities from two separate mechanisms any more than one can add velocities from cars traveling on two parallel highways. The diffusing species will be in either one state or the other, just as a traveling car will be on either one highway or the other, not both at the same time. This insight is the motivation behind multidomain diffusion models. … [reference number omitted] In multidomain diffusion models, the diffusing species is partitioned into separate domains. Each domain has a separate diffusion model with a unique concentration, diffusivity, and particle flux. After modeling the diffusion in each domain, the results are combined. In multidomain models, concentrations and particle fluxes can be added, but diffusivities, in general, cannot.”

In response to similar criticism from Dr. Loechelt on Steve McRae’s YouTube channel (Loechelt and Henke 2018), Humphreys (2018a, pp. 52-53) presented his derivation of equation 2 in more detail. He starts with the following Arrhenius equation, where D∞ is the overall diffusivity of a sample at infinite temperature and Q represents the system’s overall activation energy:

Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) then states that the total activation energy of the zircons is the sum of the activation energies from both the intrinsic curve (E0) and the defect curve (E1) as shown in this equation:

Eq. 4) Q = E0 + E1

Next, Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) tries to claim that the overall helium diffusivity of the zircons at infinite temperature (D∞) is the product of the diffusion frequency factors of the Arrhenius equations for the intrinsic and defect curves:

Eq. 5) D∞ = D0D1

A physicist and gas diffusion expert, who desires to remain anonymous, sent me an email after reviewing Humphreys (2018a). Among the many problems in Humphreys (2018a), the expert identified a serious error with equation 5 or equation D in Humphreys (2018a, p. 52). Diffusivity, whether D∞, D0, or D1, would have units of m2/sec in the metric international system (SI). Yet, in equation 5, the units of measure for D∞ become an inconsistent (m2/sec)2. Just arbitrarily inserting a square root on the right side of equation 5 would eliminate the problem with the units, but that does not mean that equation 5 with a square-root is accurate or that the other problems associated with equation 2 are solved.

Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) then inserts equations 4 and 5 into equation 3 and takes the natural log of both sides to obtain equation 6, which is supposedly the natural log of equation 2:

Besides all of the problems associated with equation 2 and its derivation, Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) made another serious math error in deriving equation 6. The error can best be seen by simplifying the equations in the derivation of equation 2. Equation 2 or equation A in Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) may be converted into the following equation:

Eq. 7) D = A + B

Where:

Equation 6 or equation E in Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) then claims:

Eq. 8) ln(D) = ln(A) + ln(B)

Putting equations 7 and 8 together, one gets the following from the claims in Humphreys (2018a, p. 52), which is a simplified form of equation 6:

Eq. 9) ln(A + B) = ln(A) + ln(B)

Yet, as shown in high school algebra textbooks (e.g., Larson et al. 2004, p. 493), the relationship in equation 9 is false. As Loechelt (2020a, p. 47) states, this equation plots one straight line and not separate intrinsic and defect lines with different slopes as in Figure 5. The correct relationship is:

Eq. 10) ln(A x B) = ln(A) + ln(B)

That is, the A and B must be multiplied and not added before taking a natural log on the left side of equation 10. In other words, the variable D on the left sides of equations 2 and 7 is not the same variable D on the left side of equation 6. Dr. Humphreys botched the proof. His final equation 6 is not equal to the original equation 2 that he claimed to have derived. They are not even the same equation. The situation may also be seen with the following specific example:

ln 100 = 4.605

ln 1,000 = 6.908

According to equation 10:

ln (100 x 1,000) = ln 100 + ln 1,000 = 4.605 + 6.908 = 11.513

ln (100 x 1,000) = ln (100,000) = 11.513

11.513 = 11.513, equation 10 works!

The situation according to Dr. Humphreys in equation 9:

ln (100 + 1,000) = ln 100 + 1n 1,000 = 4.605 + 6.908 = 11.513 (??)

ln (100 + 1,000) = ln (1,100) = 7.003

7.003 ≠ 11.513, Dr. Humphreys’ approach does not work!

Loechelt (2020a, p. 47) concludes that Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) not only failed to provide a rigorous derivation of equation 2, but he also made serious algebra errors when deriving equation 6. Humphreys (2018a, pp. 52-53) also argues that this issue really is not important because he didn’t use equation 2 in other sections of his papers. This is a dodge that Dr. Humphreys frequently uses. Obviously, when he originally made statements about equation 2, the parameter b (Section 4.7) or samples 5 and 6 (Section 5.4), he thought that these issues were important and needed to be discussed in his papers. However, once his errors and inconsistencies on these topics are exposed, all of the sudden the topics are no longer important. Even if the topics are not that important, Dr. Humphreys’ elementary mistakes give important insights on the limits of his abilities when dealing with math and helium diffusion in zircons. This is the key point. Why would anyone trust Dr. Humphreys’ conceptual understanding of solid-state diffusion if he makes so many fundamental mathematical errors?

5.3 A Factor Here and a Factor There Result in High Uncertainties for Dr. Humphreys’ Agenda

When confronted with the large uncertainties in his modeling assumptions, data and other claims, Dr. Humphreys frequently attempts to trivialize them as being “inconsequential” without showing any calculations to back up his dismissive assertions. For example, Humphreys (2005b) claims that revising his Q0 value from 15 ncc STP/μg to a more realistic value of 41 ncc STP/μg as shown in my Appendix A would supposedly only reduce his Q/Q0 values by “a factor of two or so.” The author(s) at CreationWiki #1 (2011) further claims that increasing the Q0 value to 41 ncc STP/μg would increase Dr. Humphreys’ “date” for the Fenton Hill zircons by “only” two orders of magnitude; that is, from “6,000” to “600,000 years”! Like Dr. Humphreys, the authors at CreationWiki #1 (2011) provide no calculations to back up their assertions.

In a different situation, Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 15) admits that switching the diffusion geometry of his zircons from an isotropic sphere to a more realistic anisotropic cylinder would change his results by “less than a factor of two.” When asked by Roger Wiens about whether the accumulation of radiation defects in the zircons would significantly affect his helium diffusion results for the creation model, Humphreys (2008b) sounds like a broken record. He again attempts to trivialize the issue and emphasizes the “100,000 discrepancy” between the diffusion data and the “uniformitarian model.” Humphreys (2008b) claims:

“Effect turns out to be only a factor of two, within our error bars, and again vastly smaller than the factor of 100,000 discrepancy observed.”

When discussing the effects of one kilobar of pressure in the subsurface of Fenton Hill on the helium diffusivity in his zircons, Humphreys (2006a) again arm waves and provides no calculations to support his claims. Instead, he tries to trivialize the problem by stating:

“For a change of only 1 kilobar pressure, the change in diffusivity would probably be about one order of magnitude. This is far less than Henke’s desired six orders of magnitude.”

When confronted with the more realistic results from the models in Loechelt (2008c) and their devastating consequences to Dr. Humphreys’ YEC agenda, incredibly Humphreys (2008b) again arm-waves and once more invokes his old unsubstantiated excuse:

“Loechelt also whacks away at some of my calculations. If he were correct, my calculations might have to be adjusted by a factor of two or so. But that would still be within the error bars of the models.”

After invoking all of these “factors of two” in numerous situations or otherwise trying to trivialize his discrepancies, what makes Dr. Humphreys think that he’s still within the error bars of his models? Where are Dr. Humphreys’ calculations to support his claims that all of these “factors of two”, etc. adjustments are actually trivial and all together add up to nothing? The problem is that an order of magnitude or a factor of two change here and there can quickly negate his claims for a 6,000 year old Earth, especially if each of these changes are actually much greater than “a factor of two” or “an order of magnitude.” Now, if Dr. Humphreys or his allies retort that the changes could be far less than a factor of two or less than an order of magnitude, they still need to show the calculations to demonstrate these claims and that their critics are wrong.

Based on his statements on the errors supposedly canceling out in the calculation of R. V. Gentry’s Q/Q0 values (Section 4.4), Dr. Humphreys probably hopes that all of these errors would somehow miraculously cancel out and preserve his bogus creation date of 6,000 years. Again, Dr. Humphreys never produces any calculations to support his tedious and flippant excuses, and the evidence presented in this essay and its references does not support his sloppy arm-waving attempts to belittle the numerous problems with his work. Certainly, any real scientists would perform the calculations (such as what was done in Loechelt, 2008c) rather than just waving their arms and hoping that all of these “factor of two or so” discrepancies would magically cancel out and disappear. Except for his cheerleaders, people will easily see through all of Dr. Humphreys’ empty arm-waving tactics and they are not going to accept it.

5.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Inconsistent Treatment of Samples 5 and 6 to Support his “Creation Model”

5.4.1 Data Points are Not to be Rejected Just to Protect Bad Models

In his efforts to develop and promote his creation model, Dr. Humphreys must explain the helium distributions in the Fenton Hill core samples and also demonstrate that helium diffusion in the zircons under actual subsurface conditions is only consistent with a 6,000 year-old time span. While reviewing their data, Humphreys et al. readily noticed that their Q and Q/Q0 values for samples 1-5 consistently decrease with depth and increasing subsurface temperatures (my Table 3). Humphreys et al. (2003a, Table 1, p. 3) recognized that while the helium concentration (~0.2 ncc STP/μg later changed to ~0.02 ncc STP/μg in Humphreys et al. 2004) in sample 5 agrees with the temperature and helium concentration trend in samples 1-4, an identical helium measurement from sample 6 is too high to fit their model (also see my Table 3). To validate their creation model, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) must demonstrate that the Q and Q/Q0 values for sample 5 are trustworthy and should be included in their models. At the same time, Humphreys et al. must think of some excuse to treat the identical result from sample 6 as a “special case” (Humphreys et al., 2003a, pp. 3-4) and somehow eliminate it from their modeling efforts.

5.4.2 Questionable Validity of Both Samples 5 and 6

According to Laughlin et al. (1983), sample 5 came from a biotite granodiorite, whereas a gneiss and a biotite granodiorite are located at the depth that provided sample 6 (my Table 1). Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) admit that the low concentrations of helium in the zircons of these samples may not be in-situ radiogenic 4He:

“In fact, at present we are not certain whether the minute amounts of He recorded from the deepest zircons (3930 and 4310 m [i.e., samples 5 and 6]) are actually residual He in the zircons or derived from some other source.” [my emphasis]

“Derived from some other source” could mean extraneous helium (Section 6.1) or possibly interferences from the analytical equipment. It’s also possible that both the helium in samples 5 and 6 are in equilibrium with extraneous background concentrations that may include contributions from regional volcanic, hydrothermal and/or tectonic activities sometime in the recent geologic past (e.g., Harrison et al., 1986).

Due to the uncertainties associated with the helium measurements of samples 5 and 6, Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) only listed the Q and Q/Q0 values for samples 5 and 6 as approximations. Although Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 3) claim that they will “allow for the possibility” that the error on the helium measurement of sample 5 is considerably larger than the errors of samples 1-4, their Table 1 lists no error for the Q/Q0 value of sample 5 and they generally treat the helium concentration of the sample in a quantitative manner in their models (as examples, Tables 4 and 5 in Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 11). The semiquantitative (at best) nature of the helium (Q) results for samples 5 and 6 must also be remembered when evaluating Humphreys et al.’s helium diffusion “dates” (Section 7.1.3).

Rather than treating both samples 5 and 6 as contamination during analysis, unreliable instrument noise, minor helium background concentrations, or in another consistent manner, Humphreys et al. (2003a) attempt to justify eliminating sample 6 from their models. At the same time, they show unjustified bias and fail to apply the same standards to sample 5.

5.4.3 Dr. Humphreys Confuses Area and Volume

As part of their efforts to remove sample 6 from their models, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) make the following nonsensical arguments:

“Because b is more than 32 times larger than a, the disk-like (not spherical) volume of biotite the helium enters is more than 1000 (~32 squared [sic]) times the volume of the zircon. This consideration affects the boundary conditions we choose for r = b, and how we might interpret sample 6 (see sect. 2), as follows. [new paragraph] Suppose that helium could not escape the biotite at all. Then as diffusion proceeds, C would decrease in the zircon and increase in the biotite, until the concentration was the same throughout the two materials. After that C would remain essentially constant, at about 0.001 C0. The fraction Q/Q0 remaining in the zircon would be about 0.001, which is just what Gentry observed in sample 6.”

First of all, what is meant by “disk-like volume”? How can Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) say: “...the disk-like (not spherical) volume of biotite the helium enters is more than 1000 (~32 squared) times the volume of the zircon, [my emphasis]” when volumes have three dimensions and not two? (That is, cubed and not squared dimensions.) If Humphreys et al. are trying to compare a and b by passing a random plane through the center of a zircon and into its surrounding biotite, how can C ~ 0.001 C0 because in the real world the plane would probably intersect several other zircons that are additional sources of helium? Perhaps, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) are suggesting in their statements that all of the helium diffusing out of a sample 6 zircon enters into only one apparently two-dimensional “disk-like” biotite cleavage plane. If so, the volume of this biotite feature is not 1000 times the volume of Humphreys et al.’s spherical zircon with a = 30 microns. The volume of their ideally spherical zircon = 4/3πa3 = 4/3 (3.141) 303 = 113,000 cubic microns. The typical width [h] of a biotite cleavage is about 3.4 Å [0.00034 microns] (Bailey, 1984, p. 20-23). Using a b value of 1,000 microns as argued by Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8), the volume of that cleavage would only be 1070 cubic microns (V = πb2h = 3.141 [1000]2 [0.00034] = 1070 cubic microns). So, Vbiotite / Vzircon = 0.0095 and not 1000. Thus, the vague arguments about “two-dimensional” volumes in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) do absolutely nothing to support their efforts to dispose of sample 6.

5.4.4 Invalid Comparisons in Another Attempt to Eliminate Sample 6

In another attempt to justify the elimination of sample 6 from the creation model, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) state:

“Our measurements (see Appendix B [in Humphreys et al., 2003a]) showed that the helium concentration in the Jemez [sic, gneiss] biotite at a depth of 750 meters was small, only about 0.32 × 10‑9 cm3 (at STP) per microgram. Taking into account the difference in density of biotite and zircon (3.2 g/cm3 and 4.7 g/cm3), that corresponds to almost exactly the same amount of helium per unit volume as sample 6 contained. That suggests the zircon and biotite were near equilibrium in sample 6, thus supporting our hypothesis.”

In the above statements, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) claims that there are similarities between the helium concentration of impure and ground biotites (Humphreys et al., 2003a, their Appendix B) from a gneiss collected at a depth of 750 meters and their helium concentration for the zircons from sample 6 (a different lithology [gneiss with granodiorite intrusions] at 4310 meters depth, Laughlin et al., 1983, with a helium concentration that was later changed in Humphreys et al. 2004). They then illogically concluded that the biotites from sample 6 must have the same helium concentration as the biotites from the 750-meter sample. Certainly, the helium concentrations of the zircons and biotites in both samples 5 and 6 may be in equilibrium with extraneous background helium; however, how can anyone argue that the helium concentrations of the zircons and biotites in sample 6 are essentially the same on the basis of comparing the amount of helium in the sample 6 zircons at 4310 meters depth with the helium concentration of an impure biotite sample from a different lithology at only 750-meters depth? Again, this approach utterly contradicts the admission in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) that mixing measurements from different lithologies is inappropriate. Dr. Humphreys needs to actually measure the helium concentration in the sample 6 biotites to confirm that they are not even lower. Rather than deal with the irrational statements in Humphreys et al. (2003a), Humphreys (2005b) simply refers to the same erroneous sections of Humphreys et al. (2003a) and once again appeals to his deceptive Figure 2 (Section 7.4).

Besides invalidly comparing the helium content of a biotite with the content of the sample 6 zircons at much greater depth, the helium measurements for the biotite and the zircons are far too unreliable to support the efforts in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 3, 8) to treat samples 5 and 6 differently, and protect their YEC agenda. As previously discussed, Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) admit that there are serious uncertainties about the concentrations and origin(s) of the helium in their samples 5 and 6. Furthermore, information in Appendix B of Humphreys et al. (2003a) also raises questions about the suitable purity of the Fenton Hill biotite and the nature of its helium concentration. The discussions in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 16) concluded that there were likely “multiple sources” of helium in the Fenton Hill biotite. The scientist that did the analysis of the biotite states (p. 16):

“He diffusion in this sample follows a rather strange pattern, with a noticeable curve at intermediate temperatures. I have no obvious explanation for this phenomenon. Because [the Wyoming] biotite BT-1B did not show this curve, I doubt it is vacuum breakdown. I ran more steps, with a drop in temperature after the 500ºC step, to see if the phenomenon is reversible. It appears to be, i.e., the curve appears again after the highest T step, but the two steps (12, 13) that define this curve had very low gas yield and high uncertainties. It is possible that we are dealing with more than one He source (multiple grain sizes or multiple minerals?).”

Humphreys et al. (2003a, Appendix B, p. 16) then reasonably conclude:

“We think it is likely there were some very small helium-bearing zircons still embedded in the biotite flakes, which would be one source. The other source would be the helium diffused out of larger zircons no longer attached to the flakes.”

Since the biotite probably contained zircon impurities that produced excess helium and since Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) were uncertain about the concentration and origin of the helium in their sample 6 zircons, what justification do Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 3, 8) have for relying on these questionable data to get rid of sample #6 from their models and keep sample #5? Why didn’t they just throw out both samples 5 and 6 (for the answer, see Section 5.4.6)?

5.4.5 Peer-Reviewer of an Earlier Version of this Essay Uncovers Another Error When the “Corrected” Data from Humphreys et al. (2004) are Utilized

As discussed above, the comparison in the following paragraph from Humphreys et al. (2003, p. 8) is invalid for a number of reasons:

A scientist that peer-reviewed this essay in 2010 decided to perform the calculations and verify Dr. Humphreys’ conclusion that the amount of helium in the Fenton Hill biotite at a depth of 750 meters and the amount in the zircons of R.V. Gentry’s sample 6 from a depth of 4310 meters were “almost exactly the same.” Here are his calculations based on the description in the above paragraph from Humphreys et al. (2003, p. 8) and the zircon data from Humphreys et al. (2004, Table I, p. 3), where the “typographical errors” in Gentry et al. (1982a) had been corrected:

Q x density (in biotite) = Q x density (in zircon)

Before multiplying, the Q values from Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) must be converted from ncc STP/μg to cc STP/g so that the units are consistent with the density units of the minerals. The results are then:

Biotite: 0.32 x 10-3 cc STP/g x 3.2 g/cc = 0.001 (unitless)

Zircon: ~0.02 x 10-3 cc STP/g x 4.7 g/cc = 0.00009 (unitless)

The scientist then wrote the following comments to me:

“Almost exactly the same???? The numbers are off by over an order of magnitude! I cannot find any mistake in my math, but then again, if Humphreys meant something else, he should have elaborated on his argument in the first place. What is worse, for Humphreys, is the fact that the biotite value is higher than the zircon value (which cannot happen through out-diffusion), which goes back to your point that one cannot claim that the biotite was in equilibrium with the zircon when the two minerals were separated by 3.5 kilometers.”

Again, the scientist obtained the Q values for the Fenton Hill biotite and used the “corrected” value for R. V. Gentry’s sample 6 zircons from Humphreys et al. (2004). When the uncorrected Q value from Humphreys et al. (2003a) is used, the statement in Humphreys et al. (2003, p. 8) is true. Although it’s a completely invalid and meaningless calculation (as described above), the amount of helium in the Fenton Hill biotite at a depth of 750 meters and the amount in the zircons of R.V. Gentry’s sample 6 from a depth of 4310 meters were “almost exactly the same” before the typographical errors in Gentry et al. (1982a) were “corrected” in Humphreys et al. (2004). When Dr. Humphreys’ modified the Q values in Humphreys et al. (2003a, Table 1, p. 3) to obtain the revised values in Humphreys et al. (2004, Table I, p. 3), which included changing the Q value of sample 6 from ~0.2 to ~0.02 ncc STP/μg, his claim was no longer true. As shown above in the scientist’s calculations, the results now vary by an order of magnitude. In the process of “correcting” the Q values in Gentry et al. (1982a), Dr. Humphreys unknowingly undermined one of his frail arguments for removing sample 6 from his models. This discovery also undermines an argument in CreationWiki #1 (2011) that extraneous helium contamination in the Fenton Hill zircons is not possible because “the amount of He in the surrounding biotite is of the same order of magnitude as that lost by the zircons.” The emotional arguments against the possibility of extraneous helium in CreationWiki #3 (2009) and the shallow arguments at this website to defend Dr. Humphreys’ inconsistent discrimination between samples 5 and 6 are also refuted.

Despite several awkward and erroneous attempts, Humphreys et al. (2003a) have not shown that the Q and Q/Q0 values for sample 6 should be treated any differently than the results for sample 5. They simply have no justification dismissing the sample 6 results and yet accepting the results for sample 5 to promote their YEC model. Contrary to the approximations in Gentry et al. (1982a) and even statements by Humphreys et al. (2003, p. 3) that they will “allow for the possibility” that the error on the helium measurement of sample 5 is considerably larger than the errors of samples 1-4, Dr. Humphreys has failed to show that the Q and Q/Q0 values for sample 5 are quantitative enough to justify their use in his “creation” and “uniformitarian” models. For consistency, Dr. Humphreys should have rejected both samples 5 and 6.

5.4.6 The Dire Consequences of Removing Sample 5 to Dr. Humphreys’ 6,000 Year Old “Date”

Finally, in a rash response to my criticisms over his inconsistent treatment of samples 5 and 6, Humphreys (2005b) claims that he could remove sample 5 from his models and that his “dating” results of 6,000 years would remain unaffected:

“However, we could dispense with both samples [i.e., samples 5 and 6] entirely with no damage to our case at all. This is just another quibble about an inconsequential issue.”

However, the mathematics refute Dr. Humphreys’ flippant and superficial claims. Without sample 5, the dating scheme in Table III of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8) would only consist of samples 2, 3, and 4 (“dates” of 7270, 2400, and 5730 years). This small dataset would provide an outlandish average “date” of 5,100 ± 5,000 years (2-sigma using the unbiased equation, Davis, 1986, p. 33; Keppel, 1991, p. 43-44, 58; Section 5.5). In other words, at 95% confidence and without sample 5, Dr. Humphreys’ “date” for the Fenton Hill zircons is worthless even by YEC standards and now spans two orders of magnitude: anywhere from 100 to about 10,000 years. The dire consequences of removing just one sample from his dataset shows how weak Dr. Humphreys’ claims really are.

When discussing this issue, the author(s) at CreationWiki #3 (2009) fails to fully realize that Gentry et al. (1982a) admitted that his helium measurement on sample 5 was only an approximation. Considering all of the problems associated with Q, Q0, and Q/Q0 in Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys’ papers (Section 4.0), the author(s) of Creation #3 (2009) have no justification for arguing that the helium concentration of sample 5 is consistent with the helium concentrations in samples 2-4. The author(s) also mentions the existence of 28 diffusion data points that supposedly support the four dates utilized by Humphreys et al. (2004, Table III, p. 8). However, the author(s) fail to realize that the 28 diffusion results don’t support the dates promoted by Dr. Humphreys because his dating equations and analytical methods are seriously flawed (e.g., my Figure 1; Sections 4.0 and 7.0).

5.4.7 The Real Issue Beyond the Numbers

Although the above calculations and disputes over the accuracy of the values in Dr. Humphreys’ documents are important, there is a danger that all of us (including Dr. Humphreys) could get bogged down in these numerical disputes and overlook the even more critical questions about Dr. Humphreys’ behavior and claims. Dr. Humphreys needs to answer critical questions about his sloppy methodology and his flippant approach to scientific research and criticism from scientists. That is, why are the claims and numerical results of Dr. Humphreys and his allies so often shown to be wrong when other individuals perform their calculations (e.g., my Appendix A and Section 5.4.5)? Where is the CRSQ article promised in Humphreys (2005b) that would explain how he obtained a Q0 of only 15 ncc STP/μg? How can Dr. Humphreys in Humphreys (2005b) claim that any errors in Q and Q0 would cancel out and not affect his Q/Q0 values? How is that mathematically possible? What valid justification does Dr. Humphreys have for omitting sample 6 from his models, but including sample 5?, etc., (see my Appendix C for further questions).

5.5 Questionable Standard Deviations in Humphreys et al. (2004)

What justification does Dr. Humphreys have for using a biased standard deviation?

In Humphreys et al. (2004, Table III, p. 8), the “dates” for samples 2-5 (i.e., 7270, 2400, 5730 and ~7330 years) were averaged. Humphreys et al. (2004) rounded off the average value of 5,681 years to 6,000 years. Humphreys et al. (2004) then list the “date” and “standard deviation” for their creation model as 6,000 ± 2,000 years.

Typically, standard deviations are calculated with a “unbiased” equation, which uses degrees of freedom (n-1) in the denominator, rather than the “biased” equation, which uses the total number of samples (n) in the denominator (Davis, 1986, p. 33; Keppel, 1991, p. 43-44, 58). The unbiased equation is used when relatively few samples are taken from a large population (like when Dr. Humphreys and Gentry et al. sampled from the population of all the zircons in the Fenton Hill cores). The biased equation is typically used when all members of a population are sampled, which is not possible with Dr. Humphreys’ zircon study.

In the results in Table III of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8), Dr. Humphreys uses one standard deviation, instead of two, which would be fine if he was consistent. Two standard deviations (2σ) are large enough to include 95% of all theoretical measurements. The use of the unbiased equation and two standard deviations would yield 6,000 ± 4,600 years for the results in Table III of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8) (not ± 4,000 years as stated in Humphreys, 2005b). Humphreys et al. (2004, Table III, p. 8) minimized their standard deviation at ± 2,000 years by using the biased equation (n instead of n-1 in the denominator) and only reporting one standard deviation (1σ or about 68% of the measurements). This is an old statistical trick that some individuals use to make their errors appear as small as possible. Obviously, Humphreys et al. (2004) would rather have their method provide a range with a most recent “creation date” of 2,000 BC instead of 600 AD!

Humphreys (2005b) and his other documents never justify his use of the unconventional biased equation to calculate his standard deviations. Humphreys (2005b) simply mentions that he prefers to use one standard deviation rather than two. Certainly, many scientists only use one standard deviation and that’s fine, again, as long as they’re consistent. However, Humphreys (2005a) contains measurements with both one and two standard deviations (1 and 2σ). His inconsistent use of one or two standard deviations seems to depend on which approach best serves his YEC agenda. For example, Figure 13 in Humphreys (2005a, p. 55) uses 2σ, which helps to overlap the diffusion data with his creation model. In contrast, the E0 value from Humphreys (2005a, p. 40) has only one standard deviation because it’s desirable to have the error minimized.

5.6 Dr. Humphreys’ Inaccurate Claims about Lead Diffusion in Zircons: Lead Loss is Compatible with Ancient Zircons

As further discussed in Section 8.3.1, Humphreys (2013a, pp. 321-322) goes as far as to defend some aspects of radiometric dating, including U-Th-Pb dating of zircons. Unlike the lack of understanding about basic geochemistry in Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 323-324), Humphreys (2012a; 2012c, p. 2; 2013a, p. 319) correctly recognizes that as zircons crystallize, they mostly exclude lead (Pb2+) ions from their crystalline structures. Pb2+ ions have the wrong charge and are too large to readily substitute for Zr4+, Hf4+, U4+ and Th4+ in the crystalline structures of zircons (Faure 1998, p. 288). As discussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 6.1, helium atoms are small enough to move into and out of the crystalline structures of zircons under certain conditions, which creates a problem with helium loss and possible extraneous helium in zircons. Although radiogenic lead may escape from metamict areas, radiogenic lead produced from the decay of uranium and thorium may remain within the crystalline structure of the zircon. This lead is very useful in U-Th-Pb dating. By analogy, just like lead in zircon, it’s possible to build a truck from small parts within a house (that is, it’s possible for radiogenic lead to form within a zircon crystalline structure), but someone cannot drive through most house front doors without damaging the house (lead cannot readily move into the crystalline structure of zircons).

Humphreys (2012c, p. 2; 2013a, p. 319) also correctly states that because of its hard and insoluble structure, radiogenic lead, uranium, and thorium tend to stay within the crystalline structure of zircons over time. Zircons are so hard and water insoluble; that is, resistant to physical and chemical weathering, that they often accumulate in sands and sandstones (Klein 2002, p. 498; Section 2.1). That being said, if zircons are substantially heated or metamictized through radiation damage, then lead certainly would be lost. However, typically Pb-Pb dates are unaffected by lead loss in zircons (Ludwig et al., 1984; Faure, 1998, p. 288; Dalrymple 1991, pp. 117-118). The masses of the lead isotopes are so similar (204, 206, 207 and 208 atomic mass units [amu]) that loss events would not be able to remove more of one lead isotope than another. As expected, the 207Pb/206Pb dates for the zircons in Table A1 in Appendix A of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 14) are about 1.43 billion years old, which are consistent with other Fenton Hill results (e.g., Brookins et al., 1977).

Using activation energy and diffusion coefficients from Magomedov (1970) (which are listed in footnote 16 of Gentry et al. 1982b), Humphreys et al. (2004, pp. 9-10) performed some calculations and claimed that 60-micron long zircons (assuming a = 30 microns) from sample 6 should lose about 50% of their lead if they were exposed to 313°C for 1.5 billion years. Because the zircons supposedly have only lost about 10% of their lead (Humphreys et al. 2004, p. 9), Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 10) spuriously argue that the zircons must be much younger than 1.5 billion years old. Later, based on information in Cherniak and Watson (2001) and in reply to Brown (2004), Humphreys (2004b, p. 259) became less convinced about the lead diffusion calculations in Humphreys et al. (2004, pp. 9-10).

Lee et al. (1997, p. 160, 161) list a more recent activation energy value (161 kcal/mol) and temperature-independent diffusion coefficient (approximately 3.9 × 109 cm2/sec) for lead in a gem-quality Sri Lankan zircon. The Lee et al. (1997) diffusion coefficient is 11 orders of magnitude larger than the measurement on exceptionally metamict (radiation damaged) zircons in Magomedov (1970). Inserting the values from Lee et al. (1997) into the same equation used by Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 9-10) (that is, Nicolaysen, 1957 in footnote 16 of Gentry et al., 1982b, p. 298) predicts only about 1% lead loss at 313°C over 1.5 billion years rather than a loss of approximately 50% as claimed by Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 10). Entering data from the Cherniak and Watson (2001) lead diffusion in zircon study into the Nicolaysen equation also predicts about 1% lead loss in the zircons over 1.5 billion years. Considering that the Magomedov (1970) zircons were very metamict and that the Sri Lankan zircons were gem quality, a 10% lead loss in the sample 6 Fenton Hill zircons over 1.5 billion years is very feasible.

A 10% actual lead loss in the sample 6 zircons, if it is true, might be explained by metamorphic fluids leaching lead from metamict portions of the zircons (Geisler et al., 2002) and/or prolonged exposure to temperatures well above 313°C sometime in the distant past. Rather than deal with reasonable possibilities, Humphreys et al. (2004, pp. 9-10) used measurements on extremely metamict Soviet zircons and made fallacious assumptions, which cause them to erroneously conclude that the lead data are incompatible with an ancient age for the zircons. Thankfully, Humphreys (2004b, p. 259) seems to have recognized his mistake.

6.0 Complications Neglected or Inadequately Addressed by Dr. Humphreys

6.1 The Possibility of Extraneous Helium and Dr. Humphreys’ Invalid Lyell Uniformitarianism

6.1.1 Radiogenic, Excess, Inherited, and Extraneous Noble Gases

As discussed in Section 2.1, helium has two natural isotopes: 3He and 4He. 3He only has one neutron per atom. The isotope is largely the product of the Big Bang (Delsemme, 1998, p. 22-23) and nuclear fusion in stars (Faure, 1998, p. 17). Small amounts of 3He were trapped within the Earth when our planet formed and the isotope is currently degassing from the Earth’s interior. Besides forming from radioactive decay, 4He, which has two neutrons in every atom, also formed during the Big Bang and stellar fusion (Delsemme, 1998, p. 22-23; Faure, 1998, p. 17).

Using analogous definitions for argon from McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 11), helium may be classified as radiogenic, excess, inherited, or extraneous. An example of radiogenic helium would be uranium or thorium within a zircon producing 4He, where the 4He stays within the zircon. In his Fenton Hill project, Dr. Humphreys was only interested in the concentrations of radiogenic 4He in his zircons and he assumed that all of the helium analyzed in his study and the study by Gentry et al. (1982a) was radiogenic 4He.

Excluding any contamination from the atmosphere, excess helium refers to any 3He or any 4He that enters a host rock or mineral rather than originating in it. Inherited helium is any helium that might somehow remain in a rock or mineral after it forms from igneous or metamorphic processes. Extraneous helium is the sum of a mineral’s or rock’s excess and any inherited helium.

6.1.2 Complications to All Helium Diffusion Models if Extraneous Helium is Present

Throughout his documents, Dr. Humphreys claims that the Fenton Hill zircons contain too much helium to be 1.5 billion years old. In response, Loechelt (2008c; 2009a) states that his multi-domain models indicate that Dr. Humphreys’ helium diffusion measurements are actually consistent with the zircons being about 1.5 billion years old. Both Drs. Loechelt’s and Humphreys’ models, however, would be invalidated if significant extraneous 4He and perhaps 3He were actually present in the Fenton Hill zircons. That is, extraneous helium would produce inflated and false Q/Q0 values. Extraneous helium could, especially, become relevant with zircons from deep portions of the Fenton Hill cores that have extremely low concentrations of helium, such as samples 5 and 6 in Gentry et al. (1982a) (Sections 5.4 and 6.1.5). Despite the possibility of extraneous helium and other unknowns, the evidence indicates that the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) is on the right track because of its more thorough treatment of helium diffusion and fewer shortcuts and assumptions, while Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model is not (Section 7.2).

6.1.3 Detecting Extraneous Helium

Just as there are methods to detect and correct for the presence of extraneous argon in rocks and minerals (Hanes, 1991; McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 114-130; Henke c. 2000a), Dr. Humphreys should be able to detect any significant extraneous helium in his zircons and develop techniques to correct for it. Although terrestrial concentrations of 3He are usually extremely low, if substantial concentrations of this “primordial” isotope were identified in the Fenton Hill zircons, the 3He would be extraneous and appropriate corrections to the total helium analyses would have to be made. Thus, to avoid the possibility of extraneous helium wrecking his study, Dr. Humphreys should have determined the 3He/4He ratios of his zircons and also performed the analyses on fresh zircons from R.V. Gentry’s rock samples.

The presence of extraneous 4He in the zircons may be strongly inferred if 4He is detected in surrounding quartz and other minerals that contain virtually no uranium and thorium. That is, if extraneous helium occurs in quartz, it’s probably also present in adjacent zircons.

So, before Dr. Humphreys can use his “studies” to promote a religious agenda and overthrow nuclear physics and geochronology, he clearly needs to measure the 3He and 4He values on preferably freshly collected (not decades old) minerals and eliminate any possible effects from extraneous helium. Certainly, extraneous helium may not be a problem in the Fenton Hill zircons. However, a careful researcher always checks for such possibilities because, if significant extraneous helium is present, it would seriously interfere with the project.

6.1.4 Too Many YECs Only Invoke the Presence of Extraneous Inert Gases When the Gases Benefit Their Agenda

YECs readily accept the existence of extraneous argon in igneous and metamorphic minerals because they improperly believe that “excess” and radiogenic argon cannot be distinguished, and subsequently potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating are automatically unreliable (Snelling 1999; but see Hanes, 1991; McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 114-130; Henke c. 2000a). While Humphreys (2005b; 2012a) inappropriately scoffs at the idea of extraneous helium in the Fenton Hill zircons, YECs Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 326-327) take the possibility seriously, just as seriously as extraneous argon being a supposed problem in K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating (e.g., Snelling 1999). Because helium atoms are much smaller than argon atoms, helium would tend to more readily move in and out of most minerals than argon. Thus, Froede (2012, pp. 37-38) and Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 326-327) remind Dr. Humphreys about the possible presence of extraneous helium and argon at Fenton Hill and that the gases could come from the mantle and produce false dates for YECs as much as for uniformitarians. So, if many YECs enthusiastically accept the existence of extraneous argon, why shouldn’t they also agree with Froede and Akridge (2013a) and acknowledge that subsurface minerals (including zircons) could be substantially contaminated with extraneous helium? The answer is obvious. Extraneous helium is one of many factors that could completely nullify the YEC conclusions of Dr. Humphreys’ Fenton Hill zircon study, and many YECs think that the project is too important and too expensive to lose.

6.1.5 Important Comments from R. V. Gentry about Helium Sources

Although Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 3) claim that Gentry et al. (1982a) measured the amount of 4He in their samples, Gentry et al. (1982a) clearly give no indication that they distinguished extraneous from radiogenic helium in any of their analyses. Simply because of how zircons from samples 1-4 degassed, and especially two groups from sample 4 with relatively large (150-250 microns) specimens, Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) thought that some of the helium in samples 1-4 (Table 1) was radiogenic. However, samples 5 and 6 were different:

“That is, in the two deepest zircon groups (3930 and 4310 m [samples 5 and 6]), we observed only short bursts of He (~1-2 sec) in contrast to the prolonged 20 sec or more evolution of He which was typical of He liberation from zircon groups down to and including 3502 m [samples 1-4]. In fact, it was this prolonged He liberation profile seen in two 150-250 micron size zircon groups from 3502 m [sample 4] which convinces us that some residual He is still trapped in the zircons down to that depth (239°C).” [my emphasis]

Clearly, these degassing profiles did not quantify and eliminate the possible presence of extraneous helium in the relatively small (50-75 microns) zircons in samples 1-4, which were used to derive Gentry et al.’s Q/Q0 values. As mentioned in Section 5.4.2, Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) even admit that samples 5 and 6 may not contain radiogenic 4He:

“In fact, at present we are not certain whether the minute amounts of He recorded from the deepest zircons (3930 and 4310 m [samples 5 and 6]) are actually residual He in the zircons or derived from some other source.” [my emphasis]

Again, “derived from some other source” could mean extraneous helium or possibly interferences from the analytical equipment.

6.1.6 Evidence of Open Systems in the Fenton Hill Zircons

Zircons from a biotite granodiorite (Zartman, 1979) and overlying gneisses in the Fenton Hill core (Appendix A in Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 14) have discordant U/Pb dates, which indicate open system behavior for lead and/or uranium, and no doubt helium. Open systems would not only mean that helium may flow out of zircons, but extraneous helium may have periodically flowed into them.

6.1.7 Dr. Humphreys’ Proposed Field Studies are Unnecessary and Magmas aren’t Needed to Produce Extraneous Helium

Humphreys (2005b) mistakenly believes that any contamination of zircons with extraneous helium would require high temperature “magmatic fluids” and in particular “basaltic magmatic fluids.” That is, Humphreys (2005b) erroneously claims that if I want to demonstrate the presence of extraneous helium in the Fenton Hill cores, I need to find “geological evidence that conduits of basalt (solidified volcanic magma [sic, by definition, magma is not extrusive]) presently exist within that distance of the borehole.” Dr. Humphreys’ proposed field studies are completely unnecessary and Humphreys (2005b) wouldn’t be making these statements if he actually knew as much about geology as he claims in Humphreys (2013c) and if he had bothered to read the relevant literature and my proposed laboratory studies for detecting extraneous helium in his zircons, which were introduced in my original essay (also see Section 6.1.3). While magmas can certainly release extraneous helium, extraneous helium may also originate from the massive portions of the mantle that are not molten (Goff and Gardner, 1994, p. 1816). As previously mentioned, YECs Froede (2012, pp. 37-38) and Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 326-327) remind Dr. Humphreys about the possible presence of extraneous helium and argon at Fenton Hill and that the gases could come from the mantle and produce false dates for YECs as much as for uniformitarians.

Extraneous helium can accumulate in minerals in the upper crust and perhaps eventually escape into the atmosphere (also see Baxter, 2003). Specifically, Manning (2008, p. 1, 65-66) argues that helium in the groundwaters of the Española Basin, which is located just east of Fenton Hill, probably originated from uranium-rich minerals in the northeastern part of the basin and from deeper crustal- and mantle sources. Extraneous helium may further accumulate in hydrothermal (“hot water”, but not magmatic) fluids through the leaching of helium from surrounding Precambrian rocks (Truesdell and Janik, 1986, p. 1827). These fluids need not be as hot as magmatic temperatures, which are typically 650°C and higher. For example, the Valles Caldera, which is only a few kilometers from Fenton Hill, currently has helium-bearing fluids that are only 260-295°C (Goff and Gardner, 1994, p. 1816). Hydrothermal fluids may also deposit uranium-rich materials in rock fractures, which can be locally important sources of extraneous helium. West and Laughlin (1976, p. 618) even detected uranium deposits in fractures of a biotite granodiorite in the GT-2 core. Potentially, these deposits could have released extraneous helium into Dr. Humphreys’ nearby gneisses.

Even if field studies were to locate evidence of extraneous helium at Fenton Hill, Dr. Humphreys would probably invoke some vague arm-waving excuses to reject the evidence just as he has done with the vast amounts of previous criticism of his work. Instead of proposing superfluous field work, I stated in previous versions of this essay and now in Section 6.1.3 of this essay that Dr. Humphreys should have analyzed his zircons for extraneous helium. But, once Dr. Humphreys thought that he got the “True answer” of 6,000 years from his zircons, he obviously stopped being interested in any further research.

6.1.8 Extraneous Helium Identified in Nearby Valles Caldera

Helium-rich gas deposits and groundwaters occur in many areas of New Mexico, including in the Española Basin, which is located just east of Fenton Hill (Manning, 2008). Some of the New Mexico gas deposits have such high concentrations of helium that they are valuable reserves (“extractable resources”). In the Valles Caldera, which is only a few kilometers away from the Fenton Hill site, fluid samples collected in the 1980s from the Baca test wells contained significant extraneous helium. In 1982, extraneous 4He ranged from 0.0183 cc/kg for Baca-15 to 0.1173 cc/kg for Baca-4 (or 0.0183 to 0.1173 ncc STP/μg) (Smith and Kennedy, 1985, p. 897). According to Goff and Gardner (1994, p. 1816), wells Baca-15 and Baca-4 are greater than 1,000 meters deep and have bottom temperatures of 267°C and 295°C, respectively. In a later article, Truesdell and Janik (1986, their Table 8, p. 1831) report somewhat higher helium concentrations (about 0.2 ncc STP/μg) in Baca wells 13 and 4. The extraneous helium concentrations in at least the Baca 4 well approach or exceed the helium concentrations that Humphreys et al. (2004) list for the zircons in samples 4-6 (my Table 3). Unless Dr. Humphreys can thoroughly identify and subtract out any possible extraneous helium in his zircons and correct the other numerous problems with his work, no one should expect realistic results from his “creation” and “uniformitarian” models.

6.1.9 Dr. Humphreys’ Invalid Lyell Uniformitarianism

When dealing with the possibility of extraneous helium at Fenton Hill, Dr. Humphreys and his CreationWiki followers have an invalid Lyell uniformitarian mindset that YECs so often accuse scientists of possessing.

In response to the possibility of extraneous helium in the Fenton Hill zircons and biotites, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 11-12) further states:

“A second uniformitarian line of defense might be to claim that the helium 4 concentration in the biotite or surrounding rock is presently about the same as it is in the zircons. (Such a scenario would be very unusual, because the major source of 4He is U or Th series radioactivity in zircons or a few other minerals like titanite or apatite, but not biotite.) The scenario would mean that essentially no diffusion into or out of the zircons is taking place. However, our measurements (Appendix B) show that except for possibly samples 5 and 6, the concentration of helium in the biotite [sect. 6, between eqs. (7) and (8)] is much lower than in the zircons. Diffusion always flows from greater to lesser concentrations. Thus helium must be diffusing out of the zircons and into the surrounding biotite.”

Humphreys (2005b) makes a similar claim:

“First, if the helium in the zircons were ‘excess’ and came from outside them, it would have had to come through the biotite. As I pointed out on p. 9 of CRSQ [Humphreys et al.] 2004, the helium concentration in the biotite is two hundred times lower than the concentration in the zircon. That means, according to the laws of diffusion, that the helium is presently leaking out of the zircons into the biotite, not the other way around. Also, as I pointed out, the total amount of helium in the biotite is roughly the same as the helium lost from the zircon.”

The authors of CreationWiki #1 (2011) and CreationWiki #3 (2009) also summarize and uncritically accept these faulty arguments from Dr. Humphreys. The author(s) of CreationWiki #3 (2009) is especially emotional and overconfident about denying the possibly of extraneous helium at Fenton Hill in the past. Obviously, Dr. Humphreys and his CreationWiki followers have an invalid Lyell uniformitarian mindset that YECs so often accuse scientists of possessing. That is, they falsely believe that if the helium concentrations in some of the surrounding biotites are now relatively low, then these concentrations must have always been low in the past. Dr. Humphreys and his followers simply fail to realize that the zircons may have been contaminated with extraneous helium over a prolonged period in the remote past. While abundant cleavage planes could have allowed extraneous helium to dissipate relatively quickly from biotites in the distant past, once the extraneous helium intruded into the zircons, the helium could substantially remain in the relatively impermeable zircons for longer periods of time (Section 6.1.11). That is, Dr. Humphreys and his followers fail to realize that the concentrations of gases in the subsurface of Fenton Hill, just like anywhere else, are likely to fluctuate over time.

After repeating Dr. Humphreys’ invalid Lyell uniformitarian argument, the CreationWiki #1 (2011) author(s) adds the following nonsensical statement:

“In addition to this Q/Q0 decreases with depth as predicted by the zircons being the source, on the other hand, contamination would tend to produce the opposite pattern since the deeper zircons would have higher diffusion rates, it would tend to accumulate quicker in those at shallower depths.”

Extraneous helium, probably originating from the deep crust or mantle, happens to be more abundant in the deeper groundwaters at depths down to 700 meters in the Española Basin around Santa Fe, New Mexico (Manning, 2008, his Figure 56, p. 60, along with his Table 14, p. 58). Besides the presence of extraneous helium from deep crustal and mantle sources, the amount of extraneous helium in any zircons would also depend on the uranium and thorium contents, mineralogy and permeability of their host and surrounding rocks. For example, as previously mentioned, extraneous helium can also originate from uranium deposits that are known to locally occur in fractures within the Fenton Hill rocks (West and Laughlin, 1976, p. 618). So, not all zircons may be equally exposed to extraneous helium and not all of the helium in the zircons may be extraneous. That is, extraneous helium may cause the Q/Q0 values to show any trend with depth and, perhaps, no trend at all. Until Dr. Humphreys or his supporters become responsible and actually measures the 3He/4He ratios of his zircons and looks for extraneous 4He in quartz and other low uranium and thorium minerals (Section 6.1.3), no one will know if this is a significant problem or not.

6.1.10 Evidence of Past Fluids in the Fenton Hill Rocks Refutes Dr. Humphreys’ Dry Lyell Uniformitarian Claims

Humphreys (2005b) improperly believes that fluids that might contain extraneous helium could not have flowed through the rocks of the Fenton Hill cores in the past because these rocks are currently “dry and well-consolidated.” Once again, Dr. Humphreys shows his fallacious Lyell uniformitarian thinking (that is, because the rocks are now dry and impermeable, they must always have been dry and impermeable in the past). However, if fluids did not migrate through the Fenton Hill cores sometime in the past, why are their fractures often filled with hydrothermal (“hot water”) minerals and inclusions (for example, Sasada, 1989), including uranium-rich materials that can produce extraneous 4He (West and Laughlin, 1976, p. 618)? How did these hydrothermal minerals form under dry conditions? If the subsurface of Fenton Hill was as dry as Dr. Humphreys claims, why are liquid-rich inclusions present in calcite veins at depths of 2624 meters (Sasada, 1989, p. 259; my Figure 13)? Also, why do Laney et al. (1981) and Laughlin and Eddy (1977, p. 28) admit that the Fenton Hill cores were substantially altered by fluids? How does the presence of fluid-altered grains support the undocumented proclamation in Humphreys (2005b) that fluids could not have traveled very far in the Fenton Hill Precambrian rocks because “the interface widths between minerals would be microscopic, perhaps only an Angstrom (the diameter of a hydrogen atom) or so”? Where are Dr. Humphreys’ measurements that indicate that these interface widths are this narrow? Even if these widths are currently extremely narrow, how does he know that they were this narrow in the past and again how does he explain that presence of fluid-altered minerals in the cores? If the subsurface Precambrian rocks at Fenton Hill were under too much pressure to allow for the diffusion of extraneous helium, why did Manning (2008, p. 1, 65-66) conclude that faults within similar “basement” rocks of the nearby Española Basin could have been suitable conduits for extraneous helium? Also, if Dr. Humphreys is willing to claim that subsurface pressures and “Ångström-wide interface widths” would hinder the flow of extraneous helium, why won’t he consider the possibility that these subsurface conditions might also hinder the diffusion of helium out of his zircons? To answer these critical and often conflicting questions, Dr. Humphreys needs to stop the arm-waving and groundless speculations, and actually perform some high-pressure experiments (Section 6.2) and measure his zircons for possible extraneous helium.

Years later, in a reply to Loechelt (2012), Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) seems to finally concede that hydrothermal fluids (“hot water”) had a role in the subsurface rocks of Fenton Hill:

“He [Dr. Loechelt] is probably right in suggesting some of the heat came from the magma part-way to the site by means of hot water.”

Figure 13: Thermal history of a granodiorite at 2624 meters depth in the subsurface of Fenton Hill based on the formation of secondary fluid inclusions in quartz, the formation of calcite veins, and the formation of secondary fluid inclusions in the calcite veins (modified from Figure 9 in Sasada, 1989; also see Sections 8.1 and 8.2). Sasada (1989) does not quantify the time span on the x-axis. Considering the presence of extraneous helium in the nearby Española Basin and Valles Caldera, extraneous helium could also have been present in the fluids that formed the inclusions in the quartz and calcite. Furthermore, extraneous helium from these fluids may have contaminated some of the Fenton Hill zircons. Rather than considering how the thermal and fluid history shown in this diagram might affect his models, Humphreys (2005b) argues that he can ignore this history and longer thermal histories by inappropriately claiming that his constant temperature assumptions were “generous” to his “uniformitarian” model. Loechelt (2008c; 2009a; 2010; 2012; 2020b) in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 shows that his “generosity” is totally unwarranted. Humphreys (2005b) cannot ignore the complex subsurface thermal history at Fenton Hill in any of his models.

It’s unclear what Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) exactly means by “part-way”, but considering all of the evidence discussed in Section 6.1, it would have been prudent for Dr. Humphreys to have checked for the presence of extraneous helium in the Fenton Hill zircons rather than making the flippant excuses in Humphreys (2005b). Also, see further discussions in Section 8.2.5.

6.1.11 An Extraneous Helium Hypothesis for Fenton Hill

Dr. Humphreys simply fails to realize that the zircons may have been contaminated with extraneous helium many thousands of years ago or even longer in the uniformitarian time frame. Extraneous helium from the lower crust or mantle may have periodically passed through Fenton Hill in the past just as the gas is currently passing through the nearby Valles Caldera (Smith and Kennedy, 1985; Truesdell and Janik, 1986), parts of the Española Basin (Manning, 2008), and in many other areas of New Mexico (Broadhead, 2006). Again, the presence of uranium deposits in at least part of the GT-2 Fenton Hill core (West and Laughlin, 1976, p. 618) is another potential source of extraneous helium and indicates that at least at one time the Fenton Hill subsurface rocks were far more permeable for uranium-bearing fluids than what Humphreys (2005b) realizes.

Sasada (1989) argues that the Fenton Hill rocks were mineralized by fluids in the past (my Figure 13). During prolonged exposure, extraneous helium could have contaminated biotites, zircons and other minerals. Also, rather than always penetrating the zircons, helium pressures surrounding the minerals may have been periodically high enough in the past to temporarily prevent or extensively slow down the diffusion of any helium from the zircons.

As shown in my Figure 13, the formation of primary and secondary fluid inclusions in calcites in the Fenton Hill sample of Sasada (1989) was eventually followed by reheating to present temperatures. During this current reheating event, the cleavage planes in biotites and other micas would have provided excellent pathways for any extraneous helium to largely dissipate as temperatures rose and background helium concentrations in the regional crust declined. However, the relatively impermeable zircons could have retained any extraneous helium for a longer period of time, perhaps up to the present. Therefore, instead of just observing the remnants of radiogenic helium in zircons from 1.5 billion years’ worth of uranium and thorium decay, Humphreys et al. (2003a, 2003b; 2004) might have analyzed significant remaining extraneous helium that contaminated the Fenton Hill subsurface rocks in the past.

Rather than seriously considering the presence of extraneous helium and its possible ramifications to his samples, Humphreys (2005b) continues his inappropriate dismissive attitude and prematurely proclaims:

"Henke's scenario is pure conjecture. It depends on unknown factors to produce improbable coincidences. Even though this is his best shot (that's why I've spent some time on it), it falls far short of credibility."

Considering the current presence of extraneous helium in the nearby Valles Caldera and the presence of uranium-rich deposits in the Fenton Hill cores, past contamination of the Fenton Hill zircons with extraneous helium is certainly not an outrageous hypothesis. As mentioned earlier, YECs Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 326-327) also warned Dr. Humphreys about the possible presence of extraneous helium and argon in his Fenton Hill samples. However, Dr. Humphreys still refuses to heed these warnings from both YECs and non-YECs.

Extraneous helium certainly makes more sense than invoking religious miracles to accelerate radioactive decay rates and then relying on even more groundless magic to keep the Earth from melting (Section 8.3). So, Dr. Humphreys, I would argue that your miraculous accelerated radioactive decay scenario is pure conjecture. It depends on unknown factors; that is, groundless miracles and bad data. Even though this is your best shot (that’s why I’ve spent some time on it), your reliance on magic falls far short of credibility.

6.2 Subsurface Pressure Effects on Zircons and Other Hard Silicates

6.2.1 Dr. Humphreys Fails to Consider Pressure Effects on Helium Diffusion in Zircons

The helium diffusion results in Dr. Humphreys’ studies were obtained under a high laboratory vacuum (< 1 x 10-7 torr or < 1.3 x 10-10 bars) (Farley et al. 1999, p. 2060). The pressure of this vacuum was at least 12 orders of magnitude lower than the natural pressures that his zircons experienced in the subsurface of Fenton Hill (depths of 750 - 4310 meters or about 200 to 1,200 bars of pressure; Winkler, 1979, p. 5).

Pressure would certainly affect the diffusion of helium from zircons (Loechelt 2020a, pp. 38-39, 46). McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 144) remind us:

“Diffusivity is predicted to decrease as pressure increases as a result of both a drop in number of vacancies in response to the crystal relieving internal pressure and the extra work diffusing atoms must perform against the confining pressure to distort the lattice to make a diffusion jump.”

A major assumption of Humphreys et al.’s work is that helium diffusion measurements obtained under a laboratory vacuum (for example, Appendix C of Humphreys et al., 2003a) are essentially the same as natural diffusion coefficients for the zircons when they were in the subsurface of Fenton Hill.

In my original March, 2005 essay, I quoted Farley (2002) and Lippolt and Weigel (1988, p. 1454), and I warned Dr. Humphreys that vacuums and other laboratory conditions may not appropriately model the natural subsurface environments of the Fenton Hill site and that he should perform high-pressure laboratory studies that better represent the subsurface pressure conditions at Fenton Hill. In particular, Farley (2002, p. 822) warns that laboratory diffusion data must be carefully applied to natural situations:

“It is important to note that such laboratory measurements may not apply under natural conditions. For example, diffusion coefficients are commonly measured at temperatures far higher than are relevant in nature, so large and potentially inaccurate extrapolations are often necessary. Similarly, some minerals undergo chemical or structural transformations and possibly defect annealing during vacuum heating; extrapolation of laboratory data from these modified phases to natural conditions may lead to erroneous predictions.” [my emphasis]

This statement by Farley (2002) and many other statements in this section are very relevant warnings to the inappropriate belittling of the possible effects of pressure by Humphreys (2006a) and his cheerleader(s) at CreationWiki #3 (2009).

Vacuums may also decompose minerals (such as certain biotites and other micas, and perhaps mica inclusions in zircons) or open fractures, which would allow helium to more readily escape than under natural subsurface conditions. In particular, Lippolt and Weigel (1988, p. 1451) question whether laboratory vacuum experiments adequately model the degassing behavior of certain minerals under natural conditions. These issues must be kept in mind when evaluating Humphreys et al.’s models, especially with their biotite data.

In response to how pressure might affect his helium diffusion results, Humphreys (2006a), as usual, provides no calculations to support his speculations and tries to trivialize the problem by stating:

“For a change of only 1 kilobar pressure, the change in diffusivity would probably be about one order of magnitude. This is far less than Henke’s desired six orders of magnitude.”

Until Dr. Humphreys actually provides some relevant calculations or performs some high-pressure experiments, we don’t know if the change in diffusivity with one kilobar pressure is one magnitude, greater than that or less than that. Now, an individual might be able to argue that diffusion would not dramatically decrease along the intrinsic curve with increasing depth and subsurface pressure (Section 2.3; Figures 5 and 14). That is, diffusion within the crystalline structure of the zircons might not change a lot with pressure (i.e., the intrinsic curve). This seems to be the case with Wolfe and Stockli (2010) (Section 7.3). However, Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model corresponds to four diffusivity points on the low-temperature (defect) curve of his zircons (Figure 5; Section 2.3; also Humphreys 2005a, his Figure 13, p. 55). As discussed in Section 2.3, the data points on Dr. Humphreys’ defect curve only contain a total of about 8 parts per million (ppm) of helium. Under high subsurface pressures, defects would tend to seal, any ppm of helium would be largely expelled from the defects, and the defect curve would mostly or entirely disappear, contrary to the uniformed claim in CreationWiki #1 (2011) (Figure 14). This is the reverse of the process shown in Humphreys (2005a, his Figure 6, p. 36). Thus, helium diffusivities should be read off the intrinsic curve as argued in Section 2.3. Although the shifting intrinsic curve could approach Dr. Humphreys’ uniformitarian model (Figures 5 and 14), Loechelt (2008c) has shown that Dr. Humphreys’ uniformitarian and YEC models have no merit.

6.2.2 Exponential Effects of Pressure on Diffusion

The large effects of pressure on helium diffusion are also seen in a pressure version of the Arrhenius equation from McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 144):

Eq. 11) D = D0 e[-(E+PV*)/RT]

where:

V* = activation volume

P = pressure

E = activation energy

D = Diffusion coefficient

D0 = Frequency factor

Because the diffusivities of Dr. Humphreys’ zircons were measured in a vacuum (P~0), the above equation reduces down to the Arrhenius Equation (his equation #2 in Humphreys et al. 2003a, p. 5: D = D0 e[-(E/RT)]) or my equation #1.

Figure 14: Subsurface pressures on Dr. Humphreys’ and R.V. Gentry’s zircons in the Fenton Hill cores would have been about 200 to 1,200 bars, or more than one trillion times greater than the laboratory vacuum that produced Dr. Humphreys’ helium analyses. The defect curve in Dr. Humphreys’ diffusion studies resulted from a very small amount of helium released from voids, fractures and other defects in his zircons under vacuum heating (see Section 2.3). At high subsurface pressures, the defects would tend to be closed and the defect curve would have been weaker and perhaps entirely nonexistent. The intrinsic curve would be less affected by pressure because it deals with diffusion within the crystalline structure of the zircons. Humphreys (2006a) speculates, without any calculations or references, that subsurface pressures of one kilobar (1,000 bars) would only affect the helium diffusion results by an order of magnitude. The exact decrease in the helium diffusion results along the intrinsic curve under 200 to 1,200 bars pressure is unknown, but high-pressure studies with garnets by Dunai and Roselieb (1996) suggest that the decrease could be very significant. Nevertheless, Dr. Humphreys has the responsibility of performing the high-pressure laboratory studies and demonstrating that his YEC model is still valid under natural conditions. The burden of evidence is on him to thoroughly defend his YEC model (Section 9.2).

Notice that because pressure (P) and activation energy (E) are in the exponent of the above equation, even relatively small changes in these variables could lead to huge changes in diffusion coefficients (D). That’s why when Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) changed the Magomedov (1970) results from natural log to log base 10, the activation energy (E) only increased from 15 to about 40 kcal/mole, but the helium diffusivity (D) values decreased by more than five orders of magnitude (Figure 11; Section 5.1). Rather than just guessing that any pressure-induced changes in the helium diffusion of his zircons are inconsequential (Humphreys 2006a), Dr. Humphreys actually needs to perform high-pressure experiments to verify his hopes and defend his YEC model.

6.2.3 Dr. Humphreys Initially Ignored Potential Pressure Problems

Despite the clear warnings in my original March, 2005 essay, I had to place the pressure issue prominently in a figure in the abstract of my updated November, 2005 essay before Humphreys (2006a) even took notice. Again, this demonstrates that Dr. Humphreys does not carefully and appropriately consider scientific evidence and discussions from his critics. Instead, he obviously just skims the abstract and prefers insults, flippant responses, and groundless ad hominem innuendo about my former religious beliefs (i.e., Humphreys 2005b; Section 11.2).

6.2.4 Lack of Pressure Data in the Noble Gas Diffusion Literature

Humphreys (2006a), as well as his statements in Humphreys (2004a, p. 257) to Drake (2004), mistakenly believes that the lack of high-pressure noble gas diffusion studies in the literature somehow indicates that pressure is an unimportant variable in helium diffusion. However, as discussed in Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, pressure experiments are very important in modeling subsurface environments, especially with Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model, which is based on a highly pressure-sensitive defect curve. Yet, the literature provides us with more rational reasons on why high-pressure helium diffusion experiments are not very common in the literature. These experiments are often expensive, technically difficult to perform, and single runs can take long periods of time to complete. That is, high pressures may slow down diffusion so significantly that it may take weeks or months just to perform one measurement. For example, when Humphreys (2006a) refers to the high-pressure results in Table 2 of p. 160 of Carroll (1991), he never mentions that some of the runs took almost 65 days to perform. Furthermore, some of the runs performed by Dunai and Roselieb (1996), as discussed in Section 6.2.6, lasted for 500 hours or nearly three weeks. Dunai and Roselieb (1996, p. 413) also noted that their platinum sample capsules were unable to withstand pressures above 250 bars. Although long-term high-pressure diffusion experiments are difficult to perform, time-consuming and possibly very expensive, how else is Dr. Humphreys going to definitively determine how relevant pressure is in modeling the subsurface conditions at Fenton Hill? Dr. Humphreys or his colleagues must either find some way of properly performing these difficult and potentially expensive experiments or abandon (at least for now) any claims that he has adequately modeled the diffusion of helium under natural conditions in the subsurface of Fenton Hill.

6.2.5 Humphreys (2006a) Cites Inconsequential Articles and Relies on an Irrelevant Curve in Carroll (1991)

Humphreys (2006a) is an inadequate response to the pressure problems associated with his YEC helium diffusion model. Humphreys (2006a) simply cites some information from a small number of articles that either have absolutely nothing to do with the diffusion of noble gases (helium and argon) in silicate minerals (i.e., self-diffusion of lead in Hudson and Hoffman, 1961) or only apply to noble gas diffusion on high-temperature intrinsic curves, which are not relevant to the low-temperature defect curve of his zircons and YEC model. For example, when Humphreys (2006a) refers to the diffusion of argon at 1179 to 3725 bars in the glasses of Carroll (1991, p. 160), he forgets to mention that this reference is dealing with argon diffusion on an intrinsic curve. Unlike Dr. Humphreys’ zircons, the bubble-free rhyolitic glass in Figure 4 of Carroll (1991, p. 161) shows no defect curve. Considering that the glass was free of bubbles and other defects, it’s not surprising that the pressure effects in Carroll (1991) are minor, only involve an intrinsic curve, and provide nothing to support Dr. Humphreys’ YEC agenda.

6.2.6 The Information in Dunai and Roselieb (1996) that Dr. Humphreys Wouldn’t Want You to See: High Pressure Experiments Indicate that Helium in “Hard” Garnets Takes 10,000,000s to 100,000,000s of Years to Diffuse Even at Temperatures as High as 700oC

The extensive effects of pressure on helium and argon diffusion in micas and other phyllosilicate minerals are well known in the literature (e.g., McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 154; Dalrymple and Lanphere, 1969, p. 155). Humphreys (2006a) attempts to dismiss the relevance of these studies by claiming that micas and other phyllosilicates are not “hard” minerals and that “hard” minerals, like zircon, are incompressible and would not be significantly affected by pressure. However, again Humphreys (2006a) is speculating and failing to realize that the incompressibility of zircon would only be a factor in how pressure would affect the intrinsic curve, but his model is based on a low-temperature defect curve (Figures 5 and 14).

Even if micas are too soft to apply their pressure effects to zircons, garnets are hard silicates, like zircons, and the pressure effects on helium diffusion in garnets discussed in Dunai and Roselieb (1996) serve as a dire warning to Dr. Humphreys. Dr. Humphreys fails to mention some important results in Dunai and Roselieb (1996). Dunai and Roselieb (1996) performed helium diffusion experiments on garnets at 250 bars of pressure, which is within the pressure range of the Fenton Hill zircons (depths of 750 - 4310 meters or about 200 to 1,200 bars of pressure; Winkler, 1979, p. 5). They concluded that at high pressures of 250 bars, helium would take TENS to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS even at high temperatures (700°C) to partially diffuse out of garnets. Like zircons, garnets are “hard” silicate minerals. So, if it takes tens to hundreds of millions of years for helium to just partially diffuse out of “hard” garnets at 700°C and pressures of 250 bars, what makes Dr. Humphreys believe that 200-1,200 bars of pressure would not significantly lower the diffusion of helium out of his “hard” zircons at only 96-313oC (Table 1)? It doesn’t take much thought to realize that helium diffusion would be much greater from a rapidly heated, bare and defect-bearing zircon in a laboratory vacuum than a zircon 750 to 4,310 meters in the subsurface encased in other minerals and possibly periodically bathed in extraneous helium over long periods of time.

So, Dr. Humphreys has the burden of evidence to demonstrate that his laboratory vacuum diffusion data and the associated defect curve accurately represent helium diffusion under the subsurface pressures of Fenton Hill (Section 9.2). That is, Dr. Humphreys needs to stop his arm waving. He or his supporters actually need to perform some high-pressure experiments to justify his assumptions and conclusions. Without these high-pressure and other experiments mentioned in this essay and the literature of his other critics, Dr. Humphreys absolutely has no justification for proclaiming that his results show that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, “accelerated” radioactive decay and cooling are factual, that the laws of physics need to be rewritten, and that all radiometric dating methods must be discarded.

7.0 Flaws in Dr. Humphreys’ Dating Equations and Superior Uniformitarian Alternatives

7.1 Entering More Realistic a, b, D and Q/Q0 Values into Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations Fail to Support his YEC Agenda (Corrections Made to Dates in 2010)

Using the “dating” equations from Humphreys et al. (2003a), the currently best available a, b, and Q/Q0 values yield a ridiculous average date of 90,000 +/- 500,000 years (2 unbiased standard deviations) for the Fenton Hill zircons. The scatter of dates over several orders of magnitude result in a standard deviation that is larger than the average.

7.1.1 Introduction: How Realistic are Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations?

In this section, the reliability of Dr. Humphreys’ “dating” equations (equations 12-14 and 16) from Humphreys et al., 2003a, pp. 9-10) are evaluated by entering more realistic ranges of a, b, and Q/Q0 values into them. This evaluation includes equation 16 from Humphreys (2005a) or my following equation 12, which Humphreys (2010b; 2012b; 2018a) uses to perform additional invalid calculations:

The “dates” derived from Dr. Humphreys’ equations demonstrate that the underlying assumptions of his “creation” and “uniformitarian” models are invalid. As further discussed in Section 7.2, Loechelt (2008c) uses additional arguments to show that Dr. Humphreys’ models and their assumptions are very unrealistic and unacceptable. Loechelt (2008c) further develops more rigorous and realistic multi-domain models that demonstrate that the data from Dr. Humphreys and Gentry et al. (1982a), as bad as they are, are consistent with a uniformitarian age for the zircons of about 1.5 billion years.

7.1.2 The Problems with the Helium Diffusion “Dates” in Tables 5 and 6 of my Original Essay

In my original essay, I entered ranges of revised a, b, and Q/Q0 values into Dr. Humphreys’ “dating” equations to produce a series of “dates” for the Fenton Hill zircons. They were listed in my Tables 5 and 6 of my original essay (refined and corrected results are in Table 6 of this essay). Humphreys (2005b) refers to these “dates” as garbage in, garbage out. I must agree with Dr. Humphreys’ observation and I said as much in my original essay. However, if Dr. Humphreys doesn’t like the “dates” in the tables of my original essay, he needs to realize that they were derived from his equations, his incorrect units of measure in Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a), corrections to his Q/Q0 values based on data from YEC R.V. Gentry (Gentry et al., 1982b), and more realistic ranges for his a and b values. Dr. Humphreys could have avoided a lot of problems with his equations and data, if he would have been careful and thorough with his work.

7.1.3 Helium Diffusion “Dates” from Entering a, b, D and Q/Q0 Values from 2010 into Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations

Because of the unit error in Table C1 of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 17) (see Section 4.5) that I did not notice in my original essay and my increasing concerns about Dr. Humphreys’ Q/Q0 values and his other results that are required for his “dating” equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a), I often recalculated and refined the helium diffusion “dates” of this section in the updates of this essay between 2005 and 2010. In earlier versions of this essay, I used “dating” equations 12-14, 16 and 17 from Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 9-10). However, starting with the 2010 version, I’ve decided that since equation 17 is simply a reordering of equation 14c, that only equations 12-14 and 16 should be used. In my 2010 calculations, the helium diffusion coefficients (D) for samples 3 and 5 were taken from measurements in Table III of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8). The D values for samples 1 and 6 were estimated from Table II of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 6) based on temperatures from Table I (p. 3) of the same document. The results are shown in Table 6.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Humphreys et al. (2003a), Humphreys et al. (2004), and Humphreys (2005b) failed to always accurately measure their a values. Humphreys (2000, p. 347) initially estimated a for the Fenton Hill zircons at about 22 microns. But, for unknown reasons and without any measurements of a in their 2002 sample (Humphreys 2005b; Humphreys et al. 2004, Table I, p. 3), that value was later raised to 30 microns (Humphreys et al. 2003a, p. 8; Section 4.6). Based on the descriptions in Humphreys et al. (2003a), Humphreys et al. (2004), Gentry et al. (1982a), and numerous measurements of Fenton Hill zircons in Heimlich (1976) (see my Appendix B), the best estimates of a for any 50-75 microns long zircons in samples 1-6, 2002 and 2003 are probably around 20-30 microns. Loechelt (2008c) further argues that a is probably closer to 20 microns. In Table 6, the values of a are 20 and 30 microns.

Because no standard deviations are given for the single average b value in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) and because the sizes of the biotite grains (b values) in the igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Fenton Hill cores could be radically different than the single average measurement provided by Humphreys et al. (Section 4.7), alternative b values of 0.05 cm and 0.30 cm were also used in the equations. In my calculations with equation 14a-c, the a values were paired with b values in such a way as to obtain a maximum range of possible “dates.”

As discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, and as shown in my Appendix B, the Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a), Humphreys et al. (2003a), and Humphreys et al. (2004) are unreliable. Because of the assumptions underlying his Q0, I also believe that the Q/Q0 values in Loechelt (2008c) are questionable. Considering the invalidity of the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a), I would further argue that the corrected Q/Q0 values in my Appendix A are still not good enough to use. In my calculations in Table 6, I used the maximum and minimum Q/Q0 values for samples 1, ~3, 5 and 6 from my Appendix B (also see Table 4). Furthermore, Gentry et al. (1982) state that the Q and Q/Q0 values for samples 5 and 6 are only approximations. Thus, the dates for these two samples only have one significant digit in Table 6.

If Humphreys (2005b) really believes that “it does not matter in the least to our results whether we call the low-temperature part of the curve a ‘defect line’ or not” and that my criticisms are a “ridiculous quibble,” then he should be willing to allow the results for sample 1 to be entered into his equations. Also, as discussed above, if Dr. Humphreys is willing to derive “dates” for sample 5, he has no justification for objecting to any “dates” from sample 6.

The average of all of the “dates” in Table 6 is a ridiculous 90,000 ± 500,000 “years” old (one significant digit with two unbiased, n-1, standard deviations) with a range of 200 to 1,700,000 years old. Considering the faulty equations and assumptions in Dr. Humphreys’ “creation” and “uniformitarian” models as further shown by Loechelt (2008c), I don’t think that any reliable helium diffusion dates are possible with Dr. Humphreys’ approach. Furthermore, after viewing the absurd range of “dates” using Dr. Humphreys’ methods, YECs have no basis for criticizing the relatively minor problems with radiometric dating (e.g., Loechelt 2020a, p. 38).

Now, Dr. Humphreys and his allies might be tempted to view the average “date” of 90,000 years from the creation model to be close enough to support young-Earth creationism and refute “uniformitarianism.” However, this value is simply an average of a diverse set of meaningless numbers resulting from Dr. Humphreys’ bad assumptions, bogus equations, and inappropriate data (also see discussions in Loechelt, 2008c). The “dates” in Table 6 that result from using Dr. Humphreys’ equations are so poor and scattered over several magnitudes that just one unbiased standard deviation would easily exceed the overall average “date” of 90,000 years.

7.2 More Realistic Helium Diffusion Models in Loechelt (2008c) Support an Ancient Earth and Refute Young-Earth Creationism

Even if pressure and extraneous helium have no significant effect on Dr. Humphreys’ results (Section 6.0), materials engineer Dr. Gary H. Loechelt (Loechelt, 2008a; 2008b; 2008c; 2009a; 2009b) has shown that multi-domain helium diffusion models, which are far more realistic than the “creation” and “uniformitarian” models presented by Humphreys et al. (2004) and Humphreys (2005a), indicate that the Fenton Hill zircons are indeed about 1.5 billion years old. As discussed in Section 4.0, the values for Q/Q0, a, and other parameters in Dr. Humphreys’ manuscripts are highly questionable and are often known to be erroneous. After recognizing the severe problems with Dr. Humphreys’ parameters, Loechelt (2008c) derived his own a and Q/Q0 values. Although Dr. Loechelt’s a of 20 microns seems reasonable, as discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the assumptions underlying his Q0 values, like those of Gentry, Humphreys, and my appendices, are still questionable. The models in Loechelt (2008c) are limited by the poor quality of the data and methods in Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys’ papers. Nevertheless, the models in Loechelt (2008c) are going in the correct direction and are based upon well-documented and reasonable assumptions and arguments. In contrast, Gentry et al. (1982a) and later Dr. Humphreys used faulty and vague arguments, some of which have not been clearly documented even to this day despite repeated requests (Section 4.0).

Loechelt (2008c, p. 15) entered his values into four possible helium diffusion models, which include:

1) an old-Earth (1.44 billion years) multi-domain model with a = 20 microns (results summarized in my Figure 1),

2) a RATE-based young-Earth (6,000 years) model, where the conditions used by Dr. Humphreys were applied, including: a single-domain with a = 30 microns for a spherical zircon surrounded by a biotite shell with identical helium diffusion properties (results summarized in my Figure 1),

3) a revised single-domain young-Earth model that contains more realistic parameters, including a = 20 microns without a biotite shell, and

4) a multi-domain young-Earth model that also contains more realistic parameters, including a = 20 microns without a biotite shell.

Dr. Loechelt’s results (Figures 7-10 on p. 16 of Loechelt, 2008c; also see my Figure 1) show that the old-Earth multi-domain model more accurately matches more realistic Q/Q0 values and the actual thermal history of the Fenton Hill rocks better than any of the three young-Earth models. Loechelt (2008c, p. 15) comments on the results for the first three models:

“The old-earth model by far has the best agreement to the revised data. The RATE young-earth model seriously over-predicts the helium retention at all depths. However, once the artificial helium retaining effects of the over-sized geometry and zircon/biotite interface conditions are removed, the revised young-earth model seriously under-predicts the helium retention. This observation offers a possible insight into why Humphreys might have revised his value for the spherical radius up from his earlier estimate of 22 microns, and why an unrealistic zircon/biotite interface condition was chosen which was not supported by the diffusion data. A realistic young-earth model has serious difficulties matching the measured data without some artificial assistance.” [Dr. Loechelt’s emphasis]

By using the words “some artificial assistance”, Dr. Loechelt strongly implies that Dr. Humphreys manipulated his models and data to favor young-Earth creationism (Section 7.5). Based on how I’ve seen Dr. Humphreys manipulate the data in Magomedov (1970), his inability to explain the origin of his Q0 value, and his dodging about revealing the details of how and when the “corrections” were made to the Q values from Gentry et al. (1982a) (Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 5.1), I think that Dr. Loechelt has a point. There are more than enough suspicious claims, invalid assumptions, and outright errors in Dr. Humphreys’ work to reject all of it and to insist that the project be redone from scratch by qualified personnel.

The young-Earth multi-domain model (#4) also overestimates the Q/Q0 values for the Fenton Hill samples. Loechelt (2008c, p. 17) comments on the young-Earth multi-domain model (#4):

“With the more retentive multi-domain diffusion model, there is now insufficient thermal budget in a young earth to cause enough helium loss. The combination that best fits the measured data is a multi-domain diffusion model in the context of an old earth with multiple thermal events occurring over the last 1.44 billion years.”

Although Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys failed to provide Dr. Loechelt with adequate a, b, Q, and Q0 values for his modeling efforts, Dr. Loechelt’s work is more thorough, has less questionable assumptions, and demonstrates that the available data do not support young-Earth creationism and are most compatible with the zircons being about 1.5 billion years old. Meanwhile, rather than discussing the results and diagrams in Loechelt (2008c) in any detail, in his response to Loechelt (2008c), Humphreys (2008b) simply points to his old discredited diagram (also see my Figures 5 and 15) and spouts his hypocrisy about “peer-review” (Section 10.0).

Figure 15. This Arrhenius diagram is modified from Humphreys (2018a, p. 49). Dr Humphreys frequently uses this figure in his publications (e.g., Humphreys 2005b; Humphreys 2012b; Humphreys 2018a, p. 50; etc.) and boasts about how his YEC model exactly matches his helium diffusion data for the Fenton Hill zircons. As seen in this diagram, Dr. Humphreys’ creation model (red diamonds), unlike his uniformitarian model (purple diamonds), very closely matches the helium measurements from the Fenton Hill zircons (blue diamonds). Thus, according to Dr. Humphreys, his YEC model must be correct. Dr. Humphreys’ critics have shown that both of his creation and uniformitarian models are based on bogus dating equations and incomplete data. His creation model also matches a defect curve and not the more reliable intrinsic curve (see Section 2.3 and my Figure 5). Instead of his creation model giving a date of 6,000 +/- 2,000 years for the Fenton Hill zircons as Dr. Humphreys claims, the equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a) actually provide a ridiculous date of 90,000 +/- 500,000 years for his YEC model (see Section 7.1 and Appendix B).

Loechelt (2009a; 2009b) then replies to Humphreys (2008b). Loechelt (2009a, p. 2), in particular, comments on the lack of depth in Humphreys (2008b):

“For Humphreys to dismiss my work, which was thoroughly documented in a 37 page technical paper (Loechelt, 2008c), with only three paragraphs of unsubstantiated rhetoric in a web article (Humphreys, 2008[b]) demonstrates his lack of serious scholarship.”

We have yet to receive any detailed response by Dr. Humphreys on the success of the multi-domain uniformitarian model and the failure of the YEC models in Loechelt (2008c).

7.3 Helium Diffusion Results in Wolfe and Stockli (2010) and Other Peer-Reviewed Papers Fail to Support Dr. Humphreys’ YEC Agenda

If Dr. Humphreys and his YEC allies are correct about helium diffusion and global accelerated radioactive decay, then many other zircons from around the world should contain abundant helium and also yield helium diffusion dates of 6,000 years or less. This would be the case even if radiometric dating indicates that the zircons are millions to billions of years old.

As Loechelt (2020a, pp. 39, 47) reminds us, Dr. Humphreys and his supporters are arguing that his Fenton Hill study indicates accelerated radioactive decay and a need for an entirely new physics merely on the basis of four data points on a defect curve in just one experiment. Thus, several YECs (e.g., DeYoung 2005, p. 180; Williams and Hartnett 2005, pp. 192-193) admit that the accelerated radioactive decay conclusions of Humphreys et al. (2004), Humphreys (2005a), and other RATE studies urgently need to be confirmed before YECs or anyone else can claim that the laws of chemistry and physics radically changed in the past few thousand years. YECs Froede (2012) and Froede and Akridge (2013a; 2013b) go even further and argue the accelerated radioactive decay conclusions espoused by RATE have not been demonstrated.

Loechelt (2020a) argues that several more recent diffusion studies, including Wolfe and Stockli (2010), have failed to support Dr. Humphreys’ claims about helium diffusion and accelerated radioactive decay. Wolfe and Stockli (2010) performed a helium diffusion study on zircons from the KTB deep borehole in southeastern Germany, which Loechelt (2020a) summarizes. The German KTB borehole passes through four distinct crustal sections, labelled Blocks A-D (my Figure 16). The rocks in the KTB borehole mostly consist of paragneisses (highly metamorphosed sedimentary rocks) and metabasites/amphibolites (typically metamorphosed basalts and andesites) that last cooled within the past 60-125 million years (Wolfe and Stockli 2010, pp. 72-73).

Figure 16: Borehole temperatures and helium diffusion and U-Th/He radiometric dates for zircons from various depths in the German KTB borehole. This is Figure 7 of Wolfe and Stockli (2010, p. 79), Copyright © Elsevier, used with permission. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE. The small black squares are the individual U-Th/He dates. The large black squares are averages of the U-Th/He dates at a given depth. Each horizontal line is the maximum spread of U-Th/He dates at that depth, which represents the uncertainty. The hatched region represents laboratory-derived bulk diffusion kinetics for activation energies (Ea) ranging from 165 to 171 kJ/mol (39.4 to 40.8 kcal) and frequency factors (D0) of 0.09 to 0.46 cm2/sec according to models in Reiners et al. (2004) and Reiners (2005). Like Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Wolfe and Stockli (2010) compared radiometric dates for their zircons to helium diffusion dates from their step heating experiments. The small circles (zircons from sample ZKTB4050) and diamonds (zircons from sample ZKTB1516) were samples used in their step-heating experiments.

Like Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Wolfe and Stockli (2010) compared radiometric dates for their zircons to helium diffusion dates. Wolfe and Stockli (2010, p. 74) obtained 120 radiometric dates on 37 samples with the U-Th/He method. The zircons had similar clarity and other physical properties, and varied in width from about 65 to 120 microns (Wolfe and Stockli 2010, p. 73). The dates used the Fish Canyon Tuff standard (28.4 +/- 2.3 million years) and the analytical uncertainty (2σ) was about 8% (Wolfe and Stockli 2010, p. 74). Normally, U-Th/He radiometric method is not used because of the susceptibility of helium loss from the samples. However, this method allowed Wolfe and Stockli (2010) to better visualize the effect of subsurface temperatures on helium loss in their zircons.

Radioactive decay within the Earth produces heat (Section 8.3). Thus, like the Fenton Hill borehole and other deep boreholes, temperatures in the German borehole increase with depth. At the surface, the average temperature is 7oC and the temperatures increase to about 265oC at a depth of 9100 m (Wolfe and Stockli 2010, pp. 70-71; my Figure 16). This compares with a maximum temperature of 313°C at 4310 m depth at the bottom of the deepest Fenton Hill borehole, EE-2 (Laney et al. 1981, p. 4; my Table 1). Thus, the temperatures in the Fenton Hill borehole are hotter at shallower depth, which is why this area was evaluated as a potential geothermal energy source in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Section 2.2).

The individual U-Th/He radiometric dates obtained by Wolfe and Stockli (2010) from the KTB borehole are plotted as small black squares in Figure 16. The large black squares are averages of the U-Th/He dates at a given depth. Each horizontal line is the maximum spread of U-Th/He dates at that depth, which represents the uncertainty. The temperature increase with depth in the German borehole means that helium loss should increase with depth and the U-Th/He dates should decrease (Loechelt 2020a, p. 40). Indeed, they do.

From the surface to a depth of about 4,700 meters, the U-Th/He dates were on average at 85+/-15 million years old (Wolfe and Stockli 2010, p. 74). Because of helium loss with depth, uniformitarians would argue that only the near-surface radiometric dates of 85 +/- 15 million years are likely to be real. At 4,700 meters and deeper in the borehole, temperatures were high enough (about 130oC and higher) that substantial helium loss occurred in the zircons and the radiometric dates declined. At depths below 7,200 meters or 210oC and higher, helium was mostly gone from the zircons and the U-Th/He dates were below “one million years” (Wolfe and Stockli 2010, pp. 69, 74). Many YECs would probably conclude that the KTB rocks formed towards the end of Noah’s Flood and that they experienced about 70-90 million years-worth of accelerated radioactive decay (Loechelt 2020a, p. 40).

Wolfe and Stockli (2010) performed step-wise heating diffusion studies on zircons from two amphibolite samples, which were ZKTB1516 and ZKTB4050. The activation energy (Ea) of the zircons from ZKTB4050 was 160 kJ/mol (38.2 kcal/mol) and the frequency factor (D0) was 0.03-0.04 cm2/sec (Wolfe and Stockli 2010, pp. 69, 78; my Table 7). For the zircons from sample ZKTB1516, Ea was 183 kJ/mol (43.7 kcal/mol) with D0 as 0.6 cm2/sec (Wolfe and Stockli 2010, their Table 2, p. 78). Notice in Table 7 that the low-temperature zircon data favored by Humphreys (2005a) for his YEC model have an abnormally low activation energy and frequency factor when compared with 21st century high temperature zircon data. As argued in Section 2.3, diffusivities at lower temperatures should be estimated by extrapolating from high-temperature intrinsic curves and not by using low-temperature defect curves.

Assuming a cooling rate of 10oC/million years, the closure temperature of the ZKTB4050 German zircons was about 181oC, which is in excellent agreement with earlier studies. Sample ZKTB1516 gave a somewhat higher zircon closure temperature of about 215oC (Wolfe and Stockli 2010, p. 74).

According to the YEC model advocated by Dr. Humphreys, the KTB zircons should retain very little helium at any depth if they are actually tens to 100 million years old (Loechelt 2020a, p. 40). As shown in Figure 16, the shaded region represents the range of expected zircon uniformitarian helium diffusion dates with temperature based on information in Reiners et al. (2004) and other literature utilized by Wolfe and Stockli (2010). Like Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Wolfe and Stockli (2010) also calculated helium diffusion dates for their zircon samples. The two samples, ZKTB1516 and ZKTB4050, are represented by lines of diamonds and circles, respectively, in Figure 16. Wolfe and Stockli (2010) were able to compare their helium diffusion dates with their U-Th/He radiometric dates. Although there is some scatter in the U-Th/He dates where a few of them exceed 120 million years, Wolfe and Stockli (2010) show that the helium diffusion dates of ZKTB4050 (line of solid circles) largely overlap the expected diffusion kinetics from Reiners et al. (2004) and Reiners (2005) (hatched bulk diffusion envelop) and closely match the measured U-Th/He radiometric dates of <1 to 96 million years (Figure 16). The calculated helium diffusion dates for sample ZKTB1516 (line of diamonds) are somewhat higher than expected, but are not outlandishly different (Figure 16).

As stressed by Loechelt (2020a, pp. 40-41), if these zircons were largely affected by accelerated radioactive decay, the diffusion dates in Figure 16 should not match the U-Th/He radiometric dates at all. That is, the diffusion dates would only be thousands of years old and not the millions of years that are shown in Figure 16. The results in Wolfe and Stockli (2010) are consistent with an ancient Earth and fail to support YEC accelerated radioactive decay and Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model. The Wolfe and Stockli (2010) results are also consistent with the expectations of the old-Earth multi-domain model in Loechelt (2008c).

Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) notes that alpha radioactive decay from uranium depends on the nuclear force and evidence indicates that the decay rate is insensitive to environmental conditions, such as temperature and pressure. However, YECs want to believe that helium diffusion, which is greatly influenced by pressure, temperature, radiation damage in the zircons and many other environmental factors, is somehow a better chronometer. Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) concludes that helium diffusion tells us more about the properties of zircon crystals than the age of the Earth.

7.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Overreliance on His Pretty Figure

Sometimes apparently good correlations just don’t survive scrutiny.

It’s clearly obvious that Dr. Humphreys can’t deal with the numerous questions from his critics (e.g., my Appendix C) and that his figure as seen in my Figures 5 and 15 is the only card that he has left to play. While Dr. Humphreys and many of his followers are obviously overawed by his pretty figure, wise individuals will easily see through this ploy. Just because his invalid equations and inaccurate data can be made to spit out a meaningless number that he likes (6,000), Dr. Humphreys has convinced himself and others that his conclusions must be “gospel” and he is more than willing to ignore and inappropriately dismiss any data or criticisms that expose the fraudulent nature of his 6,000 +/- 2,000 years old “creation date.” After all, why should he check his math and assumptions when he thinks that the Bible is telling him that he got the “right and final answer”? Similarly, too many overconfident high school math students conclude that if they happen to get the answer in the back of the algebra book, then they must have done the problem correctly. The problem for Dr. Humphreys is his answer of “6,000” is not in the front of the Bible, as Old-Earth creationists and secularists argue, and sometimes the “answers” in the front or back of books are wrong. Secularists argue that the type of blind dogmatism utilized by Dr. Humphreys and his allies is exactly why young-Earth creationism has no place in the laboratory, field research, or science classroom. Through one way or another, if they can pull a number out of the ether that they believe confirms their Biblical interpretations, too many of them (but fortunately not all YECs) will shut their eyes and ears to all criticism.

Some of Dr. Humphreys’ followers are so in awe of his pretty diagram that they sometimes make scientifically indefensible statements. For example, CreationWiki #3 (2009) makes the ridiculous claim that statistical information on Dr. Humphreys’ parameters (such as a standard deviation for b) are not important because Dr. Humphreys’ diagram indicates that his errors are “not large enough to be relevant.” Had the author(s) of CreationWiki #3 actually studied Dr. Humphreys’ diagram and methods in any detail, they would have realized that careful measurements, averages, and standard deviations are critical in science, especially with Dr. Humphreys’ diagrams and his radical interpretations about accelerated radioactive decay derived from the diagram.

Thanks to Loechelt (2008c), Wolfe and Stockli (2010), and others, we now have “pretty diagrams”, such as Figures 1 and 16, that are more robustly supported by evidence than anything that Dr. Humphreys has offered. Unlike Dr. Humphreys’ diagram, the diagrams in Loechelt (2008c) and Wolfe and Stockli (2010) are based on the laws of chemistry and physics rather than the unproven magic of accelerated radioactive decay and cooling (Section 8.3). So, contrary to Humphreys (2018a, p. 56), it’s Dr. Humphreys that is embracing “strange and exotic processes” and not Loechelt (2008c). Nevertheless, as discussed earlier, the possible effects from extraneous helium and high subsurface pressures as well as the unreliable a, b, Q/Q0 values, and other data that went into both Dr. Humphreys’ and Dr. Loechelt’s models do not allow anyone at this time to conclusively determine the age of the Fenton Hill zircons on the basis of helium diffusion. Much more work needs to be done, such as a high- pressure study based on Dunai and Roselieb (1996) (Section 6.2.6) and verification that that the Fenton Hill zircons were not contaminated with extraneous helium (Section 6.1). Yet, the results in Wolfe and Stockli (2010) and other studies indicate that Loechelt (2008c) is on the right path. While, Dr. Humphreys, his young-Earth model, and claims of miraculous accelerated radioactive decay and cooling are not. So, using Dr. Humphreys’ shallow approach to research (e.g., Humphreys 2008b), an individual could point to Dr. Loechelt’s figures and also proclaim: “Finally, if Dr. Loechelt used such poor judgment in choosing the assumptions for his old-Earth model, how did it happen to anticipate the data in his figures so exactly? (e.g., Figure 1)” and “This sequence of events places the ‘burden of proof’ (Section 9.2) on the YECs, because they must explain how, if there is no truth to Dr. Loechelt’s old-Earth model, the data ‘accidentally by sheer coincidence just happened by blind chance’ to fall right on the predictions of the Old-Earth model.”

7.5 Dr. Humphreys’ 1990s “Prediction” of Helium Diffusion in Zircons

Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) claims that way back in the 1990s, he successfully predicted the helium diffusion of the Fenton Hill zircons with a YEC model. Although he expected his predictions to be rough, Dr. Humphreys estimated the helium diffusivity values of the zircons by assuming that their age was 6,000 years old. He further assumed that the current temperatures for each of the zircons (samples 1-6 in my Table 1) had been constant over the 6,000 years. He made an assumption of constant temperatures because he admitted:

“I knew that temperatures in the formation could not naturally change much in only thousands of years, so I connected each diffusivity value with the temperature of that sample in the borehole today.” [my emphasis]

His admission that subsurface temperatures at Fenton Hill “could not naturally change much in only thousands of years” creates serious problems for the YEC model as discussed in Sections 8.1 and 8.2. Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) then states that his prediction appears as the young-Earth model in his Figure 2, which is duplicated as the red diamonds in Figure 15 in this essay.

Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) claims that back in the 1990s he had no idea if his prediction was right. According to him, the prediction was published in Humphreys (2000). In 2003, Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) claims that, to his surprise, the results from the first helium measurements matched his predictions. Since then, Dr. Humphreys often stresses (e.g., Humphreys 2005b; Humphreys 2012b; Humphreys 2018a, p. 50) that his YEC conclusions must be correct because his YEC model shown in my Figure 15 accurately “predicted” the helium diffusion measurements from Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and that the “predicted” results from his uniformitarian model are more than 100,000 times too small for the Fenton Hill data.

Of course, Dr. Humphreys and his followers are also convinced that his YEC model is right because its supposed 6,000 +/- 2,000 year old date supports the “True” age of the Earth as “revealed” in the Bible. Dr. Humphreys is so mesmerized by his figure that he is in denial and will not deal with the serious errors and numerous questions associated with this figure and his work. This is what happens whenever someone thinks that they have the final absolute Truth.

Dr. Humphreys and his allies clearly want us to replace a coherent history of the Earth based on countless valid and consistent radiometric dates and other data, and everything else that we know about radiometric decay with Dr. Humphreys’ untenable YEC model and a good dose of superficial “God did it!s.” Instead of adequately dealing with the numerous problems associated with his YEC model, Dr. Humphreys simply keeps referring to his pretty diagram (e.g., Figure 2 in Humphreys, 2005b, Figure 3 in Humphreys, 2008b, Humphreys 2012b; Humphreys 2018a, p. 50, etc.) and emphasizing the “consistency” between his YEC model and his laboratory vacuum helium diffusion measurements. For example, Humphreys (2005b) states:

“Finally, if I used such poor judgment in choosing the simplifying assumptions for my “6,000 year” model, how did it happen to anticipate the data in Figure 2 so exactly?”

Again, referring to his Figure 2, Humphreys (2005b) further issues this irrelevant challenge to his critics:

“This sequence of events places the burden of disproof on the critics, because they must explain how, if there is no truth to our model, the data ‘accidentally by sheer coincidence just happened by blind chance’ to fall right on the predictions of our model.” (Also see Section 9.2.)

Humphreys (2008b) again repeats this tiresome and empty mantra. Humphreys (2008b) also accuses his critics (including me) of supposedly ignoring his diagram. Yet, the evidence and discussions in this essay demonstrate that Humphreys’ pretty figure is based on faulty data and bad assumptions. Furthermore, Loechelt (2008c) has plenty of his own pretty figures (e.g., my Figure 1) that totally discredit Dr. Humphreys’ claims by producing a superior and more thoroughly supported uniformitarian model.

Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) also states that none of his critics have explained how that “prediction” occurred by accident. Yet, Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) again shows that he is not familiar with the literature of his critics. Earlier, Loechelt (2009a, pp. 5-7) had shown exactly how Dr. Humphreys’ correlation between the zircon data and his YEC model was artificially achieved without any accidents or true predictions. Loechelt (2008c; 2009a, pp. 5-7) argues that since the beginning of this RATE project when Humphreys (2000) was published, Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues have “tuned” their YEC model and its assumptions. For example, Dr. Humphreys increased the value of a from 22 to 30 microns without any adequate explanation (Section 4.6). Furthermore, Loechelt (2008c; 2009a, pp. 5-6) derived additional YEC models among several possible ones that Humphreys et al. did not even consider. Why did only one of several possible YEC models just happen to match their analytical data? Loechelt (2009a, pp. 5-7) is highly suspicious. So, the “consistency” between the YEC model and the zircon helium diffusion data is not the decisive result or amazing prediction that Humphreys (2005b; 2008b; 2012b; 2018a; etc.) wants us to believe. Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) again denies that anything “weird” went on in his prediction. Yet, he has never taken the time to respond to the specific charges and questions in Loechelt (2009a, pp. 5-7).

So, what do the “predictions” in Dr. Humphreys’ pre-2003 publications really say about his YEC model? Two relevant graphs with diffusivity predictions appear in Humphreys (2000). In Figure 6 of Humphreys (2000, p. 347), he replicates the Magomedov (1970) graph, which was Dr. Humphreys’ prediction of helium diffusivities in bare zircons under a laboratory vacuum. Unlike in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6), as discussed in Section 5.1, the units in Figure 6 of Humphreys (2000, p. 347) correctly used the natural log data in Magomedov (1970). As discussed in Section 5.1, once Humphreys et al. (2003a) discovered that the Magomedov helium diffusion results were actually orders of magnitude too high to comply with their laboratory results, they inappropriately manipulated the Magomedov data to coincide with their and other results (my Figure 11). Thus, Figure 6 of Humphreys (2000, p. 347) is not a good prediction of the actual helium diffusivities found in the Fenton Hill zircons of Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and Humphreys (2005a).

Figure 7 in Humphreys (2000, p. 348) is the second graph that makes predictions about helium diffusivities. Although the predicted values in Figure 7 of Humphreys (2000, p. 348) are very close to the zircon results in Figure 2 of Humphreys (2018a, p. 49), rather than dealing with zircons, the prediction in Figure 7 was for biotite. To be an authentic prediction, Humphreys (2000) needed to closely predict the helium diffusivity values for the right mineral and he did not.

In Humphreys (2000, pp. 346-347), Dr. Humphreys argued that biotite surrounds the Fenton Hill zircons. He also originally thought that the biotite would “bottle up” the helium within the zircons. That is, biotite was supposedly more impermeable to helium diffusion than zircons (Loechelt 2009a, p. 5). However, because biotites have strong cleavage planes and resemble a deck of cards (Figure 10) and zircons do not, geologists would predict that helium diffusivities would be far greater in biotite than zircon, and that once the helium leaves the zircons, it could with relative ease escape through the cleavage planes of the surrounding biotite. Any geologists on the RATE team peer-reviewing Humphreys (2000) should have caught his mistake.

After receiving the actual biotite data, Humphreys et al. (2004, pp. 3-4) admits his mistake and recognizes that helium diffusion would be greater in biotites and that biotites would not successfully bottle up the helium. As discussed in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, however, the diffusion of helium in biotite under natural conditions would be complicated by high subsurface pressures, fluctuations in subsurface temperatures, and any increases in background extraneous helium.

So, how close were the predictions of helium diffusivities in biotite in Figure 7 of Humphreys (2000, p. 348) when compared with the actual biotite measurements in Humphreys et al. (2003a)? As shown in my Figure 17 from Loechelt (2009a, his Figure 2, p. 5), the data points from the predicted YEC biotite model (yellow triangles) and the actual biotite data points (squares) are not very close at all considering the logarithmic scales of the graph.

As discussed in Section 2.3, Humphreys (2005a, pp. 61-62; 2010b, p. 38; 2012b, footnote #6, p. 49; 2018a, pp. 53-54) incorrectly insists that to determine any diffusivities at lower temperatures, extrapolations must be made from the defect curve to the lower temperatures. As seen in Figure 17, the defect curve in blue actually moves past the predicted RATE YEC model for biotite (yellow triangles). Using Dr. Humphreys’ procedures, his YEC prediction fails with biotite. However, if Dr. Humphreys was to admit that his arguments in Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-54) about extrapolating diffusivities with the defect curve are wrong and that Dr. Loechelt in Loechelt and Henke (2018) and Loechelt (2020a) is right about extrapolating to lower temperatures with the intrinsic curve, then the intrinsic curve extrapolation, as shown by the red dashed line in Figure 17, does pass very close to some of the predicted data points in his biotite YEC model (yellow triangles). The problem is that if Dr. Humphreys embraces extrapolating to lower temperatures with an intrinsic curve, then he is admitting that the correspondence between his YEC model and the defect curve in Figures 5 and 15 are meaningless.

Figure 17: The predictions of helium diffusivities in biotite made by Humphreys (2000) from his Figure 7 (yellow triangles) are compared to actual analytical results in Humphreys et al. (2003a) (squares). In this figure, the intrinsic curve is a solid red line and the defect curve is blue. Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-54) argues that the defect curve (in blue) should be extended to determine the diffusivities in minerals at lower temperatures. He uses this approach to argue that his uniformitarian model would require impossibly cold temperatures to succeed (Section 2.3.5). If his recommended approach in used and considering the logarithmic scales on this graph, the analytical results in this figure are not even close to his prediction. However, as discussed in Section 2.3, extrapolations should be made off the intrinsic and not the defect curve to determine lower temperature diffusivities. When the procedures advocated by Humphreys (2018a, pp. 50-54) are ignored, extending the intrinsic curve (dashed red line) to lower temperatures does happen to closely intersect some of the biotite data points in the YEC model. This figure was modified from Figure 2 in Loechelt (2009a, p. 5) and was used with the permission of Dr. Gary Loechelt.

As discussed throughout this essay, there are numerous problems with Dr. Humphreys’ models in terms of adopting bad starting assumptions, “tuning” the models to fit the data as described in Loechelt (2009a, pp. 5-7), using questionable data from Gentry et al. (1982a), etc., that any of Dr. Humphreys’ claims about successful predictions and agreements are misleading. Thus, as discussed in Loechelt (2009a, pp. 5-7) and contrary to the claims in Humphreys (2018a, p. 55), there are no correct YEC diffusivity predictions for zircons in Humphreys (2000).

8.0 Some Hot Topics

8.1 The Real Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface that Dr. Humphreys’ “Acts of Generosity” Can’t Dismiss

8.1.1 Thermal Conditions in the Subsurface of Fenton Hill

When the Fenton Hill boreholes were drilled, temperatures were recorded in the boreholes at various depths (Table 1). As previously discussed in Section 2.3, temperature has a strong effect on helium diffusion in zircons. In general, zircons at higher subsurface temperatures should retain less helium with time. Thus, any model of helium diffusion in the Fenton Hill zircons, including Dr. Humphreys’ young- and old-Earth models, must accurately consider the thermal history of the subsurface rocks of the site.

Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 54) briefly cite Kolstad and McGetchin (1978), Harrison et al. (1986), and Sasada (1989) as major references that discuss and attempt to model the thermal history of the subsurface of Fenton Hill. As further discussed below, Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 54) claim that information in all three of these references indicates that temperatures in the subsurface were on average higher in the geologic past than their present temperatures. Not surprisingly, many of Dr. Humphreys’ supporters, such as Oard (2019, p. 97), uncritically accept these temperature claims from Dr. Humphreys.

Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) also recognizes that uniformitarians have concluded that during much of the 1.5 billon year history of the Fenton Hill zircons, the zircons were actually at cooler subsurface temperatures than their present values. In response, Humphreys (2005a, p. 52; 2010b) argues that even if the Fenton Hill zircons experienced long periods of cooler temperatures, the most recent heating events described in the three articles would have wiped out the helium and made the 1.5 billion year old-Earth model indefensible. The YEC model would supposedly win by default.

8.1.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Unrealistic “Generous Offer”

Although uniformitarian models should have to deal with any negative effects from higher temperatures and rapid helium diffusion, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 9-10; 2004, p. 8) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) decided to be “generous” to their uniformitarian model. Rather than dealing with the effects of any periodic higher temperatures, Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues assumed that the measured temperatures in the Fenton Hill boreholes have been constant for the past 1.5 billion years. By being “generous” to his uniformitarian model, Dr. Humphreys wanted uniformitarians to think that he was doing them a favor. In reality, he was trying to demonstrate that even under a “best case” temperature scenario for his uniformitarian model, the model utterly fails to explain the helium concentrations in the Fenton Hill zircons. That is, Dr. Humphreys and his allies are hoping that uniformitarians will recognize that, even under this best-case scenario, their uniformitarian model is hopeless. They just might as well repent, recognize the YEC alternative, and embrace young-Earth creationism. Of course, Loechelt (2008c) had other ideas.

In an earlier version of this essay back in 2005, I pointed out the invalidity of the constant temperature assumption in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 9-10). Rather than properly reviewing earlier versions of my essay, Sasada (1989), Harrison et al. (1986) and other sources, correcting his mistakes, and coming up with a more realistic thermal history, Humphreys (2005b) simply repeats his tired old cliché about being “generous to the uniformitarians”:

“Henke is counting on his readers not to have read my papers carefully enough to know that I considered and discussed all the factors he mentions. I pointed out [ICC 2003, section 7] that, ‘Our assumption of constant temperatures is generous to uniformitarians.’“

Dr. Humphreys simply did not properly consider reality when evaluating his uniformitarian model. Again, even if the thermal history of the Fenton Hill site was unfavorable to the retention of helium in zircons in his uniformitarian model, Humphreys (2005b) fails to realize that detailed accuracy and proper use of the scientific method are always more important than adopting obviously false assumptions to supposedly be “generous” to your opponents. As I stated in my original essay that Humphreys (2005b) ignored and that he is counting on his readers not to have read, scientists don’t need or want any erroneous “acts of generosity” from him or anyone else. Uniformitarians want a scientifically valid model for the Fenton Hill subsurface (e.g., Loechelt 2008c) based on the actual thermal history of the site and not unrealistic assumptions that allow Dr. Humphreys to avoid inconvenient calculations and then misrepresent uniformitarianism. If Dr. Humphreys was right about a heating problem existing for the uniformitarian model, scientists would have to deal with it realistically and in detail.

Harrison et al. (1986) recognized heating events at Fenton Hill at about 1030 million and 870 million years ago. Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1905) also identified a noticeable thermal event in the Fenton Hill core samples within the past 40,000 years. Using 40Ar/39Ar dates from feldspars at depths of 1130, 2620, and 2900 meters in the Fenton Hill core samples, Harrison et al. (1986, pp. 1899, 1901) concluded that the temperatures for these samples fell below approximately 200°C about 1030 million years ago and below about 130°C around 870 million years ago. The closure temperature for helium in zircons is about 200oC (Reiners et al., 2002). That is, zircons should considerably accumulate their radiogenic helium below 200oC. Whitefield (2008) notes that apatite fission track dates on subsurface samples from Fenton Hill indicate that subsurface temperatures dropped below 125oC at 790 meters about 66.8 million years ago and at 1130 meters about 55.1 million years ago (Brookins et al. 1977). The fission tracks are only preserved in apatite once its temperature drops below about 125oC (Whitefield, 2008). Fission tracks in sphene (titanite) indicate that the temperature of the rocks at depths of 743.4 meters (2439 feet) dropped below about 250oC about 1.3 billion years ago (Brookins et al. 1977; Whitefield, 2008). Loechelt (2008c, Appendix A) then updated the information from Harrison et al. (1986) and used other sources to construct his own thermal history of the Fenton Hill subsurface (Section 8.1.3). Although I fully recognize that YECs don’t believe any of these radiometric dates because the dates conflict with their biblical beliefs, if Dr. Humphreys is going to construct a uniformitarian model that actually represents uniformitarianism, he must use these dates.

As summarized in my Figure 13, Sasada (1989, p. 264) used fluid inclusions in quartz and calcite veins in a granodiorite to determine the variable thermal history of the GT-2 well core at a depth of 2624 meters. Sasada (1989, pp. 261-262) suggests that the thermal maximum temperature of 230oC on the left side of my Figure 13 was associated with the volcanic eruption of the Bandelier Tuff, which was about 1.12 million years ago. However, this association is speculative. Loechelt (2012, footnote #7, p. 48) argues that the first heating episode on the left side of Figure 13 could have occurred in the Precambrian.

According to Sasada (1989, p. 262-265), the warm event at 230oC was followed by a cooler period, which included the formation of fluid inclusions in calcite. In particular, Sasada (1989, p. 263) argues that fluids were trapped in secondary inclusions within calcite veins and that at a depth of 2624 meters, temperatures eventually became at least 26°C cooler than present (about 152°C rather than the current value of 178°C). As shown in my Figure 13, temperatures then rose to the current temperature of 178oC.

As discussed in Section 6.1, it’s possible that these fluids emplaced substantial extraneous helium in the zircons. If so, both the modeling efforts of Dr. Humphreys and Dr. Loechelt would be undermined.

8.1.3 Dr. Loechelt Studies the Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface in Greater Detail

Loechelt (2008c; 2010) reviewed the geology of the Fenton Hill region in considerable detail and discusses important information on the thermal history of the subsurface of the region. Figure 18 summarizes the thermal history for Fenton Hill at a depth of 2900 meters from Loechelt (2008c, p. 8). The measured temperature at this depth when the cores were collected was 197oC (Table 1; time zero on Figure 18). The yellow line represents Dr. Humphreys’ totally unrealistic “act of generosity”, where the temperature has been constant at 197oC for the past one billion years (i.e., 1000 Ma on Figure 18). Loechelt (2008c) calculated a far more realistic thermal history at 2900 meters depth, which is the blue line in Figure 18. For the most part, the thermal history indicates that the temperature at a depth of 2900 meters has actually been cooler during the past 800 million years than the present temperature of 197oC. As further discussed in Section 7.2, Loechelt (2008c) demonstrates that the old-Earth or uniformitarian model is entirely compatible with the helium contents of the Fenton Hill zircons and this thermal history (e.g., my Figure 1). Not only is Dr. Humphreys’ young-Earth model incorrect, his “act of generosity” actually hindered rather than helped his uniformitarian model.

8.1.4 Dr. Humphreys Admits to Reading a Graph Backwards

The following statements are the only references to Harrison et al. (1986) and Sasada (1989) in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 10):

“Later studies (Harrison, Morgan & Blackwell, 1986; Sakada [sic, Sasada] 1989) add a more recent pulse of heat and have past temperatures being higher, 110 to 190oC more than today’s levels just 24,000 years ago, and higher before that (Harrison et al., 1986, p. 1906, Figure 9). This would put the samples well into the high-slope ‘intrinsic’ range of diffusion.”

Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) repeats these statements except that he spells Sasada’s name correctly. These statements are supposedly based on Figure 9 of Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1906). Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1906) modeled the thermal effects of a pluton that occurred near Fenton Hill about 24,000 to 26,000 years ago.

Figure 18: The one-billion year thermal history (blue line) of the Fenton Hill subsurface at a depth of 2900 meters based on calculations in Loechelt (2008c). Except for a warm period within the past 40,000 years (Figure 13), which is too recent to show up on the time scale in this figure, the thermal history indicates that the temperature at a depth of 2900 meters has actually been cooler than 197oC during the past 800 million years. Rather than considering how the actual thermal history, like the one shown in this diagram, might affect his models, Humphreys (2005b) improperly argues that he can ignore the thermal history of this and other samples from the Fenton Hill subsurface by claiming that his assumption of constant temperature over time (yellow line) is “generous” to his “uniformitarian” model (see text for details). This is Figure 3 in Loechelt (2008c, p. 8). Dr. Gary H. Loechelt kindly granted permission to use this figure.

Loechelt (2010) modified Figure 9 in Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1906), which is shown in my Figure 19. As indicated in the Table I of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 3), the temperature at a depth of 2900 meters at Fenton Hill was 197oC when the borehole was drilled several decades ago. For the sample at a depth of 2900 meters, the solid blue line in Figure 19 shows the temperature of 197oC occurring at a time of 24 ka or 24,000 years on the right side of the graph and not at zero years. Zero years was 24,000 years ago. As stated in Loechelt (2008c, pp. 8-10; 2010), Dr. Humphreys in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 10) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) read the graph in Figure 19 backwards! Rather than the temperature being 110 to 190oC hotter during the past 24,000 years as Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 10) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) claim, it was cooler. Thus, Dr. Humphreys’ assuming that the temperature was constantly at 197oC at this depth of 2900 meters is not being “generous” to any uniformitarian model. It is a totally erroneous assumption that adds to the many other flaws in his helium diffusion models. To his credit, Humphreys (2010b, pp. 35, 36) admitted his mistake. He further admits in Humphreys (2010b, p. 36; 2012d) that he had not carefully studied Harrison et al. (1986). Nevertheless, as discussed below, he still attempts to minimize the serious consequences of this misinterpretation and promote a 6,000 year old date for the Fenton Hill zircons.

Once he read the graph in Figure 19 properly, Humphreys (2010b, p. 36) recognized that the temperature at 2900 meters depth in the Fenton Hill subsurface started out at about 87oC. Rather than recognizing the reasonable thermal history of the Fenton Hill subsurface in Figure 18 that was developed by Loechelt (2008c), Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) commits another serious blunder. He falsely accuses Dr. Loechelt and Harrison et al. (1986) of claiming that the subsurface temperature at around 3 kilometers depth was only 87oC for most of the 1.5 billion year old history of the Fenton Hill rocks. Nowhere does Dr. Loechelt or Harrison et al. (1986) ever make such a claim. This is just another strawperson argument against the uniformitarian model from Dr. Humphreys. Notice that the temperature profile in Figure 18 only briefly drops to and below 87oC over the course of the last one billon years. Even though temperatures in the subsurface of Fenton Hill have widely varied during the past one billion years, the thermal history in Figure 18 is totally compatible with the uniformitarian helium diffusion model in Loechelt (2008c).

Figure 19: The thermal history of Fenton Hill borehole, New Mexico, USA, at various depths for the past 24,000 years modified from Figure 1 of Loechelt (2010) and Figure 9 of Harrison et al. (1986). Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) and Humphreys et al. (2003, p. 10) read this graph backwards. He and his coauthors mistakenly thought that zero years was present day. Based on the fact that the current temperature at 2900 m depth at Fenton Hill is 197oC (see Humphreys et al. 2004, Table I, p. 3), zero years on the x-axis of this graph is actually 24,000 years ago and 24,000 years on the x-axis is present time. The graph shows that temperatures were actually lower than present during the past 24,000 years. Diagram kindly drafted and provided by Dr. Gary H. Loechelt.

8.2 Further Debates between Dr. Humphreys and Dr. Loechelt over the Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface

8.2.1 Overview

In several public exchanges, Loechelt (2008c; 2009a; 2010; 2012; 2020b) and Humphreys (2008b; 2010b; 2011; 2012b; 2012d; 2018a, pp. 53-54; 2020a) discuss various aspects of the subsurface thermal history of Fenton Hill. Humphreys (2008b) is meant to be a rebuttal of Loechelt (2008c). However, as he does so often in his responses to his critics, Humphreys (2008b) contains a lot of arm-waving and no calculations or detailed arguments to refute the extensive and thoroughly supported uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) (my Section 7.2). Loechelt (2009a; 2009b) are rebuttals of Humphreys (2008b). Humphreys (2010b; 2011; 2012d) are then replies to Loechelt (2010). Humphreys (2012d) is a summary of Humphreys (2011) written for the general public. Except for the reference, Dr. Loechelt is only identified as “the critic” in the text of Humphreys (2012d). This is a common strategy in many YEC articles. The names and/or references of critics are avoided so that YEC readers won’t be tempted to look at the other side.

Like his earlier efforts, Humphreys (2010b) makes a number of claims that turn out to have little or no merit. To begin with, Humphreys (2010b, p. 35) simply cannot accept the idea that hot, tiny zircons could retain helium over the course of 1.5 billion years. Yet, the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) shows that they can (also see my Figure 1). Section 6.0 in this essay further demonstrates that high subsurface pressures and the presence of extraneous helium can further promote the retention of helium in zircons and other small minerals. While the Dr. Humphreys’ studies were done under an unnatural vacuum, laboratory studies in Dunai and Roselieb (1996) show that under 250 bars of subsurface pressure and at temperatures up to 700oC, helium would take tens to hundreds of millions of years to just partially diffuse out of garnet, a hard orthosilicate mineral like zircon (Section 6.2.6). In comparison, the cores from Fenton Hill were taken from depths of 750 to 4,310 meters, which would have experienced 200 to 1,200 bars of pressure (Winkler 1979, p. 5). As discussed in my Appendix C, Dr. Humphreys has yet to address these results from Dunai and Roselieb (1996) even though others and earlier versions of this essay first mentioned the results way back in 2005. It would benefit Dr. Humphreys and his allies if they were to repeat the Dunai and Roselieb (1996) high-pressure study with zircons.

8.2.2 Dr. Humphreys Repeatedly Cites Bad Modeling Results and Outdated Information from Kolstad and McGetchin (1978)

Using the best available data at that time, Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) attempted to model the current temperatures in the subsurface of Fenton Hill with a hypothetical cooling pluton. In their models, they assumed that the relatively high temperatures at Fenton Hill were due to the top of a thick cylindrical, cooling pluton 3 km underneath the surface of the nearby Valles Caldera. The vertical thickness of the pluton was assumed to be 20 km. Two sets of models were then run, one where the radius of the pluton was at 8 km and the other at 12 km. The modeling results for the 8 km pluton are shown in their Figure 11 (p. 213) and the results for the 12 km radius pluton are in Figure 12 (p. 214) of Kolstad and McGetchin (1978). Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 10) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) summarize the results in Figure 11 of Kolstad and McGetchin (1978). According to Dr. Humphreys, the figure in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978, p. 213) indicates that subsurface temperatures at Fenton Hill were about 16% to 31% cooler than present temperatures back before volcanism started in the Pliocene-Pleistocene several millions of years ago. About 600,000 years ago, temperatures peaked at about 50 to 120oC warmer than today’s values. Temperatures then declined to about 100,000 years ago and then leveled off to today’s values. However, Dr. Humphreys’ description does not match what is actually seen in Figure 11 of Kolstad and McGetchin (1978). Based on the current temperatures at Fenton Hill of 197oC at a depth of 2900 meters and 239oC at 3502 meters (Humphreys et al. 2004, Table I, p. 3), the expected current temperature at a depth of 3000 meters should be somewhat above 200oC. Yet, the modeling results in Figure 11 of Kolstad and McGetchin (1978, p. 213) show that the thermal curve at 3000 meters was always far cooler than 197oC during the entire past one million years. Contrary to claims in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 10) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 52), the model’s temperature at a depth of 3000 meters was never 50-120oC warmer than the current temperature of around 200oC; that is, it was never 250-320oC or so. Furthermore, the model in Figure 11 of Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) actually predicted a current temperature of only 120-150oC at a depth of 3000 meters (Kolstad and McGetchin 1978, pp. 213-214). Kolstad and McGetchin (1978, pp. 213-214) even admit that the temperatures derived from their 8 km pluton model (their Figure 11) were poor matches to the actual measured temperatures. So, why did Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 10) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) cite this inaccurate model and misinterpret its data as indicating that temperatures in the subsurface of Fenton Hill were often warmer than today’s temperatures during the past one million years? Considering the problems with the 8-km radius model from Kolstad and McGetchin (1978), why was Humphreys (2010b, pp. 36-37) at all surprised when Harrison et al. (1986) ignored this inaccurate model?

After the criticism in Loechelt (2008c, pp. 9-10), Humphreys (2010b, p. 36) finally admitted that the temperatures in 8-km radius pluton model of Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) were too low. Humphreys (2010b, pp. 35-36; 2018a, pp. 53-54) then turned his attention to the 12 km radius pluton in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978, p. 214) and reproduced their Figure 12. Humphreys (2010b, p. 36) states that the 12-km radius pluton model shows temperatures substantially decreasing in the subsurface of Fenton Hill over the past one million years. Unlike the 8-km pluton model, Kolstad and McGetchin (1978, p. 214) thought that their 12 km radius pluton model (their Figure 12) was excellent. According to Humphreys (2010b, p. 36), the 12 km radius pluton under the Valles Caldera would have passed 3 km under Fenton Hill. Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1903) states and Humphreys (2010b, p. 36) admits that no evidence of solidifying magma was found at a depth of 3 km once the boreholes penetrated to a depth of 4.310 km after 1978 (Table 1 in this essay). Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1903) also states that the geothermal gradients in the subsurface of Fenton Hill are more complex than what Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) envisioned. Thus, many of the statements in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) are now known to be false and Harrison et al. (1986) and Loechelt (2008c) were justified in overhauling or ignoring the outdated models in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978). Yet, Humphreys (2010b; 2011; 2018a, p. 53) continues to rely on statements in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) as if they’re still relevant.

8.2.3 More Arm-Waving from Dr. Humphreys on Fenton Hill Thermal History

Despite claims in Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 54) that Kolstad and McGetchin (1978), Harrison et al. (1986), and Sasada (1989) indicate that temperatures in the subsurface of Fenton Hill were on average higher in the geologic past when compared with present temperatures (Section 8.1.1), Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) also interprets Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) as indicating that temperatures in the Fenton Hill subsurface were often cooler than the present temperatures. Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) further claims:

“Thus the long time at lower temperatures would not compensate for high losses during the few million years at higher temperatures. This makes our assumption of constant temperatures at today’s values quite favorable to the uniformitarian scenario.” [my emphasis]

Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) mention a volcanic event in the Valles Caldera about one million years ago. Although Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) cite Harrison et al. (1986) as an important reference, it’s obvious that Dr. Humphreys had not carefully studied this reference when he wrote the above quotation with its claims of millions of years. Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1905) actually dated the recent thermal event at Fenton Hill at less than 40,000 years ago and not occurring over the course of a few millions of years. That is, the heating event at Fenton Hill was much later and distinct from the heating events at the nearby volcanic Valles Caldera (Harrison et al. 1986, p. 1905; Loechelt 2009a, p. 3). Later, Humphreys (2010b, p. 36; 2012d) even admits that he did not carefully study Harrison et al. (1986).

In his brief response to Loechelt (2008c), Humphreys (2008b) again repeats, without presenting any evidence or calculations, his tired old speculation that the brief heating event at Fenton Hill would wipe out any helium that might have previously accumulated in the zircons. However, this time Humphreys (2008b) shortens the higher temperature event from a few million to a few hundred thousand years, as shown in this quotation:

“But even assuming (for the sake of argument) his [Loechelt’s] lower temperatures, a few hundred thousand years of the laboratory leak rates would wipe out essentially all the helium from the zircons... in contrast to the high amounts observed.” [ellipse in original; my emphasis]

In Humphreys (2010b, p. 37), Dr. Humphreys explains how he obtained a high temperature range of a few hundred thousand years. In contrast, the citations, math, and arguments in Loechelt (2008c; 2009a) demonstrate that the uniformitarian model works fine (my Figure 1) even with a variable thermal history for the subsurface of Fenton Hill (e.g., my Figure 18).

It’s fully understood that YECs don’t believe in any dates older than 6,000 years. However, if they’re going to honestly construct a uniformitarian model, Dr. Humphreys and his allies must use these dates from uniformitarians. Finally, as discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, and Appendix B, the large variations in the uranium and thorium concentrations of the zircons in Gentry et al. (1982b) raise serious questions about what percentages (Q/Q0 values) of the radiogenic helium were actually retained by the Fenton Hill zircons.

8.2.4 More Problems for Dr. Humphreys from Sasada (1989) with Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

Sasada (1989) is another reference frequently used by Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 54; 2010b; 2011; 2018a) to construct his uniformitarian model and to defend his YEC interpretations of Fenton Hill. Like the other references that he cites, Dr. Humphreys did not carefully review Sasada (1989) because it contains a number of observations and conclusions that are incompatible with his YEC model and his attempts at constructing an appropriate uniformitarian model. Some of these problems were previously discussed in Section 8.1.2.

As summarized by Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) and Section 8.1.2, Sasada (1989) discusses data on fluid inclusions in the subsurface rocks of Fenton Hill. The data were taken from depths of 1876 and 2624 meters. My Figure 13 shows their results at 2624 meters. However, Sasada (1989) assigned no ages to the events. He associates his maximum temperature of 230oC at a depth of 2.6 km with the volcanic eruption of the Bandelier Tuff, which was about 1.12 million years ago. Yet, this association is uncertain. Afterwards, temperatures at a depth of 2624 meters declined to about 152oC or less and then eventually rose to the current temperature of 178oC (Figure 13). Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) thinks that this recent temperature increase is associated with the heating event discussed in Figure 9 of Harrison et al. (1986) as shown in Figure 19. Humphreys (2018a, p. 54) further argues that there is no way of knowing whether the minimum temperature of 152oC occurred before or after the temperature peaked at 230oC, and that the minimum temperature could have happened right before the volcanic eruption. In his footnote #4, Loechelt (2020b, p. 53) rightly calls out these statements in Humphreys (2018a, p. 54) as being false by stating:

“One cannot arbitrarily reorder thermal events in the Sasada [1989] thermal history just because the time axis is displayed in arbitrary units [see my Figure 13]. The relative order of events in the fluid inclusion study can be determined uniquely, just as in geology, through crosscutting relationships and similar arguments. The following quotes from Sasada [1989, p. 263] makes the order of events unambiguous: (1) ‘Calcite vein precipitation: … Since fluid inclusions in calcite stretch above Th more easily than do those in quartz … [reference omitted], the primary inclusions in the calcite must not have formed before the reequilibration of the secondary inclusions in quartz. Hence, the veinings of calcite are younger than the reequilibration of the secondary inclusions in the host rocks’; and (2) ‘Secondary inclusions in calcite veins: Secondary inclusions were formed by healing the fluid-filled fractures during the cooling process after the formation of primary inclusions.’”

Geologists notice that if a calcite vein cuts across a mineral, the host mineral must be older. Similarly, no one can cut a cake until after it’s made. The relative timing of the primary and secondary inclusions was well established in Sasada (1989) and Humphreys (2018a, p. 54) has no justification in misrepresenting the order of events in Sasada (1989).

Because Figure 9 in Sasada (1989, p. 264) has no time units (also see Figure 13), Loechelt (2012, footnote #7, p. 48) suggests that the warm period described by Sasada (1989) could have occurred in the Precambrian and not with the eruption of the Bandelier Tuff as suggested by Sasada (1989, pp. 262-263) and Humphreys (2010b, p. 37). This is possible. Sasada (1989, p. 261) noted that the salinity of the calcite inclusions was similar to fluids in minerals from the Valles Caldera, but that the thermal properties of the older inclusions in the Precambrian rocks were very different than the calcite inclusions.

Dr. Loechelt further adds after reviewing this section:

“Brookins and Laughlin (1976; 1983) and Laughlin et al. (1983) provide additional support for the possibility that some of the inclusions formed during the Precambrian. In Brookins and Laughlin (1976), an isotopic analysis was performed on strontium derived from deep-seated, fracture-filling calcite from the rocks penetrated by the Fenton Hill boreholes. Brookins and Laughlin (1983, p. 48) summarizes the results as follows:

‘Strontium isotope ratios from the calcite indicate that most of the calcite was derived from the adjacent Precambrian rocks and not from the overlying Madera limestone.’

Laughlin et al. (1983, p. 39) further suggest that the fractures in the basement rocks were not in communication with solutions from the overlying Paleozoic limestone. Two interpretations are possible. One scenario is that fluid circulation was local during the formation of the calcite veins, involving only the Precambrian basement and not the Madera limestone. However, consider another possibility. Perhaps the calcite veins formed before the Pennsylvanian Madera limestone was even deposited. This scenario would point to a Precambrian or early Paleozoic age for the calcite veins. The strontium isotopic analysis supports this interpretation, which is consistent with other lines of geologic evidence.

According to Sanders et al. (2006), the Precambrian basement of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains was rapidly exhumed from its middle-crustal depth and brought to an upper-crustal environment around 800 to 1000 Ma. The Precambrian rock stabilized at a depth of several kilometers until brought to the surface by a final episode of uplift in the early Paleozoic. The Sangre de Cristo Mountains lie to the east across the current Rio Grande Valley from the Valles Caldera and the Fenton Hill site. This evidence supports a major tectonic event in the late-Precambrian that could have created fractures in the basement rock which were later filled with calcite veins. Furthermore, widespread extensional related magmatism throughout New Mexico and Colorado occurred during the Cambrian-Ordovician periods (McMillan and McLemore, 2004). Local evidence of this magmatism is found in the southern end of the Sierra Nacimiento approximately 30 km southwest of the Fenton Hill site (Woodward, 1987). This magmatic event could have readily supplied hydrothermal fluids related to the precipitation of the calcite veins. These events all date back to the late-Precambrian and early-Paleozoic, long before the deposition of either the Pennsylvanian Madera limestone or the Pleistocene eruption of the Valles Caldera. See Loechelt (2008c, appendix A) for a more detailed description of the geology of the Fenton Hill site.

Dr. Humphreys struggles to comprehend the implications geologic time. In his reply to Loechelt (2010), he describes his ‘best uniformitarian picture of temperature history’ as follows:

‘Temperatures rose to a broad maximum, say about 250°C, about 0.9 million years ago, declining slowly to a minimum of about 170°C twenty thousand years ago, then rising rapidly to today’s 197°C.’

Implicit in Dr. Humphreys’ reasoning, he attributes all of the fluid inclusion features reported in Sasada (1989) to the eruption of the Valles Caldera approximately 1.12 million years ago. By doing so, he is neglecting the remaining 99.9% of the geologic history of the site, as if the Precambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and early Cenozoic eras never even existed. When viewed across geologic time, a span of one million years is extremely short. Consider the amount of crustal uplift and removal reported by Sanders et al. (2006), or the extent of the magmatism reported by McMillan and McLemore (2004). Since the size of these events dwarf the eruption of the Valles Caldera, they must have had an impact on the fluid inclusions in the rocks. One cannot appreciate the thermal history of Fenton Hill without a good understanding of its Precambrian geologic origin.”

Once more, if Dr. Humphreys is going to propose a valid uniformitarian model, he must take into account all of the events recognized by uniformitarians.

8.2.5 Humphreys (2012b) Finally Gets into Hot Water and Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

Humphreys (2005b) describes the rocks in the subsurface of Fenton Hill as being dry and “well-consolidated” (impermeable) to fluids, and he further indicates that these conditions also existed in the rocks in the past and would have prevented the Fenton Hill zircons from possibly becoming contaminated with extraneous helium (Section 6.1). Yet, as further discussed in Section 6.1.10 and Sasada (1989), portions of the Fenton Hill cores clearly show mineral alternations from hydrothermal fluids, which could have possibly contained extraneous helium. If the rocks were as dry as Humphreys (2005b) claims, where would the secondary fluid inclusions described by Sasada (1989) have come from?

Loechelt (2012, footnote #5, p. 47) also noted that Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) included fluid inclusion data from Sasada (1989) in his “best” uniformitarian model, but not in his YEC model. This puts Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model into a difficult position. He must either try to explain away the secondary fluid inclusion data from Sasada (1989) or explain how these fluids could have moved through rocks that he identifies as hot, dry, and impermeable in the past (Section 6.1.10).

Loechelt (2020b) continues to criticize the YEC interpretation of Fenton Hill and how Humphreys (2018a, pp. 53-54) misused Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) and Sasada (1989) to attack the uniformitarian model. Now, Humphreys (2018a, p. 54) admits:

“Kolstad and McGetchin’s simulations show that temperatures can’t change all that fast (over a few thousand years) in this particular formation.”

He again later acknowledges in the same paper (p. 55) that temperatures in the subsurface of Fenton Hill could not have naturally changed in only a few thousand years (see his “solution” in Section 8.3.3). Although much of the information in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) is outdated (Section 8.2.2), Loechelt (2020b) and almost everyone else would agree with Dr. Humphreys that temperatures are not going to radically change in the subsurface of Fenton Hill in only a few thousand years. Humphreys (2012d) even quotes YEC geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner as stating that large changes in the subsurface temperatures at Fenton Hill during a hypothetical period of only 20,000 years would violate the laws of physics. So, how can Dr. Humphreys explain the evidence for the thermal cycle in Sasada (1989; Figure 13) when he admits that temperatures can’t naturally change all that fast in the subsurface rocks of Fenton Hill? Loechelt (2020b) concludes:

“Humphreys cannot have it both ways. If Sasada is right, then his young-earth model is wrong. If Sasada is wrong, then he has no grounds for citing it against my work.”

As discussed in Section 2.2, the unusually high subsurface temperatures at Fenton Hill were a major reason why the site was chosen for a geothermal test in the 1970s. Loechelt (2020b) notes that YECs think that the Cenozoic geologic events at the Valles Caldera are post-Flood or less than 4,500 years old. Yet, Loechelt (2020b) argues that the modeling in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) that Dr. Humphreys so strongly relies on indicates that 4,500 years is not enough time for thermal diffusion from the magmas to reach the site of the geothermal wells. Because Humphreys claims an age of 6,000 years rather than 4,500 years in his thermal models, Loechelt (2020b) argues that Dr. Humphreys must also explain how the rocks at Fenton Hill got hot more than 1,500 years before the post-Flood plutonic activity in the region. Coincidence? Humphreys (2020) attempts to answer these questions by relying on YEC claims of accelerated radioactive decay and accelerated cooling (i.e., magic; see Section 8.3).

Humphreys (2011, p. 74) again heavily depends on outdated information in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) as he summarizes his uniformitarian model from Humphreys (2010b). His uniformitarian model states that a nearby erupting volcano about 900,000 years ago should have raised the temperatures in the Fenton Hill subsurface by about 50oC and maintained the high temperatures for about 800,000 years. This volcano would likely have been the one that produced the Bandelier Tuff. He again cites that Sasada (1989) as confirming that the temperatures would have been 50oC higher than today’s values. Humphreys (2011, p. 74) then wonders why Harrison et al. (1986) concluded that the Fenton Hill subsurface temperature at 2.9 km depth was only 87oC until recently? Humphreys (2011, p. 74; 2012d) further asks why Harrison et al. (1986) “ignored” the volcano that erupted at about one million years ago. In Humphreys (2012d), he further accuses Harrison et al. (1986) of relying on “some unknown, unspecified source of heat” that caused the temperature increase in the past 20,000 years in the Harrison et al. (1986) uniformitarian model.

Loechelt (2012) demonstrated that heating by conduction from a volcano is not adequate to explain the present and past subsurface temperatures at Fenton Hill with Dr. Humphreys’ models. Instead Loechelt (2012, pp. 46-47) argues that hydrothermal fluids from the Valles Caldera have a role in heating Fenton Hill and that the asymmetrical temperature gradients around the Valles Caldera support the presence of hydrothermal fluids (also see Goff et al. 1988). These conclusions are consistent with those in Harrison et al. (1986) and give yet another reason why Humphreys (2010b; 2018a) should have avoided the simplistic models in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978). So, there is no conflict between the data in Harrison et al. (1986), the geologic evidence, and the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c). Contrary to Humphreys (2011, p. 74), Loechelt (2012, p. 47) concluded that Harrison et al. (1986) did not “ignore the volcano”, but Humphreys (2005b; 2010b; 2011) ignored the hydrothermal solutions that caused the temperature changes at Fenton Hill.

Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) finally admits that hydrothermal water played some sort of a role in the heating of the subsurface of Fenton Hill:

“He [Dr. Loechelt] is probably right in suggesting some of the heat came from the magma part-way to the site by means of hot water.”

But rather than evaluating Goff et al. (1988) and the evidence of hydrothermal activity in Figures 3 and 4 of Loechelt (2012), Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) brushes off the evidence as “speculations.” Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) further complains that Loechelt (2012) lacks specifics about the timing of the hydrothermal events, but he thinks that Dr. Loechelt wants the hydrothermal waters to be present within the last 20,000 years or so. Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) also claims that hydrothermal waters would have been associated with the massive volcanic eruptions that produced the Bandelier Tuff, which uniformitarians date around one million years ago. Yet, Humphreys (2012b) fails to realize that hydrothermal groundwater largely has a meteoric (atmospheric) origin and may be heated from magmas and hot rocks in the subsurface of a locality long before and after any volcanic eruptions (Goff et al. 1988; Laughlin et al. 1983; Harrison et al. 1986; Krauskopf and Bird 1995, pp. 266-267; 521-523). Goff et al. (1988, p. 6056) even state that the hydrothermal systems at the Valles Caldera have been periodically active for the past one million years or so. Although hydrothermal water is certainly associated with most volcanic eruptions, as long as the magmas are present, hydrothermal water is not limited to the eruptions. So, how does Dr. Humphreys think that Old Faithful continues to erupt at Yellowstone when there have not been any recent volcanic eruptions there (Figure 20)? Despite the admonitions in Loechelt (2012), Humphreys (2018a, pp. 53-54) again ignores that the heating at Fenton Hill was due to hydrothermal solutions and not volcanism, and he still relies on the outdated 12 km radius pluton model in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978).

Figure 20: Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Hydrothermal waters may occur at a site long before, during, and long after any volcanic eruption. Photo by Jacob W. Frank, National Park Service, public domain, https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/old-faithful-geyser-yellowstone

Dr. Loechelt further adds:

“As noted by Goff et al. (1988), hydrothermal systems can rapidly change after magmatic perturbations. Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1906) recognized that their date for the heating event at Fenton Hill was long after the eruption that formed the Valles Caldera. Accordingly, they suggested a correlation with a more recent volcanic event – the eruption of the Banco Bonito obsidian. Unfortunately, the best date for the Banco Bonito eruption at the time was 0.13±0.10 Ma (million years), which offered little help in constraining their date for a heating event of less than 40,000 years. Certainly, the lower limit of the age error bars overlapped their proposed date, but with such a large error, possible dates for the eruption could range from 30,000 to 230,000 years. More modern measurements now date the Banco Bonito at 35,000 to 45,000 years old (Phillips et al. 2007), which is in excellent agreement with the earlier predictions of Harrison et al. (1986).

Not only is the time right for the Banco Bonito eruption, the place is also right. The Fenton Hill site lies just outside the southwest edge of the rim fracture zone of the Valles Caldera. Most of the other post-caldera volcanic eruptions were opposite of Fenton Hill, lying inside the north and northeast edge of the rim fracture zone. The Banco Bonito eruption is unique in that it occurred along the southwest rim in the middle of the caldera drainage system through San Diego Canyon. It is quite possible that this eruption disrupted the subsurface water flow, sending a branch to the west. However, lacking an outlet along the west side of the caldera, the hot water would be forced to flow counter-clockwise along the fracture zone until it could rejoin the main branch downstream. In doing so, it would bring hot water to within a kilometer or so of the Fenton Hill site. This is likely the recent heating event at Fenton Hill.

Contrast this evidence with the uninformed claims of Dr. Humphreys. In Humphreys (2012d), he states:

“Even if we assume Harrison et al. [1986] were correct in postulating a recent (and as yet completely unobserved) intrusion of lava very close to the borehole, the temperature could not have changed by more than 50 Celsius degrees (90 Fahrenheit degrees) over the past five millennia.”

How is it that the Banco Bonito eruption is not observed? It is a real volcanic event with an official name and assigned age. It was described in papers by Kudo (1974) and Phillips et al. (2007) and included in a field guide by Goff and Bolivar (1983). Battleship Rock, a spectacular outcrop of columnar-jointed, rhyolite-welded tuff from this recent eruption, can be readily observed in San Diego Canyon. It has its own National Forest picnic area, pictures can be found on the internet (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/treiman/greatdesert/workshop/valles2/index.html), and it can be photographed by families on their summer vacation, like I did back in 2011 (Figure 21). Amazingly, Dr. Humphreys thinks all of this is “unobserved”. Did he even try to look?

Figure 21: Battleship Rock produced by the Banco Bonito volcanic eruption. Photograph by Dr. Gary H. Loechelt.

Regarding the claim concerning the inability for temperatures to change over this time scale, a fact frequently omitted by Dr. Humphreys when discussing Harrison et al. (1986) is that the authors performed extensive thermal modeling in addition to their 40Ar/39Ar dating. Their simulations show good agreement with the measured temperatures and heat flows. Once again, Dr. Humphreys resorts to rhetoric rather than facts in making his arguments.

A simple double check can be performed on the thermal modeling work of Harrison et al. (1986). Heat conduction follows the known laws of thermal diffusion. One important quantity is the diffusion length, which defines a characteristic length scale over which temperatures can change from a heating event in a given amount of time. The diffusion length is defined as the square-root of the product of the diffusivity and the time. Symbolically it is written as . Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1904) give a value of 1.05 mm2/s for the thermal diffusivity. The corresponding diffusion length is calculated for different event times in Table 8.

From these calculations, a diffusion length of 1 km is expected for a thermal perturbation 30,000 years ago. This means that significant changes in the geothermal gradient can occur over a 1 km distance in 30,000 years. The figures for the measured geotherm in Harrison et al. (1986) show variations over this kilometer length scale. In fact, the curvature in the geothermal gradient places an upper limit on the age of the heating event. If the current high temperatures had been in existence for much longer than 30,000 years, then steady-state heat flow would have been reached, and there would be no curvature in the geothermal gradient. (For example, see the entry for one million years in Table 8.) A careful reading of the Harrison et al. (1986) shows that this curvature in the geothermal gradient was critical in limiting the age of the Fenton Hill thermal event, hence the title of the paper.

Putting this evidence together, all that the Harrison et al. (1986) thermal model requires is that a well-documented volcanic eruption within the last 35,000 to 45,000 years disrupted the hydrothermal flow out of the Valles Caldera, bringing hot water to within a kilometer or so of the bottom of the Fenton Hill wells. Dr. Humphreys considers this scenario to be a violation of the laws of physics, and yet he advocates a miraculous increase in radioactive decay rates combined with a supernatural cooling mechanism as the more reasonable alternative.”

8.2.6 Humphreys (2010b; 2012b; 2018a) Summarizes his Flawed Uniformitarian Thermal Model

Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) combines results from the 12 km radius pluton model of Kolstad and McGetchin (1978), information in Harrison et al. (1986), and the observations in Sasada (1989) to derive what he considers as the “best” geothermal history for the uniformitarian model. Without providing any calculations, research into the geology of the area as Loechelt (2008c) did with Figure 18 or other critical details, Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) speculates that a pluton with a radius of about 9-10 km would produce a maximum temperature of 230oC at 2.6 km depth based on the results in Sasada (1989). In his Figure 3 (p. 36), Humphreys (2010b) modified the time units and reproduced the graph from Kolstad and McGetchin (1978, p. 214), which has the thermal history of the 12 km radius model. Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) then states that “we could guess” that the geothermal curve at 3 km depth in his model would mostly follow the 2 km line in the graph, but that the curve would eventually move over to the 3 km line to obtain the current temperature of 197oC at a depth of 2900 meters. Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) also thinks a maximum temperature at a depth of 3 km was 250oC about 900,000 years ago, as compared with a maximum of 230oC at 2.6 km depth. This is how Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) justifies high temperatures lasting for hundreds of millennia and why Humphreys (2012b, p. 49; 2018a, p. 54) continues to repeat this misconception. However, Harrison et al. (1986) clearly state that thermal events at Fenton Hill occurred at 1030 million, 870 million and less than 40,000 years ago. When constructing the thermal history of Fenton Hill for his uniformitarian model, Humphreys (2010b) completely ignores the thermal events of 870 and 1030 million years ago identified by Harrison et al. (1986) and discussed in Loechelt (2008c).

There are plenty of flaws in Dr. Humphreys’ “best” uniformitarian geothermal history model. Because the data in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) are outdated for Fenton Hill, Humphreys (2010b) has no justification for including a thermal event at 900,000 years and Humphreys (2018a, pp. 53-54) has no reason to repeat similar claims. Loechelt (2012, p. 45) also correctly states that the 9-10 km radius pluton in Humphreys (2010b) is nothing more than an “eyeball interpolation” without any rigorous mathematical derivation. Loechelt (2012, p. 46) then cites several studies from the literature where scientists have used geophysical, mineralogical, and other methods to measure the size, depth and other properties of the current pluton underneath the Valles Caldera. Measurements of the radius of the pluton range from 7.5 to 8.5 km or smaller than the 9-10 km guess proposed by Humphreys (2010b, p. 37).

Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) also has the pluton close to, but not directly under, the Fenton Hill borehole GT-2 in his uniformitarian model. However, geophysical measurements have determined that the actual pluton underneath the Valles Caldera is at a depth of somewhere between 4.7 and 9 km (Loechelt 2012, p. 46). Furthermore, actual drilling at the Valles Caldera went deeper than 3 km and did not intersect any magma (Loechelt 2012, footnote #13, p. 48). Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) also listed the vertical thickness of the plutons in their models as 20 km. Actual geophysical measurements indicate that the thickness is only 12-15 km (Loechelt 2012, p. 46). The 12 km radius Kolstad and McGetchin (1978, p. 206) pluton had an initial temperature of 1,000oC and they admitted (p. 207) that this temperature may be unrealistically high. Yet, Figure 3 of Humphreys (2010b, p. 36) includes temperatures up to 1,000oC. In reality, what is known about the mineral chemistry of the actual pluton below the Valles Caldera indicates that the temperature is probably closer to 800oC (Loechelt 2012, p. 46).

Based on temperature calculations at 3 km depth at Fenton Hill as shown in his Figure 2, Loechelt (2012, p. 46) then concludes that the actual pluton underneath the Valles Caldera is too small, too cold, and too deep to explain the current and historical elevated borehole temperatures in the subsurface of Fenton Hill. Specifically, Loechelt (2012, his Figure 2, p. 46) determined that a 1000oC 8 km radius pluton at depth of 3 km below the Valles Caldera would have only produced a maximum temperature of 170oC at a depth of 3 km at Fenton Hill. This predicted temperature at a depth of 3 km is still far cooler than the high temperature of approximately 230oC derived from the fluid inclusion measurements from a depth of 2.6 km in Sasada (1989) (Figure 13). The situation becomes even worse for the “best” uniformitarian model in Humphreys (2010b) if more realistic temperatures and depths were used to model the pluton.

Rather than learning anything from Loechelt (2012) and his references which indicate that the pluton underneath the Valles Caldera had a measured radius of only 7.5-8.5 km, Humphreys (2018a, p. 54) continues to promote a pluton with a radius of 10 km and eyeballing it into the outdated Kolstad and McGetchin model. Notice that Humphreys (2018a, p. 54) totally speculates:

“If Kolstad and McGetchin were to do another simulation with somewhat different parameters, say a pluton radius of 10 km and a somewhat higher initial temperature for the formation, they could probably generate a set of curves that agree with both the present borehole temperatures and also with Sasada’s results. In that case the simulated temperatures would probably decrease by scores of degrees for the past 500,000 years or so.”

He presents no math or data to support his speculation on this issue.

Earlier, Loechelt (2009a, p. 3) pointed out that Humphreys (2008b) blurs the subsurface thermal histories of the Valles Caldera and Fenton Hill, while Harrison et al. (1986) was careful to separate them. Humphreys (2010b; 2011) continued to fail to make that important distinction. Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) identified thermal events of about one million years at the Valles Caldera and Humphreys (2010b) insists on including them in the thermal history of Fenton Hill. When referring to the one million year old thermal event by Kolstad and McGetchin (1978), Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1900) states that their argon-argon dates and new temperature data indicate that the age of the heating event at Fenton Hill should be revised.

Loechelt (2012) has also demonstrated that many of the other components and distance estimates in the “best” uniformitarian model of Humphreys (2010b) do not match actual conditions. Dr. Humphreys’ inaccurate uniformitarian model handicaps uniformitarianism and improperly favors young-Earth creationism. Humphreys (2010b) also involves more of his usual arm waving. He’s hoping that people will simply accept what he says without him having to provide any calculations, field measurements, or sound arguments to back up his shear speculation. This is absolutely no way to construct a valid uniformitarian model.

Even though Figure 18 clearly shows the thermal history of Fenton Hill in Loechelt (2008c, p. 8), Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) continues to ignore it and make fallacious strawperson claims that Dr. Loechelt must accept that the subsurface rocks of Fenton Hill have been as hot for hundreds of thousands of years as they are today. If only Dr. Humphreys would actually study the contents of Loechelt (2008c) instead of being satisfied with his arm-waving and the flippant dismissals of that paper in Humphreys (2008b). In contrast to the abundant errors, missing math, groundless speculations, and reliance on the magic of accelerated radioactive decay and cooling in Dr. Humphreys’ papers, Loechelt (2008c) relies on the known laws of chemistry and physics and shows his math. Loechelt (2008c) is beautifully supported and referenced and, as mentioned in Section 10.2.2, experts have peer-reviewed it. The details and documentation in Loechelt (2008c) totally refute the baseless allegations in Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) that Dr. Loechelt uses “hand-waving”, “unlikely assumptions”, “incorrect reasoning” and was “unsuccessful” in developing a viable uniformitarian model. While Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) senselessly accuses Dr. Loechelt of currently trying to find a way to cool down the geothermal history of the subsurface of Fenton Hill so he could explain the retention of radiogenic helium in the Fenton Hill zircons, Dr. Loechelt actually succeeded in doing that in Loechelt (2008c).

8.2.7 Three Invalid and Unnecessary Uniformitarian Thermals Models in Humphreys (2010b; 2018a)

Humphreys (2010b, pp. 37-38) argues that there are only three possible uniformitarian models for the thermal history of Fenton Hill:

· His “best” uniformitarian model previously described and refuted in Section 8.2.6,

· The “long chill” model that assumes a constant temperature for the entire 1.5 billion year history of the Fenton Hill zircons. At a depth of 2900 meters, the constant temperature would be 87oC, which is also totally unrealistic and refuted in Figure 18 of this essay.

· The ridiculous cryogenic model of Section 2.3.5 that no one accepts.

As discussed throughout Sections 8.1 and 8.2, Dr. Humphreys’ “best” uniformitarian model is without merit and contradicts much of what is known about the thermal history of the subsurfaces of Fenton Hill and the Valles Caldera. The constant temperature model is also totally inconsistent with a realistic geothermal history of the subsurface of Fenton Hill as shown in Figure 18 and further discussed in Loechelt (2008c). In contrast, the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) works fine without any assumptions about constant or cryogenic temperatures, but Dr. Humphreys refuses to seriously discuss that model (e.g. Loechelt 2009a, p. 2 versus Humphreys 2008b).

Humphreys (2010b) also performs some additional calculations with his “best” uniformitarian model to determine the helium retention (Q/Q0) value of the Fenton Hill zircons at a depth of 2900 meters. This would correspond to sample 3 in Gentry et al. (1982a) (Table 1). As discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, and Appendices A and B, the 17% Q/Q0 value for sample 3 in Gentry et al. (1982a) is based on totally unreliable calculations, analytical procedures, and assumptions that R.V. Gentry and Dr. Humphreys have utterly failed to reasonably explain (Table 4). Even if the known math errors in Gentry et al. (1982a) are corrected, the Q/Q0 value of sample 3 is closer to a still untrustworthy 6.8% rather than 17% (Appendix A). With more realistic uranium and thorium measurements in Zartman (1979), the calculations in Appendix B estimate that the Q/Q0 value of sample 3 may be somewhere between 8-15%. Using other calculations, Loechelt (2008c, p. 4) argues that the value is actually closer to 3.8%, which is somewhere between the predicted values for his Old- and Young-Earth models (my Figure 1). With all of the controversy over the Q/Q0 value of sample 3, if Dr. Humphreys really wants to know the value of this sample, he would need to completely redo the analyses because the results in Gentry et al. (1982a) have been demonstrated to be totally untrustworthy and Zartman (1979) does not have enough chemical data for a thorough and statistically valid interpretation. Furthermore, Humphreys (2010b, p. 38 and footnote #11, p. 39) and in a similar calculation in Humphreys (2012b, footnote #6, p. 49) makes his usual mistake of using the defect line to determine the diffusivities in his calculations rather than extrapolating from the intrinsic line (Section 2.3). As discussed throughout this essay and Loechelt (2008c), Dr. Humphreys’ uniformitarian and YEC models simply are not reliable.

Based on his unreliable results, Humphreys (2010b, pp. 37-38) then gives his interpretation of the Fenton Hill uniformitarian thermal history at a depth of 2900 meters. His uniformitarian model would have a maximum temperature of 250oC at 2.9-3.0 km depth for hundreds of thousands of years. Although Figures 18 and 19 indicate that the temperature at a depth of 2900 meters has not been above 250oC for more than 800 million years, Humphreys (2010b, pp. 37-38) believes that these high temperatures recently occurred and that they would have wiped out most of the helium from the Fenton Hill zircons. Additional helium would have been lost as temperatures declined to about 170oC over 500,000 years. The temperature then increased over the last 20,000 years to the current value of 197oC (Humphreys 2010b, p. 38). According to Humphreys (2010b, footnote #10, p. 39), his uniformitarian model predicts that the sample 3 zircons should have less than 0.002% of their radiogenic helium instead of the current value of 17% as claimed by Gentry et al. (1982a). However, Loechelt (2008c) argues that his uniformitarian model is actually consistent with the known Fenton Hill data.

Humphreys (2018a, Table 2, p. 54) further attempts to discredit his uniformitarian model by calculating the Q/Q0 values for Fenton Hill samples 1-6 after exposure to their current borehole temperatures for only 500,000 years. Humphreys (2018a, footnote #17, p. 57) uses dating equation 16 from Humphreys (2005a, p. 53) (my equation 12) in his calculations. This is the same equation that produced the highly variable and unreliable dates in my Table 6. Rather than using the Q/Q0 values from Loechelt (2008c), Humphreys (2018a, p. 54) claims that his values would be applicable to Dr. Loechelt’s uniformitarian situation. However, there are serious problems with the calculations in Humphreys (2018a) and the results in his Table 2 (p. 54). Besides his typical and invalid determination of helium diffusivities from his defect curve (Section 2.3), Humphreys (2018a) also copied the wrong temperature and observed helium retention (Q/Q0) values of samples 2-6 into his Table 2 on p. 54 (compare with Table 1 in Humphreys 2005, p. 29 or my Table 3). Humphreys (2018a) further fails to explain how he obtained the diffusivity values that he used to calculate the “Loechelt” uniformitarian Q/Q0 values in Humphreys (2018a, Table 2, p. 54). When back calculations are done using my equation 12, a = 30 microns, t = 500,000 years, and the “Loechelt” Q/Q0 values in Table 2 of Humphreys (2018a, p. 54), the diffusivities do not match the diffusivities for the uniformitarian model in Table 4 of Humphreys (2005a, p. 54), the creation model in Table 3 of Humphreys (2005a, p. 51), the expectations from Figure 2 of Humphreys (2018a, p. 49) (my Figure 5), or any of Dr. Humphreys’ other results over the years. Correcting the miscopied temperature data in Table 2 does not solve the mystery.

The third option of Humphreys (2010b), the cryogenic uniformitarian model of Section 2.3.5 and Figure 7, is totally ridiculous. This model also invalidly relies on a defect curve (Figure 5). Humphreys (2010b, footnote #11, p. 39) even refers to the curve as a “defect line.” Humphreys 2005a, p. 61 and Figure 16, p. 62; 2018a, pp. 53-54; 2010b) simply has no justification for extending his defect curve to cryogenic temperatures to attack the uniformitarian model (Figure 7). Again, the literature indicates that the intrinsic curve should be used to determine helium diffusivities in zircons at lower temperatures (Section 2.3). Considering subsurface pressure effects, extending the intrinsic curve to realistic lower subsurface temperatures would tend to further support a uniformitarian model more than Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model (Section 6.2).

So, the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) demonstrates that none of these three options are valid or necessary. The three uniformitarian proposals in Humphreys (2010b, p. 38) are nothing more than strawperson fallacies. Humphreys (2010b) should have been utilizing and commenting on the only realistic Fenton Hill model that currently exists, which is in Loechelt (2008c).

8.2.8 Argon Diffusion Confirms Dr. Humphreys’ 6,000 Year Old Earth? Not So Fast!

Humphreys (2011) misuses argon-argon (Ar-Ar) age spectrum results from Harrison et al. (1986) to obtain an argon diffusion date of 5,100 years for a feldspar from the Fenton Hill cores. He then claims that the diffusion date is consistent with accelerated radioactive decay and his 6,000 +/- 2,000 years old helium in zircon diffusion date for the age of the Earth. Harrison et al. (1986) argue that their argon diffusion results indicate the maximum duration of peak heating of the most recent thermal event at Fenton Hill. Like Dr. Humphreys’ helium in zircon results for Fenton Hill, the argon diffusion results in Humphreys (2011) and Harrison et al. (1986) provide no evidence of accelerated radioactive decay and have nothing to do with the age of the Earth.

Besides providing additional comments on Loechelt (2010), Harrison et al. (1986), and Sasada (1989) as discussed earlier in Section 8.2, Humphreys (2011) uses results from an 40Ar/39Ar (argon-argon, Ar-Ar) radiometric dating study in Harrison et al. (1986) to further promote his argument that the Fenton Hill rocks are only 6,000 years old. Vardiman (2011) then summarizes and repeats the conclusions of Humphreys (2011).

Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1899) obtained five potassium (K) feldspar (microcline) samples from the Fenton Hill cores. The samples were then radiometrically dated with the Ar-Ar method. The three shallowest samples (#1-3) from depths of 1.13, 2.62, and 2.90 km, respectively, produced relatively flat Ar-Ar spectra that yielded dates around 870 million years. Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1901) interpret these dates as when the temperature of the shallowest three samples (#1 through #3) dropped below about 130oC. Another date from the spectra is approximately 1030 million years, which Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1901) interpret as when the temperatures of the three samples dropped below about 200oC. Since then, Loechelt (2008c, his Appendix A) used more recent and extensive sources to construct a more complete thermal history for the Fenton Hill subsurface, which includes somewhat warmer temperatures at 1 billion to 800 million years for a depth of 2900 meters (equivalent to sample 3 in Harrison et al. 1986) (Figure 18). Although Humphreys (2011, p. 74) briefly mentions the 870 million year old data from Harrison et al. (1986) without endorsing it in his introduction, Humphreys (2010b) had no excuse for completely ignoring the complex thermal history of Fenton Hill from one million to one billion years in his uniformitarian model. Again, it is recognized, that as a YEC, Dr. Humphreys does not believe that the Ar-Ar dates in Harrison et al. (1986) and other geological data in Appendix A of Loechelt (2008c) are real. However, if he wants to construct a valid and complete uniformitarian model, he must use this information unless later uniformitarian literature convincingly says otherwise.

Humphreys (2011) and Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1901) list the depths of the two deepest samples (#4 and #5) as 3.58 and 4.56 km, respectively. However, based on information in Figure 2 of Harrison et al. (1986, p. 190l), Figure 9 of Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1906), and the fact that the maximum penetration depth of the cores was 4.35 km (Harrison et al. 1986, p. 1903), the actual depth of the deepest sample was probably 4.34 km and not 4.56 km. Similarly, the figures in Harrison et al. (1986) indicate that sample 4 had a depth of 3.46 km rather than 3.58 km. Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1901) then argue that the Ar-Ar spectra of the two deepest samples indicate a very recent heating event.

Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1901) estimated that the three shallowest samples (#1 through #3) lost less than 2% of their radiogenic argon in the geologic past. Sample 4 lost about 5% of its argon and the deepest sample (#5) about 20%. Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1902) admit that the very low argon losses in samples 1 through 4 are difficult to estimate. For this reason, Humphreys (2011, p. 77) has more confidence in the larger argon loss value in sample 5. Because he thinks that the argon loss percentage for sample 5 is more reliable than the percentages for the other four samples, Humphreys (2011) concentrates on deriving an argon diffusion date for sample 5.

As shown in my Figure 22, the 40Ar/39Ar spectrum for the sample 5 microcline is reproduced from Figure 2 of Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1901). For Ar-Ar step heating measurements, the most reliable radiometric dates generally come from flat spectra (McDougall and Harrison 1999, pp. 12-13). The spectrum for sample 5 in Figure 22 has a hooked shape and does not provide a reliable radiometric date. Humphreys (2011) argues that any Ar-Ar dates from the spectra in Harrison et al. (1986) must have resulted from accelerated radioactive decay. To obtain the “true age” of the feldspars, he (p. 76) uses the following Ar-Ar analysis equation to determine an argon diffusion date for the deepest sample, #5:

Where:

t = approximate time duration of heating during the Ar-Ar analysis in units of seconds. Usually, the time duration only lasts for about 15 minutes or 900 seconds.

D = diffusion constant,

a = diffusion half-width of the sample in cm, and

f = fractional loss of 39Ar. f ≤ 0.45 is required for most minerals, but further restrictions are possible with feldspars.

This is a modification of equation 1 in Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1902). This equation normally has analytical applications, but Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1902) combines equation 13 with the Arrhenius equation (my equation 1 in Section 2.3.1) to obtain their equation 2, which they used to estimate the maximum duration of peak heating for the most recent thermal event at Fenton Hill.

Equation 13 requires f ≤ 0.45 for most minerals; that is, most minerals will only provide reliable results with this equation at argon losses of 45% or less (Harrison et al. 1986, p. 1902). However, feldspars often have important further restrictions. Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1902) states that microperthite laminae in feldspars typically mix at temperatures above 800oC, when only about 20% of the 39Ar in their samples has been released during the Ar-Ar analyses. Because Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1902) were only interested in temperatures below 800oC, they restricted the use of equation 13 to f ≤ 0.20.

Figure 22: 40Ar/39Ar spectrum for microcline (feldspar) sample 5 in Harrison et al. (1986). Figure modified from Figure 2 in Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1901).

Using their equation 2, Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1902) concluded that the most recent maximum duration of peak heating for the feldspars occurred between 3,000 to 60,000 years ago. However, because of other factors, Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1905) would later argue that the thermal event most likely occurred within the past 40,000 years. As discussed in Section 8.1 and elsewhere in Section 8.2, Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1906) were also able to develop a 24,000 year old plutonic model that could explain their Ar-Ar data (Figure 19).

On the basis of the Ar-Ar results for feldspar sample #5 in Figure 22, Humphreys (2011, p. 76) concluded that the argon loss in the feldspar was actually closer to 25% rather than 20% as argued by Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1902). In Figure 22, it also looks like the sample approaches 30% argon loss at 800oC. Allowing for errors in his diffusion date for sample #5 from equation 13, Humphreys (2011, p. 76) thinks that the loss could have been 19-33%.

Using equation 13, Humphreys (2011, p. 76) argues that if the current temperature of 313oC was constant over much of the history of the sample, it would only take 3,000 to 8,900 years with an average of 5,100 years for the feldspar to lose 19-33% its argon. Humphreys (2011; 2012d) then proclaims that his argon diffusion date of 5,100 years is consistent with accelerated radioactive decay and his Fenton Hill helium in zircon diffusion date of 6,000 +/- 2,000 years for the age of the entire Earth. Yet, YEC Froede (2012) is not impressed with the 15% difference between these dates despite the overlap of their standard deviations. More importantly, Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1902) state that their dates 3,000 to 60,000 years simply estimate the maximum duration of the most recent thermal event that occurred in the subsurface of the Fenton Hill. Humphreys (2011, p.77) has no justification for assigning these dates to the age of the entire Earth or ignoring the earlier thermal history at Fenton Hill as shown in Figure 18.

Like he did with the helium in the Fenton Hill zircons, Humphreys (2011, footnotes #14 and #16, p. 77) uses his dating equations in Humphreys (2005a, p. 50) to argue that the argon concentrations in the feldspars are far too high for them to be 1.5 billion years old. However, as explained in Section 7.0 and Loechelt (2008c), Dr. Humphreys’ dating equations are totally bogus.

Humphreys (2018a, p. 54) has additional comments on the Ar-Ar results in Harrison et al. (1986). The Ar-Ar diagram for sample 5 from Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1901) clearly shows considerable argon loss (also my Figure 22). As previously discussed, Harrison et al. (1986, pp. 1902, 1905) obtained a maximum heating duration range of 3,000 to 60,000 years and, based on other observations, they later reduced that value down to less than 40,000 years. Under high pressures and relatively cool temperatures in the subsurface of Fenton Hill, argon diffusion was probably mostly slow during most of the past 800 million years or so (Figure 18; Section 8.1). During periods of heating, including during the last 40,000 years, the feldspars would have lost substantial argon, especially along their edges. Humphreys (2018a) describes two problems with this scenario. Firstly, he admits that temperatures cannot quickly change in the subsurface over the course of a few thousand years. As discussed in Section 8.2.5, Loechelt (2020b) argues that this is actually a great problem for young-Earth creationism, but not for an ancient Earth. Secondly, Humphreys (2018a, p. 54) argues that this scenario assumes that the Earth is old, and he claims to have addressed this issue in Humphreys (2011; 2012d). Yet, elsewhere this essay and Loechelt (2008c; 2009a; 2009b; 2010; 2012; 2020a) show that Dr. Humphreys has not been successful in demonstrating that the Earth is young.

8.2.9 Uniformitarian Models in Harrison et al. (1986) Work Better than the Young-Earth Model in Humphreys (2011)

Humphreys (2011, p. 77) also makes the following accusation against Harrison et al. (1986) and he explains why he insists on having a heating event at about one million years in his uniformitarian model for Fenton Hill:

“It is clear that the shortness of the argon age (relative to a million years, and certainly to a billion years) is the reason why Harrison et al. [1986] could not tolerate the idea that the volcano heated the borehole at any time earlier than about 20,000 years ago. (Even 20 millennia seems large in light of my diffusion age of only 5100 years.) With their low temperatures during the (alleged) 1.5 Ga before that, the argon losses would have been large even for the shallower samples…[footnote omitted] Yet if one grants the uniformitarian age of the nearby volcano, about 1 Ma, it would have heated the site more than enough [footnote omitted] to cause much greater losses just during that (alleged) megayear… [footnote omitted] In other words, the observed high argon retention conflicts severely with the uniformitarian-assumed long ages. These data say that the feldspar generated over a billion years’ worth of 40Ar, and then retained it, during a period of time that began only thousands of years ago. The argon data thus support accelerated nuclear decay, RATE’s young helium age, and the biblical youth of the world.”

Once more, Humphreys (2011) fails to properly read Harrison et al. (1986), Sasada (1989) and pay any attention to the more realistic thermal history in Figure 18 and Loechelt (2008c). As Harrison et al. (1986, pp. 1903-1907) indicate, the geothermal gradients in the subsurface of Fenton Hill are far more complex than what Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) realized. Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1905) state that whatever the source of the heat in the subsurface of Fenton Hill, it’s not older than 40,000 years old and not related to events in the Valles Caldera:

“No reasonable fits to the measured geotherms [at Fenton Hill] were obtained for source ages significantly in excess of 40 ka. Thus, if the deep gradient increase in [borehole] EE-2 is due to conductive heating from a source below Fenton Hill, the source is constrained to be young, much younger than the Valles Caldera.”

Rather than “ignoring” the volcano as Humphreys (2011, p. 74; 2012d) claims, Harrison et al. (1986, pp. 1906-1907) clearly state that their results only apply to the Fenton Hill borehole site and that the Valles Caldera, despite its close location to Fenton Hill, had a different thermal history:

“The thermal history deduced in this study is only applicable to the Fenton Hill site. One K-feldspar sample from a deep well with the [Valles] caldera (well Baca 12, sample depth 10,635 ft (3.24 km), in situ temperature approximately 340oC), has yielded a disturbed and highly outgassed 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum indicative of long-term heating…[reference omitted] and compatible with heating during main caldera formation (1 Ma). Thus more recent heating at the Fenton Hill site may be only a local thermal event.”

Also see Loechelt (2009a, p. 3). The heating in the subsurface of Fenton Hill is simply not directly related to the formation of the Valles Caldera (Harrison et al. 1986, p. 1905).

Although admitting that other natural systems involving smaller plutons and hydrothermal systems were possible, Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1906) were able to develop a 24,000 year pluton model (Figure 19) that matched their Ar-Ar observations and explained the 20% loss of argon in sample 5, a few percent loss of argon in sample 4, and negligible argon losses in samples 1 through 3. Thus, Humphreys (2011) is absolutely wrong to claim that uniformitarian models cannot explain the argon losses in the subsurface of Fenton Hill. Furthermore, as discussed further in Section 8.3, young-Earth models relying on magical accelerated radioactive decay and cooling event(s) are not needed.

The efforts in Humphreys (2010b; 2012b; 2020a) to squeeze the thermal history of the Fenton Hill site into the YEC time frame is nothing more than invoking ad hoc and totally unproven miracles to prop up a YEC agenda. It’s obvious that Dr. Humphreys wants to claim that there is “observational evidence” for the existence of accelerated heating and cooling in the past few thousand years. However, as shown in the next section, this is nothing more than his baseless YEC speculation.

8.3 Accelerated Radioactive Decay: Controversy among YECs and the Heat Problem

8.3.1 The Accelerated Radioactive Decay Controversy among YECs

As mentioned in Section 1.1, long ago Humphreys (2000, pp. 335-339; 2012c; 2013a, pp. 319-320) and some other YECs recognized that the Earth’s geologic record contains undeniable evidence of extensive radioactive decay. That is, the amounts and consistencies of radioactive daughter products associated with remaining parent isotopes are simply too large and widespread to explain away with the mixing of isotopes, bad analytical results, or other excuses commonly invoked by Woodmorappe (1999), Froede and Akridge (2012, pp. 60-61) and other YECs to dismiss the validity of radiometric dating. As Humphreys (2013a, p. 319) states:

“Last, a century of research has shown that wherever large concentrations of 238U are, whether in crystals or ore deposits, there are also many millions of years’ worth of the main fourteen isotopes in its decay chain: 234Th, 234Pa, 234U, 230Th, 226Ra, 222Rn, 218Po, 214Pb, 214Bi, 214Po, 210Pb, 210Bi, 210Po, and finally 206Pb. There are also small amounts of minor daughter isotopes: 218At, 210Tl, and 206Tl. It strains credulity to try to imagine non-nuclear ways those specific isotopes would occur exactly where uranium concentrations are high.”

Now, some YECs might argue that God just placed the parent and daughter products together in such a way to test humans to see if they would believe his word in the Bible or a 4.5 billion year old Earth. However, most YECs would probably reject this kind of Gosse argument (e.g., see Reinfort 2009a, his Section 3.5.2).

Humphreys (2000, p. 341-344) further admits that there is a good correlation between the stratigraphic and radiometric dates in the Earth’s geologic record. Thus, Dr. Humphreys and his RATE allies had to find some way of compressing millions to billions of years’ worth of radioactive decay into a Biblical time span of only 6,000 years. This was done by proposing that God created one or more accelerated radioactive decay events during the past 6,000 years (e.g. Vardiman et al. 2000; Vardiman et al. 2005). Humphreys (2012c, p. 2) summarizes the situation from his YEC perspective:

“It follows that the only answer to the original question (how does lead get into the [zircon] crystals?) which I can imagine is that most of the lead – on the order of a billion years’ worth at today’s decay rates – got into the zircons by nuclear decay of the uranium 238 that was in the zircons from their beginning. Yet we know from Scripture that there were only thousands of years available for the decay to take place. So billions of years worth of decay took place within thousands of years … accelerated nuclear decay.” [emphasis and ellipse in the original]

YEC advocates of one or more accelerated radioactive decay events generally purpose that the events occurred during the Creation Week and/or Noah’s Flood. As discussed in Humphreys (2014b; 2018b; 2020), Dr. Humphreys now favors only 500 million years’ worth of radioactive decay during the Flood and a less intense acceleration in the 1,650 year Antediluvian period between the Fall and the Flood.

Both old-Earth creationists (OECs) and secularist geochronologists would be happy that Humphreys (2013a, pp. 321-322), Baumgardner (2012a), and others have broken with YEC tradition and admit that some aspects of radiometric dating are valid. However, rather than trying to compress the radiometric dates into 6,000 years, OECs argue that a 4.5 billion year old Earth is compatible with conservative interpretations of the Bible. Secular geochronologists state that radiometric dating works fine without accelerated radioactive decay and cooling, and whatever the Old and New Testaments might say about the Earth’s past is totally irrelevant because it’s mostly mythology. Thus, RATE YECs try to compress the geologic time scale into their Biblical time frame, OECs try to expand the biblical time scale to fit into the geologic one, and secularists work with the geologic time scale and ignore the Bible and all other books claiming to be scripture.

As a result of RATE, Humphreys (2012c; 2013a, p. 320), Baumgardner (2012a), Snelling (2009b, pp. 836-837), and other RATE supporters often brag about how strong and conclusive the evidence is for accelerated radioactive decay and cooling. Yet, not all YECs are so convinced. Froede (2012) and Froede and Akridge (2012; 2013a; 2013b) are among the leading YEC skeptics of accelerated radioactive decay and cooling. In contrast to the confidence and enthusiasm of RATE members, Froede and Akridge (2012) state that the evidence for accelerated heating and cooling events is actually quite weak and that YECs can propose alterative explanations for the conclusions of RATE. Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 324, 327) are very blunt and state that there isn’t any science or evidence from the RATE studies to demonstrate the occurrence of accelerated radioactive decay. Furthermore, Froede and Akridge (2013a, p. 324) argue that accelerated radioactive decay must be based on defensible science and not just “theories” and appeals to miracles. Froede and Akridge (2013a, p. 330) then conclude:

“Much of the ‘evidence’ in support of accelerated nuclear decay depends on the miraculous, which is not science.”

Humphreys (2020, p. 54) clearly states that he thinks that God supernaturally intervened to adjust the accelerated radioactive decay and cooling processes:

“Using the two processes [accelerated radioactive decay and cooling], God could adjust temperatures in the rocks to whatever He wanted – temperatures both rising and falling, during both periods, the Antediluvian age and the year of the Flood.”

Also, on page 53 of the same article, Dr. Humphreys further indicates that accelerated radioactive decay and cooling are not natural processes; that is, they involve miracles:

“The two factors are: (1) accelerated nuclear decay; and (2) accelerated volume cooling, both during the Genesis Flood and before it. Neither factor occurs naturally, which is the qualifier Loechelt seems to have missed in my statement, ‘temperatures in the formation could not naturally change much in only thousands of years’ [Humphreys 2018a, p. 55].” [emphasis in the original]

Because any accelerated radioactive decay and cooling events ultimately depend on miracles, Froede and Akridge (2013a, p. 323) further remind us that miracles cannot be tested with science.

Considering that YECs are currently far from united in how to oppose radiometric dating (e.g., Froede and Akridge 2012), from a solely YEC perspective, it seems premature for Dr. Humphreys and other RATE members to put all of their anti-radiometric dating “eggs” in the accelerated radiometric decay and cooling “basket.” But, no matter which approach YECs take to attack radiometric dating and the 4.5 billion year old age of the Earth, geochronologists can argue that these desperate YEC attempts are hopelessly wrong.

Other YECs have expressed skepticism about accelerated radioactive decay before the RATE program or have argued that the effects of accelerated radioactive decay have been limited. At least back before the idea of accelerated radioactive decay became popular with many YECs, YECs Faulkner and Spencer (2000, p. 77) stated:

“Again one could hypothesize that radioactivity was sped up as a result of the Fall or at the time of the Flood and then later returned to normal, but again this seems to be a case of special pleading.”

Interestingly, after studying the literature, Snelling (2015, p. 470) found no evidence of accelerated radioactive decay in meteorites. Snelling (2015, pp. 470, 471-472) came to the conclusion that accelerated decay events were limited to the Earth and only during Noah’s Flood, perhaps as a way of initiating catastrophic plate tectonics. Snelling (2015, p. 470) also concluded that only 500-600 million years’ or so worth of accelerated radiometric decay occurred during the Flood. Snelling (2015, p. 469) defends his conclusions against accelerated radioactive decay before the Flood by stating:

“Indeed, if billions of years of accelerated radioisotope decay had occurred mainly during the early part of the Creation Week, as considered a possibility by the RATE team (Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin 2005), the enormous burst of radiation would surely have been detrimental to all life on the earth, for example, the plants of Day Three. It is for this reason that many creationists are not comfortable with postulating that accelerated radioisotope decay happened during the Creation Week, so maybe there was no radioisotope decay at all until it was started as part of the curse.”

Instead of relying upon accelerated radioactive decay to explain the presence of large amounts of radioactive daughter products in meteorites and terrestrial Precambrian rocks, Snelling (2015, pp. 469-471) suggests that the mixing of isotopes during the Creation Week is a possible solution or perhaps God just created these rocks with those concentrations for some reason. However, just a few years earlier, Dr. Snelling in Dickens and Snelling (2008, p. 69), had the opposite view and dismissed “the mixing of radioactive isotopes as not sufficient”:

“Accelerated radioactive decay (covering about 3,000–4,000 Ma) accompanied catastrophic geologic processes during the early part of the Creation Week [...reference number omitted] (days 1–3, avoiding radiation damage to the biology thereafter) and during the Flood (covering 600+ Ma). (Inheritance and mixing are not sufficient to explain radioisotope ratios, but accelerated decay is the dominant factor involved.) This fits the model proposed, with radioisotope ages indicating relative order and rocks being rapidly ‘aged’ during the early Creation week through the Archean-Mesoproterozoic.” [my emphasis]

Certainly, YECs, like anyone else, are entitled to change their minds as they see new evidence. Yet, the rapid changes and diversity of opinions among YECs on the subject of accelerated radioactive decay indicate that they have not yet obtained a coherent and convincing strategy in their attempts to refute radiometric dating. Also see discussions in Reinfort (2019b).

8.3.2 The Accelerated Radioactive Decay Heat Problem: Initial YEC Proposals Fail to Solve It

Once RATE personnel proposed accelerated radioactive decay, they immediately recognized that they had a serious heat problem (e.g., Humphreys 2018b, p. 731). Radioactive decay gives off radiation, which results in heat. Compressing this much radiation into a Flood year or even 6,000 years would not only have vaporized the host zircons, but would have also fried Noah and the rest of the Earth. Snelling (2005, p. 183) calculated that if 500 million years’ worth of radioactive decay occurred during Noah’s Flood, that the radiation emitted from just the terrestrial granitic rocks would have raised the temperature of the Earth’s crust to 22,400 K. In comparison, the surface of the Sun is only 5,778 K. Therefore, critics of accelerated radioactive decay view the very presence of any helium in zircons as incontrovertible evidence that such accelerated decay events never occurred.

Humphreys (2000), Humphreys (2005a), and other YECs quickly proposed solutions to get rid of the heat, which included the expansion of space. This created a lot of hopeful, but unwarranted, optimism among YEC supporters of accelerated radioactive decay (e.g., CreationWiki #3, 2009). Nevertheless, Morton and Murphy (2004), Pitts (2009), and other critics argue that these proposed solutions are incompatible with scientific observations and other evidence. Even some YECs reject the expansion of space solution (e.g., Stenberg 2012a, footnote #19, p. 62). So, the initial YEC attempts to solve their heat problem went nowhere outside the unjustified optimism of a subset of the YEC community.

D. Stenberg has a B.S. in engineering and a Master of Divinity. As an alternative YEC “solution” to the accelerated radioactive decay heat problem, Stenberg (2012a; 2012b; 2012c; 2012d) argues that God created the interior of the Earth cold (perhaps only 300-500 K or 27-227oC, Stenberg 2012c, p. 47). Stenberg (2012a) thinks that the radioactive elements were concentrated in the mantle during the Creation Week. During Noah’s Flood, accelerated radioactive decay supposedly melted the mantle and eventually the outer core, which led to extensive volcanism on the crust (Stenberg 2012a). Stenberg’s model supposedly allows the Earth’s terrestrial organisms to be largely isolated from direct exposure to radiation from accelerated radioactive decay.

The ideas in Stenberg (2012a; 2012b) contradict the laws of chemistry and physics, and the chemistry of terrestrial Precambrian rocks, which most YECs believe largely formed during the “Creation Week” and possibly at other times before the Flood (e.g., Baumgardner 2012b, p. 48). That is, Noah and his crew would have been inevitably exposed to radionuclides before the Flood (also see Section 8.3.3.3). Uranium, potassium-40, and other radionuclides tend to concentrate in the felsic or “granitic” continental crust (they’re lithophiles) and not in the mantle (Faure 1998, pp. 99-108, 514-515). Stenberg (2012d, p. 49) argues that some of the Earth’s 35-km thick continental crust existed before the Flood, but that a “significant portion” of it formed from the mantle during the Flood. The radioactive elements were only then added to the continental crust during the Flood. However, D. Stenberg still needs to explain how Noah, the crew, and all the ocean critters could have ever survived such an extensive resurfacing of the Earth or how such large amounts of crustal materials could have formed and cooled well within the supposed 4,300 years after the Flood. The laws of chemistry and physics, including the strong lithophilic character of uranium, potassium-40, and other radionuclides, indicate that they were largely in the continental crust when it formed.

The temperatures in the Stenberg (2012a) proposal are also far too cold (27-227oC) and totally incompatible with the thermal history of the Fenton Hill subsurface. They even contradict the already absurd arguments of the 6,000 year-old YEC Fenton Hill model in Humphreys (2005; 2010b; 2012b; 2018a; 2020) (Section 8.1) and the aquatic alchemy and planetary magnetic fields arguments in Humphreys (1984) (Section 12.3).

Stenberg (2012c, p. 47) further proposes that additional processes during the Flood could have contributed to the disposal of the excess heat from accelerated radioactive decay. His proposals along with my comments in italics are listed below:

· Some of the heat would be removed into outer space by the intense global rainfall. Also see Stenberg 2012d, p. 49; I’m not sure how this would have worked with either the vapor canopy or Stenberg’s model; Section 13.1; Reinfort 2019c.)

· High-energy steam jets (perhaps from the fountains of the deep opening up during the Flood, Snelling 2009b, pp. 472-473). However, these jets would release an enormous amount of latent heat as the steam condensed into the Flood rains.

· Some of the heat was used to expand the Earth. Most YECs would deny the claim in Stenberg (2012b, p. 63) that fossil corals indicate that the Earth’s day was about 22 hours long before the Flood and that the expansion of the Earth under his model was responsible for slowing down the rotation of the Earth.

· Nuclear processes would absorb some of the heat (e.g., the splitting of deuterium atoms). However, nuclear fission tends to produce excess heat.

· Chemical reactions and changes to the structures of minerals through metamorphism. Many chemical reactions are exothermic; that is, they give off heat.

There’s no evidence that any of these speculations would prevent a largely molten crust from sterilizing the Earth and many of them would generate surplus heat according to the laws of chemistry and physics. The proposals in Stenberg (2012a; 2012b) are so outlandish, uninformed, and contrary to the chemistry and mineralogy of the Earth, the history of its magnetic field, and the composition of other planets in the Solar System, that many YECs with degrees in geology, chemistry, and physics would probably thoroughly reject them.

Baumgardner (2012b) is a brief letter that criticizes Stenberg (2012a; 2012b). Baumgardner (2012b, p. 47) correctly notes that uranium has a tendency to accumulate in zircons, and zircons commonly occur in continental crustal rocks and sands (Sections 2.1 and 3.2). So, many of them have been through the rock cycle and around for a long time. Continental crusts are also rich in potassium feldspars, which would include radioactive potassium-40. Baumgardner (2012a, p. 73; 2012b, p. 48) further argues that Genesis 1:9 indicates that the continents formed on the 3rd day of the Creation Week.

In his reply to Baumgardner (2012b), Stenberg (2012d, pp. 48-49) argues that intermediate daughter products of uranium decay, such as thorium 230 and 234, would have been enriched in the melts producing the zircons during the Flood and these intermediates would have been incorporated into the crystallizing zircons giving the false appearance that the zircons originally had more uranium in them. While Th4+ has the right size and charge to become incorporated into crystallizing zircons (Section 5.6), most of the intermediate daughter products of uranium (e.g., radium, radon, astatine, bismuth, thallium, and mercury) do not (Faure 1998, pp. 92-95, 99-108, 280, 288). They simply would not become incorporated into a crystallizing zircon any more than lead (Section 5.6). Again, Stenberg (2012d) fails to explain how a thick continental crust could largely form, cool, and not sterilize the planet during Noah’s Flood.

While YEC advocates of accelerated radioactive decay openly admit that they have a heat problem, they also see a certain amount of the heat as necessary to explain features in the geologic record from a YEC perspective (e.g., Humphreys 2005a, p. 68). For example, they argue that some of this heat would have been needed to initiate catastrophic plate tectonics and open the fountains of the deep in Genesis 7:11 (e.g., Snelling 2015, p. 470). As previously discussed in Sections 7.5, 8.2.5, and 8.3.1, Humphreys (2018a, pp. 54, 55; 2012d) fully admits that temperatures in the subsurface of Fenton Hill could not have naturally changed very much in only 6,000 years. So, Humphreys (2018a, pp. 54, 55; 2020) relies on some of the heat from accelerated radioactive decay, as well as associated accelerated cooling, to produce the subsurface temperature cycles at Fenton Hill as described in Sasada (1989) and other publications (Section 8.3.3). This form of supernatural ad hoc heating and cooling creates a number of inconsistencies and other problems for Dr. Humphreys’ young Earth creationist model (Loechelt 2020b; Section 8.2.5).

In summary, YEC advocates of accelerated radioactive decay still need an ad hoc cooling mechanism to counteract almost all of the heat that would result from their ad hoc accelerated radioactive decay event(s). For many YECs, accelerated radioactive decay is necessary to explain how the formation of millions to billions of years’ worth of radioactive daughter products could be compressed into a time span of only 6,000 years. Of course, 6,000 years is a chronological requirement for the age of the Earth based on how YECs interpret Genesis. RATE’s invoking of accelerated radioactive decay to protect their YEC agenda is a classic example of a “solution” cascading into a whole series of new and worse problems. As YECs Froede and Akridge (2013a, p. 330) concluded:

“Accelerated nuclear decay seems to take exception to Occam’s razor.”

8.3.3 Humphreys (2018b) Proposes a New “Physics” to Solve the Heat Problem

8.3.3.1 Background

Humphreys (2018b) came to realize that earlier YEC attempts to solve the accelerated radioactive decay heat problem, such as those in Vardiman et al. (2000; 2005), were unworkable. The earlier proposed expansion of space would have supercooled almost everything and Humphreys (2018b, p. 731) fully recognizes this problem. While such an expansion mechanism could get rid of the radioactive heat in zircons, it would also thoroughly freeze non-radioactive objects and organisms, like Noah. Thus, for a cooling mechanism to work, it somehow had to concentrate on the radioactive hot spots and avoid freezing life forms. In response, Humphreys (2018b) proposed a new “physics”, along with some ad hoc miracles from God, that would produce accelerated cooling events that could locally counteract most of the heating from accelerated radioactive decay without freezing Noah or the plants on the third day of the Creation Week. More recently, in his response to Loechelt (2020b), Humphreys (2020) just mostly summarizes his ideas on accelerated radioactive decay and associated accelerated cooling from Humphreys (2018b).

Not surprisingly, many of the large number of YECs (e.g., Doyle 2020) that continue to argue for the conclusions of RATE and that God must have used miracles during the Flood, are now hoping that Humphreys (2018b) has a solution to the heat problem. However, as discussed in this section, Humphreys (2018b) still relies on ad hoc miracles to work and totally lacks solid evidence. It is doubtful that the “new physics” of Humphreys (2018) will succeed any more than the failed expansion of space hypothesis (Section 8.3.2). However, we’ll see. Eventually, physicists will judge the merits of Humphreys (2018b).

Humphreys (2018b) uses Bible verses and black-body radiation equations to argue that God disposed of the excess heat from accelerated radioactive decay in a fourth dimension. This is the accelerated cooling mechanism. As he explains this new physics, Humphreys (2018b, p. 734) builds upon and repeats some of the material from Humphreys (2014a). Humphreys (2014a, p. 109; 2018b, pp. 733-734) then argues for a fourth dimension in the fabric of space, which is not time. Under this system, time is demoted to the fifth “dimension” (Humphreys 2018b, p. 733). The idea of multiple dimensions beyond the three (height, length and width) readily seen in our Universe is not a foreign concept among scientists. Physicists and cosmologists can mathematically describe a fourth dimension and they refer to it and any additional spatial dimensions as hyperspace (Bennett et al. 2014, pp. 424-438). Now, some cosmologists might further propose that blackholes could lead to another dimension or that quasars are bringing material into our Universe from another dimension. However, at this point, these claims are highly speculative.

Anytime someone proposes to overthrow an entire branch of physics and replace it with a totally new paradigm, there must be some justification for making such a proposal and the proposal must be thoroughly tested through a number of different means before any radical conclusions can be accepted. This is exactly what happened with Einstein’s theories of relativity (e.g., Bennett et al. 2014, pp. 433-436). From the perspective of RATE critics (e.g., Loechelt 2008c; 2020a), Dr. Humphreys’ Fenton Hill tests were far too limited in scope and too poorly executed to warrant any need for a “new physics” as proposed by Humphreys (2018b). That is, Dr. Humphreys is not going to bring down an entire branch of physics with questionable analyses on just a handful of samples from Fenton Hill (also see Section 2.3.4). Scientists are also not going to accept the need for a new physics just so YEC explanations of Genesis can be salvaged.

As of April 9, 2020, my literature and internet searches were unable to locate any publications or internet essays critiquing Humphreys (2018b). I am no expert on physics. I can only make some general comments on the proposed accelerated cooling mechanism in Humphreys (2018b) based on what I’ve read and what experts, including a Ph.D. physicist that is very familiar with Dr. Humphreys’ work, have told me about the proposed mechanism. Others will need to critique the physics in Humphreys (2014a; 2014b; 2018b; 2020) in detail. Interestingly, YEC Spencer (2015) has extensively criticized Humphreys (2014b). Humphreys (2020) cites Humphreys (2014b), but he does not comment on Spencer’s critique.

More recently, YEC Helmkamp (2022a; 2022b) proposed a solution to the YEC accelerated nuclear heat problem. Her solution involves latent heat. We'll see if anything comes of this. Nevertheless, it's simply more reasonable to admit that YEC interpretations of Genesis and radioactive decay are wrong than trying to manipulate physics.

8.3.3.2 The Biblical Interpretations in Humphreys (2018b) are Highly Questionable

Like many others, Humphreys (2018b) attempts to justify his agenda by using his imagination and searching through the Bible to find verses that he thinks support his claims involving accelerated radioactive decay and cooling. Certainly, individuals with any idea can always attempt to justify it by looking through the Bible, Koran, or any other purported book of scriptures and then through the use of their imaginations, they will claim that God endorses key aspects of their idea. The real challenge is to look at the original languages of the verses and to try to discover what they are really saying and not what 21st century individuals want them to say to support an agenda.

Humphreys (2014a, p. 106; 2018b, p. 731) argues that the Old Testament describes space as the “heavens” (plural). He then concludes that on the basis of biblical descriptions of the heavens being torn (Isaiah 64:1), burned (2 Peter 3:12), worn out like a garment (Psalm 102:26), etc. that space is a physical material. Now, there’s no doubt that the ancients believed that space or the “heavens” were material objects, but secularists would argue that this was a common view in ancient cultures and that there is no evidence that this view came from any type of divine inspiration. The ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, and Israelites commonly viewed space as a tent or solid dome, where the stars, Sun, and Moon were embedded as mere lights (Babinski 2010, pp. 119-133; Price and Suominen 2013, pp. 47-66). As late as Martin Luther, this was the biblical view of the cosmos (Figure 23). Like a physical structure, the dome or firmament had literal windows (Genesis 7:11) that could allow water from the overlying “waters above” (Genesis 1:6-8) to either drain down in moderation and bless agricultural societies (Malachi 3:10) or become fully open to drown humanity (Genesis 7:11).

As part of his efforts to describe space as a physical material, Humphreys (2018b, pp. 732-733) also discusses the concept of the “æther” or ether. The ancients did not visualize a near vacuum in outer space. Aristotle thought that the space outside of the Earth was made of a material called æther (Kouremenos 2003, pp. 476, 478). The idea that outer space was filled with or made of an unknown material, called æther, persisted well into the 19th century with James Clerk Maxwell and others (Humphreys 2018b, p. 732). Doubts about the existence of æther only began to arise with the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 (Schneider and Arny 2012, pp. 185-186; Orear 1967, pp. 266-271). Nevertheless, Humphreys (2018b, p. 732) notes that Einstein and other 20th century scientists accepted the idea of a material permeating space or space being a material, which Humphreys (2018b, p. 732) equates with æther. Today, some might see a connection between æther and the mysterious dark matter and dark energy promoted by many cosmologists.

Figure 23: Martin Luther’s version of the biblical cosmos. The Earth is a sphere, but it’s surrounded by a solid dome containing the Sun, Moon and stars as mere lights. The “waters above” of Genesis 1:6-8 and God’s heaven are located above the dome. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geocentrism.gif , this is an illustration from Martin Luther’s 1545 Bible, handwritten English labels added by unknown individual, public domain in the United States of America. Also see Reinfort (2019c).

Anyway, Humphreys (2018b, pp. 731-733) sees space as a physical material. Although most cosmologists would argue that space is never truly empty, they would also contend that space itself is not a physical material. Relativity states that matter and energy cannot travel faster than the speed of light. However, many cosmologists argue that because space itself is not matter or energy, it was capable of expanding at speeds faster than light in the early Big Bang (e.g., Chaisson and McMillan 2005, p. 732; Freedman and Kaufmann 2002, p. 672).

Humphreys (2018b, p. 733) cites Isaiah 34:4 in the New King James Version (NKJ) and Hebrews 1:12 in the New American Standard Version (NAS) to argue that these verses indicate that space has a fourth dimension. However, do these verses actually say that or can they be interpreted in other ways? Both verses in the traditional King James Version (KJV) are:

“And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll” – Isaiah 34:4

“And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” – Hebrews 1:12

So, Humphreys (2018, p. 733) envisions God as having the ability to roll up our Universe into a fourth dimension just as we might roll up a scroll. Humphreys (2014a, p. 109) also quotes the above verses and stresses that God is saying that the heavens are real materials that He can manipulate. However, instead of interpreting these verses by using archeological insights and what we know about the ancient cultures and history that produced these verses (e.g., Dever 2005; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Babinski 2010, pp. 119-133; Price and Suominen 2013, pp. 47-66), Humphreys (2014a) divorces the verses from their cultural contexts, makes the mistake of automatically assuming that the verses have a supernatural authorship with a deep hidden meaning, and then he forces the verses to comply with the expectations of his 21st century fundamentalist Protestant American worldview.

Hebrews 1:12 is actually a quotation from Psalm 102:25-27, which refers to both the heavens and the Earth being like a piece of clothing (a cloak, garment or vesture) that will eventually wear out. Psalm 102:25-27 (KJV) reads:

“25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. 26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: 27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.”

Rather than trying to take these verses as a figurative description or a metaphor, secularists would argue that the ancients viewed the Earth as a literal flat surface and the heavens as a literal tent or other solid material overlying the Earth (Babinski 2010, pp. 119-133; Price and Suominen 2013, pp. 47-66). All of which, in the minds of the ancients, could be easily and literally rolled up by God, just as humans roll up a tent with a cloth floor (Isaiah 34:4). Humphreys (2014a, p. 107) also cites Isaiah 40:22 and Psalm 104:2, where the formation of the heavens is compared to the stretching out of a tent curtain. In the KJV, these verses are:

“that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in” – Isaiah 40:22 [my emphasis]

“Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain” – Psalm 104:2

Yet, Humphreys (2014a, p. 107) totally fails to fully see how literal the meaning of these verses would have been to their ancient Israelite authors! The ancients saw space as a foldable tent! While secular physicists might agree with Dr. Humphreys that multiple dimensions are possible, and even likely, they simply see no justification for the existence of multiple dimensions coming from the Bible.

After arguing that multiple dimensions exist, Humphreys (2018b, p. 735) uses the Bible to argue that God has periodically sent matter and energy between these dimensions. Humphreys (2014a, footnote #27, p. 114) speculates:

“It may be that occasionally God enables light and matter from hyperspace to enter the fabric of our space, which could explain the instances of the heavens being ‘opened’ in Scripture.”

Humphreys (2018b, p. 735) then lists several Bible verses that mention the opening of the heavens (KJV):

Genesis 7:11: “In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” [my emphasis]

Genesis 8:2: “The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;” [my emphasis]

2 Kings 7:2: “Then a lord on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God, and said, Behold, if the Lord would make windows in heaven, might this thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.” [my emphasis]

2 Kings 7:19: “And that lord answered the man of God, and said, Now, behold, if the Lord should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.” [my emphasis]

Psalm 78:23: “Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven.” [my emphasis]

Ezekiel 1:1: “Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.” [my emphasis]

Malachi 3:10: “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” [my emphasis]

Matthew 3:16: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.” [my emphasis]

Mark 1:10: “And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him” [my emphasis]

Luke 3:21: “Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened” [my emphasis]

John 1:51: “And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” [my emphasis]

Acts 7:56: “And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” [my emphasis]

Acts 9:3 “And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:” [my emphasis]

Revelation 19:11 “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.” [my emphasis]

However, is there really any evidence that these verses are actually referring to multiple dimensions as Humphreys (2014a; 2018b) envisions? I would say no and considering how the ancients viewed our Universe (e.g., Figure 23), it’s far more likely that these verses are nothing more than made-up stories involving the opening up of literal windows and doorways in the mythical solid sky dome that connects the Earth with God’s heaven (Babinski 2010, pp. 119-133; Price and Suominen 2013, pp. 47-66; but also see YEC responses in Reinfort 2019c). Altogether, the verses from Genesis, 2 Kings, and Malachi 3:10 indicate that the “windows of heaven” are natural and permanent features that God periodically opens to bring either vital rains or disastrous floods, and not magical interdimensional portals that only appeared during Noah’s Flood or maybe on other rare and miraculous occasions. Certainly, the ancient Israelites viewed clouds as sources of rain (e.g., Judges 5:4; Isaiah 5:6) and Job 38:22,37 even states that God keeps hail and snow in storehouses and rain in jars in the sky. However, the writers of the Bible apparently believed that really heavy storms originate from the ocean of water above the sky dome (Figure 23). Once the windows in the sky dome were closed during Noah’s Flood as described in Genesis 8:2, the heavy rain would soon end. If these verses were in the Koran or the Book of Mormon, YECs would have no problem dismissing them as myths. But because the verses are in the Bible, YECs are forced to use their imaginations and come up with far-fetched rationalizations that are somehow consistent with what 21st century astronomy and meteorology tell us about the atmosphere and outer space.

Humphreys (2018b, pp. 735-737) then attempts to use hyperspace to justify accelerated radioactive decay and associated cooling. Supposedly, God would open “windows of heaven” to permit excess heat to radiate into his fourth dimension, thereby allowing rocks and minerals heated by accelerated radioactive decay to cool (Humphreys 2018b, p. 735). Even if conservative Christians are correct and that God periodically made a portal between his dimension and ours, that does not mean that the same process occurred to cool the Earth during one or more so-called “accelerated radioactive heating” events. It’s one thing for Dr. Humphreys to use his imagination to invoke so-called cooling events, it’s a whole another issue for him to actually demonstrate that his imaginary claims are real. Despite stern criticism from Froede and Akridge (2013a), Humphreys (2020, p. 54) continues to mistakenly refer to the RATE studies as providing “observational evidence” of accelerated volume cooling. Of course, Loechelt (2008c), Froede (2012), Froede and Akridge (2012; 2013a; 2013b) and others argue that Dr. Humphreys has not provided any such kind of observational evidence. Non-YECs would likely see Dr. Humphreys’ agenda as nothing more than a poorly supported interpretation that has failed to compete with the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c). The inability of Dr. Humphreys to distinguish between his imaginary interpretations and authentic evidence is yet another major flaw in his work.

8.3.3.3 Some Technical Problems and Inconsistencies with the Accelerated Radioactive Decay and Cooling Mechanisms in Humphreys (2018b)

Humphreys (2018b; 2020) is not the first YEC to speculate that God moved matter and energy in and out of unseen dimensions. As pointed out by Froede and Akridge (2012, p. 57), Chaffin (2000) speculated that a fifth, or Dr. Humphreys’ fourth, dimension might have caused accelerated radioactive decay during the early Creation Week. Even if these extra dimensions can be shown to exist, again, how does Humphreys (2018b) demonstrate that they actually removed the heat from his speculative accelerated radioactive decay event(s)?

YECs Froede and Akridge (2012, p. 58) correctly argue that if Dr. Humphreys and his allies are going to propose accelerated radioactive decay and cooling mechanisms, they must first independently and empirically demonstrate that both processes are real. How the two processes might interact with each other could be determined later. Otherwise, accelerated radioactive decay and cooling are just groundless and hopeful speculations. Froede and Akridge (2013a, p. 327) further insist that any claims of accelerated radioactive decay must be supported by real physical evidence, “otherwise we are dealing with simple storytelling and the miraculous.” According to the scientific definition of a theory (e.g., Reinfort 2019a, his Sections 4.2 and A.6.1), accelerated radiometric decay and cooling certainly do not meet the requirements of a theory. Instead, Froede and Akridge (2012, p. 60) describe it as an “interesting hypothesis.” Other critics would not be so generous and would label it as desperate “grabbing at straws” speculation to save the YEC biblical time scale.

Before Dr. Humphreys can make a scientifically valid accelerated radioactive decay and cooling proposal, he must first demonstrate that such a proposal is really necessary to explain natural phenomena and then, to call it science, he must completely divorce his concept from its reliance on miracles (i.e., magic). Although most scientists recognize that miracles might be possible, when miracles are simply inserted to justify a hypothesis, then they are nothing more than flimsy and untestable excuses. Because miracles can claim to solve any problem, they actually solve nothing. Invoking miracles is nothing more than a sloppy attempt to cover up weaknesses and other problems in an explanation.

Froede and Akridge (2012; 2013a) and Humphreys (2013a) debate the role of theory and observation in the development of a scientific explanation. For Humphreys (2013a, p. 320), the RATE observations definitely demonstrate that accelerated radioactive decay and cooling were real events even though science cannot explain them at this time. That is, for Dr. Humphreys observation “trumps” theory. However, Froede and Akridge (2013a), Loechelt (2008c) and other RATE critics are not convinced that the observations made by RATE personnel are conclusive evidence of accelerated radioactive decay and cooling events. Froede and Akridge (2013b) argue that there may be alternative YEC explanations for the observations from RATE that do not require accelerated radioactive decay and cooling. Loechelt in Slide #12 of Loechelt and Henke (2018) frankly claims that he has solved the helium in zircons issue at Fenton Hill without at all relying on miracles or accelerated radioactive decay events (i.e., Loechelt 2008c).

Defenders of RATE might cite gravity as an example of a natural phenomenon that has been observed since the time of Adam, but is still not fully understood by physicists. Although gravity is not entirely understood by physicists, unlike the RATE studies, the effects of gravity are readily seen, repeatable and well-measured. The RATE studies simply do not have this level of conformation as gravity does. Furthermore, Loechelt (2020a) argues that the helium diffusion studies by Wolfe and Stockli (2010) and others actually refute Dr. Humphreys’ RATE conclusions (Section 7.3).

RATE supporter Lindauer (2013) argues that the practical observations of the RATE studies are what are important even if the observations have no solid theory to currently back them up. Yet, Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 329-330) reply to Lindauer (2013) and question that anything from the RATE studies is useful to YECs. Also, without a solid understanding or theory that explains the observations, it’s all too easy to misinterpret the observations. That is, until if and when YECs can explain the physics of accelerated radioactive decay and cooling, the very existence of these phenomena is in question and the evidence in this essay clearly indicates that there’s no good evidence that the phenomena ever existed or are needed to explain radiometric dating.

Clearly, Dr. Humphreys fails to comprehend that to really understand what you’re observing, you need an authentic scientific theory to back it up. Froede and Akridge (2013a, p. 328) further add that Humphreys (2013a) is confusing deductions from the RATE observations with physical evidence. Humphreys (2013a) sees helium in zircons as “evidence” of accelerated radioactive decay, but his critics see no definite connection between the questionable claims of high helium concentrations in the Fenton Hill zircons and the far-fetched explanation of accelerated radioactive decay and cooling. Froede and Akridge (2013a, p. 328) further conclude:

“This is an important point of distinction, as we believe that many such ‘RATE evidences’ are deductions based on conjecture and assumptions, some of which we hope are now evident.”

As further discussed throughout this essay, based on the numerous questions about the reliability of the Q, Q0, uranium, and other measurements on the Fenton Hill zircons by Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys, there are good reasons to doubt that the zircons had extraordinarily high concentrations of radiogenic 4He (Sections 4.3 and 4.4; Appendix B).

According to Humphreys (2014b; 2018b; 2020), Dr. Humphreys now favors 500 million years’ worth of radioactive decay during the Flood and a less intense acceleration during the 1,650 year Antediluvian period between the Fall and the Flood. Humphreys (2020) thinks that these events were responsible for the temperature fluctuations in the subsurface of Fenton Hill as noted by Sasada (1989) (Sections 8.1 and 8.2). Yet, Humphreys (2020) says nothing about accelerated radioactive decay and cooling during the Creation Week 6,000 years ago, when the Fenton Hill zircons supposedly formed (Humphreys et al. 2004), or exactly how the Fenton Hill zircons attained a total of 1,500 million years’ worth of radioactive decay.

Humphreys (2020, p. 54) is not shy about crediting God in adjusting the temperatures as He desires during the accelerated radioactive decay and cooling events. Humphreys (2018b, p. 736) further states that he depends on miracles from God to ultimately make his accelerating radioactive decay and cooling scenario work:

“It is very likely that God adjusted the heat leakage to hyperspace by making the critical angle of opening θc depend on both wavelength and location, in order to get the temperature He wanted from place to place on the Earth.” [his emphasis]

Sure, if God used miracles, he could make the U-Pb dates of the Fenton Hill zircons look 1.5 billion years old and make the zircons and surrounding rocks any temperatures he wanted, but where is the evidence for the fantasies that Humphreys (2018b; 2020) proposes? He has none. He only has wild speculations, where miracles are ultimately needed to make his fantasies work. Meanwhile, Loechelt (2008c) provides a rational uniformitarian explanation for the history of the Fenton Hill zircons that does not rely on contradictory scenarios and ad hoc and magical accelerated radioactive decay and cooling events.

As he does with his aquatic alchemy efforts (Section 12.3), Humphreys (2018b) is awkwardly trying to mix physics with miracles. So, how is it possible to distinguish where a natural process ends and where a miracle supposedly begins? More importantly, if God was ultimately using miracles to maintain the proper accelerated heating and cooling, why involve physics at all? Why not just say that God did all of it by miracles and quit there? However, most YECs clearly do not want 100% miracles to prop up their agenda. These YECs want to economize miracles and maximize physics to make their scenarios look somewhat believable. That is, YECs simply don’t want all of the conclusions of RATE solely based on groundless “God did it!” miracles. Otherwise, their entire RATE results are even more dependent on an unjustified world of make-believe. Many YECs and all of Dr. Humphreys’ critics would simply dismiss the proposed accelerated radioactive decay and cooling event(s) as nothing more than an unsubstantiated and imaginary “magic show” (i.e., “smoke and mirrors”). That is, anyone can always invoke a miracle to prop up any ridiculous idea (see debates in Reinfort 2019a, his Section 3.4).

Assuming that the equations in Humphreys (2018b) are correct and relevant, Humphreys (2018b, p. 736) performs some calculations to illustrate how the removal of thermal radiation (heat) through accelerated cooling would have had inconsequential effects on Noah. However, Humphreys (2020, p. 54) only mentions that this cooling mechanism applies to visible and infrared wavelengths. So, what about radiation from the traces of radionuclides that are commonly found in all organisms? Humans and other biological organisms contain small amounts of various radionuclides that on a daily basis enter the body through food, water, air, and other contact with the environment. Although modern humans have a greater chance of encountering radioactive materials in our industrial societies, radionuclides have always been present in nature. Uranium and other radionuclides have been found in terrestrial rocks of all ages (Precambrian to Recent), and in meteorites and Moon rocks.

Stenberg (2012b, p. 68) claims that radionuclides were absent from Noah and other pre-Flood biological organisms, but offers no evidence for this ad hoc claim. We simply don’t find relic “pre-Flood” felsic igneous rocks that are completely devoid of radionuclides. Again, because radionuclides are common in Precambrian rocks, most of which are identified as “pre-Flood” by most YECs, how could pre-Fall organisms avoid also having these trace amounts?

While his bogus 6,000 +/- 2,000 year old creation date would indicate radionuclides on or near the Earth’s surface going back to the Creation Week, Humphreys (2018b; 2020) just ignores how alpha, beta and gamma radiation from the acceleration of the radionuclides within the bodies of Noah and other organisms on the ark might have affected them. Dr. Humphreys apparently assumes that God would also somehow magically throw that radiation into the fourth dimension. If Dr. Humphreys wants to argue, like Stenberg (2012b, p. 68), that Noah and other pre-Fall organisms did not have any trace amounts of radionuclides, what evidence would he have for that claim? How could Dr. Humphreys’ zircons date back 6,000 years to the Creation Week without radionuclides in the crust and unavoidably in the overlying surface environments?

Rather than being excreted or simply decaying away, sometimes the radionuclides accumulate in bones and elsewhere in the body. Rao (2012, p. 57) states that potassium-40 (40K) in a 70-kg human produces about 4,400 decays per second or 4,400 becquerels (Bq) of radiation. Of the 4,400 Bq, 470 Bq are gamma radiation and the remaining 3,930 Bq are beta. A 70 kg adult human body also contains about 0.7-1 Bq from 238U with about 70% remaining in the skeleton (Rao 2012, p. 57). Furthermore, a 70 kg adult human, on average, has 0.07 Bq of 232Th, 0.21 Bq of 230Th, 21 Bq of 210Pb, 18 Bq of 210Po, 1.86 Bq of 226Ra, and 0.70 Bq of 228Ra (Rao 2012, p. 57). About 70% of the 232Th, 230Th, and 210Pb also accumulates in the skeleton. In a year, an adult human body of 70 kg typically receives an effective radiation dose of 0.165 millisieverts (mSv) from 40K, 0.012 mSv from 14C, and 0.12 mSv from U and Th (Rao 2012, p. 57). The effective dose for all of the major natural radionuclides in an adult human then totals to about 0.3 mSv/year (Rao 2012, p. 58). The U.S. National Regulatory Commission states that radiation workers are limited to a total effective dose of 50 mSv/year (10 [U.S. Code of Federal Regulations] CFR §835.202) and a member of the general public is limited under the regulations to 1 mSv/year from facilities having radionuclides (10 CFR §835.208). However, according to Humphreys (2018b, p. 736), 500 million years’ worth of radioactive decay occurred during the year of Noah’s Flood. While 0.3 mSv/year would not be considered harmful to most humans, if Noah had similar trace amounts of radionuclides in his body, then 0.3 x 500,000,000 = 150,000,000 mSv/Flood year from accelerated radioactive decay would have been quite deadly to him. Other pre-Flood biological organisms would also have had dangerous trace amounts of radionuclides. Considering the distribution of trace radionuclides and their daughter products throughout the geologic record, there’s no evidence to back any YEC claim that Noah and other pre-Flood organisms would have had no or far less radionuclides in them.

Dr. Humphreys should have addressed this issue, preferably in a scientific manner without relying on his usual appeals to magic. At the least, Dr. Humphreys would not want the alpha radiation, which are helium nuclei, to disappear from the Fenton Hill zircons and into his magical fourth dimension during any accelerated radioactive decay events. So, how would Noah and others on the ark have handled the damage and heat from the accelerated beta and gamma radiation within their bodies? What real evidence does Dr. Humphreys have that the radiation was disposed of in the fourth dimension or elsewhere in hyperspace? With every speculation piled upon speculation that Dr. Humphreys throws out to defend his biblical interpretations and dismiss the validity of radiometric dating, his problems become deeper and more complex. He is caught in his own web of deception.

9.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Misuse of Science, Misinterpretations of the Bible, and the Questionable Ethics of RATE

9.1 Dr. Humphreys’ Misunderstands and Misuses Science

Contrary to the misconceptions in Humphreys (2005b), the scientific method (e.g., Reinfort 2019a, his Section 4.2) is not a matter of my tastes or his, but is based on a set of rules that Dr. Humphreys simply does not understand or follow. All professions have rules and anyone that claims to be a scientist must follow the rules of science (e.g., Section 3.5). The rules of the scientific method do not allow individuals, like Dr. Humphreys, to manipulate data from the literature (e.g., Section 5.1) and invoke miracles to eliminate scientific results (e.g., U/Pb dates) and questions that they don’t like. Because miracles by definition don’t obey natural law, are only limited by an individual’s subjective imagination, and can be readily remolded to explain away any failures, any models based on the supernatural can never be scientifically evaluated for accuracy.

Scientists have made enormous advances in the past few centuries in understanding both the Earth’s past and present. These advances did not develop because scientists relied on miracles or other flimsy excuses to cover up problems and promote religious or political agendas. How much expertise does it take to say “God did it!”? Proclaiming “God did it!” is clearly not an acceptable answer in criminal forensics, weather forecasting, or any other scientific pursuit. Would the invoking of miracles ever be tolerated in a court room, medical school or anywhere else outside of a religious forum? If psychologists don’t blame demons for causing bipolar disorder, car mechanics don’t blame gremlins for engine problems, and forensics scientists don’t blame witchcraft for unwitnessed crimes, what makes Dr. Humphreys believe that geologists should use the supernatural to explain the origin of a rock?

As explained in this essay, it’s totally irrational for Dr. Humphreys to rely on faulty data, equations, and magic just to promote a religious agenda to his liking. Because too many YECs are willing to “resolve” any problems or prop up any of their religious ideas with unfalsifiable ad hoc miracles, they really don’t produce scientific results or models. To be exact, Dr. Humphreys’ “accelerated nuclear decay event” is nothing more than an example of the infamous Gosse (Omphalos) and “god of the gaps” fallacies (e.g., Reinfort 2019a, his Sections 3.5.2 and 3.5.3).

Obviously, there are major and critical differences between many YEC “researchers” and real scientists. Real scientists (which include some YECs) pay attention to details in their research, evaluate multiple natural hypotheses, see where their research takes them, and ignore any pronouncements from the Humanist Manifesto, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Koran. Just as real Christians would never sign a declaration denying Christ, real scientists would never betray their profession by signing loyalty oaths to the Bible or a set of religious or political doctrines. Authentic scientists also would never allow dogmatic religious or political commissars to dictate to them which of their results are “acceptable” and which are not, yet Dr. Humphreys and other RATE committee members had a Hebrew language scholar looking over the shoulders to make sure that the members “stay on course” (Morris, 2000, p. viii). Unlike authentic scientists, the RATE committee already had their conclusions for an approximately 6,000 year old Earth firmly established in their minds even before their “research” began.

Because YECs like Dr. Humphreys already believe that they have “The Answers” in their Bibles, they tend to take an “ends justify the means” approach to “research,” which often leads to careless actions, including: taking unjustified shortcuts (such as, assuming isotropic diffusion in biotites), being inexcusably careless with data (for example, listing the wrong units of measure in Table C1 of Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 17), and overlooking alternative natural explanations that conflict with their agenda (as examples, Dr. Loechelt’s models or significantly slower helium diffusion under subsurface pressures). After all, getting the “biblically correct answers” and protecting their faith are paramount for these YECs, and Dr. Humphreys proves his sloppy “the ends justify the means” approach every time he flashes his Figure 2 from Humphreys (2005b) and claims that it supports a 6,000 year old Earth (Section 7.4).

9.2 A Burden of “Disproof”? That’s Not How Science Works Dr. Humphreys

Humphreys (2008b) makes the absurd claim that his critics have the “burden of disproof." Actually, proof is for mathematics and logic. Science deals with evidence and probability. Nevertheless, Loechelt (2009a, p. 2) correctly points out that Dr. Humphreys actually has the burden to demonstrate that his model based on miraculous accelerated radioactive decay is superior to the Loechelt (2008c) model and its reliance on the ordinary laws of chemistry and physics. Technically, Dr. Humphreys’ critics don’t have to “disprove” anything. Those making outrageous or unusual claims have the burden to thoroughly demonstrate their claims, especially when Loechelt (2008c) has already demonstrated that Dr. Humphreys’ outrageous claims are not valid and not even necessary. Without extraordinary evidence, extraordinary claims automatically fail.

Contrary to Dr. Humphreys’ approach, detailed scientific evidence and not lines on a graph determine the verdict. The evidence presented in this essay, Loechelt (2008c; 2009a; 2020a) and elsewhere indicates that through biased manipulation, bad assumptions, sloppy a, b, and Q/Q0 values, and probably some sheer luck, Dr. Humphreys derived a bogus creation model that fits his vacuum helium diffusion data (Section 7.4). No one should be awed by Dr. Humphreys’ pretty diagram and accept anything he says on faith. Using Dr. Humphreys’ own words in Humphreys (2005b), the proper description of Figure 2 in Humphreys (2005b) is “garbage in, garbage out.”

9.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Actions are Religious and Not Scientific

In reaction to my criticisms that he is trying to eliminate sound U/Pb radiometric dates with groundless miracles, Humphreys (2005b) attempts to minimize his religious agenda by claiming that he only spent a few paragraphs in his documents arguing that God miraculously altered radioactive decay rates. That is, Humphreys (2005b) claims that his data are the “main subject” of his work and not the supposed miraculous role of God in accelerating radioactive decay rates. Yet, not even the YEC public buys into Dr. Humphreys’ claim that the “main subject” of his work is his data and not the supposed miraculous role of God in accelerating radioactive decay rates. The YEC public doesn’t care about the esoteric calculus equations or the long lists of measurements in Humphreys et al. (2003a). It’s obvious from the countless fundamentalist Christian Internet sites that uncritically cite Humphreys et al.’s work that YECs consider the few accelerated radioactive decay paragraphs and it’s critical importance in upholding the YEC view of Genesis to represent the very foundation and the most important part of Humphreys et al.’s work. The YEC public wants converts and not technical details. They’re hoping that Dr. Humphreys’ “evidence” for accelerated radioactive decay will destroy all radiometric dating methods and bring millions of people streaming to church altars in repentance. Finally, if his data are paramount and the role of God in supposedly accelerating radioactive decay rates is not the “main subject” of his work as Humphreys (2005b) claims, one might wonder why Dr. Humphreys didn’t first publish a full article in a secular peer-reviewed science journal instead of one brief poster at a secular conference and the rest of his writings on this topic being in YEC pamphlets, Sunday school materials, books and magazines that have no widespread respect in the scientific community (e.g., Humphreys 2003; Humphreys et al. 2004)?

Humphreys (2013c) indicates that he has tried to publish on non-RATE topics in Nature and other secular science journals before, but that they didn’t publish his work because he thought that they were biased against YECs. It’s not known whether Dr. Humphreys even tried to publish his Fenton Hill work in a secular science journal or not. Now, even Gentry et al. (1982a) with its numerous flaws managed to get published in a peer-reviewed journal. Yet, considering all of the blatant flaws in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Humphreys (2005a) and his other “peer-reviewed” papers, it’s easy to see that even if the religious discussions were removed from them, these manuscripts would never have passed a thorough peer-review by a reputable science journal.

9.4 Second Peter 3:4: Often Misinterpreted by Dr. Humphreys and Other YECs

Contrary to the overwhelming historical and textural evidence (e.g., Eller 2004; Carrier 2010; Stenger 2012; Prothero 2007; Price 2003; Price 2010; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Ehrman 2009; Dever 2005; Loftus 2008; Loftus 2010; Loftus 2011), YECs generally assume that all of the books of the Protestant Bible are the infallible “word of God” in at least their original languages. One of the favorite Bible verses of YECs are the following statements from 2 Peter 3:3-7, which state in the King James Version:

“3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”

YECs feel that this is a “prophecy” against “uniformitarianism”, despite arguments from old-Earth creationist or more liberal Christian theologians to the contrary. Not surprisingly, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 4) and Humphreys (2010b, p. 35) follow the YEC crowd and also cite 2 Peter 3:4,5-6 as part of their discussions attacking uniformitarianism. In reality, however, 2 Peter is probably a forgery written by a 2nd century AD Christian in response to widespread criticism from non-Christians about the delayed Second Coming of Christ, which was supposed to have been “soon”, as claimed in Revelation 1:3, 1 Peter 4:7 and elsewhere in the New Testament (see Appendix D). Even if 2 Peter was not a forgery, it does not excuse Dr. Humphreys’ illegitimate and sloppy “science.”

Rather than discussing the long history of skepticism of 2 Peter, Humphreys (2005b) attacks me with some illegitimate pop psychology and makes the following historically naive statements about criticisms of this New Testament book:

“The allergy shows itself in his strong objection (just before his conclusion) to my citation of 2 Peter 3:3-7 as a prophecy condemning uniformitarianism. The medication he takes for that malady is (foolishly) to swallow the claim of theologically liberal ‘higher critics’ that 2 Peter is ‘probably a 2nd century forgery.’ He doesn’t seem to see that their reasons for claiming that are specious, motivated by a desire to do away with all the supernatural events of Scripture, such as the virgin birth of Christ. We should not naively accept claims from people (such as Henke himself) with such motives.”

Certainly, many skeptics of 2 Peter are liberal Christians or non-Christians. However, Dr. Humphreys’ views of the Bible and Church history are no more accurate than his understanding of science or his use of pop psychology to “probe” my motives for opposing his nonsense (Section 11.2). Dr. Humphreys simply handles the Bible and Church history in a simplistic and careless manner. First of all, he incorrectly makes a bogus correlation between rejecting the authority of 2 Peter and opposing the supernatural, including the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. If this correlation is true, why did a significant number of Church Fathers that endorsed the Virgin Birth raise questions about the authenticity of 2 Peter? For example, why did Origen mention doubts about its authenticity? Why did Eusebius (263-339 AD) put 2 Peter on his list of “disputed” New Testament books? Why do many modern Roman Catholic theologians enthusiastically embrace the eternal virginity of the Virgin Mary, but consider 2 Peter to be fraudulent? In particular, the Roman Catholic The New Jerusalem Bible endorses the Virgin Birth, but refers to the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter as “doubtful,” a “forgery,” and its contents “suggest a later date” (p. 1995). As usual, Dr. Humphreys’ simplistic black and white view of the world does not represent reality (Appendix D).

Dr. Humphreys and his YEC allies so desire to get as much mileage out of their false interpretations of this forged New Testament book that they can’t afford to let the real context or historical facts about the book get in their way. Rather than quoting a spurious book and accusing others of illegitimate uniformitarianism, Dr. Humphreys needs to deal with and not ignore his own Lyell uniformitarian blind spots (e.g., Section 6.1.9). He clearly fails to realize that geologists abandoned Lyell uniformitarianism for actualism long ago and that a few sentences from a fraudulent 2nd century AD manuscript had nothing to do with it. In context, the verses of 2 Peter have nothing to do with geology and because they’re probably the words of a forger, just like the writers of 1 Peter, 3 Peter, and 4 Peter (Price, 2006, pp. 823-845), not even YECs should take them seriously (Appendix D).

9.5 Ethical Questions Dealing with the Zodiac Minerals and Manufacturing Front Company

YECs are often caught in a dilemma. Private laboratories, such as those that perform radiometric dating, generally will sell their services to anyone. However, there are personnel at specialized research laboratories that are very protective of their reputations and will not provide services to what they see as “pseudoscientists” for any amount of money.

For their helium diffusion project, there were only a limited number of available experts in the United States that could perform the services that Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues needed. If RATE personnel had been above board and told the experts that they were YECs and that they were trying to use helium diffusion in zircons to demonstrate that the Earth was only a few thousand years old, it’s doubtful that they would have gotten the cooperation and expertise that they needed at any price. Most scientists don’t want to see their names in the acknowledgements or texts of YEC documents any more than they want to see themselves on most UFO television documentaries or quoted for any reason in the Bigfoot articles of supermarket tabloids. Therefore, the RATE team used an intermediary, Zodiac Minerals and Manufacturing, LLC, of Oregon City, Oregon, USA, to hide the identities and motives of the RATE team from the experimenter that performed and interpreted the helium results on Dr. Humphreys’ zircons and biotites. Humphreys et al. (2003, p. 6) describe what happened:

“Through a small mining company, Zodiac Minerals and Manufacturing, we contracted with … [name of the experimenter and his institution] to measure the diffusion coefﬁcients of the zircon and biotite from the Jemez site. He is a recognized expert on helium diffusion measurements in minerals, having many publications related to that ﬁeld. As we wished, Zodiac did not tell … [the experimenter] they were under contract to us, the goals of the project, or the sites of the samples.” [my emphasis]

Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) identifies Zodiac as a “legitimate business” and that it existed before the RATE team asked them to approach the experimenter for help. Now, Zodiac may have been a legitimate company on paper and it may have been used before RATE to contact other researchers secretly on the behalf of other YECs or other individuals, but there is no evidence that Zodiac mined or manufactured anything. The “company” title is totally deceptive. It appears to have been nothing more than a front company. Zodiac was registered on October 5, 1999 and underwent administrative dissolution on December 7, 2001 according to an on-line record at https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_or/71427380 (accessed September 5, 2020).

Despite its obviously deceptive title, Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) stresses that Zodiac did not lie to the experimenter. Zodiac was simply told not to volunteer any information to the experimenter, but had the experimenter asked if he was working for YECs, Zodiac would have told him the truth. Although he claims that he was under no ethical obligation to do so, Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) states that he told the experimenter in 2003 that he and his colleagues were YECs before their first paper was published (Humphreys et al. 2003a). That probably would have been after the experimenter had finished his work. Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) further admits that the experimenter was not happy that he had unwittingly worked for YECs.

Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) can try to excuse his and his colleagues’ behavior and label it as perfectly fine and honest, but the point is, that because of the actions of Dr. Humphreys and others, the experimenter was deeply offended and felt deceived and abused. His views of YECs, and perhaps conservative Christians in general, is even lower than before Humphreys et al. contacted him. Dr. Loechelt in slide #15 even quotes a 2005 statement where the experimenter refers to Dr. Humphreys and his RATE associates as “totally dishonest.” So, Dr. Humphreys did not set a good example of Christianity in the eyes of the experimenter and others.

10.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Inappropriate Challenges for Laboratory Experiments and Peer-Review from His Opponents

10.1 Although it’s Not the Responsibility of Dr. Humphreys’ Critics to Do His Laboratory Work for Him, Dr. Humphreys’ Critics have Corrected Many of His Mistakes

Dr. Humphreys has wasted a lot of time and money to create his mess. As discussed throughout this essay and its references, many questions and uncertainties remain about Dr. Humphreys’ work (e.g., Appendix C) and he has yet to present any conclusive evidence to support his “YEC model.” Rather than correcting his own mistakes, Humphreys (2006a) challenged me to drop my current research projects and perform my own helium diffusion studies on zircons. Dr. Humphreys simply doesn’t realize that he, and not me, has the responsibility to clean up his own mess by performing all of his essential studies (including realistic high-pressure diffusion experiments; Section 6.2.6). There are numerous questions (e.g., Appendix C) that Dr. Humphreys must answer before he can promote his “YEC model” and make the radical claim that he has overthrown the validity of radiometric dating and established the need for a “new physics” (Section 8.3.3). As I’ve repeatedly stated in my previous versions of this essay, all of his mistakes, invalid assumptions, and mystery math must be explained and corrected before any of his claims can be taken seriously by scientists. Dr. Humphreys has no moral or scientific authority to challenge anyone to do his work for him or to invest a lot of time and resources cleaning up his mess.

Like he did with me in Humphreys (2006a), Humphreys (2012b) also makes the groundless accusation that Dr. Loechelt should perform his own experiments. From the information in Loechelt (2008c, p. 35), Dr. Humphreys should have realized that Dr. Loechelt works in the private sector and does not have access to the facilities and resources of Dr. Humphreys’ sponsoring YEC organizations. Everything being said, Dr. Humphreys’ critics have done a lot of hard work correcting many of his mistakes. Dr. Loechelt was even able to use the available data and develop a successful uniformitarian model for helium diffusion as discussed in Loechelt (2008c). Dr. Loechelt performed his research on his own time and with his own funds (Loechelt 2008c, p. 35). Furthermore, Dr. Loechelt in his presentation at Loechelt and Henke (2018, slide #13) and Loechelt (2020a, pp. 40-46) points out that Wolfe and Stockli (2010) and other scientists have already done the experiments that Humphreys (2012b) called for and the results are more bad news for Dr. Humphreys’ YEC agenda (Section 7.3).

Considering all of the calculations and other work by Dr. Humphreys’ critics and the laboratory and field results in Wolf and Stockli (2010), the YEC claims and results in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and Humphreys (2005a) are demonstrably false. Dr. Humphreys now has the responsibility of admitting and correcting his own mistakes. He has no grounds to claim victory and demand that his opponents do the work that he has failed to do. Except for a few minor corrections here and there (e.g., Section 4.5), overall Dr. Humphreys has utterly failed to answer the critical questions about his work, admit his obvious mistakes, and make any effort to correct them.

10.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Inappropriate Challenges for Peer-Review, Which Dr. Loechelt and I have Already Met

10.2.1 Peer-Reviewing of this Essay. Talkorigins is Popular and Mainstream

While Humphreys (2005b; 2008b) repeatedly accuses Dr. Loechelt, me and his other critics of “avoiding” peer-review by not publishing our criticisms in peer-reviewed journals, he continues to ignore that fact that the various versions of my essay at Talkorigins were peer-reviewed by a number of professional scientists, including at least one individual that has published peer-reviewed articles on helium diffusion. My 2020 update was also peer-reviewed. The names of some of the peer-reviewers are listed in the Acknowledgements of this essay (Section 15.0). The others preferred to remain anonymous. In contrast, most journal articles typically have only two or three peer-reviewers. Furthermore, the highlights of the 2010 peer-reviewed essay were then published as a full journal article in Henke (2010).

In contrast to many peer-reviewed technical journals that have relatively few subscribers and readers, and little space for adequately detailed discussions and calculations, Talkorigins provides a peer-reviewed science forum that has a potential audience of millions and no page limits. The readership of Talkorigins is also probably greater than most YEC publications, including the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) and Journal of Creation. So, contrary to the claims in Humphreys (2006a), the science essays at Talkorigins are extensively read, reviewed and cited, and are not in a “dark corner of the Internet.” I am hoping that the updates that are now at my website will continue to be read and cited.

Dr. Humphreys has published in the CRSQ and the Journal of Creation, and would consider them legitimate peer-reviewed journals. Yet, the evidence shows that the publications of the YEC organizations ICR, CRS, AiG, and CMI have earned no respect in the scientific community, and for good reason as later discussed in Sections 10.3 and 10.4. Loechelt (2009a, p. 4) even states that he was told by personnel at the Journal of Chemical Geology that they would not accept any manuscript that merely cites articles in the CRSQ regardless of the position it takes. Although YECs would consider it unfair and “bigoted”, authentic science journals are no more likely to accept a critique of Dr. Humphreys’ articles than a scientific rebuttal of the astrology columns and Big Foot articles in The National Enquirer. Authentic science journals simply want nothing to do with young-Earth creationism and other pseudosciences. If YECs don’t like it that their periodicals are grouped with supermarket tabloids, they need to improve their science. The large number of errors and irrational arguments in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Humphreys (2005a; 2011; 2018a) and his other articles do not encourage scientists to take the efforts of RATE seriously. Meanwhile, Dr. Humphreys seems happy to post his responses with the uncritical cheerleaders at “Trueorigins.org” and other YEC websites, as well as at least tolerating individuals at CreationWiki (#1-#3) that are more than willing to make up far-fetched scenarios just to coverup Dr. Humphreys blatant mistakes (e.g., Section 5.1.4).

10.2.2 Peer-Reviewing of Dr. Loechelt’s Articles

Humphreys (2012b, pp. 48-49) also tries to make diversionary and uninformed statements about Dr. Loechelt’s “lack of peer-review.” Humphreys (2012b, pp. 48-49) mentions that Dr. Loechelt had a paper that failed to pass “peer-review”, so he published the paper and other works on creationist old-Earth (OEC) websites. Humphreys (2012b, pp. 48-49) never identifies the paper or the journal that failed to accept Dr. Loechelt’s article. Based on his descriptions, however, the paper is probably an earlier version of Loechelt (2008c), which was submitted to the CRSQ. Loechelt (2009a, pp. 3-5) had previously addressed this issue, which Humphreys (2012b) totally ignores. Loechelt (2008c, p. 35) openly states his frustration with the CRSQ “peer-review” system after submitting an article to them that was critical of Dr. Humphreys’ work and claims:

“Therefore, in an attempt to determine how open their forums are to outside criticism, I submitted an earlier version of this work to one of their own journals: the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Unfortunately, it was ultimately rejected by the physics section editor after a painful, and in my opinion, unfair review process.”

Now individuals might argue that the CRSQ has no obligation to publish articles from Dr. Loechelt or any other individual that is not a YEC. However, Loechelt (2009a, p. 4) provides further details on his frustrations with the CRSQ “peer-review” system, which indicates that instead of the CRSQ editors just saying upfront “sorry we don’t publish articles from non-YECs”, Dr. Loechelt argues that the editors strung him along:

“I tried publishing in the CRSQ over three years ago, to no avail. The editor strung me out for over a year, leaving me the impression that my manuscript would be accepted as long as I agreed to certain changes. However, whenever I submitted a revision for his approval, he would raise new objections to the paper. After over a year of effort it became clear that the CRSQ was not going to publish my paper under any circumstance. Incidentally, the physics section editor at the time was also one of the three main editors for the RATE books, which raises serious conflict of interest concerns. Furthermore, since the CRSQ published one of Humphreys’ RATE papers, they have a moral obligation to the scientific community to allow scholarly criticism.” [my emphasis]

So, why didn’t Humphreys (2012b) simply state that Dr. Loechelt failed to get his paper in the CRSQ? Section 10.3 gives a good indication why Humphreys (2012b) omitted this critical piece of information. The poor quality of the CRSQ is well known and is so flawed that even YECs, like Whitmore et al. (2007), were embarrassed by its contents and peer-review system. As discussed in Section 10.3.3, there is little doubt that not much has changed since 2007.

In his YouTube presentation on slide #12 (Loechelt and Henke 2018), Dr. Loechelt further adds that his paper was subsequently updated, peer-reviewed, and published as Loechelt (2008c):

“It was rejected by the CRSQ, not because of the diffusion model. It was subsequently reviewed by two physicists, one of whom has published peer reviewed papers on helium diffusion in zircon.” [my emphasis]

While Loechelt (2008c, pp. 3-17; 2009a, pp. 5-8), myself and many others have exposed numerous math errors, faulty and manipulated data, and bad assumptions in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Humphreys (2005a), and his later articles, it’s obvious that Dr. Humphreys’ peer-reviewers either did not discover the numerous and often obvious problems with his manuscripts or the editors of these YEC publications had no interest in correcting Dr. Humphreys’ abundant mistakes. A simple comparison between the detailed and successful uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) as also summarized in my Figure 1, and Dr. Humphreys’ flippant reply to this paper in Humphreys (2008b) (also see Section 7.2) demonstrates that it’s Dr. Humphreys, and not Dr. Loechelt, that is hand waving, not dealing with specifics, and that desperately needed authentic peer-review.

Besides not carefully reading the details in Loechelt (2008c; 2009a), Humphreys (2012b) simply fails to realize that peer-review, including anonymous peer-review, can occur outside of journals, conferences, and books. Internet essays, such as this one, have been peer-reviewed. Individuals can even pass documents onto other qualified personnel and keep the reviewer anonymous from the author. So, again, Dr. Humphreys’ accusations of a lack of peer-review among Dr. Loechelt and me are based on ignorance and are without merit. Had Dr. Humphreys bothered to contact Dr. Loechelt or me, we could have answered his questions about our peer-reviewers and our criticisms of his work. However, Dr. Humphreys did not do this. He prefers to speculate about his opponents’ motives rather than actually communicate with them and get the facts (e.g., Sections 11.2 and 11.3).

10.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Poor Record on Peer-Review and the Phony Peer-Review at the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)

10.3.1 Dr. Humphreys’ Peer-Review Record on Helium Diffusivity

Loechelt (2009a, pp. 3-5) goes through Dr. Humphreys’ publication record on the helium diffusion in zircons issue in detail. Concerning Dr. Humphreys’ peer-reviewed publication record, Loechelt (2009a, p. 4) concludes the following:

“We are left with the one publication in a truly public forum, the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union [Humphreys et al. 2003b]. The extent of the RATE team’s disclosure to the conference organizers was a 350 word abstract, carefully written to avoid many of the controversial aspects of their work. Having cleverly passed their abstract through the review process, they proceeded to include material in their conference poster that went well beyond what was promised in the abstract. Although many in the scientific community are understandably indignant over these deceitful tactics, the RATE team achieved their ends of having their work appear in a non-creationist conference, which they now exploit for propaganda purposes.”

Loechelt (2009a, pp. 8-9) further states:

“The RATE study was not conducted according to these established scientific principles. The group of RATE scientists, many of whom hold a controlling influence on the venues of publication within the young-earth community, collaborated together to propose their official solution to the ‘radiometric dating problem’. Their consensus was not arrived at through public debate but in private agreement. Dissenting opinions were discouraged, and serious challenges to their work were censured, as I can personally attest.”

Nevertheless, within the YEC community outside of RATE, the Journal of Creation has published letters by Loechelt (2010, 2012, 2020b) and Froede (2012) that are critical of Dr. Humphreys’ RATE project and the CRSQ published an article critical of various conclusions from the RATE project by Froede and Akridge (2012) and responses by Froede and Akridge (2013a; 2013b).

It’s obvious from Dr. Humphreys’ publication record on this topic (i.e., Humphreys et al., 2003a; 2003b; Humphreys, 2003; Humphreys et al., 2004, etc.) that he will not or cannot present his ideas as an article in a real peer-reviewed science journal, where his claims can be critically scrutinized by some of the world’s authorities on helium diffusion, and where journal editors won’t accept his evasions to serious questions. I would further argue that Dr. Humphreys’ documents are now receiving a thorough peer-review from his critics that he never received from the CRSQ, the Journal of Creation, and other YEC forums.

10.3.2 Peer-Review Issues Related to Humphreys et al. (2004)

Humphreys et al. (2004) was published in the CRSQ, a so-called “peer-reviewed” YEC “journal.” A careful review of Humphreys et al. (2004, his Appendix, pp. 12-15) shows that Dr. Humphreys and his coauthors extensively responded to criticism from an unknown individual. So, why wasn’t this critic’s manuscript published in the CRSQ or at least referenced if it was published elsewhere? What authentic peer-reviewed science journal accepts articles that respond to unknown, unpublished or unreferenced sources? Why were Dr. Humphreys’ responses published, but not the original criticisms? How can any reader really understand and evaluate the validity of Dr. Humphreys’ responses without seeing the criticisms? It’s like listening to an intense argument from only one side of a telephone conversation. What were the editors of the CRSQ afraid of?

It should also be noted that a summary of the final conclusions in Humphreys et al. (2004) were previously published in an ICR evangelism flier, Humphreys (2003). There is no indication in Humphreys (2003) that Humphreys et al. (2004) had been peer-reviewed and was in-press. Instead, Humphreys (2003, footnote #13, p. iv) simply mentions that a technical paper is “to be submitted to the Creation Research Society” (future tense) summarizing their results, presumably this was Humphreys et al. (2004). What author publishes a summary of the key findings of his research in a layperson’s Sunday school publication before it’s published by a peer-reviewed science journal? What’s the point of “peer reviewing” the conclusions in Humphreys et al. (2004) when they’ve already been published in Humphreys (2003)? What would the ICR and Dr. Humphreys have done about Humphreys (2003) if the peer-reviewers of Humphreys et al. (2004) had come to the realization that Dr. Humphreys’ conclusions were flawed and unjustified? Perhaps, Dr. Humphreys had enough confidence that his friends at the CRSQ would rubber stamp his results so that he didn’t worry about an early release of his conclusions in Humphreys (2003).

Interestingly, the chief physics editor of CRSQ, Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, also served on the RATE committee. Now, I understand that there are probably not enough YECs with physics PhDs to avoid duplications between the RATE committee and the CRSQ editorial staff. Nevertheless, this is a clearly unethical conflict of interest. Questions involving ethics automatically arise about whether Dr. Chaffin accepted Humphreys et al. (2004) for publication because he thought that the article was worthy of publication (despite apparently strong criticism from an unknown individual) or whether he did it to promote RATE.

Although Humphreys (2010a, p. 14) mentions that more than 17 reviewers and editors were involved in the RATE program, exactly how many of these individuals actually peer-reviewed Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and Humphreys (2005a)? What were their qualifications? To verify that Dr. Humphreys’ YEC friends and colleagues were not inappropriately biased in favor of his article submissions, I would like to know that answers to the following two questions:

· Since January 2000, how many articles submitted by Dr. Humphreys to the CRSQ and the Journal of Creation were rejected outright because of their lack of quality? I’m not referring to papers that were accepted after major revisions.

· Has there ever been a situation since January 2000, where a peer-reviewer extensively criticized Dr. Humphreys’ submission and recommended against publication, but the editor(s) of a YEC journal decided to publish it anyway?

Obviously, I don’t realistically expect Dr. Humphreys to defend himself and his friends by actually answering these questions, but the readers should think about these issues. All of us that publish in legitimate peer-review journals will occasionally have rejections. We learn from our mistakes. However, if a journal publishes an article in spite of detailed criticism and recommendations of rejection by one or more peer-reviewers, then the journal’s peer-reviewed system is probably flawed.

In response to comments in Humphreys (2006a) about Talkorigins, it’s time for Dr. Humphreys’ to remove his claims from the dark corner of young-Earth creationism and into the light of real science, where his work can be critically examined without any protection from dogmatic YEC publishers that suppress criticism and hide or omit the references of critics (e.g., Humphreys et al., 2004; also see Loechelt, 2008c, p. 35). Rather than me seeking any “glory” by doing his work for him, it’s more important that Dr. Humphreys overcome his denials, and soberly and responsibly deal with the numerous bad assumptions and errors in his work, which are well documented in this and my previous essays and summarized in my Appendix C. He can start by finally studying Dunai and Roselieb (1996) and maybe he’ll get some ideas on how to measure helium diffusion in zircons at high pressure. Since Dr. Humphreys is now retired, his colleagues might be able to do most of the hard work and correct the numerous mistakes that he has done. Perhaps, the new YEC HOUR project will deal with these issues (Section 1.3).

10.3.3 Devastating Critiques of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and Its Peer-Review System from Whitmore et al. (2007) and Cosner and Carter (2020)

No journal or its peer-review system is perfect and it’s not unusual for YECs and others to point out examples of failures in the peer-review systems and articles of even the most prestigious science journals. However, as a geologist that has had a subscription to the CRSQ for over 20 years, I can definitely state that the quality of the geology articles in this periodical is clearly and consistently deficient. The quality of the CRSQ and its “peer-review” system is so bad that even YECs have complained. Three years after the publication of Humphreys et al. (2004), a devastating critique of the CRSQ and its peer-review system appeared in Whitmore et al. (2007). To their credit, the editors of the CRSQ had the courage to publish the critique, but I guess they had no choice.

Whitmore et al. (2007) is a strongly worded letter by YECs from the Creation Research Science Education Foundation (CRSEF). The letter condemns the quality of two articles by Miller et al. (2006a; 2006b) in the CRSQ and the overall quality and “peer-review” system of the “journal.” Whitmore et al. (2007, p. 268) states:

“This letter has two objectives. First, CRSEF wishes to distance ourselves from the poor science and apparent association that Miller et al. has to us. Second, we hope that criticism like this will eventually lead to improvement of the quality of articles that appear in the Quarterly. It appeared to us that the articles may have been printed without any editing or careful consideration of the contents at all. We realize thAT [sic] Miller et al. may have corrections and responses to all of our remarks below, but why weren’t these issues caught in the review process?”

On p. 268, the CRSEF authors also noticed that Miller et al. (2006a; 2006b) too often rely on an obscure and difficult to obtain reference:

“Furthermore, the major cited work (Kosmowska-Ceranowicz et al., 2001) is in an obscure foreign journal, so it is nearly impossible to check the data’s credibility.”

Besides the mysterious manuscript from Dr. Humphreys’ critic that is unreferenced in Humphreys et al. (2004), Humphreys (2010a, p. 15) in the Journal of Creation is also guilty of citing obscure sources that are not available to the public, including a critical oral presentation given in Australia by a YEC physicist and a critical and confidential December, 2003 manuscript by an unknown critic (perhaps, the critic mentioned in Humphreys et al., 2004??). If this December, 2003 manuscript is from the critic referred to in Humphreys et al. (2004), then Dr. Humphreys received this critical manuscript in the same month that Humphreys (2003) with its glowing and confident YEC conclusions came out! How is this appropriate science or good peer-review?

Also, on p. 268, Whitmore et al. (2007) state:

“In the authors’ argument for global catastrophism and rapid deposition of amber on page 89, they quote Gary Gordon from an unavailable home video. Thus, the reader can make no conclusions about the validity of the remarks.”

In fact, the article has no ‘methods’ section at all to show what techniques were used.” [authors’ original emphasis]

Again, what legitimate scientific journal contains references to home videos and allows authors to omit discussions of their methodology?

On p. 269, Whitmore et al. (2007) further complain:

“The authors do give brief acknowledgement to CRSEF in the ‘Acknowledgements’ but no member of CRSEF ever was aware that Hugh Miller et al. wrote this article, or that the article was ‘in press.’ None of us ever had a chance to review it. This would only seem appropriate since a significant portion of the funds were supplied by us.” [authors’ original emphasis]

“We believe the Flood was responsible for the Wyoming deposit being studied. However, we are interested in seeing the quality of the Quarterly greatly improved. If the quality is going to be improved, articles like this need to be promptly rejected. Only quality research should ever be considered for review and/or publication. If this doesn’t happen, the anti-creationists are going to continue to have a heyday with articles like this, and rightfully so.”

More recently, YECs Cosner and Carter (2020) provide another example of a flawed article with thoroughly incompetent peer-review in the CRSQ (i.e., Tomkins et al. 2019). Although both Cosner and Carter (2020) and Tomkins et al. (2019) agree that the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament is superior to the Greek Septuagint version, Cosner and Carter (2020) strongly criticizes the contents of Tomkins et al. (2019) and the CRSQ peer-review system that allowed the paper to be published. Cosner and Carter (2020) accuse Tomkins et al. (2019) of using begging the question fallacies, relying on questionable sources, and utilizing spiteful and conspiratorial language to attack their opponents. Cosner and Carter (2020) go as far as to claim that there is not a single paragraph in Tomkins et al. (2019) that does not contain a “significant flaw” and that the article is “one of the most unhelpful things we have ever read.” After obviously contacting the CRSQ editor, Cosner and Carter (2020) finally conclude the following about the CRSQ peer-review system:

“The editor [of the CRSQ] informed us that several outside reviewers approved the article. However, they somehow missed the conspiratorial material, logical fallacies, and other errors of fact and logic. This constitutes a lapse in the peer review process. While we recognize that everyone is fallible, there is a certain standard for academic writing, and this paper falls far short of those expectations.”

That being said, Robert Carter, the coauthor of Cosner and Carter (2020) and a member of the Creation Research Society board of directors (see CRSQ, Winter 2020, v. 56, n. 3, p. 170-171), not surprisingly attempts to rehabilitate the Creation Research Society with the following comment from February 12, 2020:

"I happen to be on the board of directors of the Creation Research Society and can vouch for their scientific integrity and meticulous attention to detail. Please do not let one bad paper spoil the barrel.”

Considering the frequent errors and bad logic that I see in the geology articles of almost every issue of the CRSQ, I would disagree with Dr. Carter and argue that at least the geology articles are commonly deficient. However, that is a topic for another day and forum.

10.4 The Mixed Record of the Journal of Creation

In contrast to the CRSQ, the Journal of Creation has published critical letters of Dr. Humphreys’ diffusion studies by Loechelt (2010; 2012; 2020b) along with responses by Humphreys (2010b, 2012b, 2020). Although, in the past, the Journal of Creation has published articles by non-YECs that are critical of YEC claims (e.g., Conner and Page 1998), the journal has been unwilling to publish entire articles by Dr. Loechelt. As indicated in the Epilogue of Loechelt (2020a, p. 46), Dr. Loechelt tried unsuccessfully to get the article published in the Journal of Creation. After seeing the pitiful comments from the “peer-reviewers” of the Loechelt (2020a) manuscript, I must agree with Dr. Loechelt that the “review of the manuscript was neither fair nor impartial.” The peer-reviewers knew absolutely nothing about the past 15 years of criticism of Dr. Humphreys’ claims on helium diffusion in zircons and repeatedly raised claims that had been debunked in previous articles by Dr. Loechelt, earlier versions of this essay, and our references. It was obvious that if the peer-reviewers knew anything at all about helium diffusion, it only came from what Dr. Humphreys had written. Although I recognize that the editors of the Journal of Creation have a limited pool of individuals to peer-review their submissions, it was obviously that the peer-reviewers selected to review the Loechelt (2020a) manuscript were completely unqualified. If personnel at the Journal of Creation had simply told Dr. Loechelt off hand that they no longer accept article manuscripts from non-YECs, he might have understood and immediately gone elsewhere.

I always refer to Dr. Humphreys in this essay by his respected title. However, the Journal of Creation, unlike authentic professional peer-review journals, allow their authors to use ad hominem insults against their opponents with terms like “the dogs of war” (i.e., Humphreys 2010a, p. 14; Section 11.0).

Like the CRSQ, the Journal of Creation has also published a number of exceptionally poorly written articles over the years that have supposedly passed through peer-review. As discussed in Sections 2.3, 5.2, 7.4, 7.5, 8.2.4, 8.2.5, 8.2.6, 8.2.8, and 9.5, Humphreys (2018a) is a prime example of a seriously flawed paper in the Journal of Creation. Besides failing to notice the serious shortcomings in Humphreys (2010a; 2011), around the same time, the Journal of Creation published Heerema (2009), which is another prime example of an unqualified author being inadequately peer-reviewed. Nelstead (2013), an old-Earth creationist and geologist, strongly criticized Heerema (2009) and how the Journal of Creation peer-reviewed the article. Setting aside YEC Heerema’s uninformed beliefs on the origin of salt deposits, Heerema (2009) has many fundamental geological errors that should have been caught had the Heerema manuscript been properly peer-reviewed by geologists. Nelstead (2013) lists the following fundamental errors in Heerema (2009):

1. Minerals do not “evaporate” from seawater, they precipitate.

2. Anhydrous MgCl2 does not exist in nature. The mineral is deliquescent; that is, it would absorb water from its surroundings and transform into the stable salt mineral, bischofite (MgCl2•6H2O).

3. Evaporation is the greatest at about 30o north and south latitude, and not at the equator.

4. Heerema (2009) fails to distinguish magma from lava, which makes many of his discussions difficult to follow.

5. Heerema (2009) incorrectly uses the term “silica” instead of silicate when describing the chemistry of magmas. “Silica magmas” would be 100% or nearly 100% molten SiO2, which do not exist in nature. Silicate magmas also contain considerable aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and sodium.

Each of these issues is non-controversial. The descriptions and definitions of these terms and concepts are firmly established by geologists and are not open to debate. Geology students learn these definitions and concepts in introductory undergraduate geology classes. It is critical that any science article properly use terms and their correct definitions. Otherwise, confusion and inconsistencies arise.

10.5 Dr. Humphreys’ Hypocrisy on Peer-Review

Before Dr. Humphreys hypocritically screams about the importance of peer-review, he needs to follow his own advice. He needs to openly publish his work and conclusions in a full article in a legitimate peer-reviewed science journal (such as Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta or American Mineralogist), where actual peer-reviewers wouldn’t tolerate the errors, insults and evasions like those seen in Humphreys (2005b), Humphreys (2006a), Humphreys (2008a), Humphreys (2008b), Humphreys (2010a), Humphreys (2011), Humphreys (2013a), and Humphreys (2018a). That is, the editors of real peer-reviewed journals would not tolerate Dr. Humphreys’ misrepresenting his critics, trying to trivialize his serious mistakes, invoking groundless fantasies like he did with Fenton Hill samples 5 and 6 (Section 5.4), manipulating the Magomedov (1970) data (Section 5.1), only making a couple of minor corrections here and there but otherwise ignoring the details, inconsistently picking and choosing values from Gentry et al. (1982a), attempting to mesmerize readers with his Figure 2 from Humphreys (2005b) (Section 7.4), emptily promising better answers sometime in the future (Section 4.3), and finally hoping that his readers swallow his proclamations without wanting to see his math. Authentic peer-review would never allow such dodging, excuse making, irrelevant quoting of the literature, and flippant replies to criticism.

Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Humphreys (2005a), and many of his later documents have finally undergone authentic peer-review from Dr. Loechelt, myself, and many others, including some YECs, and his YEC model is a total failure. So, if Dr. Humphreys is really sincere about his devotion to peer-review, let him wean himself off the reliance on miracles for his “accelerated radioactive decay process” (Section 8.3.3), honestly recognize and correct his numerous and serious mistakes, and publish what’s left in an authentic peer-reviewed science journal.

11.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Personal Attacks

11.1 Ad Hominem Fallacies: What They Are and Who’s Using Them

11.1.1 Definition and Descriptions

The term ad hominem is Latin for “to the man.” It is a fallacy where an individual attacks the opponent rather than the opponent’s argument (e.g., Copi and Cohen 1994, pp. 122-124, 689). Common examples would include calling an opponent an idiot, stupid, a liar, evil, etc., without providing suitable evidence. Unfortunately, for some hypersensitive individuals, they view any disagreement with them as an ad hominem attack or “mudslinging.” Furthermore, I would argue that criticizing the ethics, character and improper actions of an individual is not necessarily an ad hominem fallacy. There are times when individuals, such as politicians, have been caught red handed lying on multiple occasions. Thus, I would argue that documenting their lies with solid evidence and then calling them liars would not be ad hominem fallacies. In such cases, where there is good evidence that an individual has lied, then the term liar would be very appropriate. The truthfulness, ethics, and character flaws of politicians are very relevant for voters to know if these politicians run for reelection. Now, identifying what is an ad hominem fallacy and what is an appropriate label for an unethical person is not always easy. The distinction must be made on the basis of strong evidence and then the voters and other individuals can decide how relevant the information really is to them.

Perhaps, the most controversial accusation that I made against Dr. Humphreys is where I accused him of fudging the Magomedov (1970) data in earlier versions of this essay and in Section 5.1 of this essay. Humphreys (2005b) and probably others did not like that accusation at all. Fudging may be defined as adjusting or manipulating facts or figures to attain a desired misleading portrayal. This is exactly what Dr. Humphreys did. Despite the overwhelming evidence that Magomedov (1970) was using natural logs in his graph, as I discuss in great detail in Section 5.1, Dr. Humphreys chose to manipulate the Magomedov (1970) data to support his agenda despite having an English translation of this article (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 14). His actions were so sloppy, so extreme, so inexcusable, and so inappropriate, that describing it as “fudging” the data is a good summary of precisely what he did (also see Section 5.1.5). Had Dr. Humphreys just rejected the natural log Magomedov (1970) data as “ambiguous” and not tried to also manipulate it to his advantage, I could not have complained (Section 5.1.7).

11.1.2 Humphreys (2018a) Complains that his “Dogs of War” Opponents Use Ad Hominem Attacks plus a Response from Dr. Loechelt

I readily admit that throughout this and my other essays that I am very critical of the Bible and the actions and beliefs of Dr. Humphreys and some other YECs. In response, Humphreys (2005b) refers to my blunt criticism as “mudslinging.” Of course, some individuals dismiss any and all criticism as “mudslinging.” Considering that my original essay made specific recommendations to allow Dr. Humphreys to improve his work (e.g., look for extraneous helium in the Fenton Hill zircons; also see Section 6.1.3 in this update), that I thoroughly documented my calculations and statements in great detail (as examples, my Appendices A and B also in this essay) and because of Dr. Humphreys’ inexcusable mismanagement of his data and data from the literature (Magomedov, 1970; Section 5.1 in this essay), I would argue that my comments are justified and not mudslinging. Sometimes we have to use blunt statements when individuals, like Dr. Humphreys, inexcusably misuse data and misrepresent the literature. Nevertheless, one person’s mudslinging is another’s forthright critique. Unlike the scientific method, “mudslinging” is often a matter of taste or in the words of Humphreys (2005b): “There’s no disputing about taste.” In contrast, Dr. Humphreys thinks that he can defend his work by simply holding up his deceptive Figure 2 from Humphreys (2005b) and then write a superficial note (Humphreys, 2005b) that largely attacks my former religious beliefs rather than dealing with his mystery math, his invalid Lyell uniformitarianism, and other deficiencies in his work. I would argue that if Dr. Humphreys or anyone else wants to really see spiteful mudslinging, desperation, the misusing of references, flippant responses, and arm waving without evidence, one only has to read Humphreys (2005b; 2006a; 2008b).

Humphreys (2018a, pp. 54-55) further claims that Dr. Loechelt used ad hominem attacks against him in his presentation (especially slides #14 and #15) in Loechelt and Henke (2018). Dr. Humphreys’ accusations against Dr. Loechelt consist of two main issues:

1) that Dr. Loechelt accused him of withholding information about some zircon analyses (Accusing Dr. Humphreys of lacking transparency as already discussed in Section 4.8) and

2) that Dr. Loechelt accused him of using a front company, Zodiac Minerals and Manufacturing, LLC, to deceive the experimenter into providing analyses for the YEC RATE project (Section 9.5).

After reviewing this section and Section 4.8, Dr. Loechelt gives an additional response to these two charges:

“(1) Regarding the questions about the existence of unpublished diffusion data, I came to this conclusion based upon an honest reading of Humphreys et al. (2004). Subsequent to my appearance on the Great Debate program (Loechelt and Henke 2018), I began a correspondence with Dr. Humphreys. Mr. Steve McRae, the host of the program, acted as a mediator. It was pretty clear from the beginning that Dr. Humphreys’ motive was to collect information to use in a rebuttal against me. Never-the-less, I complied with his inquiries.

In the course of our dialogue, I again raised the question regarding unpublished diffusion data. This was after Dr. Humphreys denied that any additional data existed and claimed that I was grasping at “non-existent straws”. Below are two emails from this exchange, beginning with some questions from Dr. Humphreys in the first message:

from: Steve McRae [e-mail address]

to: Gary Loechelt [e-mail address], Kevin Henke [e-mail address]

date: Jun 5, 2018, 9:02 AM

subject: Re: Some questions for Dr. Loechelt and you

Forward: Questions from Dr. Humphreys.

(Dr. Humphreys asked me my position on YEC and I was very open/honest with him on the fact I am quite anti-YEC, but not at all anti-religion.)

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Russ Humphreys [e-mail address] wrote:

Okay, Steve, thanks for telling me where you stand. I’ve had a quick look at Dr. Loechelt’s presentation [in Loechelt and Henke 2018] and have a few initial questions for him about it:

(1) In the table in the “Low Temperature Data” slide, except for my data, were all the other diffusion points in the “T=87” degrees C” column extrapolations down from the measured high-temperature data? Is that true for the “T=180 degrees C” column also?

(2) For the other four papers, what was the lowest temperature at which they actually measured a diffusion coefficient?

(3) Why do you consider my low-temperature data as “anomalies”, and what do you mean by that term? Do you think they were just instrumental errors?

Please forward these to Dr. Loechelt with my thanks in advance for his answers.

I’ve decided not to go with the option for a discussion on your show, but rather to simply post a short written response to Dr. Loechelt’s presentation. Can I just sent [sic send] you a Word document or a PDF? Can I include JPEG figures as part of the documents, or separately?

Thanks,

Russ

from: Gary Loechelt [e-mail address]

to: Steve McRae [e-mail address]

date: Jun 5, 2018, 7:11 PM

subject: Re: Some questions for Dr. Loechelt and you

Steve,

Thanks for facilitating the dialogue with Humphreys! Here are my answers to his questions.

(1) The diffusivities at different temperatures are calculated using the Arrhenius formula. Once the activation energy and prefactor are known, the diffusivity can be calculated at any temperature. The values for the activation energies and prefactors were published in the four papers cited, often in the abstract on the first page.

(2) All the temperature data was published in the four papers, unlike your 2004 CRSQ paper [Humphreys et al. 2004]:

"After that, in the summer and fall of 2002, we tried several times to get lower-temperature data. However, we only discovered several wrong ways to make such measurements. First, we asked the experimenter to do new runs on the same batch of zircons, but at lower temperatures. The results were ambiguous, an effect we decided was due to exhaustion of helium from the smaller zircons in the batch."

When I asked Steve regarding the data for these experiments, the response that he gave (presumably from you) was,

"I think I’ve published (in the RATE II book) all the diffusion data that Dr. Loechelt is asking for, along with all the relevant parts of the lab reports we received. See particularly the appendices to my chapter in the book. Thus it seems to me that Dr. Loechelt is grasping at non-existent straws, which implies to me that he’s got nothing substantial. That in turn un-motivates me for spending more time on him."

I am sorry that my grasping at non-existent straws is un-motivating you to spend more time on me. From your quote above, can you see why I concluded that there might be un-published experimental data? Please be so kind as to clear up my confusion.

(3) Anomalous: "inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anomalous

In the context of plotting diffusion data on an Arrhenius plot, the usual, normal, and expected behavior is that the data will fall along a straight line. When this does not happen, as in the case of the RATE experiment, the interpretation is more problematic. In Fechtig and Kalbitzer [1966], a reference that you have cited several times (see attachment), they advocate extrapolating from the high temperature data when deviations from straight line behavior is observed at low temperatures. See, for instance, their discussion on "non-volumic diffusion" and its application to several practical case studies (pp. 74, 82-83, 91, 96-97, and 101 [in Fechtig and Kalbitzer 1966]). You obviously followed a different approach in your interpretation of the RATE diffusion data. I am merely asking the question why?

Best Regards,

Gary Loechelt

[Fechtig and Kalbitzer paper attached]

My hope in this exchange was for the two of us to reach some sort of mutual understanding. I politely acknowledged how my questions about the possible existence of unpublished data discouraged him. In return, I was hoping that Dr. Humphreys would acknowledge how I came to the conclusion that unpublished data might exist and help me understand better in case I misunderstood what he had written. Since Dr. Humphreys was asking me questions to clarify what I had said, I thought it was only fair to ask him questions about statements he had made. As Mr. Steve McRae can attest, I made an honest effort to answer all Dr. Humphreys’ questions promptly and thoroughly, often attaching papers and other reference materials, some of which I had purchased. I rarely got an answer to my questions in return. Instead, Dr. Humphreys would usually ignore my questions and continue on by asking me more questions.

A very well-known Biblical passage regarding resolving inter-personal disputes is found in Matthew 18:15 – “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.” If Dr. Humphreys had taken any offense because of what I had said, he had an opportunity to pursue peace and reconciliation. I was open to dialogue. Rather than use this opportunity to “gain his brother”, Dr. Humphreys instead chose to make public accusations against me in the Journal of Creation (Humphreys 2018a).

Incidentally, any reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion that unpublished diffusion data existed after reading the quote above from Humphreys et al. (2004). Dr. Humphreys flat-out denies their existence, but has not offered any explanation, either in private or public.

(2) Regarding the second charge, I want to simply point out the following: The charge of dishonesty was made by the researcher who performed the RATE diffusion experiments (also see Section 9.5). Considering the circumstances, he has a valid complaint. Even Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) acknowledges that the researcher was not happy with how he was treated. Again, the Bible has a lot to say on how we respond to those whom we offend: “Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.” (Matthew 5:23-26)

Here is the difference between Dr. Humphreys and me. He quotes Latin. I quote scripture. Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees: “Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:27-28).” According to the reasoning of Dr. Humphreys, Jesus would have been guilty of ad hominem attacks as well.

Many in the young-Earth creation movement have the perception that they are under attack by a hostile world, their frequent citing of ad hominem attacks being a case in point. This perception is often not true. I have tried harder than most to dialogue with the young-Earth creation community in their own forums and on their own terms. My manuscript to Creation Research Society Quarterly was rejected. My manuscript to the Journal of Creation was rejected twice. In the end, I was allowed three letters to be published in the Journal of Creation. Essentially, I was given only 3000 words to state my case, hardly enough to develop any kind of argument. Just consider all of the issues raised in this lengthy essay. By excluding me from the young-Earth creationist forums, where they would have had the opportunity to moderate the debate on their own terms, I have instead been forced to appeal to old-Earth Christian and secular forums.

Dr. Humphreys was invited to debate me on the Talk Rational discussion board and again on Steve McRae’s Great Debate program. Here he would have had an excellent opportunity to promote his research before a non-Christian audience, defend his reputation, and clear up any misunderstandings. He declined both invitations, instead choosing to address his critics exclusively in young-Earth creationist forums where he would have the final, and in many cases, the only word. Dr. Humphreys has the opportunity to respond to my peer-reviewed paper Loechelt (2020a). To my knowledge he has made no attempt to do so. Yet, he has no problem boasting about how he silenced his critics in the Journal of Creation (Humphreys 2010a). His table of critics reads like a list of heretics before the inquisition. After all, how dare anyone challenge his authority on the subject.

Finally, I fully expect that some of my critics will protest how I am addressing them from a secular forum that in many ways is opposed to a Christian world view. I have thought about this dilemma. My response is that in this secular forum, I am allowed to speak candidly, including the complete freedom to quote verses from the Bible to support my arguments. I would never be allowed to do the same in a young-Earth creationists forum. Herein lies the saddest irony and the greatest tragedy.”

While Humphreys (2018a, pp. 54-55) complains about his critics using ad hominem attacks, his critics would accuse Dr. Humphreys of hypocrisy by frequently make deriding speculations about the motives of his critics (e.g., Sections 11.2 and 11.3) and using juvenile ad hominem name calling, such as referring to his opponents as “the dogs of war” in Humphreys (2010a, p. 14). I have no problem when Humphreys (2018a) refers to Dr. Loechelt as a “persistent critic” because that accurately describes Dr. Loechelt. If Dr. Humphreys just claimed that his opponents misunderstood or misinterpreted his results, I would disagree with him and we could discuss the issues. However, I would also reply that Dr. Humphreys has misinformed opinions of us and often makes unwarranted assumptions about our motives (e.g., Section 11.2). Nevertheless, there is simply no evidence to justify Dr. Humphreys labelling his opponents as “dogs” or warmongers. Furthermore, the fact that the Journal of Creation would allow Dr. Humphreys to refer to his opponents as “dogs of war” is yet another piece of evidence that this journal is a tabloid and not a professional peer-reviewed publication.

11.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Personal Attacks on Me: The Failure of his Biblical Pop Psychology

Perhaps, the most insidious statements in Humphreys (2005b) is Dr. Humphreys’ efforts to use biblical pop psychology to probe and second guess my motives. My parents when they were alive might have been justified in questioning my motives, my wife could do so, and so might my close relatives and friends. But, Dr. Humphreys does not even know me. We’ve never met. Not only are his speculations off track, they are totally inappropriate and say a lot about how he judges his critics on so little information.

A lot of Humphreys (2005b) contains baseless speculation on my former beliefs and current motives for criticizing his work. Dr. Humphreys’ mistreatment of science and church history (Section 9.0) is only exceeded by his outrageous and false accusations against strangers that dare to disagree with his methods and conclusions. If Dr. Humphreys had really wanted to lecture me on my motives for abandoning fundamentalism, he should have read my deconversion testimony in Ed Babinski’s: Leaving the Fold (Babinski 1995) or emailed me a list of questions. Instead, Dr. Humphreys chose to mix biblical literalism and pop psychology to completely misrepresent me, why I once embraced fundamentalist Christianity, why I abandoned it, and why I oppose his irrational agenda.

Humphreys (2005b) confesses that he relied on “a lot of guesswork” to supposedly understand my motives for criticizing his work. Since when is it ever justified to judge a person’s motives based on guesswork? He then proceeds to attack my character on the sole basis of his Bible and a few sentences of my brief review of Leaving the Fold at Amazon.com (accessed July 14, 2020). Fundamentalists often build entire doctrines and imaginative scenarios from sentence fragments in the Bible, so I guess that I shouldn’t be surprised with how Dr. Humphreys completely mishandled the phrase “after I read the Bible” in my Amazon.com review. Nevertheless, what kind of a person believes that he can adequately know the motives of a stranger by reading a brief book review and using the Bible as a crystal ball?

Using his Bible and pop psychology, Dr. Humphreys even constructs a false biography of my life:

“So it is possible that Henke did not have enough initial exposure to the word of God to be born “from above” (literal Greek of John 3:3) and merely made a shallow commitment to someone other than the real Jesus Christ—perhaps to a human authority figure, such as a parent, teacher, or pastor. Later on, when he encountered different authority figures, perhaps skeptic professors or persuasive friends, he then transferred his commitment to them, especially since their view was obviously the consensus.”

Dr. Humphreys not only misrepresents and distorts scientific data, but he uses the same delusional methods to libel the personal lives of his opponents. Contrary to Dr. Humphreys’ fables, my conversion and deconversion were completely sincere. When I became a born-again Christian, I was an adult and knew what I was doing. I thoroughly knew the Roman Road to Salvation and preached it. I remained a sincere fundamentalist/evangelical Christian for many years, despite quite a lot of opposition from family members and other people around me. Now, over the years, I have studied every book in the Protestant Bible, even the boring accounting of the book of Numbers, and studied each book of the New Testament countless times. It was the Bible, and not any opposition or persuasion from professors or other people that eventually killed my faith. I only abandoned fundamentalism once I thoroughly studied the Bible, thought for myself, and recognized that it was an error-filled book and not infallible scripture. Dr. Humphreys, who doesn’t even know me, has absolutely no justification telling me or anyone else otherwise. This is YEC arrogance and indecency at its worst.

Obviously, Dr. Humphreys views me as a serious threat. Humphreys (2005b) even suggests that I am among the “worst enemies of creationism.” In reality, fundamentalism is its own worst enemy because it too often denies reality or tries to explain it away. Too many fundamentalists don’t want to hear and they don’t want others to hear that their scriptures are not absolute truth and that for millions of people their religion fails to provide answers for life or deal realistically with death. So, a few frightened fundamentalists will stoop to any libel to discredit people who have honestly been devout Christians and found it wanting. These fundamentalist extremists search their scriptures and if they find something to slander their opponents, they can always justify using it. Instead of trying to really understand their opponents, too often fundamentalists cite Romans 1:18-32 and consider their opponents rightfully condemned. They simply assume that whatever their scriptures say, by definition, must be true. Furthermore, when other ex-fundamentalists and I encounter this fundamentalist mindset, there is nothing that we can say or do to convince them of the sincerity of our past conversions and subsequent deconversions.

At the same time, I want to stress that I know YECs, old-Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists that are superb scientists and fair people. Also, while most Christians (including many of my fundamentalist friends) can separate faith from science and place love above dogma, too many YECs and other fundamentalists cannot. As an ex-fundamentalist, I know that some of them live in constant fear that if only one verse in their Bible is shown to be inaccurate or if they can’t discredit the next fossil discovery in Science or Nature, their entire faith will collapse. This is a pitiful way for any individual to live – full of terror and desperately seeking any excuse to smear science and the actions of anyone that dares to see the world differently. Rather than calling on people to live better and more loving lives, individuals like Dr. Humphreys set a terrible example by distorting data and the lives of former believers that now sincerely disagree with them. The spite and contempt that some YECs have for former believers demonstrate the ineffectiveness of their false religion to change the lives of these individuals for the better. They are the 21st century Pharisees that value fake science and illegitimate scriptural interpretations more than love and compassion for individuals and a search for truth and accuracy. No wonder, countless individuals that were once with them, now walk away and millions more shun them.

I did not write this or my earlier essays because of any delusional speculations in Humphreys (2005b) that I was trying to reassure myself that I was correct in rejecting the myths of the Bible many years ago. I wrote it out of anger and not fear. Dr. Humphreys and his allies have repeatedly attacked my profession and attempted to exploit geology to deceive others. Geologists work hard. We use the geologic time scale, and not the Bible, to get oil and ores from the Earth to support our civilization. We develop and test technologies to cleanup soils and water. Over the past 200 years, we’ve developed a coherent and consistent view of Earth history that is far superior to anything offered by YECs (Prothero 2007; Dalrymple 1991; Press and Siever 2001; Levin 2010). Rather than being thanked for deciphering the Earth’s history, too many YECs spit in our faces and tell us that historical geology is no better than a myth. They open their Bibles and without even having to look at the Earth proclaim that they know better because they have the “Truth.” They then spread their delusions and slanders into the general population. My anger is not with the vast majority of Christians (including many fundamentalists and even many YECs) that lead morale lives, properly recognize and criticize evil when they see it, and encourage others to be loving and honest. My battle is with arrogant know-it-alls that claim to speak for God, try to tell me how to do my work, and then attempt to hijack my profession and the other sciences for their religious or political agendas. This not only includes YECs like Dr. Humphreys, but also astrologers, water witches, advocates of petroleum conspiracies, and medical quacks. Nobody likes their noble profession degraded. I’m simply tired of being told how to do my research by a bunch of ignorant individuals that have never left the 17th century and vainly attempt to use Bibles to analyze outcrops.

11.3 Dr. Humphreys Attacks Dr. Loechelt’s Motives with a Further Response from Dr. Loechelt

As he did in Humphreys (2005b), Humphreys (2018a, p. 54) also uses pop psychology and improperly concludes that ad hominem attacks from Dr. Loechelt indicate that Dr. Loechelt does not feel that the facts support his case as much as he would like. However, for many critics of Dr. Humphreys’ works and the RATE program, it’s not just the bad results that need to be exposed, but also the unethical and underhanded behavior of the RATE participants, especially on how they hid their true motives from the experimenter and used him (Section 9.5). Character matters (Matthew 7:16). Ethical people may be absolutely incompetent on a project, but if the individuals are both incompetent and unethical, their actions need to be exposed as well so that others will not only avoid using their publications, but also avoid professionally associating with them. Dr. Humphreys’ critics are a diverse group (Section 1.2), but it’s clear that all of us have one fundamental principle that is critical: TRUTH MATTERS and false information must be refuted, no matter its source, and certainly Dr. Humphreys’ work has plenty to refute.

Humphreys (2012b) is a supposed reply to Loechelt (2012). Dr. Loechelt then gives a slide presentation in “Part 2: Dr. Loechelt” (Loechelt and Henke 2018), where he refutes the statements in Humphreys (2012b) point by point. Like Humphreys (2018a, p. 54), Humphreys (2012b, p. 48) begins by performing a groundless and red herring psychological evaluation of Dr. Loechelt’s motives for writing Loechelt (2012) and other rebuttals of Dr. Humphreys’ work. He accuses Dr. Loechelt of being a “uniformitarian” and that his worldview is under “pressure” to conform to the demands of “evolutionism.” It does not seem to occur to Dr. Humphreys that, as a responsible scientist, Dr. Loechelt has the duty to criticize error and seek truth. This is an important part of Dr. Loechelt’s Christian faith. Now, the model in Loechelt (2008c) is indeed uniformitarian, in that it totally complies with the laws of chemistry and physics. However, Dr. Loechelt is also an Old-Earth creationist and no one should accuse him of being under pressure from evolutionists and secularists. Old Earth creationists oppose biological evolution and secularism just as much as YECs. Dr. Humphreys needs to see that critical difference between secularism and Old-Earth creationism. It should be pointed out that geocentricists could also accuse Dr. Humphreys and other YECs of caving into the “heliocentric views of atheists.”

In reviewing this section, Dr. Loechelt further comments:

“If anyone wants to question my motives in dealing with Dr. Humphreys, let him consider this one fact – I supplied many of the materials used by Dr. Humphreys in his answer to me as a persistent critic (Humphreys 2018a). I gave him the PowerPoint presentation from Loechelt and Henke (2018) containing Table 1 (p. 50) and Figure 4 (p. 51) of Humphreys (2018a). I sent an extensive list of references, including Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966). I provided the full texts of papers at his request, free of charge, some of which were purchased with money out of my own pocket. I have freely responded to his inquiries and answered his questions in correspondence. All of these things made his job in writing Humphreys (2018a) much easier, and I did all this while knowing that he would try to use everything against me. That he did without expressing even one word of gratitude. Why would I do this, you might ask? Because I am a Christian: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink’ (Proverbs 25:21 and Romans 12:20). I need no further reason than this.”

12.0 Miscellaneous Issues

12.1 Background

Several other topics are briefly mentioned in Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Dr. Humphreys’ other articles. Like their other discussions, Humphreys et al. make a number of statements that are based on questionable claims and outright errors. Some of these topics are discussed below.

12.2 Dr. Vardiman Abandons His YEC Atmospheric Helium Argument (Updated January 15, 2021)

Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 2) and Humphreys (2002) briefly discuss the YEC atmospheric helium argument. For years, Vardiman (1990), Cook (1957), and other YECs have argued that the Earth’s atmosphere has too little helium to be billions of years old. However, a review of Vardiman (1990) and other YEC documents show that their arguments are largely based on selective quoting of outdated references from the 1960s and 1970s. Dalrymple (1984, p. 112) concisely challenged many of the YEC atmospheric helium arguments. He showed that YECs often omitted critical details on various atmospheric helium escape mechanisms, such photoionization. YECs also tended to forget about the impacts of 20th century helium pollution on any attempts to evaluate atmospheric escape mechanisms.

For many YECs, Vardiman (1990) was the authoritative YEC document on atmospheric helium “dating.” Even though Vardiman (1990) was written six years after Dalrymple’s report, significant portions of this 1990 document simply repeated old YEC arguments that had been refuted earlier by Dalrymple (1984). For example, carefully compare the statements in Dalrymple, 1984 (p. 112) with Vardiman (1990, p. 24-25).

Subsequent studies (such as LieSvendsen and Rees, 1996; Shizgal and Arkos, 1996) provide additional information on helium escape mechanisms, which further undermined YEC arguments on this issue. Nevertheless, the final nail in the coffin of the YEC atmospheric helium argument occurred when NASA satellite images showed helium and other gases being swept from the Earth’s atmosphere into deep space. One event occurred on September 24-25, 1998 after a solar coronal mass emission. In response to these recent observations, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 2) only mentioned that YECs need to review the new data. Dr. Vardiman has obviously reviewed the data because he no longer accepts his YEC atmospheric helium argument. To his credit, Vardiman (2005) states:

“For several years before the magnitude of the polar wind was determined Vardiman (1990) reported that the lack of helium in the atmosphere argued for a young earth. That argument is no longer valid based on the measured and computed escape rate of helium to space in the polar wind.” [my emphasis]

This statement is repeated in Vardiman (2008, p. 199). Nevertheless, many YECs (e.g., Bell, 2020; CreationWiki #2 2015; Snelling 2012b; Snelling et al. 2013, p. 124; Bigalke 2008, p. 108) continue to cite outdated YEC articles and promote the discredited YEC atmospheric helium argument. For example, Bell (2020) seems completely unaware of Vardiman (2005; 2008, p. 199). He links to Malcolm (1994) to support this outdated argument. Furthermore, Bigalke (2008a, p. 108) even misquotes Vardiman (1990) as indicating that “hydrogen [sic] in the atmosphere” reveals that the Earth is young.

Although outdated and erroneous, Vardiman (1990, p. 28-29) correctly stated that YECs should study the atmospheric residence times of heavier gases, like argon, which are less likely to escape into space. However, it is doubtful that such studies would support their Genesis agenda. When compared with 36Ar, the Earth’s atmosphere has excess 40Ar (Faure, 1986, p. 66), which is compatible with billions of years of 40K decay in terrestrial rocks (Dalrymple, 1984, p. 83; also see Tolstikhin and Marty, 1998). In contrast, stellar atmospheres have more 36Ar than 40Ar (Krauskopf and Bird, 1995, p. 576), which is consistent with stellar evolution (Faure, 1998, p. 18).

12.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Aquatic Alchemy and Planetary Magnetic Fields

In addition to Section 9.4 and associated discussions in Appendix D, Humphreys (2005b) makes some additional wild proclamations involving 2 Peter:

“Last, Henke would not like to hear that I have based a theory on the creation of planetary magnetic fields (Humphreys, 1984) - on part of the passage (2 Peter 3:5) he disparages, and that NASA spacecraft have confirmed the scientific predictions of that theory (Humphreys, 1990).”

Actually, I am very familiar with Dr. Humphreys’ “predictions” about the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, which do not meet the criteria of scientific theories. To be exact, Humphreys (1984) was only willing to “predict” that the current magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune would be “on the order of 1024 J/T” (joules/tesla).

Rather than finding his magnetic field “prediction” disturbing, I find it superficial and ridiculous. The fragment of 2 Peter 3:5 utilized by Humphreys (1990) states:

“...the earth was formed out of water and by water.”

For Dr. Humphreys, God had no problem invoking a few miracles to keep water liquefied in the vacuum of space and then converting it into everything from hydrogen to uranium. However, does Dr. Humphreys have any scientific evidence to support these miraculous claims? Does he have a shred of evidence that all matter in our Solar System magically came from water? As usual, the answers are no.

Besides failing to properly distinguish between a scientific hypothesis and a theory (e.g., Reinfort 2019a, his Chapter 4), Humphreys (1990) frequently props his “science” on top of groundless and unproven miracles. For example, when discussing God’s supposed conversion of liquid water into the elements, Humphreys (1990) states:

“By the same laws, the currents and fields would preserve themselves with only minor losses, as God rapidly transformed the water into other materials.”

In the same sentence, Humphreys (1990) combines two competing concepts: natural laws involving currents and fields, and a supernatural transformation of water by God. Dr. Humphreys is stuck in the old Gosse (Omphalos) Hypothesis trap. How can Dr. Humphreys’ “science” ever distinguish between what is a product of nature and what is supposedly supernatural?

Humphreys (1990) and Humphreys and De Spain (2015) make up some stories about God interacting with water molecules. They also invoke some cursory and inaccurate claims about the inadequacy of modern planetary magnetic dynamo models. Dr. Humphreys then expects his readers to accept his claims that modern scientific models should be replaced with his magical fantasies. Unlike Dr. Humphreys’ aquatic alchemy, Stefani et al. (2018) and Thébault et al. (2018) present far more coherent and realistic views of what is known about the origin of planetary magnetic fields. While Humphreys (2013b) misrepresents research on planetary magnetic fields as a “century of failure”, Dobson (2016) and Olson and Christianson (2006) discuss some of the successful efforts and limitations in duplicating the Earth’s magnetic field in laboratory and computer models.

Chapter 2 in Faure (1998) and Delsemme (1998) further demonstrate that the distribution of elements in the Universe (including the Oddo-Harkins rule and H/He ratios) is consistent with the Big Bang and nuclear fusion reactions in stars. That is, nuclear fusion reactions in stars, and not Dr. Humphreys’ aquatic myths, explain why oxygen-16 is more abundant in nature than oxygen-17 or oxygen-18.

As further discussed in Reinfort (2019b), Humphreys (1990) selectively cites from Dessler (1986) to promote his claim that he uniquely “predicted” the magnetic moment of Uranus. Humphreys (1990) mentions that many uniformitarians predicted that Uranus would have little or no magnetic field because astronomical measurements indicated very little heat flow from Uranus and a uniformitarian magnetic dynamo should generate a lot of heat. Humphreys (2008c, p. 222) also states that uniformitarian predictions in Dessler (1986) were several orders of magnitude lower than the actual measurements. When citing Dessler (1986), Humphreys (1990; 2008c, p. 222) leaves out some important details that undermine his agenda. Not all scientists underestimated Uranus’ magnetic field. The predictions in Dessler (1986) ranged from zero up to 13 gauss for Uranus, and not just large underestimations as claimed by Humphreys (1990; 2008c, p. 222) and Humphreys and De Spain (2015, their Section I in Chapter 2). Dessler (1986) describes why the predictions given by scientists varied so much. Scientists often have scare and conflicting data, and they are then forced to make uncertain guesses. Unlike YECs, scientists don’t have dogmatic Bible interpretations or other dictatorial sources to tell them what their results should be. Scientists must rely on the known laws of chemistry and physics.

As summarized by Dessler (1986, p. 174), Clarke (1982) reported that an Earth-orbiting satellite detected intense ultraviolet radiation on Uranus. Clarke (1982) thought that the intense radiation came from auroras on Uranus. If the radiation originated from auroras, then the magnetic field of Uranus could be very strong. Humphreys (1984, p. 146) also mentions the detection of ultraviolet radiation and was optimistic that Uranus had a magnetic field. Based on quantitative measurements with similar auroras on the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, Hill and Dessler (1985) estimated that the cloud top magnetic field strength on Uranus was at least 0.6 gauss and most likely 4-13 gauss.

If the magnetic field of Uranus was that strong, Voyager 2 should have detected radio signals from the magnetic field as it approached Uranus, but nothing was detected (Dessler 1986, p. 174). Additional observations and the absence of radio signals convinced other scientists that the ultraviolet radiation was not from auroras and that Uranus’ magnetic field could be very weak and perhaps even nonexistent. Additional scientists noticed dark regions on the satellites and rings of Uranus, and argued that an absence of a magnetic field could have allowed solar radiation to darken the features (Dessler 1986, p. 174). These scientists estimated the cloud top magnetic field of Uranus at no more than 4 x 10-5 gauss.

After considering the possibility that Uranus’ magnetic field originates in an Earth-sized core (a radius of around 6,400 km), Axford and Vasyliunas (1986) predicted that the cloud level magnetic field strength for Uranus should be about 0.01 gauss (Dessler 1986, pp. 174-175). Dessler (1986, p. 175) then briefly summarizes the arguments from those that favored a strong magnetic field (e.g., ≥ 0.6 gauss) on Uranus versus those that argued for a weaker or nonexistent field. It turns out that the minimum value of 0.6 gauss predicted by Hill and Dessler (1985) was in the middle of the measured range of 0.1 to 1.1 gauss given by Ness et al. (1986). Thus, Dr. Humphreys was not alone in predicting Uranus’ magnetic field within an order of magnitude.

Physicist Thompson (2003) concisely demonstrates that Dr. Humphreys’ aquatic alchemy and its “predictions” amount to nothing (also see Reinfort 2019b). He shows that Dr. Humphreys’ equations and variables are so plastic that they could be used to support any planetary magnetic field hypothesis. That is, the order of magnitude “predictions” in Humphreys (1984) are nothing more than guesses that could have been made by anyone that recognized that the magnetic moment of a planet is often related to its mass. Because the masses of Neptune and Uranus are similar to each other and intermediate between the masses of Saturn and the Earth, we could also expect the magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune to be similar and somewhere between those of the Earth and Saturn.

In Figure 24, the magnetic dipole moments are given in joules/tesla (J/T) and the masses in kilograms of Jupiter, Saturn and the Earth were taken from Tables I and II in Humphreys (1984) and plotted as diamonds. The trend line for these three points was calculated and inserted into the graph. The predicted dipole moments for Uranus and Neptune based on the trend line and their known masses are shown as red circles. According to the trend line, the predicted magnetic moment for Uranus is 5.1 x 1024 J/T, whereas the predicted value for Neptune is 6.7 × 1024 J/T. The actual measurements from Tim Thompson are very close (i.e., 3.7 × 1024 J/T for Uranus and 2.1 × 1024 J/T for Neptune) to my predictions and appear as black triangles in Figure 24. The graph shows that anyone could closely estimate the magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune by simply knowing their masses and using the trend line in Figure 24. A Bible and Dr. Humphreys’ aquatic alchemy are not required.

Because the Bible contains many verses that are not scientifically literal, such as Job 38:37, which claims that God stores rainwater in bottles in the heavens, we should not be surprised when it does not explain the origins of planetary magnetic fields or zircons. As many wise theologians admit, the Bible is not a book of science.

Figure 24. The magnetic moments in joules/tesla (J/T) versus the masses in kilograms of Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth are plotted as diamonds. The trend line for these three points was calculated and inserted into the graph. The predicted magnetic moments for Uranus and Neptune based on the trend line and their known masses are shown as red circles. The actual measurements are plotted as triangles. The graph shows that anyone could reasonably guess the magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune by simply knowing their masses and using the trend line. A Bible and Dr. Humphreys’ aquatic alchemy are not required.

13.0 The Failure of Dr. Humphreys’ Helium in Zircons Project: The Long-Term Consequences

13.1 The Lessons of the Vapor Canopy

Forty years ago, the vapor canopy hypothesis was widely accepted by YECs for its supposedly strong support from both scientific and biblical evidence. As summarized in Reinfort (2019c), after studying the physics of the supposed pre-Flood vapor canopy and taking another look at their Bible verses, the vast majority of YECs finally concluded that there was no vapor canopy in the Earth’s upper atmosphere that contributed to Noah’s Flood. The vapor canopy fiasco demonstrates that beliefs with supposedly strong scientific and biblical evidence are not immune from being discarded even by its adherents. Some are now arguing that Dr. Humphreys’ helium in zircons arguments, along with its dependence on accelerated radioactive decay and cooling, are heading for the same cliff. Perhaps, eventually, the majority of YECs will reject Dr. Humphreys’ claims just as they have the vapor canopy.

13.2 The Five Sides: The Possible Future of the Helium in Zircons Project and Associated Accelerated Radioactive Decay and Cooling

Currently, Dr. Humphreys’ RATE helium in zircons study and its associated accelerated radioactive decay and cooling mechanisms have divided his supporters and critics into five different camps, which are:

Dedicated YEC supporters of Dr. Humphreys’ RATE claims,
Conditional YEC supporters of Dr. Humphreys’ RATE claims,
YEC critics and skeptics of Dr. Humphreys’ RATE claims,
Old-Earth creationists (OECs), such as Dr. Loechelt, and other theistic critics of young-Earth creationism, and
Secularists.

In the first group, Dr. Humphreys has individuals that support his RATE claims because they believe that there is strong scientific and biblical evidence for his work. Even today, there are still some YECs that embrace the Vapor Canopy hypothesis, while most have rejected it (Reinfort 2019c). No matter how much critical evidence is given, some individuals in this first group will never change their minds about Dr. Humphreys’ RATE project, even if Dr. Humphreys eventually changes his mind about his earlier work as new information continues to come forward. For some of the members of this first group, denying RATE is almost as serious as denying the inerrancy of the Bible. We see examples of these hard-core believers when they go to far-fetched extremes to defend Dr. Humphreys’ claims at all costs (e.g., Section 5.1.4), extremes that Dr. Humphreys might not even embrace.

The second group of YECs conditionally support Dr. Humphreys’ RATE claims. They want to see more studies and more evidence before they are totally convinced. Examples of this second group might include DeYoung (2005, p. 180) and Williams and Hartnett (2005, pp. 192-193).

Members of the second group and non-dogmatic members of the first might eventually move into the third group. The third group consists of YECs that already recognize the shortcomings in Dr. Humphreys’ work, despite supposed claims of strong scientific and scriptural support. These YEC skeptics will eventually propose alternatives to the RATE claims of accelerated radioactive decay and cooling (e.g., Section 8.3; Froede 2012; Froede and Akridge 2012; 2013a; 2013b). Eventually, perhaps in several decades, the majority of YECs might join this third group.

The fourth group consists of old-Earth creationists (OECs), such as Dr. Loechelt, as well as theistic evolutionists and other theists that are critical of RATE and other young-Earth creationist claims. They, as well as secularists, would probably largely support the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c). In response, Humphreys (2018a, pp. 56-57) tries to convince Bible-believing OECs that they need to be totally dedicated to the Bible and embrace young-Earth creationism. I will leave it to OECs to debate how an ancient Earth can be compatible with a conservative Christian interpretation of Genesis. I gave up on the Bible as providing reliable science long ago.

As I stated earlier in this essay, I think that the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) is on the right track and articles, such as Wolfe and Stockli (2010), support the uniformitarian view of helium diffusion (Sections 7.2 and 7.3). However, a lot more work needs to be done, including consideration of how pressure and the possibility of extraneous helium might affect the results of the Loechelt (2008c) model (Section 6.0). At this point, no one can justify being dogmatic about any helium diffusion model. That being said, I am convinced that the model of Loechelt (2008c) or a revision of it will eventually gain a conclusive win.

The fifth group are secularists. For secularists, the Earth is definitely 4.5 billion years old, the “evidence” for a young-Earth given by Dr. Humphreys and other YECs is nonsense, and the Bible largely consists of mythology and bad advice that should not be taken seriously (e.g., Eller 2004; Carrier 2010; Stenger 2012; Prothero 2007; Price 2003; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Ehrman 2009; Dever 2005; Loftus 2008; Loftus 2010; Loftus 2011). For secularists and his many other critics, Dr. Humphreys’ work demonstrates that a supposed jewel in the crown of “bible science”, upon examination, is nothing more than a worthless rhinestone.

14.0 Conclusions

A critical evaluation of Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004), Humphreys (2005a), and subsequent papers on Dr. Humphreys’ Fenton Hill project demonstrate that his project has been a colossal waste of time and money. As explained in this essay and my references, Dr. Humphreys has not provided any worthwhile results that stand up to even a moderate amount of scientific scrutiny. Instead of being a crown jewel of young-Earth creationist research, it’s a rhinestone.

While Humphreys (2010a) prematurely declares victory and his supporters (e.g., Oard 2019, pp. 96-97) falsely believe that he has easily refuted his critics, the evidence plainly shows otherwise. Because Dr. Humphreys’ bogus equations were able to produce a date of 6,000 years, which supposedly agrees with their biblical interpretations, too many YECs are simply unwilling to accept the possibility that this date is wrong. Too many individuals, uncritically accept whatever Dr. Humphreys says as gospel and fail to critically evaluate all sides of this complex issue. So, when such individuals think that they got the right answer from God; that’s it, end of discussion as far as they are concerned.

It is also obvious that Dr. Humphreys in Humphreys (2005b) and in his later articles has never bothered to read or understand most of the criticisms from myself or others, or our references because he frequently keeps making the same erroneous statements over and over again even though others and I have thoroughly documented and refuted them in earlier works (e.g., refusing to recognize the presence of gneisses in his samples, failing to recognize possible contamination of his zircons with extraneous helium during cooling and not heating episodes, ignoring my Appendix B and its more realistic Q/Q0 results, using the wrong (“biased”) equation to calculate standard deviations, etc.). Rather than providing thorough answers, Humphreys (2005b; 2018a) exposes even more inadequacies in his methods (such as, trying to identify rocks by merely relying on naked-eye observations, the improper naming of rock units, sloppy handling of units of measure in Table C1 of Humphreys et al. 2003a, p. 17, etc.). In his other responses in Humphreys (2006a; 2008a; 2008b; 2010a; 2010b; 2011; 2012a; 2012b; 2012c; 2012d; 2013a; 2020), Dr. Humphreys still fails to explain or defend his actions. My Appendix C has a long list of questions that Dr. Humphreys needs to answer and, no doubt, many others also have questions about his RATE project. Nevertheless, now that Dr. Humphreys is long retired, I expect that he never will answer these questions and, unfortunately, too many of his fellow YECs believe him and have no intention in encouraging him to appropriately answer these questions or deal with the questions themselves. Dr. Humphreys or his supporters need to answer all of these questions before his claims can be taken seriously by scientists.

Unfortunately, Humphreys (2005b; 2010a) too often prefers to use insults to explanations and, in particular, Humphreys (2010a, p. 14) describes his critics as the “dogs of war” and Humphreys (2005b) refers to my detailed criticisms as “a torrent of hot air.” It’s obvious that Humphreys (2005b) thinks that he can just read through my abstract, throw out some insults, try to trivialize his serious mistakes, invoke a few more groundless fantasies, make a couple of corrections here and there in Gentry et al. (1982a) without explanation, ignore the details, promise great things in the future, repeatedly rely on his deceptive Figure 2, and then hope that his readers will just go away on faith. Well, science doesn’t work that way and Dr. Humphreys should know better.

So, Dr. Humphreys has utterly failed to present a scientifically valid case for 6,000 year old Fenton Hill zircons and accelerated radioactive decay and cooling in the near past. Despite enthusiastic endorsements from numerous YECs, his “helium diffusion studies” are based on many flawed arguments, invalid assumptions, untrustworthy equations, and questionable data. Dr. Humphreys has had more than 15 years to make a thorough and air-tight case for his claims and he has failed to do so.

In contrast, Loechelt (2008c) has a tentative model derived from currently available data on the Fenton Hill zircons that is completely consistent with the zircons being about 1.5 billion years old. While Dr. Humphreys’ young-Earth model relies on the untenable magic of accelerated radioactive decay and cooling (e.g., Humphreys 2018b; 2020), the Loechelt (2008c) model does not need miracles and is fully consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics. Additional helium diffusion studies by Wolfe and Stockli (2010) and others have supported uniformitarianism and further refuted Dr. Humphreys’ helium diffusion claims.

Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) notes that alpha radioactive decay from uranium depends on the nuclear force and evidence indicates that the decay rate is insensitive to environmental conditions, such as temperature and pressure. However, YECs want us to believe that helium diffusion, which is greatly influenced by pressure, temperature, radiation damage in the zircons and many other environmental factors, is somehow a better chronometer than radiometric dating. Loechelt (2020a, p. 46) concludes that helium diffusion tells us more about the properties of zircon crystals than the age of the Earth.

Instead of dealing with his numerous scientific mistakes, Dr. Humphreys makes up stories in Humphreys (2005b) to attack my sincerity and personal beliefs. Humphreys (2008b; 2012b, p. 48; 2018a, p. 54) similarly questions and groundlessly attacks the motives and sincerity of Dr. Loechelt. While I’ve had gracious, but frank, discussions with Dr. Guy Berthault, David Woetzel, Dr. David Plaisted, Dr. John Baumgardner and many others that strongly disagree with my views, Humphreys (2005b; 2008b) and his subsequent documents are not science and represents the worst of young-Earth creationism.

15.0 Acknowledgements

For this and earlier versions of this essay, internet and email comments on Dr. Humphrey’s documents by Dr. Gary Loechelt, “WeHappyFew”, Dr. Joseph G. Meert, Jack DeBaun, and an anonymous physicist with expertise in helium diffusion have been exceptionally insightful. Dr. John Baumgardner kindly provided helpful information on Dr. Humphreys’ samples. A number of scientists and other individuals peer-reviewed and/or provided valuable comments on this essay since 2005, including: Gary H. Loechelt, Tom Baillieu, Tom Bridgman, John Brawley, Paul Heinrich, Mike Hopkins, Mark Isaak, Mark D. Kluge, Steve McRae, Ted Lawry, Frank Lovell and several anonymous scientists and other individuals.

16.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Calculation of Q/Q0 Values Using the Questionable Assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a)

As discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, there are serious questions about the calculations of Q0 and the Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a). Even Humphreys et al. (2004) and Humphreys (2005b) admits that there are “typographic errors” and “misstated numbers” in Gentry et al. (1982a). The purpose of the calculations in this appendix is to try to duplicate and explain the Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a) by using their assumptions. As indicated in Appendix B and Sections 4.0 and 7.0, the use of the Gentry et al. (1982a) assumptions in this appendix does not necessarily mean that these assumptions are reasonable, optimal, or correct.

As explained in Section 4.1, Q refers to the measured quantity of helium (presumably only radiogenic 4He) in a mineral. Once a mineral is below its helium closure temperature, Q0 is the maximum amount of radiogenic helium (4He) that is expected to accumulate in the mineral from the radioactive decay of its uranium and thorium. A certain percentage of alpha particles (4He nuclei) will escape from the host mineral during radioactive decay and this loss is normally considered when calculating the Q0 values. Q/Q0 would then represent the fraction or percentage of radiogenic 4He (that is, presumably without any extraneous component) remaining in a sample. The Q/Q0 value of a zircon would not only depend on its age, but also on its size, the number of fractures and metamict areas, its original uranium and thorium concentrations, subsurface temperatures and a number of other factors.

By making several assumptions that are no doubt inaccurate, Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1129) derived only one Q0 value for all of the zircons in their lithologically diverse Precambrian samples and used this value to estimate the Q/Q0 values of their zircons. Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1129) state their assumptions in the following paragraph:

“For the other zircons from the granite [sic, granodiorite] and gneiss cores [samples 1-6], we made the assumption that the radiogenic Pb concentration in zircons from all depths was, on the average, the same as that measured (Zartman, 1979) at 2900 m, i.e., ~80 ppm with 206Pb/207Pb and 206Pb/208Pb ratios of ten (Gentry et al., ...[1982b]; Zartman, 1979). Since every U and Th derived atom of 206Pb, 207Pb, and 208Pb represents 8, 7 and 6 alpha-decays respectively, this means there should be ~7.7 atoms of He generated for every Pb atom in these zircons.” [my emphasis. Also, unlike Humphreys (2005b), Gentry et al., 1982a admit that the Fenton Hill cores contain gneisses – see Section 3.2]

First of all, Gentry et al. (1982a) assumed that the radiogenic lead concentrations (total 206Pb, 207Pb, and 208Pb) of the zircons from each of the six samples averaged 80 parts per million (ppm). Therefore:

80 ppm = 80 micrograms radiogenic Pb/gram zircon = 0.00008 g radiogenic Pb/g zircon

Although the overall atomic mass of Pb (207.2 amu) includes non-radiogenic 204Pb, the atomic mass of radiogenic Pb is close to 207.2 amu. Therefore:

0.00008 g/g divided by 207.2 g Pb/mole Pb = 3.9 x 10-7 moles radiogenic Pb/g zircon

The concentrations of the various radiogenic lead isotopes are then represented by the following equation:

206Pb + 207Pb + 208Pb = 3.9 x 10-7 moles total radiogenic Pb/gram zircon

Given:

206Pb/207Pb = 10. That is: 207Pb = 206Pb/10. This assumption by Gentry et al. (1982a) is reasonable. Actual values from Gentry et al. (1982b, p. 296) are about 9.6 to 11.2.

206Pb/208Pb = 10. That is: 208Pb = 206Pb/10. This assumption by Gentry et al. (1982a) is more questionable. Gentry et al. (1982b, p. 296) has actual values as low as 3.1 and as high as 14.

Combining these equations:

206Pb + 206Pb/10 + 206Pb/10 = 3.9 × 10-7 moles/g

Multiplying everything by 10 and doing some algebra:

10(206Pb) + 206Pb + 206Pb = 3.9 × 10-6 moles/g

12 (206Pb) = 3.9 × 10-6

206Pb = 3.25 × 10-7 mole/g

Then:

207Pb = 208Pb = 3.25 x 10-8 mole/g

Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1129) further state:

“During the decay of uranium and thorium, every 206Pb, 207Pb, and 208Pb atom has 8, 7, and 6 alpha-decays, respectively.”

Therefore, total radiogenic 4He produced with the radiogenic Pb:

Total radiogenic 4He = 8(206Pb in moles) + 7(207Pb in moles) + 6(208Pb in moles)

Total radiogenic He = 8(3.25 × 10-7) + 7(3.25 x 10-8) + 6(3.25 × 10-8) = 2.60 x 10-6 + 2.275 × 10-7 + 1.95 x 10-7 = 3.02 × 10-6 moles/g

There are 109 nanomoles in one mole.

Total radiogenic He = 3.02 × 10-6 moles/g x 109 nanomoles/mole = 3020 nanomoles He/gram of zircon.

Converting to Humphreys et al.’s scale of cubic centimeters (Standard Temperature and Pressure [STP]) of radiogenic He/microgram zircon requires the following steps:

Gas laws state that at standard atmospheric temperature and pressure (STP) 1 mole of every gas has a volume of 22.4 liters:

22.4 liters = 22,400 milliliters (ml)

1.0 ml = 1.0 cubic centimeter (cc)

Therefore:

22.4 liters = 22,400 cc

Total radiogenic He = 3020 × 10-9 moles/g × 22,400 cc STP/mole = 6.8 x10-2 cc STP/g

There are 106 micrograms in one gram. Therefore:

6.8 × 10-2 cc STP/g divided by 106 micrograms/g = 6.8 × 10-8 cc STP/microgram

Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1129-1130) argue that up to 30-40% of the radiogenic helium is lost by alpha ejection. For a 40% loss:

60% of 6.8 × 10-8 cc STP/microgram = 41 x 10-9 cc STP radiogenic He/microgram (μg) zircon = 41 nano cubic centimeters (ncc) STP/μg = Q0

Similarly, Loechelt (2008c, p. 5) concluded that the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) would yield a Q0 of about 40 ncc STP/μg. This value is more than twice as large as the Q0 value of approximately 15 ncc STP/μg endorsed by Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 9).

Utilizing the measured helium concentrations (Q values) listed in Humphreys et al. (2004, his Table I), Table A1 shows the Q/Q0 values that Humphreys et al. (2004) should have obtained by correctly using the known assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a). The use of a 30% alpha ejection would lower the Q/Q0 values even further. Nevertheless, chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979) indicate that the values in Table A1 are unreliable (compare Table A1 with the diverse results in my Appendix B and Table 4). The assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) are no doubt inaccurate and it is improper to apply just one Q0 value to all of the lithologically diverse Precambrian Fenton Hill samples, especially when the chemical analyses in Gentry et al. (1982b) indicate highly variable uranium and thorium concentrations even within single zircons.

Rather than accepting that the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) do not support a Q0 value of 15 ncc STP radiogenic He/microgram zircon or his high Q/Q0 values, Humphreys (2005b) attempts to salvage his high Q/Q0 values by claiming that there are additional “misstated” numbers in Gentry et al. (1982a) related to the alpha ejection percentages:

Certainly, there are plenty of questionable assumptions and unreliable numbers in Gentry et al. (1982a). However, if the 40% alpha ejection values of Gentry et al. (1982a) are too small as Humphreys (2005b) claims, why should we accept any other statements in Gentry et al. (1982a)? Why is Dr. Humphreys still willing to trust the Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a) after he’s admitted that almost every other datum in this paper is a “typo” or “misstated” number? See Section 4.0. When will the list of errors in Gentry et al. (1982a) end?

Appendix B: Calculation of More Realistic Q0 Values and Estimations of Q/Q0 Values for Individual Zircons from Samples 1, ~3, 5, and 6 Using Chemical Data from Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979) (Corrections Made in 2010)

Gentry et al. (1982b) list chemical data for individual zircons taken from depths of 960, 3930 and 4310 meters in the Fenton Hill cores (samples 1, 5 and 6 in Gentry et al., 1982a). Although not ideal, Zartman (1979) also contains a uranium and thorium analysis on a zircon that was collected within four meters of sample 3 from Gentry et al. (1982b) and probably within the same rock unit (a biotite granodiorite; Table 1). These data allow the Q0 values at the four depths to be better estimated than simply utilizing the generic values that were calculated for samples 1-6 by Gentry et al. (1982a) (15 ncc STP/μg according to Humphreys et al., 2004, p. 9, or 41 ncc STP/μg from Appendix A of this essay). The Q0 values calculated in this appendix may then be used to roughly estimate the range of possible Q/Q0 values for the four samples.

Zartman (1979) lists the total uranium and thorium concentrations of a zircon sample from a depth of 2903.8 meters. The uranium concentration is 328.78 mass parts per million, or micrograms of uranium per gram of zircon (μg/g), whereas thorium is 169.42 μg/g. Thanks to an astute peer-reviewer back in 2010, I now recognize that the uranium and thorium concentrations in Gentry et al. (1982b) are in atomic parts per million and not mass parts per million. Therefore, the calculations in versions of this essay before 2010 are wrong. Table B1 shows the range of uranium and thorium concentrations for seven different zircons from samples 1, 5 and 6 of Gentry et al. (1982b, p. 296). The letters associated with the Gentry et al. (1982b) sample numbers in Table B1 represent different zircon specimens that were analyzed from each depth.

Typically, Gentry et al. (1982b) performed four pairs of uranium and thorium analyzes on each zircon. Gentry et al. (1982b) noticed that the uranium and thorium concentrations varied considerably even at different locations on the same zircon grain. When calculating the concentrations, Gentry et al. (1982b) assumed that the zircons were pure ZrSiO4. Although zircons typically contain 1-4% hafnium (Klein, 2002, p. 498), this assumption is probably reasonable.

The calculations in this appendix were performed on a Microsoft Excel™ spreadsheet. These calculations assume no uranium or thorium addition or loss in the zircons over time. Tables B2-B7 show the calculations of the Q0 values for the zircon from Zartman (1979). For this sample, parts-per-million (ppm) values are the same as micrograms/gram. The micrograms/gram concentrations may be divided by 1 x 106 micrograms/gram to convert them into grams of element/gram of zircon. Concentrations in moles element/gram zircon are obtained by dividing the grams/gram concentrations by the atomic weights of uranium and thorium (238.03 and 232.038 g/mole, respectively) (Table B2). Now, 99.2743% of modern natural uranium is 238U and only 0.7200% is 235U (Faure, 1998, p. 284). These percentages are used to determine the current concentrations in moles/g of each uranium isotope (Table B2). Next, the moles/g of 238U, 235U, and 232Th are multiplied by Avogadro’s number (6.022 x 1023 atoms/mole) to obtain the total number of atoms (N) of each isotope in every gram of zircon.

The following equation and constants from Faure (1998, p. 281-284) are used to calculate the number of moles of radiogenic lead and helium produced from the decay of 238U, 235U and 232Th since the zircons described in Zartman (1979) formed:

D* = N(eλt -1)

D* = number of radiogenic Pb atoms

N = number of uranium and thorium atoms currently present in the sample.

λ = decay constants:

λ for 238U = 1.55125 × 10-10 1/year

λ for 235U = 9.8485 × 10-10 1/year

λ for 232Th = 4.9475 × 10-11 1/year

t = age of the sample

Zartman (1979) found the zircon at 2903.8 meters depth to be 1.500 billion years old. The number of daughter atoms (a D* value for 206Pb, 207Pb, and 208Pb) can now be calculated for the Zartman (1979) zircon, as shown in Table B3. For every 206Pb atom produced by the decay of 238U, 8 4He atoms form. The formation of a 207Pb atom results in the formation of 7 4He atoms and 6 4He atoms are associated with every 208Pb atom (Gentry et al., 1982a, p. 1129). Table B3 also lists the number of radiogenic helium atoms that would be produced by 1.50 billion years’ worth of radioactive decay of 232Th, 235U, and 238U.

Avogadro’s number is used to convert the number of radiogenic helium atoms into moles of helium per gram of zircon (Table B3). The helium concentrations in moles associated with the decay of 238U, 235U, and 232Th are then summed and provide the total amount of helium produced by the decay of uranium and thorium over 1.50 billion years (Table B4). Following the usage in Gentry et al. (1982a), Humphreys et al. (2003a), and Appendix A in this document, the moles of radiogenic helium are converted into nanocubic centimeters of helium per microgram of zircon at standard temperature and pressure (STP) (Table B4).

Before calculating the Q/Q0 value for the zircon results from Zartman (1979), the alpha ejection value for the zircons must be determined. The alpha ejection value refers to the percentage of helium atoms that escape from a zircon as the helium forms from the decay of uranium and thorium. Estimating the alpha ejection value involves a lot of uncertainties. Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1129-1130) assumed an alpha ejection value of 30-40% for their 40-50 micron zircons:

“Knowledge of the zircon mass and the appropriate compensation factor (to account for differences in initial He loss via near-surface α-emission) enabled us to calculate the theoretical amount of He which could have accumulated assuming negligible diffusion loss. This compensating factor is necessary because the larger (150-250 µm) zircons lost a smaller proportion of the total He generated with the crystal via near-surface α-emission than did the smaller (40-50 µm) zircons. For the smaller zircons we estimate as many as 30-40% of the α-particles (He) emitted within the crystal could have escaped initially whereas for the larger zircons we studied only 5-10% of the total He could have been lost via this mechanism.”

Without providing any calculations to support his accusations, Humphreys (2005b) claims that Gentry et al. (1982a) somehow “misstated” these alpha ejection values. As an alternative, Loechelt (2008c, p. 5) used a method from Meesters and Dunai (2002b), where the correction for the loss of alpha particles is done during the diffusion simulations. Tagami et al. (2003) also contains equations that are used to estimate alpha ejections from zircons. The following equations from Tagami et al. (2003, p. 59) are used to calculate the fraction of alphas retained by a zircon immediately after their formation from radioactive decay:

FT = 1 - 4.31β + 4.92β2

β = (4L + 2W)/LW

where:

FT = fraction of alphas (4He) retained by the mineral

L = length of the zircon in microns or cm.

W = width of the zircon in the same units as the length.

Therefore:

Alpha ejection value = 1 - FT

Although Gentry et al. (1982a) described the “sizes” of their analyzed zircons as 40-50 µm, the following description in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 3), which is probably based on a personal communication with R. Gentry, indicates that the zircons of samples 1, 3, 5 and 6 were somewhat larger, at least in length:

“At Oak Ridge, Robert Gentry, a creationist physicist, crushed the [rock] samples (without breaking the much harder zircon grains), extracted a high-density residue (because zircons have a density of 4.7 grams/cm3), and isolated the zircons by microscopic examinations, choosing crystals about 50-75 μm long.”

This account suggests that the zircons were recovered by float-sink methods and “grain picking” under a microscope. Although Humphreys (2005a, p. 43) states that zircons with lengths of 50-75 microns were also selected for the 2003 analysis (sample 2003 in my Table 1), no width data on any of the zircons are specifically listed anywhere in Gentry et al. (1982a) or in any of the Humphreys et al. documents. Without width data, a FT cannot be accurately calculated. Although far from ideal, the only present method of estimating all of the dimensions of the zircons in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and Gentry et al. (1982a) is to use information from Heimlich (1976). Heimlich (1976) performed a detailed zircon study on nine samples from the Fenton Hill GT-2 core, which included measuring the lengths and widths of zircons that were collected close to samples 1, 2003, 2, and 3 of Gentry et al. (1982a) and Humphreys et al. (2004) (my Table 1). Specifically, Heimlich (1976) sampled zircons at a depth of 2902 meters, whereas the zircons from Zartman (1979) probably came from the same granodiorite at a depth of 2903.8 meters. The sample 3 zircons from Gentry et al. (1982a) also came from a depth of about 2900 meters. Some relevant parameters from Heimlich (1976) are shown in Table B5.

Notice that the mean lengths of the zircons in Heimlich (1976) are often much longer than the 50-75 microns listed in Gentry et al. (1982a). Specifically, the zircons obtained by Heimlich (1976) had a mean length of about 100 microns and, considering two standard deviations, the lengths could have reached nearly 180 microns. Using a mean length/mean width ratio of 2.4 for the zircons from a depth of 2902 meters described in Heimlich (1976) (Table B5), the 50-75 micron zircons used by Gentry et al. (1982a) and Dr. Humphreys should have had widths of about 20-30 microns.

Estimating the widths for samples 5 and 6 are even more uncertain. Sample 5 (like 3) is a biotite granodiorite (Laughlin et al., 1983, p. 26). I will assume that the mean length to mean width ratio for sample 5 is similar to sample 3 (another biotite granodiorite) or about 2.4. Sample 6 is a gneiss that has been intruded by a fine-grained granodiorite (Laney et al., 1981, p. 4). The mean length to mean width ratios are probably in the range of 1.8 to 2.4. To obtain a maximum range of possible FT values for sample 6, a ratio of 1.8 will be used for any 75 micron long zircons and a value of 2.4 would be used with the 50 micron long zircons. The FT values are shown in Table B6.

Using the FT values in Table B6, the alpha ejection values for the zircons from Zartman (1979) are roughly estimated at 60-80%. As shown in Table B7, the alpha ejection values are used to obtain a range of Q0 values for the zircons from Zartman (1979). Uranium and thorium results for the Fenton Hill zircons in Gentry et al. (1982b) suggest that the helium concentrations (Q values) should greatly vary from zircon to zircon. To obtain highly accurate Q/Q0 values for every zircon, the helium concentration (Q) of each individual zircon must be known. Unfortunately, this information is not available.

Gentry et al. (1982b) obtained uranium and thorium data on seven zircons from samples 1, 5, and 6 (three zircons from sample 1 and two each from 5 and 6). The data are in atomic parts per million rather than mass parts per million. To obtain a maximum possible range of helium Q0 values for each of the seven zircons, the calculations were paired up the highest uranium concentration for each zircon with its highest concentration of thorium and the lowest uranium concentration with the lowest thorium value. As an example, Table B8 shows the calculations for zircon 1A from sample 1.

First, the atomic parts per million uranium and thorium values were converted into mole fractions by multiplying by one million (Table B8). Following Gentry et al. (1982b), the uranium and thorium were assumed to occur in otherwise pure zircon. The mole fractions were converted into moles element/gram zircon by dividing them by the molecular mass of pure zircon (183.3071 g/mole based on atomic weights from Faure, 1998). Zartman (1979) obtained a radiometric date of 1.500 billion years for the sample 3 granodiorite. Pb-Pb dates in Appendix A of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 14) indicate that the zircons from sample 2002 are around 1.44 billion years old. To calculate the amount of radiogenic lead and helium, an age of 1.44 billion years was assumed for sample 1 and samples 5 and 6 were dated at 1.50 billion years. The remaining calculations are the same as those used in Tables B2-B7. The resulting range of Q/Q0 values for samples 1, ~3 (Zartman, 1979 data), 5, and 6 are summarized in Table 4.

As shown in Tables 4, B1, and B8, the uranium, thorium, Q0 and Q/Q0 values of the individual zircons are highly variable and the range of values are too inadequately known for accurate modeling. Even if the dating equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 9-10) were reliable (but, see Section 7.0 and Loechelt, 2008c), the inaccurate and poorly defined Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a), Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Humphreys et al. (2004) clearly preclude any attempts to date the zircons with the Humphreys et al. method.

Appendix C: Crucial Questions that Dr. Humphreys Can’t or Won’t Answer

C.1 Introduction

Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys (2006a) are replies to my original March, 2005 TalkOrigins essay and its November, 2005 update, respectively. As discussed in the later 2006 and 2010 updates of my essay, Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys (2006a) repeatedly fails to properly address the frequent problems in his work. Many of Dr. Humphreys’ other responses (e.g., Humphreys 2008a, Humphreys 2008b, Humphreys 2010a, and Humphreys 2018a) also lack suitable answers and details to problems raised by his other critics. Although he and Dr. Loechelt have exchanged brief letters in the Journal of Creation over the years (e.g., Loechelt 2010; Humphreys 2010b; Loechelt 2012; Humphreys 2012b; Loechelt 2020b; Humphreys 2020), Dr. Humphreys has yet to answer any of the critical questions listed in this appendix, such as questions about the soundness of his YEC model, in particular the validity of his dating equations and their a, b, Q, and Q0 values (Sections 4.0 and 7.0). Dr. Humphreys has also avoided giving a satisfactory response to the alternative uniformitarian helium diffusion model developed by Loechelt (2008c). The Loechelt model completely devastates Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model and his claims that only his model can successfully explain helium diffusion in the Fenton Hill zircons. It’s obvious from his many superficial statements and misconceptions in Humphreys (2005b; 2006a; 2008b; 2010b; etc.) that Dr. Humphreys has never attempted to properly review and understand most of the criticisms of his work from others and me.

In an effort to encourage Dr. Humphreys to finally address these issues, many years ago I summarized the problems with his work in a series of questions in this appendix. This appendix includes questions from me, as well as others, and are summarized from the discussions in the main text of this essay and its sources. For many years, I hoped that Dr. Humphreys would take several months and properly perform the necessary experiments to really deal with these issues. Dr. Humphreys must carefully and rationally address these and many other questions before scientists will ever take his work seriously. Science is never quick and easy. Extraordinary claims about overthrowing the foundation of nuclear physics requires extraordinary, extensive, and impeccable evidence that Dr. Humphreys and his allies simply do not have. Now, that Dr. Humphreys has long retired, it’s obvious that he has no desire to correct the numerous shortcomings and outright errors in his work and make it presentable to the scientific community. As indicated in the epilogue of Humphreys (2018a, pp. 56-57), he’s happy with believing that his results are an effective tool for evangelism, even though the inaccuracies, flippant replies to his opponents, and shortcomings in his efforts could do far more damage to conservative Christianity in the end. He also has the praise of a large number of his fellow YECs (Section 1.1), at least for now. Both of these situations appear good enough for him.

In early 2018, Dr. Loechelt and I gave presentations critical of Dr. Humphreys’ Fenton Hill project on Steve McRae’s YouTube program, The Great Debate Community (Loechelt and Henke 2018). Rather than watching our presentations, Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) requested that outlines of our talks be sent to him via Steve McRae. This was done. An email from Dr. Humphreys printed in Loechelt (2020a, p. 48) further indicates that after reviewing the outlines, Dr. Humphreys came to inappropriate conclusion that I had nothing “new” to say on the program even before watching the videos:

“I’m reluctant to spend several hours watching the Hanke [sic, Henke]/Loechelt videos, because I have a strong feeling that they have said nothing new or worthwhile.”

In my 2018 video at Steve McRae’s The Great Debate Community (Loechelt and Henke 2018), as well as earlier versions of this essay, I have repeatedly stated that Dr. Humphreys has failed to address the critical questions in this appendix and many questions from other individuals. I repeatedly stressed that until these and other questions from his numerous critics are properly answered and the numerous gaps in his work filled, the scientific community will have absolutely no reason to take his grandiose scheme seriously. However, by 2018 and long after his retirement, I came to realize that Dr. Humphreys was probably never going to properly answer these questions. So, indeed, if he never responds, the questions are here for any other YECs to examine and perhaps answer.

Humphreys (2018a, p. 50) is correct when he states that I encouraged him via Steve McRae to deal with Dr. Loechelt’s issues raised in the program. Rather than again pleading for him to thoroughly answer all of the questions in Appendix C, I told Dr. Humphreys to concentrate on the issues in Dr. Loechelt’s video because I thought that if Humphreys (2018a) had satisfactorily answered Dr. Loechelt’s questions on this program, I would have been encouraged to approach him one more time about at least dealing with some of the questions on the long list in this appendix. I was testing Dr. Humphreys to see if he would adequately respond to Dr. Loechelt’s shorter list of questions before again asking him to deal with the more numerous issues in this appendix. Unfortunately, Humphreys (2018a) contains even more errors that are addressed in Loechelt (2020a) and in this updated essay. Thus, the list of questions in this appendix keeps growing. If YECs ever want to salvage Dr. Humphreys’ work, someone else is going to have to come forward, do the hard work and additional experiments, and try to answer these critical questions. I fully admit that the most of the questions in this appendix do not have quick and easy answers, but the requirements of high quality science rarely do. Perhaps, the individuals leading the upcoming YEC HOUR project (Section 1.3) will finally answer some of these questions.

C.2 Questions by Section

The questions are divided by the sections used in the body of the text. Not every section has a question.

1.0 Introduction

1. How can Humphreys (2010a) claim that his critics have been silenced when he has ignored the revisions of this essay, and especially the questions for him in Appendix C, since 2006?

2. If Dr. Humphreys thinks that the uniformitarian models of helium diffusion cannot be correct, how does he explain the results from Loechelt (2008c) in Figure 1? Specifically, what are the errors in Loechelt (2008c) that rule out the viability of Loechelt uniformitarian model?

2.0 Background Information

2.3 Helium Diffusion Process in Zircons

2.3.2 Which Curve Should be Used?

3. When Humphreys (2018a, p. 51) quotes a statement from Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) to justify using the defect rather than the intrinsic curve to determine the diffusion of noble gases in minerals, how is this quotation relevant when Fechtig and Kalbitzer (1966, p. 84) indicate that their statement only applies to unusual cases, such as argon diffusion in potassium halide compounds, where the slope and activation energies are higher at lower temperatures (compare my Figures 6 and 5)?

2.3.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Four Lower Temperature Measurements: Relevant or Not?

4. How can the helium released by only four low-temperature helium measurements on a defect curve (as shown in my Figure 5 and Humphreys et al. 2004, Table II, p. 6 and Figure 8, p. 10) in one experiment be relevant when it only represents 0.0008% of the total helium in the sample (Loechelt 2020a, p. 46)? How can such a small amount of helium be used by RATE as part of their efforts to justify accelerated radioactive decay and the need for a new physics?

2.3.5 Uniformitarianism is Not Out in the Cold

5. In Humphreys et al. (2003b) and his other documents, Dr. Humphreys invokes cryogenic conditions to attack the validity of his “uniformitarian model” (also see my Figure 7). Humphreys (2005a, Figure 16, p. 62) believes that slowing down helium diffusion in the zircons to support his “uniformitarian model” would require an impossible cryogenic temperature of -78°C. More realistic models in Loechelt (2008c) refute Dr. Humphreys’ cryogenic requirement. This absurd temperature is based on an extrapolation of the defect line in Dr. Humphreys’ data (Humphreys et al., 2003b) rather than using the intrinsic curve, the latter of which is more likely to represent diffusion under subsurface conditions (also see my Figure 15 and discussions on the possible origin of Dr. Humphreys’ defect line in Whitefield, 2008).

6. While everyone can agree that cryogenic temperatures are absent on and within the Earth, how are laboratory vacuums any more realistic in terrestrial environments? Why doesn’t Dr. Humphreys test his vacuum-based defect curve and his creation model under more realistic high-pressure conditions (Section 6.2)?

3.0 Erroneous Geology from Dr. Humphreys and His Supporters, and the Consequences

3.2 Misidentification of Fenton Hill Gneisses and the Serious Consequences for Dr. Humphreys

7. Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) states:

How can Dr. Humphreys believe that all of his and R.V. Gentry’s Fenton Hill samples came from the same rock unit (i.e., the “Jemez Granodiorite”) when information in Laughlin (1981), detailed analytical data in Laughlin et al. (1983), and even statements by YEC R. V. Gentry in Gentry et al. (1982a) demonstrate that gneisses and a variety of other metamorphic and igneous rocks occur in the Fenton Hill cores? To be exact, most of the cores are gneisses (Laughlin, 1981, p. 308; Laney et al., 1981, p. 2; and my Figure 9). When faced with this information, how can Humphreys (2005b) claim that his failure to distinguish a gneiss from a granodiorite in the Fenton Hill cores is a “distinction without a difference” when he once openly admitted in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) that any mixing of experimental results from different rock types would be inappropriate for his modeling efforts?

8. What X-ray diffraction, petrographic, or other detailed chemical and mineralogical evidence does Dr. Humphreys have to contradict Laughlin et al. (1983) and other references, and support his claims that he and his colleagues actually sampled a granodiorite from the Fenton Hill cores? Dr. Baumgardner did not reply to this question, but only gave inadequate visual descriptions of the Fenton Hill rocks.

9. In his emails to me, Dr. Baumgardner was only able to provide naked eye descriptions of the Fenton Hill samples. Since when should Dr. Humphreys or anyone else accept naked-eye observations of small core samples as conclusively distinguishing a granodiorite from a granite or even a weakly banded gneiss? Did not Dr. Baumgardner eventually correct Dr. Humphreys at a conference by stating that their samples were actually gneisses? See Feeley (2007).

3.4 Humphreys (2005b) Tries to Trivialize the Misidentification of his Gneisses

10. Humphreys (2005b) makes the following erroneous claim:

”The important point is that, regardless of the name we put on the rock unit [sic, units], the zircons throughout it have been measured to contain essentially the same amounts and ratios of lead isotopes (Gentry et al., 1982b), and therefore have undergone the same amount of nuclear decay.” [my emphasis]

Although the rocks in the Fenton Hill cores have similar radiogenic Pb/Pb ratios and radioactive dates of 1.4-1.5 billion years (Zartman, 1979; Appendix A in Humphreys et al. 2003a), contrary to the claims in the above quotation from Humphreys (2005b), the diverse uranium and thorium data in Table 1 of the very article that Humphreys (2005b) cites (that is, Gentry et al., 1982b) indicate that the amounts of radiogenic lead would often greatly vary in the Fenton Hill zircons, even within different regions of the same zircon. That is, two zircons can have the same radiogenic lead ratios (that is, have the same Pb/Pb dates or have undergone the “same amount of nuclear decay” as Humphreys, 2005b says), but still have very different sizes (a values) and highly variable uranium, thorium and resulting radiogenic lead concentrations (as shown in Gentry et al., 1982b). If two zircons of the same radiometric age have very different a values and uranium, lead and thorium concentrations, then they will probably have very different helium concentrations. So, how would Dr. Humphreys obtain a similar helium diffusion date for these two zircons with the equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a)? (See my Table 6 for numerous examples of the inability of the equations in Humphreys et al., 2003, to provide consistent dates on zircons.)

11. Laboratory and field studies indicate that gneissic banding requires metamorphic conditions of about 600-750°C and minimal pressures of 4-6 kilobars to form (Hyndman, 1985; Winkler, 1979). How did the gneisses in the Fenton Hill cores and their zircons form in only a few thousand years, especially when Dr. Humphreys claims that these rocks were dry (Section 6.1.10)? Even when Humphreys (2012b) finally admitted that at least some of the Fenton Hill rocks had a wet past (Section 8.2.5), how could any amount of water promote extensive metamorphic reactions in only a few thousand years? Dr. Humphreys needs to look at the voluminous references on the geology of the Fenton Hill cores and then really try to squeeze the chemistry of these igneous and metamorphic rocks and their complex structures into his YEC “model.” In the process, Dr. Humphreys must remember that geology and all other sciences allow no cheating (invoking of miracles like Humphreys 2018b) to dismiss inconvenient problems and anti-YEC results. I think that Dr. Humphreys will quickly discover that he has the impossible task of explaining why these numerous metamorphic and igneous Fenton Hill rocks (see my Figure 9) have obviously complex structures and textures that indicate a long history (Laney et al., 1981, Laughlin and Eddy, 1977, Laughlin et al., 1983, Loechelt, 2008c and their references) that refutes young-Earth creationism. Like an old scratched phonograph record or a dented old car, the properties of a metamorphosed rock indicate an extensive and complex history. For example, the development of paragneisses in outcrops and rock cores involves erosion of precursor igneous, sedimentary and/or metamorphic rocks; sediment deposition; deep burial of sediments; at least one metamorphic heating and cooling event; various complex metamorphic reactions; possible faulting and finally uplifting to where geologists can now sample and investigate them.

3.5 More Bad Science: Humphreys et al. Make Up their own Formation Names and Violate the Rules on Naming Rocks

12. When Dr. Humphreys and his friends “named” the “Jemez Granodiorite”, why did they ignore the literature that clearly stated that most of this “granodiorite” actually consists of gneisses (metamorphic rocks) and not granodiorites (intrusive igneous rocks)? (See Laughlin et al., 1983; Laney et al., 1981; Sasada, 1989, Figure 2, p. 258; Burruss and Hollister, 1979 and my Figure 9.)

13. The USGS-AAGS database of accepted US rock names has no record of the “Jemez Granodiorite” existing (accessed June 7, 2010 and April 12, 2020). When Dr. Humphreys and his friends “named” the “Jemez Granodiorite”, why didn’t they follow the required rules for naming a rock unit in the North American Stratigraphic Code? Why didn’t Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues realize that by “inventing” invalid rock names and not following the rules of the North American Stratigraphic Code that they are participating in spreading clutter and confusion in the literature?

14. Humphreys et al. (2003a, their Appendix B, p. 15) and Humphreys (2005b) discuss some results on biotites from the “Beartooth Gneiss.” In Humphreys (2005a), the rock is reclassified as an amphibolite, an entirely different metamorphic rock. Before we can believe his claims about the biotites, we need to have adequately detailed information on the “Beartooth gneiss/amphibolite.” Unfortunately, like the “Jemez Granodiorite”, the USGS database as of April 12, 2020, has no record of this gneiss or amphibolite existing and there is no record of its existence in the peer-reviewed journals listed in the Georef and Web of Science literature databases (accessed June 7, 2010 and March 6, 2020). So, what are the origins of the names of the “Beartooth gneiss/amphibolite”? What criteria were used to originally identify the rock as a gneiss and then later reclassify it as an amphibolite? Because of the gross misidentification of the “Jemez Granodiorite,” how do we even know that Dr. Humphreys’ sources have finally properly identified the “Beartooth” as an amphibolite? Did the naming of the “Beartooth gneiss/amphibolite” follow the required protocols of the North American Stratigraphic Code? If the North American Stratigraphic Code was not followed, how is the “Beartooth gneiss/amphibolite” not just another invalid invention of Dr. Humphreys and his colleagues like the “Jemez Granodiorite”?

3.6 Questionable Sample Processing

15. Why did Dr. Humphreys’ workers grind instead of cut his biotite specimens when Trull and Kurz (1993, p. 1314) and Mussett (1969, p. 298) warn that silicate minerals can lose much of their noble gases through grinding? Why should we accept the helium measurements on the Fenton Hill biotites (Appendix B of Humphreys et al., 2003a) when they have been ground?

16. The experimenter indicates in Appendix B of Humphreys et al. (2003a) that the biotite samples from the Fenton Hill core are impure, which would affect the diffusion results of the minerals. Even if the ICR laboratory personnel managed to successfully separate some biotites from the Fenton Hill samples, why did Dr. Humphreys trust them based on their obviously inadequate mineral separations from the Mt. St. Helens’ sample in Austin (1996)? (See: Henke c. 2001 for specific examples of the faulty mineral separations in Dr. Austin’s work.)

17. Humphreys (2005b) tries to belittle his failures by claiming that the biotite separations are irrelevant. However, if these separations were not important, why did Dr. Humphreys bother having them done and the questionable helium analyses published? It’s also obvious that without these biotite analyses, Dr. Humphreys’ case is weakened even further. For example, sample #6 doesn’t fit into his modeling scheme (Section 5.4.2). So, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 7-9) used their questionable biotite analyses to argue that sample #6 is a “special case” and can be ignored in their models. Also, biotite and its helium diffusion properties have important roles in some of the models described in Humphreys et al. (2003a, especially their Figure 7), in deriving b (which is present in the dating equations of 12-14 and 17 in Humphreys et al., 2003a, Section 4.7), and in Dr. Humphreys’ invalid Lyell uniformitarian claim that current measurements of the diffusion of helium in his Fenton Hill biotites somehow rules out the possibility of extraneous helium contamination (Section 6.1.9).

18. Humphreys (2005b) calls on me to do a better job in separating the biotites from his samples, but why should I do his work for him? Why shouldn’t he strive to do his own work properly?

4.0 Questionable, Absent, and Bad Measurements of Critical Parameters in the Fenton Hill Zircons and Biotites

19. Why didn’t Humphreys et al. (2003a) measure the thorium in their zircons when chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b) indicate that thorium concentrations in the Fenton Hill zircons are highly variable and could be significant sources of radiogenic helium?

4.2 Mysterious Modifications of the Helium (Q) Measurements from Gentry et al. (1982a): More Questions than Answers

20. How and when were the “typographical errors” related to the helium measurements (Q values) in Gentry et al. (1982a) discovered? Were the original laboratory notes consulted to correct the typographical errors? If not, how were they reliably corrected? Were the values corrected independently of any of Dr. Humphreys’ results or were the values “corrected” to comply with Dr. Humphreys’ results? (R. V. Gentry never replied to my emails on this issue.)

4.3 Questionable and Unexplained Origin of R. V. Gentry’s and Humphreys’ Q0

21. If the 30-40% alpha ejection values in Gentry et al. (1982a) are too small and “misstated” as Humphreys (2005b) claims and the Q values in Gentry et al. (1982a) have typographic errors, why should anyone accept the Q/Q0 values or any other data in Gentry et al. (1982a) especially when the chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b) indicate that the Q/Q0 values are often inflated? (See my calculations in Appendix B.) How does Dr. Humphreys know that the 30-40% alpha ejection values in Gentry et al. (1982a) are too small? Why is Dr. Humphreys still willing to trust the Q/Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a) after he’s admitted that almost every other datum in this paper is a “typographic error” or “misstated” number?

22. What justification does Dr. Humphreys have for applying only one Q0 value to all of the zircons from the diverse metamorphic and igneous rocks of the Fenton Hill cores (Figure 9)?

23. How can Humphreys (2005b) maintain that his and R. V. Gentry’s Q0 value of 15 ncc STP/µg is approximately accurate when it’s inconsistent with the chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b)? (See the calculations in my Appendix B, which Dr. Humphreys repeatedly ignores.) The chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b) indicate that the Q0 values for the different Fenton Hill zircons are highly variable and may be as high as 800 ncc STP/µg. Even the three zircons in Appendix A of Humphreys et al. (2003a) have significantly variable uranium concentrations that range from 218 to 612 parts per million, which would yield very different Q0 values.

4.4 Two Wrongs (Q and Q0) Don’t Make a Right (Q/Q0)

24. Humphreys (2005b) claims:

“But after discussing the matter with him [R. V. Gentry], I’m inclined to think that even if he had an error in Q0, the error canceled out when he calculated the ratio Q/Q0, which is the crucial quantity in this analysis.”

What detailed calculations does Dr. Humphreys have to support this claim? Why should any scientist trust Q/Q0 values that rely on serious errors in Q and Q0 just fortuitously canceling out? How can erroneous Q and Q0 values in Gentry et al. (1982a) yield accurate Q/Q0 values? Since when do two wrongs make a right?

25. Because Humphreys (2005b) had no problem immediately correcting his unit of measure error in Table C1 of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 17) (Section 4.5), why is Dr. Humphreys taking so many years to fulfill his commitment in Humphreys (2005b) to provide the calculations on how he and R. V. Gentry obtained a Q0 value of only 15 ncc STP/µg?

26. Why should anyone continue to assume that the Q/Q0 value of sample #1 is 0.58, when chemical analyses on sample #1 zircons in Gentry et al. (1982b) indicate that the value may be as low as 0.011 (see my Appendix B)? Also see my Figure 1.

27. Because the chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b) indicate that the Q/Q0 values in Dr. Humphreys’ documents are often an order of magnitude too high (see my Appendix B), how can Humphreys et al. (2003a, Table 1 on p. 3) and Gentry et al. (1982a) claim that their values are accurate within ± 30%?

28. Considering that the actual uranium and thorium analyses in Table 1 of Gentry et al. (1982b) and the calculations in my Appendix B indicate that Dr. Humphreys’ Q/Q0 values are inflated sometimes by more than an order of magnitude, how can Humphreys (2005b) claim that the data for his zircons are “perfectly consistent” with the chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b)?

29. Why does Dr. Humphreys continue to ignore the important Q/Q0 calculations in my Appendix B and how they affect his “creation date” of 6,000 years (also see Section 7.0)?

4.6 Missing and Questionable a Values

30. As admitted in Humphreys (2005b) and Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 5), why did Dr. Humphreys never bother to have experimenter sort the zircons in the 750-meter (2002) sample by size and have the a values of the zircons measured when accurate values of a are critical in calculating the “dates” with equations 13-14 and 16 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 9-10)? How is Dr. Humphreys practicing good science by taking shortcuts and not carefully measuring all of his parameters?

31. Humphreys (2000, Figure 6, p. 347) predicted an a of 22 microns for the Fenton Hill zircons. Because Humphreys (2005b) admits that his 2002 data set was never sorted, how do Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) know that a for their 2002 samples is 30 microns rather than 22 microns or some other value?

32. What were Dr. Humphreys’ reasons for increasing the estimated a of his Fenton Hill zircons from 22 microns in Humphreys (2000) to 30 microns in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8)? How could this change in a be done without sorting the zircons in the 2002 data set?

4.7 Poorly Defined Average b Value

33. The variable b must be precisely known to obtain “helium diffusion dates” from equations 12-14 and 17 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 9-10). Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) also used b as part of their efforts to justify removing sample #6 from their “creation model.” Dr. Humphreys’ documents only contain one approximation for b, which is an average of ~1000 microns for an unknown number of biotites from the 750-meter (2002) sample (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 8). Because the zircons and biotites of the Fenton Hill cores come from gneisses and a variety of igneous rocks, what justification does Dr. Humphreys have for applying only one poorly defined b value to all of his and R. V. Gentry’s samples from the Fenton Hill cores? Why would anyone expect a b value of a metamorphic biotite to be the same as a b for an igneous biotite? Was the b value ≈ 1000 microns listed in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) simply based on a visual guess rather than a true average of numerous measurements?

34. Humphreys (2005b) replies to my criticisms of his single b value with the following flippant and nonsensical statement:

“However, Henke has the raw data we published, so he can compute the standard deviations for himself.”

Where are these raw data, Dr. Humphreys? Because his papers only contain one average b value (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 8), how can anyone obtain a suitable standard deviation from only one number? Using the proper unbiased equation (see Davis, 1986, p. 33) for calculating standard deviations would lead to division by zero. Also, what justification does Dr. Humphreys have for using the biased standard deviation equation considering that he only sampled a small number of zircons from a large population?

4.8 Missing Data? With Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

35. A closure temperature of 128oC was listed for the 2002 zircons in Humphreys et al. (2003a, Appendix C) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 82). However, why was a closure temperature not reported for the 2003 zircons in Humphreys (2005a)? Did the experimenter calculate a closure temperature for the 2003 helium diffusion data?

5.0 Data Manipulation and Bad Math

5.1 Manipulation of Magomedov (1970) Data in Humphreys et al. (2003a)

36. Magomedov (1970) clearly states that the activation energy of helium in his zircons was 15 kcal/mole:

“Estimates of activation energy of bulk diffusion are 58 kcal/mole for Pb in zircon, and only 15 kcal/mole for He.”

Yet, when Dr. Humphreys changed the diffusion coefficients on Magomedov’s graph from lne to log10 (Figure 5 of Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 6) to comply with his results and the results in Reiners et al. (2002), the activation energy off the intrinsic curve was no longer equal to the results in the abstract of Magomedov (1970), but increased to around 40 kcal/mole (see my Figure 11). How is changing the units of measure on the Magomedov graph justified when Magomedov’s value of 15 kcal/mole indicates that the diffusion coefficients on his graph are indeed lne?

37. Why does Dr. Humphreys believe that the ln values in Magomedov (1970) were actually log base 10, when the lead and other data in the tables of Magomedov (1970) clearly indicate the use of natural logs?

38. Because Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6) says: “Measurements of noble gas diffusion in a given type of naturally occurring mineral often show significant differences from site to site, caused by variations in composition”, why should Humphreys (2005b) expect Magomedov’s data to line up with his and Reiners et al.’s (2002) results? Since when do scientists change data on graphs so that they line up with “everybody else’s zircon data” as advocated by Humphreys (2005b)? Why should we expect helium diffusion in these highly metamict Soviet zircons to comply with “everybody else’s” results as Humphreys (2005b) claims?

39. Would Dr. Humphreys admit that the graphical “solution” in CreationWiki #1 (2011) is implausible and contradicts the approach in Humphreys (2000, p. 347) and the lead diffusion data in Magomedov (1970)?

40. Why did Humphreys et al. (2003) ignore the clear use of natural logs in Magomedov’s equations and lead data, and deliberately manipulate the data from Magomedov (1970) to support his YEC agenda?

41. Because Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) and Humphreys (2002; 2005b) admit that the Magomedov data are “ambiguous”, why didn’t Dr. Humphreys simply omit these data from his papers?

42. Humphreys (2005b) accuses me of being “inconvenienced” by the Magomedov (1970) data. So, how am I inconvenienced by the results in Magomedov (1970)? I fully expect the natural log diffusion results of these highly metamict zircons to be much higher than the results in Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Reiners et al. (2002). As Humphreys (2000, p. 347) admitted, when he combined the parameters of Fenton Hill sample #1 with the natural log helium diffusivity values from Magomedov (1970), he got a ridiculous “creation date” of 23 years. Granted, it’s totally inappropriate for Dr. Humphreys to mix the parameters of zircons from different continents, but it was Dr. Humphreys that had to fudge the Magomedov data so that he would not be inconvenienced with results that do not comply with the diffusion data in his documents and Reiners et al. (2002).

5.2 Dr. Humphreys has Another Log Jam

43. Because Humphreys (2018a, p. 51) admits that helium diffusion results associated with intrinsic curves would involve different mechanisms or pathways than diffusion associated with defect curves, how is he justified in adding the values as described by his equation A on p. 52 (my equation 2)? Also see arguments from Loechelt (2020a, p. 47).

44. Based on the units of measure of helium diffusion (e.g., m2/sec), how is equation D in Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) (my equation 5) justified?

45. How is the addition of natural logs in the derivation of equation E in Humphreys (2018a, p. 52) (my equations 6 through 10) mathematically justified?

5.3 A Factor Here and a Factor There Result in Huge Uncertainties for Dr. Humphreys’ Agenda

46. After invoking all of the “factors of two” and “order of magnitude” discrepancies in numerous situations in Humphreys (2005b; 2006a; 2008b) and Humphreys et al. (2004), what makes Dr. Humphreys think that he’s still within the error bars of his models? Where are Dr. Humphreys’ calculations to support his conclusions that all of these “factors of two”, etc. adjustments are actually trivial and all together add up to nothing? Without any calculations, how does Dr. Humphreys even know that any of these various discrepancies are only a “factor of two or so” or “an order of magnitude”, and not far more serious?

5.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Inconsistent Treatment of Samples 5 and 6 to Support his “Creation Model”

47. How can Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 3-4) justify the use of data from the improperly ground and separated biotites (see questions 15-16) to remove sample #6 from their “creation model”?

5.4.3 Dr. Humphreys Confuses Area and Volume

48. How can Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) say: “...the disk-like (not spherical) volume of biotite the helium enters is more than 1000 (~32 squared) times the volume of the zircon” [my emphasis], when volumes have three dimensions and not two? Because of the consequences of their geometry error, how can Humphreys et al. (2003a) justify removing sample #6 from their “creation model” and keeping sample #5?

49. How can Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) claim that their “hypothesis” of “helium equilibrium” between the zircons and biotites of sample #6 was “supported” when the Vbiotite/Vzircon only equals 0.0095 and not 1000 (~32 squared) as they believe?

5.4.4 Invalid Comparisons in Another Attempt to Eliminate Sample 6

50. How can Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) argue that the helium concentrations of the zircons and biotites in sample 6 are essentially the same on the basis of comparing the amount of helium in the sample 6 zircons (4310 meters depth) with the helium concentration of an impure and ground biotite sample from a different rock type at only 750-meters depth? How can Dr. Humphreys claim that the helium concentrations in the zircons and biotite are in equilibrium when they are separated by nearly 3.6 kilometers? Because the evidence shows that Dr. Humphreys’ comparison between the biotite at 750 meters depth and the zircons of sample 6 at 4310 meters depth is invalid, the calculation of Vbiotite/Vzircon in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) is wrong, and Gentry et al. (1982a, p. 1130) were uncertain about the concentrations and origins of the helium in both their samples 5 and 6 zircons, how can Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 3, 8) justify removing sample 6 from their “creation model” while keeping sample 5?

5.4.5 Peer-Reviewer of this Essay Uncovers Another Error When the “Corrected” Data from Humphreys et al. (2004) are Utilized

51. The correcting of the “typographical errors” in the helium measurements (Q values) of Gentry et al. (1982a) by Dr. Humphreys and R.V Gentry (Humphreys et al. 2004, Table I, p. 3) created a ten-fold difference between the revised helium concentration in the sample 6 zircons and the amount of helium in the biotite at 750 meters depth. Now that this revision has eliminated another one of the arguments in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) for excluding sample 6 from their creation model, is Dr. Humphreys reconsidering the revisions that he and R.V Gentry agreed upon for the helium concentrations of samples 1-6 (Table 3)? Why or why not?

5.4.6 Consequences of Removing Sample 5 to Dr. Humphreys’ 6,000 Year Old “Date”

52. Rather than attempting to defend the removal of sample 6 from his models and his retention of sample 5, Humphreys (2005b) gives another flippant response:

“However, we could dispense with both samples [i.e., samples #5 and #6] entirely with no damage to our case at all. This is just another quibble about an inconsequential issue.”

How can Dr. Humphreys make this claim, when removing sample 5 from his dataset only leaves three samples (2, 3 and 4) in Table III of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8) and these three samples provide an outlandish average “date” of 5,100 ± 5,000 years (2-sigma using the unbiased equation, Davis, 1986, p. 33; Keppel, 1991, p. 43-44, 58)? Because the 2-sigma standard deviation is almost as large as the average, how does Dr. Humphreys have a robust data set?

5.4.7 The Real Issue Beyond the Numbers

53. Why do individuals often find inconsistencies when they attempt to verify the claims and numerical results made by Dr. Humphreys, R.V. Gentry and their coauthors (e.g., Appendix A and Section 5.4.5)?

5.5 Questionable Standard Deviations in Humphreys et al. (2004)

54. What justification does Humphreys et al. (2004, Table III, p. 8) have for using a biased rather than an unbiased standard deviation?

55. Applying the proper unbiased equation and two standard deviations to the results in Table III of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 8) yields a ridiculous “creation date” of 6,000 ± 4,600 years. How is a date that allows for the creation of the Earth as late as 600 AD tolerable?

56. Why does Dr. Humphreys use one standard deviation on some of his calculations and two on others? For example, Figure 13 in Humphreys (2005a, p. 55) uses two standard deviations, which helps to overlap the diffusion data with his YEC model. However, the E0 value from Humphreys (2005a, p. 40) has only one standard deviation.

6.0 Complications Neglected or Inadequately Addressed by Dr. Humphreys

6.1 The Possibility of Extraneous Helium and Dr. Humphreys’ Invalid Lyell Uniformitarianism

57. Why does Humphreys (2005b) consider the possibility that his zircons were contaminated with extraneous helium to be a “pure conjecture”, “improbable coincidences” and “short of credibility”, while his opponents would describe extraneous helium contamination as possible, but that Figure 2 in Humphreys (2005b) and his “scientific evidence” of accelerated radioactive decay are “pure conjecture”, “improbable”, “magical fantasies”, and “short of credibility”? Is not my extraneous helium hypothesis, as described in Section 6.1.3, more probable and testable than Dr. Humphreys’ miraculous claims? Why doesn’t Dr. Humphreys listen to his fellow YECs Froede (2012, pp. 37-38) and Froede and Akridge (2013a, pp. 326-327) when they also warn him about the possible presence of extraneous helium and argon at Fenton Hill and that the gases could come from the mantle and produce false dates for YECs as much as for uniformitarians?

6.1.5 Important Comments from R. V. Gentry about Helium Sources

58. Because Gentry et al. (1982a) admits that the helium in their samples 5 and 6 may not be radiogenic but “derived from some other sources”, why shouldn’t Dr. Humphreys look for the possibility of extraneous helium in his zircons?

6.1.7 Dr. Humphreys’ Proposed Field Studies are Unnecessary and his Magmas aren’t Needed to Produce Extraneous Helium

59. Why does Humphreys (2005b) believe that helium contamination of the Fenton Hill rocks would require “magmatic fluids” and in particular “basaltic magmatic fluids” when uranium deposits have already been identified in the Fenton Hill cores (West and Laughlin, 1976, p. 618), which could locally produce extensive extraneous helium? Furthermore, fractures produced from orogenies could allow extraneous helium to enter the Fenton Hill rocks not only from deep degassing magmas, but also from massive and solid portions of the mantle (Goff and Gardner, 1994, p. 1816).

60. Why does Humphreys (2005b) want me to perform a series of superfluous field studies to look for extraneous helium at Fenton Hill when the possibility of extraneous helium could be easily tested if he would simply look for 3He in his zircons and 4He in surrounding low-uranium/thorium quartz grains (Section 6.1.3)? If I did any field work, what guarantee do I have that Dr. Humphreys wouldn’t simply invoke more miracles or other untenable excuses to dismiss any of my field results that he doesn’t like just as he did with the U/Pb dates of his own zircons in Appendix A of Humphreys et al. (2003a), the helium results in Magomedov (1970), or the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c)?

6.1.8 Extraneous Helium Identified in Nearby Valles Caldera

61. Extraneous helium currently exists in the Valles Caldera only 8 or so kilometers from Fenton Hill (Smith and Kennedy 1985; Truesdell and Janik 1986). Since helium has already traveled from deep in the Earth to the Valles Caldera, why couldn’t the helium travel a few extra kilometers to contaminate the Fenton Hill samples? The helium could have easily traveled with the other fluids that contaminated the Fenton Hill cores as described in Sasada (1989).

6.1.9 Dr. Humphreys’ Invalid Lyell Uniformitarianism

62. I proposed a hypothesis on how extraneous helium could have contaminated the Fenton Hill rocks in the past and how the extraneous helium could still be in the relatively impermeable zircons, but not in the surrounding permeable biotites. Rather than trying to understand this hypothesis, Humphreys (2005b) just repeats his same old Lyell uniformitarian mantra, which states that because his ground biotites from one section of the Fenton Hill cores currently have very little helium, they could never have had any more helium in them in the past:

“First, if the helium in the zircons were ‘excess’ and came from outside them, it would have had to come through the biotite. As I pointed out on p. 9 of CRSQ 2004, the helium concentration in the biotite is two hundred times lower than the concentration in the zircon. That means, according to the laws of diffusion, that the helium is presently leaking out of the zircons into the biotite, not the other way around. Also, as I pointed out, the total amount of helium in the biotite is roughly the same as the helium lost from the zircon.”

Dr. Humphreys, do you now realize how you’re making invalid Lyell uniformitarian assumptions about the past helium concentrations in the Fenton Hill biotites?

6.1.10 Evidence of Past Fluids in the Fenton Hill Rocks Refutes Dr. Humphreys’ Dry Lyell Uniformitarian Claims

63. How can Dr. Humphreys in Humphreys et al. (2003a) and Humphreys (2005b) dismiss the importance of fluids in altering the rocks of the Fenton Hill cores in the past and possibly affecting their helium concentrations when Laney et al. (1981), Laughlin and Eddy (1977, p. 28), Sasada (1989), and other references indicate that at least some of the Precambrian rocks were more permeable and contained fluids in the past? How did the extensive hydrothermal (i.e., “hot water”) alterations and hydrothermal minerals identified by Laney et al. (1981) and Laughlin and Eddy (1977, p. 28) form in these rocks if Dr. Humphreys thinks that they were dry?

64. How does the presence of abundant fluid-altered minerals and grains in the Fenton Hill cores support the undocumented proclamation in Humphreys (2005b) that fluids could not have traveled very far in the Fenton Hill Precambrian rocks because “the interface widths between minerals would be microscopic, perhaps only an Ångström (the diameter of a hydrogen atom) or so”? Where did Dr. Humphreys find the evidence of the no more than one Ångström wide interface widths in the Fenton Hill cores?

6.2 Subsurface Pressure Effects on Zircons and Other “Hard” Silicates

6.2.1 Dr. Humphreys Fails to Consider Pressure Effects on Helium Diffusion in Zircons

65. Why is Dr. Humphreys convinced that his defect curve (see my Figure 5), which was produced from bare zircons in a laboratory vacuum (less than 1 × 10-7 torr or less than 1.3 x 10-10 bar), would accurately represent the diffusion of helium at 200 to 1,200 bars in the subsurface of Fenton Hill? This represents a pressure difference of at least 12 orders of magnitude.

66. What scientific evidence does Dr. Humphreys have that allows him to confidently proclaim that fractures and other defects in the Fenton Hill zircons would not significantly seal under subsurface pressures and at least slow down helium diffusion along his defect curve? Why isn’t Figure 6 in Humphreys (2005a, p. 36) reversible, where defects would tend to close and become fewer with increasing pressure?

6.2.5 Humphreys (2006a) Cites Inconsequential Articles and Relies on an Irrelevant Curve in Carroll (1991)

67. How are Carroll (1991) and other references cited by Humphreys (2006a), which involve high-temperature INTRINSIC curves of glasses and minerals, relevant to the DEFECT curve of Dr. Humphreys’ zircons?

6.2.6 The Information in Dunai and Roselieb (1996) that Dr. Humphreys Wouldn’t Want You to See: High Pressure Experiments Indicate that Helium in “Hard” Garnets Takes 10,000,000s to 100,000,000s of Years to Diffuse Even at Temperatures as High as 700oC

68. When Humphreys (2006a) proclaims that zircons are “too hard” to be affected by high pressures, why does he repeatedly ignore the conclusions in Dunai and Roselieb (1996)? Dunai and Roselieb (1996) state that at high pressures of 250 bars and at temperatures up to 700oC, helium would take tens to hundreds of millions of years just to partially diffuse out of garnets, which are “hard” silicates like zircons? Why doesn’t Dr. Humphreys perform these types of high-pressure experiments to determine whether or not helium also diffuses slowly from zircons under 200-1,200 bars pressure? I mentioned Dunai and Roselieb (1996) in earlier versions of this essay, so Dr. Humphreys should have known about this study for at least 10 years.

7.0 Flaws in Dr. Humphreys’ Dating Equations and Superior Uniformitarian Alternatives

7.1 Entering More Realistic a, b, D and Q/Q0 Values into Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations Fail to Support his YEC Agenda

7.1.1 Introduction: How Realistic are Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations?

69. Equations are available that deal with the anisotropic diffusion of noble gases in solids (e.g., McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 141). Why did Dr. Humphreys not use these more accurate equations with his zircons rather than improperly assuming that they and his biotites were isotropic? Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 15) claims that assuming anisotropy for his zircons would only alter his results “by less than a factor of two.” Why didn’t Dr. Humphreys show us his math to back up this claim?

70. What calculations does Dr. Humphreys have to claim that assuming isotropy for his zircons and biotites would only lengthen the helium diffusion time by no more than 30% (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 9)?

71. Considering the pronounced cleavage planes in biotite, why would Figure 7 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 8) even be a reasonable approximation?

7.1.3 Helium Diffusion “Dates” from Entering a, b, D and Q/Q0 Values from 2010 into Dr. Humphreys’ “Dating” Equations

72. What evidence does Dr. Humphreys have that his equations and a proper use of standard deviations actually yield a helium diffusion date of 6,000 +/- 2,000 years old rather than the ridiculous date of 90,000 +/- 500,000 years (2 unbiased standard deviations) based on the use of more reasonable, available values for a, b, and Q/Q0 with his dating equations (my Table 6)?

73. It’s important to scrutinize all claims whether they are in Henke (2010), Loechelt (2008c), or Humphreys (2005a), but why doesn’t Dr. Humphreys and his allies scrutinize his work and the Bible to the extent that they do radiometric dating and other aspects of uniformitarianism?

7.2. More Realistic Helium Diffusion Models in Loechelt (2008c) Support an Ancient Earth and Refute Young-Earth Creationism

74. What evidence does Dr. Humphreys have that the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c), including the information in my Figure 1, is inadequate and that his YEC model is better?

7.3 Helium Diffusion Results in Wolfe and Stockli (2010) and Other Peer-Reviewed Papers Fail to Support Dr. Humphreys’ YEC Agenda

75. Why do the results from Wolfe and Stockli (2010) support an ancient Earth and fail to support Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model?

7.4 Dr. Humphreys’ Overreliance on his Pretty Figure

76. Considering the uncertainties associated with Dr. Humphreys’ a, b, and Q/Q0 values (see the other questions in this appendix and Section 4.0), why couldn’t the alignment between the “creation model” and the defect curve in Figure 2 of Humphreys (2005b) be nothing more than a fluke or an inappropriate manipulation as indicated by Loechelt (2008c; 2009a)?

7.5 Dr. Humphreys’ 1990s “Prediction” of Helium Diffusion in Zircons

77. How can Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) claim to have successfully predicted the diffusion of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons in Humphreys (2000), when Loechelt (2009a, pp. 5-7) demonstrates that the only predictions that were made in Humphreys (2000) are in Figures 6 and 7, and neither of these figures made any correct predictions about the diffusion of helium in the Fenton Hill zircons? Figure 6 of Humphreys (2000) shows the unmanipulated Magomedov zircon data. As shown in my Figure 11, the diffusivity values in the unmanipulated Magomedov data are at least five orders of magnitude too high for the results in Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004). Because of this discrepancy, Humphreys et al. (2003a, pp. 5-6) unjustly manipulated the Magomedov (1970) data to coincide with his results (Section 5.1). Also, how is Figure 7 of Humphreys (2000) a successful prediction when Loechelt (2009a, pp. 5-7) points out that it is an unsuccessful prediction of helium diffusion in biotite (see my Figure 17)? Where are the successful predictions in Humphreys (2000) that Humphreys (2018a, p. 55) claims?

8.0 Some Hot Issues

8.1 The Real Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface that Dr. Humphreys’ “Acts of Generosity” Can’t Dismiss

8.1.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Unrealistic “Generous Offer”

78. How can Dr. Humphreys assume that temperatures have been constant over time in the Fenton Hill cores when that assumption is refuted by Harrison et al. (1986), Sasada (1989), and the detailed discussions in Loechelt (2008c; 2010; 2012; 2020b)? Why should any scientist accept Dr. Humphreys’ known false and unjustified assumptions of constant temperatures as an “act of generosity” to the “uniformitarians”? Why doesn’t Dr. Humphreys realize that scientists are interested in accuracy and not in any unrealistic “acts of generosity” from him?

8.1.3 Dr. Loechelt Studies the Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface in Greater Detail

79. After 2008, why didn’t Dr. Humphreys consider using the thermal history for the Fenton Hill cores presented in Loechelt (2008c) or a modification of it as a more realistic alternative for his uniformitarian model rather than just assuming a totally unrealistic constant thermal history to be “generous” to the uniformitarians?

8.1.4 Dr. Humphreys Admits to Reading a Graph Backwards

80. To his credit, Humphreys (2010b, pp. 35, 36) graciously admitted that he read Figure 9 in Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1906) backwards. On a related issue, why does Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) accuse Dr. Loechelt and Harrison et al. (1986) of claiming that the subsurface temperature at around 3 kilometers depth at Fenton Hill was only 87oC for most of the past 1.5 billion years when Figure 3 in Loechelt (2008c, p. 8) (my Figure 18) clearly does not support this accusation?

8.2 Further Debates between Dr. Humphreys and Dr. Loechelt over the Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Subsurface

8.2.1 Overview

81. How are Dr. Humphreys’ feelings about the supposed inability of tiny zircons in the deep subsurface to retain helium for millions or billions of years in Humphreys (2010b, p. 35) relevant when the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c), Wolfe and Stockli (2010) and other information in this essay demonstrate that tiny zircons can retain helium under those conditions?

8.2.2 Dr. Humphreys Repeatedly Cites Bad Modeling Results and Outdated Information from Kolstad and McGetchin (1978)

82. Why did Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 10) and Humphreys (2005a, p. 52) cite the 8 km radius model from Kolstad and McGetchin (1978, their Figure 11) when the authors admitted on pp. 213-214 that their model temperatures were a poor match with the current temperatures of 197oC at a depth of 3 kilometers at Fenton Hill? Considering the problems with the 8-km radius model from Kolstad and McGetchin (1978), why was Humphreys (2010b, pp. 36-37) at all surprised when Harrison et al. (1986) ignored this inaccurate model?

83. Why does Dr. Humphreys as late as Humphreys (2018a, pp. 53-54) continue to cite models from Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) when Harrison et al. (1986) and Loechelt (2008c, pp. 9-10; 2012) demonstrated that the models in Kolstad and McGetchin (1978) were invalidated by later research?

8.2.4 More Problems for Dr. Humphreys from Sasada (1989) with Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

84. How can Humphreys (2010b, p. 37) claim that there is no way knowing whether the minimum temperature of 152oC in the 2.6 km sample from Sasada (1989) occurred before or after the temperature maximum of 230oC when Sasada (1989) using cross-cutting relationships involving host minerals and fluid inclusions in the core samples conclusively determined that the temperature minimum of 152oC occurred after the temperature maximum of 230oC (my Figure 13; Loechelt 2018a, p. 54)?

8.2.5 Humphreys (2012b) Finally Gets into Hot Water with Additional Comments from Dr. Loechelt

85. Based on the discussions in Loechelt (2020b), does Dr. Humphreys think that the Fenton Hill zircons formed during the Creation Week, Noah’s Flood, or after the Flood? Why?

86. Harrison et al. (1986) did not ignore volcanism at Fenton Hill, but they and Loechelt (2012) argue that the recent heating at Fenton Hill was due to hydrothermal solutions and not volcanism. Why did Humphreys (2005b; 2010b; 2011; 2018a, pp. 53-54) ignore the hydrothermal solutions that were obviously present in the subsurface of Fenton Hill in the past (Loechelt 2012, pp. 46-47; Sasada 1989)?

87. If hydrothermal waters must be associated with volcanism as Humphreys (2012b, p. 49) indicates, why is Old Faithful at Yellowstone National Park still active when there have been no significant volcanic eruptions in recent times?

8.2.6 Humphreys (2010b; 2012b; 2018a) Summarizes his Flawed Uniformitarian Thermal Model

88. How is Humphreys (2010b; 2018a, p. 54) “eye balling” the size, depth and temperature of the Valles Caldera pluton justified when Loechelt (2012, pp. 45-46) cites detailed studies that demonstrate that the speculations in Humphreys (2010b; 2018a, p. 54) are unrealistic? Where are Dr. Humphreys’ calculations to back up his speculations?

89. Why does the uniformitarian model endorsed by Humphreys (2010b) ignore the subsurface thermal events at 870 and 1030 million years that were identified by Harrison et al. (1986) and discussed by Loechelt (2008c)?

8.2.7 Three Invalid and Unnecessary Uniformitarian Thermal Models in Humphreys (2010b; 2018a)

90. Why didn’t Humphreys (2010b, pp. 37-38) include the far more realistic Loechelt (2008c) model on his list of possible uniformitarian models?

91. Considering all of the problems associated with the data in Gentry et al. (1982a) (Section 4.0; Appendices A and B), why should anyone believe that Fenton Hill sample 3 actually has a Q/Q0 value of 17% (e.g., Humphreys 2010b, p. 38)?

92. Even after the copying errors are corrected for the temperature and observed helium retention (Q/Q0) values in Table 2 of Humphreys (2018a, p. 54), how can Dr. Humphreys’ claim that his uniformitarian model is more realistic than the uniformitarian model of Loechelt (2008c)? What diffusivity values did Dr. Humphreys use in his model to obtain the uniformitarian Q/Q0 values in Table 2?

8.2.8 Argon Diffusion Confirms Dr. Humphreys’ 6,000 Year Old Earth? Not so Fast!

93. Harrison et al. (1986, pp. 1902, 1905) argues that a recent thermal event was responsible for their argon diffusion date of 3,000 to 60,000 years. What justification does Humphreys (2011) have for arguing that his poorly defined date of 5,100 +3,800 -2,100 years is consistent with the age of the Earth?

8.2.9 Uniformitarian Models in Harrison et al. (1986) Work Better than the Young-Earth Model in Humphreys (2011)

94. What evidence does Dr. Humphreys have to oppose the 24,000 year old pluton model in Harrison et al. (1986, p. 1906) and how it coincides with the loss of argon in the Fenton Hill feldspar samples?

8.3 Accelerated Radioactive Decay: Controversy among YECs and the Heat Problem

8.3.1 The Accelerated Radioactive Decay Controversy among YECs

95. Does Dr. Humphreys agree with the following statement by YECs Froede and Akridge (2013a, p. 330):

“Much of the ‘evidence’ in support of accelerated nuclear decay depends on the miraculous, which is not science.”

Why or Why not?

96. Snelling (2015) admits that he found no evidence of accelerated radioactive decay in meteorites and he thinks that accelerated radioactive decay was limited to 600 million years’ worth during Noah’s Flood and only on the Earth. Does Dr. Humphreys agree with this conclusion? Is there an explanation for why the Earth supposedly had separate physics from the rest of the Universe in the recent past? How and when did the Fenton Hill zircons receive 900 million or so additional years of accelerated radioactive decay beyond the 600 million years proposed by Snelling (2015)? What is the evidence for at least two separate accelerated radioactive decay events?

8.3.3 Humphreys (2018b) Proposes a New “Physics” to Solve the Heat Problem

8.3.3.1 Background

97. How is the “new physics” in Humphreys (2018b) anything more than an ad hoc explanation to ultimately defend YEC interpretations of Genesis 1?

98. Even if extra dimensions or hyperspace can be shown to exist, how does Humphreys (2018b) demonstrate that they actually caused accelerated radioactive decay and cooling?

99. Loechelt in slide #12 of Loechelt and Henke (2018) claims that the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) solved the helium in zircons issue at Fenton Hill without resorting to ad hoc miracles to prop up his model. How is Dr. Humphreys’ YEC model that depends on unproven and unscientific miracles (e.g., Humphreys 2020, p. 54; 2018b, p. 736) a better model than what Loechelt (2008c) offers (also see my Figure 1)?

8.3.3.2 The Biblical Interpretations in Humphreys (2018b) are Highly Questionable

100. Certainly, the ancient Israelites, Egyptians, and other ancient Middle-Eastern cultures believed that outer space was a physical material, but what evidence does Dr. Humphreys have that this belief was inspired by God or has any relationship with modern physics?

101. How is the “scientific” and “biblical” evidence for accelerated radioactive decay and cooling any better than the “scientific” and “biblical” evidence that many YECs once used to defend the Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy (also Section 13.1)?

102. What scriptures indicate that Martin Luther’s biblical view of the Universe (Figure 23) is wrong?

103. Would Dr. Humphreys agree that the correct way to interpret a Bible verse is to study the meaning of the original language, determine the cultural context of the verse through history and archeology, and avoid placing our 21st century biases into interpreting the verse? Why or Why not?

8.3.3.3 Some Technical Problems and Inconsistencies with the Accelerated Radioactive Decay and Cooling Mechanisms in Humphreys (2018b)

104. Humphreys (2020, p. 54) states:

Humphreys (2018b, p. 736) also states that divine miracles were involved in accelerated radioactive decay and cooling. If God was ultimately using miracles to maintain the proper accelerated heating and cooling, why involve physics at all? Instead of speculating on a new physics in Humphreys (2018b), why not just say that God did all of it with miracles and quit there?

105. According to Humphreys (2018b, p. 736), 500 million years’ worth of radioactive decay occurred during the year of Noah’s Flood. How did Noah and other organisms during the Flood survive the radiation and heat from the accelerated radioactive decay of the trace amounts of naturally occurring radionuclides that would have been in their bodies? If Noah had about the same amount of radionuclides in his body as a typical 70 kg modern human, about 150,000,000 mSv/Flood year from accelerated radioactive decay would have been quite deadly to Noah. Other pre-Flood biological organisms would also have been exposed to dangerous radiation in their bodies. Dr. Humphreys obviously would want the alpha radiation (helium nuclei) to stay in our dimension and accumulate in zircons. However, what evidence does he really have that the deadly beta and gamma radiation would harmlessly disappear into a different dimension? If Dr. Humphreys wants to argue, like Stenberg (2012b, p. 68), that Noah and other pre-Fall organisms did not have any trace amounts of radionuclides, what evidence would he have for that claim? Where is the evidence of any pre-Flood (Precambrian) rocks where all radionuclides are totally absent? How could Dr. Humphreys zircons date back 6,000 years to the Creation Week without radionuclides in the crust and unavoidably in the overlying surface environments?

9.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Misuse of Science, Misinterpretation of the Bible, and the Questionable Ethics of RATE

9.1 Dr. Humphreys Misunderstands and Misuses Science

106. Humphreys (2005b) refers to my objections of his invoking of “God did it!” (i.e., the supposed “accelerated” radioactive decay event[s]) as a matter of “taste.” In reality, my objections are based on using the scientific method and the Method of the Multiple Working Hypotheses. Since when are the rules of the scientific method and the Method of the Multiple Working Hypotheses based on matters of taste? Since when do the rules of the scientific method allow Dr. Humphreys to invoke miracles (i.e., accelerated radioactive decay) to eliminate scientific results (e.g., U/Pb dates) and questions that he doesn’t like (Section 8.3)? Professions have rules for good reasons, but Dr. Humphreys feels that he has a privilege to ignore them (e.g., Section 3.5 and questions #12-14). Aren’t individuals supposed to be ethical and play by the rules established by members of their professions?

107. How is “accelerated radioactive decay” not just another example of Omphalos and “god-of-the-gaps” fallacies?

108. As discussed in this essay and its references, Dr. Humphreys generated “dates” from equations based on obviously false assumptions (constant temperatures over time, isotropic diffusion in biotites and zircons, etc.) and flawed and incomplete data, and then used his Bible and “god of the gaps” to support the invalid results. In detail, how does Dr. Humphreys defend the methodology of his dating methods and justify them? Just pointing to his pretty diagram (e.g., Figure 2 in Humphreys 2005b; my Figure 5), as he often does, will not do (Section 7.4). Desirable results are not valid when the methodology to obtain those results is flawed.

109. Since when has invoking “God did it!” provided a satisfactory explanation for the origin of lightning, hail storms, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, or any other meteorological or geological events? Since when has the invoking of miracles ever been tolerated in a court room, medical school, research laboratory, or anywhere else outside of a religious forum? If psychologists don’t blame demons for causing manic depression, car mechanics don’t blame gremlins for engine problems, and forensics scientists don’t blame witchcraft for unwitnessed crimes, what makes Dr. Humphreys believe that geologists should use the supernatural to explain the origin of a rock?

110. When dealing with the past, how does Dr. Humphreys distinguish between a miracle and a natural event?

111. What evidence would geologists have to present to Dr. Humphreys before he would be willing to admit that the Earth is ancient and that his biblical interpretations are just plain wrong? If no amount of evidence would do, is not Dr. Humphreys dogmatic? How can anyone that is dogmatic successfully perform the scientific method? In contrast, YECs only need to produce the remains of an in-situ Precambrian (“pre-Flood”) human village with dinosaurs or in-place mammal remains (bears, squirrels, whales, or bats, etc.) in Cambrian rocks to falsify biological evolution.

112. Because miracles by definition don’t obey the laws of chemistry and physics, what keeps individuals from invoking miracles with their subjective imaginations to explain away any natural phenomenon that conflicts with their religious or political agenda? How can miracles be falsified since additional miracles can always be invoked by “psychics” or anyone else to explain away failures? How is Dr. Humphreys’ invoking of accelerated radioactive decay falsifiable? In contrast, my proposed experiments (such as looking for 3He in zircons) are testable (Section 6.1.3).

113. How are individuals giving up on scientific investigations and invoking miracles via god-of-the-gaps morally equivalent to scientists admitting that they don’t understand a lot about the origin of the Big Bang and the origin of life, but that they are too early in their research to give up on searching for answers that comply with the laws of chemistry and physics? Why should YECs invoke god-of-the-gaps when the research possibilities using natural explanations are not even close to being exhausted?

114. Why does Dr. Humphreys scoff at my hypotheses that his “dating” results could be undermined by extraneous helium, high uranium and inflated Q/Q0 values, and pressure effects on his defect curve, when, unlike his magical “accelerated radioactive decay event(s)”, my hypotheses are testable and falsifiable with the scientific method?

115. Since when is it acceptable for any scientist to allow the Bible, Koran, Humanist Manifesto, or any other religious or political document to dictate their scientific results?

116. Why did the RATE committee hire a Hebrew language scholar to make sure that their results “stay on course” (Morris, 2000, p. viii)? Since when do real research centers and committees allow their results to be screened by a religious or political commissar?

9.2 A “Burden of Disproof”? That’s Not How Science Works Dr. Humphreys

117. Where in the scientific method is the concept of a “burden of disproof” endorsed? Because negative hypotheses are difficult to evaluate, why shouldn’t Dr. Humphreys have the obligation to provide the extraordinary evidence that is required for the highly speculative concept of accelerated radioactive decay? Why isn’t the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c) and the numerous problems in Dr. Humphreys’ efforts mentioned in this essay and elsewhere in the literature more than enough to question his claims?

9.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Actions are Religious and not Scientific

118. In the following quotation from Humphreys (2005b), Dr. Humphreys tries to play down his religious agenda by claiming that he only spent a few paragraphs in his documents arguing that God miraculously altered radioactive decay rates:

“The main subject of my articles is the experimental data, and I offered only a few paragraphs about our hypothesis simply to explain what we think really happened.”

If this is true, why is it that countless fundamentalist Christian Internet sites are more interested in how accelerated radioactive decay and his 6,000 +/- 2,000 year old “date” support Genesis and evangelism rather than his long lists of diffusion measurements and other experimental results? The YEC public is more interested in the few paragraphs that give the bottom line and not the experimental results supposedly supporting the agenda.

119. Why hasn’t Dr. Humphreys ever published a full article of his work in an authentic secular peer-reviewed science journal under the scrutiny of world experts on gas diffusion in solids rather than YEC magazines and pamphlets that are willing to accept just about any groundless fantasy and speculation as long as it seems to support their biblical agenda? If Gentry et al. (1982a) with all of its vague calculations got published in a secular peer-reviewed journal, why couldn’t Dr. Humphreys get some of his work published?

9.4 Second Peter 3:4: Often Misinterpreted by Dr. Humphreys and Other YECs (also Appendix D)

120. Many of the Church Fathers thought that 2 Peter was a forgery. For example, Origen had doubts about its authenticity. Eusebius (263-339 AD) put 2 Peter on his list of “disputed” New Testament books. Textual and other historical evidence further supports 2 Peter as a forgery just like 3 Peter and 4 Peter (Appendix D). So, why does Dr. Humphreys think that 2 Peter is a legitimate letter from the apostle Peter? Where is his evidence of the authenticity of 2 Peter when forgeries were so common in the 1st and 2nd century AD? If we are to believe 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3; 3:17, this letter indicates that someone was even forging letters in Paul’s name while he was still alive. Could someone have forged letters in Peter’s name? Does Dr. Humphreys think that 3 Peter and 4 Peter are also legitimate letters from the apostle? Why or why not? If God tolerated the Koran and the Book of Mormon being written in his name, why couldn’t he have tolerated forgeries in the Bible? Considering that Muslims have their scriptural canon, the Jews theirs, Mormons theirs, and Roman Catholics a different canon, what evidence does Dr. Humphreys have that the Protestant canon is the word of God and all other competing canons are wrong?

121. Dr. Humphreys and other YECs really need to look at the context of 2 Peter 3:3-7. How can 2 Peter 3:3-7 be a “prophecy” against uniformitarianism when many uniformitarians are Christian and would not deny the Second Coming of Christ? Why would atheist uniformitarians, even atheists of Jewish heritage, ever refer to the mythical Old Testament Patriarchs as their actual ancestors (“fathers”) or the Genesis Creation as if it were real? Also see Appendix D.

122. How can Humphreys (2005b) group those that identify 2 Peter as a forgery with “liberal higher critics” that deny the Virgin Birth, when Roman Catholic theologians that are in favor of the Virgin Birth to the extreme often admit that 2 Peter is a forgery (e.g. The New Jerusalem Bible, p. 1995)?

9.5 Ethical Questions Dealing with the Zodiac Minerals and Manufacturing Front Company

123. If the Zodiac Minerals and Manufacturing Company was an authentic company, what did it mine and manufacture? How was the use of the Zodiac Minerals and Manufacturing front company ethical when it so offended the experimenter?

10.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Empty Challenges for Laboratory and Peer-Review from His Opponents

10.1 Although it’s Not the Responsibility of Dr. Humphreys’ Critics to Do His Laboratory Work for Him, Dr. Humphreys’ Critics have Corrected Many of His Mistakes

124. Why should any of Dr. Humphreys opponents spend any more time and money than they already have correcting his mistakes? Why doesn’t Dr. Humphreys correct his own mistakes and perform the necessary high-pressure studies and actually deal with the uniformitarian model in Loechelt (2008c)?

125. Wolfe and Stockli (2010) performed the field and laboratory research that Humphreys (2006a; 2012b) demanded of his opponents. After a decade, why doesn’t Dr. Humphreys finally respond to the results in Wolfe and Stockli (2010) and why their results contradict his YEC model?

10.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Inappropriate Challenges for Peer-Review, Which Dr. Loechelt and Me Have Already Done

10.2.1 Peer-Reviewing of this Essay. Talkorigins is Popular and Mainstream

126. A summary of this essay was published as Henke (2010). But, why should I publish my criticisms in another journal article, when Talkorigins has no page limits, peer reviews, and is probably more widely read than the Creation Research Society Quarterly and most scientific journals?

10.2.2 Peer-Reviewing of Dr. Loechelt’s Articles

127. Why didn’t Humphreys (2012b, pp. 48-49) have the courage to identify the journal that declined to publish Loechelt (2008c)? Was it the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)? If so, why didn’t Humphreys (2012b) simply state that Dr. Loechelt failed to get his paper in the CRSQ? Loechelt (2008c) was subsequently peer-reviewed by two physicists, including one that has actually published peer-reviewed articles on helium diffusion. Also, cannot internet sites have legitimate peer-review? Why or why not? Is Dr. Humphreys now willing to admit that his opponents have peer-reviewed publications against his work? Why or why not?

10.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Poor Record on Peer-Review and the Phony Peer-Review System at the Creation Research Society Quarterly

10.3.1 Dr. Humphreys’ Peer-Review Record

128. What moral authority does Dr. Humphreys have to call on me to publish my criticisms as an article in a mainstream scientific journal, when he has never done it? How can a brief abstract in EOS (i.e., Humphreys et al., 2003b) and articles in YEC publications count as authentic peer review? If Dr. Humphreys’ work was really peer-reviewed, why do others and I keep finding numerous math errors, illogical and flippant claims, and cases of improper use of the literature in his work?

129. Did Dr. Humphreys attempt to get his helium diffusion work published in a secular science peer-reviewed journal?

10.3.2 Peer-Review Issues Related to Humphreys et al. (2004)

130. How can Humphreys et al. (2004) count as a “peer-reviewed” article when the CRSQ refused to publish statements from Dr. Humphreys’ critic (referred to in the appendix of the article)? Why didn’t Dr. Humphreys properly reference or identify his critic’s source? How can readers properly evaluate the responses in Humphreys et al. (2004) when they cannot see the original criticism?

131. Why was a summary of the key findings of Humphreys et al. (2004) previously published in the ICR evangelism flier, Humphreys (2003)? There is no indication in Humphreys (2003) that Humphreys et al. (2004) had been peer-reviewed and was in-press. Instead, Humphreys (2003, footnote #13, p. iv) simply mentions that a technical paper is “to be submitted to the Creation Research Society” (future tense) summarizing their results, presumably this was Humphreys et al. (2004). What author publishes a summary of the key findings of his “research” in a layperson’s Sunday school publication before it’s published by a “peer-reviewed science journal”? What’s the point of “peer reviewing” the conclusions in Humphreys et al. (2004) when they’ve already been published in Humphreys (2003)? What would the ICR and Dr. Humphreys have done about Humphreys (2003) if the peer-reviewers of Humphreys et al. (2004) had come to the realization that Dr. Humphreys’ conclusions were flawed and unjustified, and should not be published?

132. Although Humphreys (2010a, p. 14) mentions that 17 reviewers and editors were involved in the RATE program, exactly how many of these individuals actually peer-reviewed Humphreys et al. (2003a; 2004) and Humphreys (2005a)? What were their qualifications? To verify that Dr. Humphreys’ friends are not inappropriately biased in favor of his article submissions, I would like to know that answers to the following questions:

11.0 Dr. Humphreys’ Personal Attacks

11.1 Ad Hominem Fallacies, What They Are, and Who’s Using Them

133. What justification does Humphreys (2010a, p. 14) have for referring to his opponents as “the dogs of war”?

11.2 Dr. Humphreys’ Personal Attacks on Me: The Failure of his Biblical Pop Psychology

134. What justification does Dr. Humphreys (2005b) for attacking my character and former Christian beliefs when he has never met me?

135. What justification does Humphreys (2005b) have when he thinks that he can know my motives and judge me by reading a brief book review at Amazon.com and using the Bible as a crystal ball?

136. What expertise in psychology does Dr. Humphreys have?

11.3 Dr. Humphreys’ Attacks on Dr. Loechelt’s Motives with a Further Response from Dr. Loechelt

137. What justification does Humphreys (2012b) have for judging the motives of Dr. Loechelt? Did he know Dr. Loechelt back in 2012?

138. Why can’t Humphreys (2005b; 2012b) just accept the fact that his opponents are attacking his claims because they sincerely think that he is wrong? Why must Humphreys (2005b; 2012b) attack the motives of people that he does not even know?

12.0 Miscellaneous Issues

139. How is Dr. Humphreys able to distinguish where the physics in his models ends and the miracles begin? That is, how can Dr. Humphreys’ “science” ever distinguish between what is a product of nature and what is supposedly supernatural?

140. Nuclear fusion in stars can explain the Oddo-Harkins Rule and why oxygen-16 is more common on Earth than the isotopes oxygen-17 and oxygen-18 (Faure 1998, Chapter 2; Delsemme 1998). How does Dr. Humphreys’ aquatic alchemy explain why oxygen-16 is more abundant than oxygen-17 and oxygen-18?

141. As discussed in Thompson (2003) and Reinfort (2019b), why couldn’t someone have just as easily or more easily predicted the magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune by comparing their masses to the magnetic fields and masses of the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn?

142. How can Humphreys (2013b) still claim that current research on planetary magnetic fields is a “century of failure”, when Stefani et al. (2018), Thébault et al. (2018), Dobson (2016), and Olson and Christianson (2006) now discuss some of their successes and identify the problems that need to be solved? Why should these scientists give up on their natural models and embrace your magical-based aquatic alchemy?

13.0 The Failure of Dr. Humphreys’ Helium in Zircons Project: The Long-Term Consequences

13.1 The Lessons of the Vapor Canopy

143. Many YECs once considered the pre-Flood vapor canopy as “well supported” by both science and the Bible, yet as discussed in Reinfort (2019c), science eventually killed that idea. Do you think that accelerated radioactive decay and cooling will be viewed as a success in 100 years? Why or why not?

Dr. Humphreys, or his colleagues now that he is retired, need to stop stalling and rigorously deal with these questions. Furthermore, no doubt, Dr. Humphreys’ other critics also have many questions that need answers. Until Dr. Humphreys stops his insults and flippant statements, he will never achieve any respect among physicists, chemists, engineers, and geologists.

If other individuals have questions for Dr. Humphreys on his Fenton Hill project that should be answered, the questions can be easily added to this list. Just email me at kevin.r.henke@gmail.com . Nevertheless, after seeing how Dr. Humphreys persistently throws out shallow and irrelevant responses to serious challenges and questions (e.g., Humphreys, 2005b; 2006a; 2008a; 2008b; 2010a; 2012b; 2020), we shouldn’t be surprised if he continues to avoid the real issues at the center of these questions and flippantly respond with more denials and unsubstantiated nonsense.

Appendix D: 2 Peter 3: What it Really Says and Why the Evidence is Not What YECs Want to Believe

This Appendix is largely a copy of Henke (2017, later updated), which is at this website. The contents of this Appendix are only the views of Dr. Kevin R. Henke.

D.1 Introduction

The third chapter of the book of 2 Peter in the Bible is a YEC favorite that they often use to attack radiometric dating and other aspects of uniformitarianism. It is one of their most frequently quoted Bible passages because they believe that these verses are a literal prophecy from the apostle Peter against the “foolishness” of 19th-21st century uniformitarianism (e.g., Oard 2011, p. 54; Oard 2008, pp. 30, 112; Oard and Reed, 2017, p. 36; Sarfati 2004, pp. 247-248, 332; Sarfati 2014, pp. 202; Ham 1987, pp. 39, 151; Ham 1999, pp. 41, 47; Morris 2008, p. 234; Snelling 2009b, pp. 7-9, 47-51, 185-186, 1039; Snelling 2009c, pp. 147-148; Wise 2002, p. 13-14). Although non-Christians are generally not impressed by quotations from the Bible, Christians consider 2 Peter to be scripture and they must take the context and actual meaning of these verses seriously.

Whether Christian or not, to really understand 2 Peter 3 and, in particular verses 1-12, which are most frequently cited by YECs, the following questions must be answered:

1) What does 2 Peter 3:1-12 actually say and what does it really mean? What is the likely reason for why 2 Peter 3 was written?

2) Did the apostle Peter really write 2 Peter? Who is the intended audience of the epistle and when was it written?

3) What is the relationship between 2 Peter and the biblical book of Jude?

4) What is our oldest copy of 2 Peter and what is the time span between the likely date of the oldest copy and the date of when the original was written?

5) Could 2 Peter have been deliberately or accidently corrupted during copying before the 3rd century AD?

6) What do available records from the early Church Fathers say about the authenticity of 2 Peter and its acceptance into the New Testament canon?

7) What is the current best evidence about the origin and authenticity of 2 Peter?

8) Should anyone take the contents of 2 Peter 3 seriously in the debate over the validity of modern uniformitarianism and young-Earth creationism?

D.2 What does 2 Peter 3:1-12 Say and What does It Really Mean?

When using 2 Peter 3 to attack uniformitarianism and promote their creationist views, YECs most commonly cite from among verses 1-12. These verses in the King James Version (KJV) state:

Chapter 3:

1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2 Peter 3:3 refers to “scoffers” having sinful desires, which is similar to Jude 18. Again, 2 Peter 3 is special to YECs because they believe that the verses are prophecy from the apostle Peter against 19th-21st century secular uniformitarians and uniformitarianism, and that the verses provide support for their views of Noah’s Flood and a Genesis creation. In particular, 2 Peter 3:4 supposedly summarizes the foolish beliefs of secular uniformitarians that think that “… all things continue as they were from the beginning…” In other words, these “scoffers” supposedly support the consistency of nature (uniformitarianism) rather than the unique catastrophism of Noah’s Flood. However, what does 2 Peter 3:4 really say?

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

In this verse, Ehrman (2013, p. 228) argues that the phrase the "fathers fell asleep" refers to the apostles being dead. If Peter really wrote this article, why would he refer to himself and the other apostles as being dead and in the past? Also, note the use of the past tense in 2 Peter 3:2 when referring to the commands of the apostles:

"That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:" [my emphasis]

If 2 Peter is an actual letter with commands from the apostle Peter, why would he refer to himself and his commands as something in the past?

The “fathers” in 2 Peter 3:4 might also refer to the Old Testament Jewish ancestors that descended from Abraham, went through the Exodus or lived at the time of the prophets (e.g., Luke 1:72-73; Acts 3:13,25; Acts 7:11-12,32). But, does 2 Peter 3:4 really represent the words and thoughts of 19th - 21st century uniformitarians? Modern Christian uniformitarians (actualists), which include a lot of scientists, would have no reason to doubt “his coming” (i.e., the second coming of Jesus). So, when 2 Peter 3:4 quotes doubters of the second coming, the speakers must be non-Christians or at least Christian "heretics" that doubted the Second Coming. On the other hand, does 2 Peter 3:4 necessarily refer to secular uniformitarians as YEC authors often claim?

Now, would atheists or other secular uniformitarians refer to the apostles as their "fathers"? No, they would not. Would an atheist or other secular uniformitarian refer to the existence of the Old Testament fathers as if they actually had lived by using the words: “for since the fathers fell asleep…”? No, they would not. Secularists tend to view the Old Testament as largely a collection of myths, especially Genesis and Exodus. Even if the atheists happen to have Jewish ancestry, they would not describe their actual ancestors as descendants of Abraham and contemporaries of Moses. Although secular uniformitarians might admit that there is some history in 2 Kings and other parts of the Old Testament, overall they are not going to refer to the Old Testament Patriarchs as historical and real. Also, Jews are not going to refer to the apostles as their "fathers." So, 2 Peter 3:4 are not the words and thoughts of a 21st century secularist.

2 Peter 3:4 also refers to the “beginning of the creation.” Secularists may refer to the Big Bang as the “creation” of the Universe, but they do not believe that God was involved and they would certainly not believe in a biblical creation. Contrary to YEC claims, 2 Peter 3 does not have anything to do with 19-21st century uniformitarianism, natural geology or natural law. The only people that would scoff at the second coming of Christ and still refer to the creation and the existence of the Old Testament Patriarchs as if they were real history would be non-Christian Jews or perhaps Christian "heretics" that didn't believe in the Second Coming. These critics might have lived in the late 1st century CE, but more likely in the 2nd century CE when 2 Peter was originally written. So, the statements in Oard (2011, p. 54) are nonsense. That is, the “mockers” of 2 Peter 3 are not anti-Biblical. The “scoffers” described in 2 Peter 3:4 believed in the Old Testament and referred to its creation in their criticisms of "End Times" Christianity!

While 21st century actualism or modern uniformitarianism recognizes that meteorite impacts and other natural catastrophes could have global impacts, 2 Peter 3 is an attack on the status quo view (“…all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation…”) of Jewish skeptics of Christianity or Christian "heretics", who may have been influenced by Ecclesiastes 1, especially verse 4. Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 in the KJV states:

Chapter 1

1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Ecclesiastes, along with the Song of Solomon, was admitted late into the Judeo-Christian canon (McDonald 2007, p. 60). Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are not even quoted in the New Testament. However, the writer of 2 Peter 3:4 may very well have had Jewish fans of Ecclesiastes in mind. In particular, compare Ecclesiastes 1:4:

4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

with this response from 2 Peter 3:4,10 that refers to “… all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation …” and the destruction of the Earth by fire and it not lasting forever:

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

So, Ecclesiastes 1:4 refers to the Earth lasting forever, but 2 Peter 3:10 disagrees and states that the Earth will eventually be destroyed by fire. 2 Peter 3 deals with a dispute between 2nd century AD proto-Orthodox Christians and their religious opponents, and has nothing to do with 19th-21st century uniformitarianism.

If a supernatural prophecy was to be written to describe the thoughts and words of modern atheistic uniformitarians, it might actually read something like this:

“The scoffers will say, ‘Where is the promise of Jesus' second coming? Where is the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection or any miracles or acts of the supernatural? Where is the evidence of the existence of God? Ever since the beginning of time, nature continues to evolve. Miracles, Moses, and Jesus are myths.”

D.3 What is the Likely Reason for Why 2 Peter 3 was Written?

Revelation 1:3, Acts 2:17, Hebrews 1:2 and even 1 Peter 4:7 clearly indicate that at the time when these New Testament documents were written, the authors expected Jesus’ second coming to be “soon”, that they were in the “last days”, and that the “end is near.” After hearing about the promised “soon” second coming of Christ for several decades and perhaps longer, we can easily imagine that by the middle of the 2nd century AD, some Jewish and pagan opponents of Christianity (like modern day skeptics of the claims of Hal Lindsey) got fed up with the claims and called the Christians’ bluff: “Well, where is Jesus? You’ve been saying that he’s coming soon for decades. Where is he?” 2 Peter 3:1-12 is a response to the Jewish critics. 2 Peter 3 responds to skeptical ridicule by saying that the second coming is delayed because Jesus wants everyone to be saved and not thrown into the fires of Hell. Compared with 1 Peter 4:7 and other New Testament verses, 2 Peter 3:1-12 is far more cautious and very uncommitted about the timing of the second coming. 2 Peter 3:8 even quotes Psalm 90:4 and suggests that the second coming could be thousands of years into the future, which would not be “soon” by any calendar used by the writers of Acts, Revelation or even 1 Peter 4:7.

So, YEC interpretations of 2 Peter 3 are shallow, based on taking the “…all things continue as they were from the beginning…” statement of 2 Peter 3:4 out of context and divorcing the historical and textural context of the verse. Christian fundamentalists claim to be interested in the actual meaning and context of the words of the Bible, but they really need to fully look at the context and meaning of the verses in 2 Peter 3 and consider the possible influence of Ecclesiastes on 2nd century AD Judaism before they quote verses against actualism (modern uniformitarianism).

It also does not help the YEC agenda that 2 Peter 3:6 mentions a Flood that the vast majority of modern geologists identify as a myth or an exaggeration. Furthermore, it does not help the YEC position when they cite 2 Peter 3:5, which refers to the Earth and heavens originating out of water (H2O). 2 Peter 3:5 more closely resembles one of the mythical four elements of ancient alchemy (earth, wind, fire, and water) rather than hydrogen gas (H2). Humphreys (1984; 2005b) and his YEC supporters on this issue (e.g., Williams and Hartnett 2005, pp. 229-230; Sarfati 2014, pp. 210-212) have actually tried to argue that the universe was made out of water as described in 2 Peter 3:5 and that planetary magnetic fields support this claim. However, physicist Thompson (2003) has shown that Dr. Humphreys’ views of planetary magnetic fields are all wet. Dr. Humphreys’ arguments are nothing more than an incoherent mixture of physics and magical aquatic alchemy (Section 12.3).

D.4 Who Wrote 2 Peter and Who was the Intended Audience?

2 Peter 3:1 indicates that the Christians addressed in this epistle (2 Peter 1:2) are the same ones mentioned in 1 Peter. The author of the letter is clearly identified in 2 Peter 1:1 as Simon Peter, who was the apostle Peter (Matthew 4:18; Mark 3:16). To emphasize the Petrine authorship of the letter, 2 Peter 3:1 refers to 1 Peter. 2 Peter 1:16-18 also claims that the author was an eyewitness to the transfiguration of Christ. Because conservative Christians assume on faith that 2 Peter is inerrant scripture, they simply take 2 Peter 1:1 at face value and accept Peter as the author. No questions asked. However, just because a book claims to have been written by Peter that does not mean that it was. Christians fully admit that there are hundreds of fraudulent epistles and gospels from the first four centuries of Christianity that claim to have been written by Peter, Paul or other apostles and even Jesus himself (e.g. 3 Peter and 4 Peter; Price 2006). Ehrman (2013, pp. 222-229, 259-263) and many other scholars refer to 2 Peter as as forgery. 2 Peter is no more legitimate than 3 Peter, 4 Peter, the Gospel of Peter, the Revelation of Peter and many other forgeries done in the name of the Apostle Peter. Even Chruch Fathers, such as Eusebius, had doubts about the authenticity of 2 Peter and Didymus of Alexandria blantedly referred to 2 Peter a forgery that did not belong in the New Testament (Ehrman 2013, pp. 74, 223). Without the originals and far better documentation, it is impossible to know who wrote 2 Peter and to determine which of these gospels and epistles, if any of them, are the actual words of Jesus and his apostles. As discussed below, based on the evidence that we have, there are good reasons to identify 2 Peter as a likely 2nd century AD forgery. It is very likely that 2 Peter is no more authentic than 3 or 4 Peter.

D.5 When was 2 Peter Written?

The New Testament does not provide details on Peter’s later life and death. If we are to believe John 21:18-19, these verses indicate that Peter was martyred, but no details are given on when, where, and how. Based on questionable apocryphal traditions and quotations from the early Church Fathers, Peter supposedly was crucified in Rome around 64 AD, although 67 AD might also be possible (The New Jerusalem Bible, p. 1994; Ehrman 2012, p. 485). Because conservative Christians believe that the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter, they would date the book as no later than 64-67 AD. Robinson (1976), who advocates early dates for all of the New Testament books, argues that 2 Peter was written around 61-62 AD. In contrast, atheist and New Testament expert Price (2006, p. 834) dates 2 Peter in the late 2nd century AD. McDonald (2007, p. 277) says that 2 Peter was written around 150 AD and perhaps as late as 180 AD. Without the original copy of 2 Peter and other documentation, we can only say that the book was probably written sometime between 60 and 180 AD. Even if the book was written while Peter was still alive, 2 Peter could still be a forgery. If we are to believe 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3; 3:17, this letter indicates that someone was forging letters in Paul’s name while he was still alive.

D.6 What is the Relationship between 2 Peter and Jude?

It was not unusual for the authors of the various books of the New Testament to copy from each other. The Greek in Matthew and Mark is very similar, and in places identical, which indicates extensive copying, probably by Matthew of Mark. In places, the Greek in Jude and 2 Peter are also nearly identical. A conservative Christian might argue that the Holy Spirit miraculously gave Jude and Peter the same words, but the best and most reasonable explanation is that one author simply copied the other. The same non-miraculous reasoning applies to the similarities between the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon. So, which came first, Jude or 2 Peter? Either Jude summarized 2 Peter, 2 Peter is an expanded version of Jude, or perhaps the authors of both letters worked together to compose the two similar epistles at the same place and time. I will argue that 2 Peter was written after Jude and that 2 Peter also borrows ideas from 1 Peter, the letters of Paul and at least Matthew or another gospel similar to it.

In verses 17-18, Jude refers to the apostles in the third person, which indicates that he is admitting that he is not an apostle. Jude 17-18 states:

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. [my emphasis: they, the apostles, not we.]

By referring to apostles in verses 17-18, Jude recognized the importance of backing up his statements with apostolic authority. However, while Jude 18 quotes some apostles, the letter never mentions Peter by name. It’s interesting that Jude quotes the apocryphal works of 1 Enoch and probably the Assumption of Moses, and mentions the archangel Michael, Moses, Cain, Balaam, Enoch, and Adam by name in his brief letter, but not Peter. If Jude had a copy of 2 Peter in front of him and if he believed that Peter really wrote this letter, why would Jude bother making reference to some statement said by an unnamed group of apostles if Peter with his apostolic authority had already made relevant statements in a letter that Jude could quote and share with his readers? Similarly, if Jude was sitting next to Peter and Peter was sharing his thoughts while writing 2 Peter, why wouldn’t Jude mention this important apostolic authority to back up his arguments? These observations strongly suggest, but cannot definitively prove, that Jude was unaware of 2 Peter and that 2 Peter was written after Jude.

As mentioned earlier, we can easily imagine that by the end of the 1st century AD and certainly by the middle of the 2nd century, a number of pagan and Jewish skeptics of Christianity would be asking where Jesus was and why his “soon” second coming was not so soon. 2 Peter 3 then conveniently shows up to respond to the Jewish critics by expanding upon and supporting the claims of Jude, providing the apostolic authority that Jude desired, attacking the skeptics, and reassuring believers that Jesus would come again, but maybe not right away.

D.7 What is Our Oldest Copy of 2 Peter and What is the Time Span between the Likely Date of the Oldest Copy and the Date When the Original was Written?

We do not have any of the original documents of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. Instead, we have copies of copies of copies… Although dating manuscripts is highly uncertain, the oldest copy of 2 Peter is probably P72 and this manuscript can only be dated to around 300 AD (Ehrman 2013, pp. 222-223), or anywhere from about 120 to 240 years after the original was written.

D.8 Could 2 Peter have been Deliberately or Accidentally Altered During Copying?

Because the original copy of 2 Peter is lost and our earliest copy was written long after the original, we simply have no way of knowing whether the contents of this manuscript and later copies are close to the original or not. That is, without the original, we do not know whether or not the copyists largely altered the document to suit their agendas. The production of forgeries and the manipulation of manuscripts were not unknown in the early church. Again, if 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 3:17 is correct, someone in the early church was forging Paul’s letters during his lifetime. Perhaps, even 2 Thessalonians is a clever forgery. As another example, Church Father Tertullian (c. 150 – c. 240 AD) claimed that an individual confessed to forging an Acts of Paul manuscript (Ehrman 2013, p. 379). In terms of altered manuscripts, the Masoretic version of Jeremiah (which is the basis of most Protestant English versions, including the KJV) is about 17% longer than the much older Septuagint and Dead Sea scroll versions (Tov, 2001, pp. 319-327), although most of those additional Masoretic verses appear to be insertions taken from Isaiah. Among the ancient copies of the Book of Acts, the Greek Western version is about 20% longer than the version used in most English translations (Price 2006, p. 563).

It’s more likely that the author of the gospel of Matthew largely plagiarized the Gospel of Mark rather than vice-versa. The author of Matthew also added a lot of material to Mark, omitted some verses, and changed the meaning of some others. How do we know that other books in the New Testament were not similarly altered?

If extensive alterations, additions, or omissions were made to 2 Peter, they were probably done early before any copies of the original could be mass produced and widely distributed. However, if 2 Peter happens to be a forgery then accurate copying of this epistle over the centuries does not help to make it authoritative.

D.9 What do Available Records of the Early Church Fathers Say about the Authenticity of 2 Peter and Its Acceptance into the New Testament Canon?

The views of the 4th century AD and earlier Church Fathers on the authenticity of 2 Peter is far from unanimous. Church tradition often only accepted 1 Peter as authentic (Ehrman 2013, p. 223), but many experts think that this book is also a forgery and that we have no authentic epistles from Peter (Ehrman 2013, pp. 240-259).

There is no clear evidence that 2 Peter was quoted by the Church Fathers before the 3rd century AD (McDonald 2007, footnote 89, p. 277; Ehrman 2012, p. 485). So, before the 3rd century, we don’t know if the Church Fathers knew about the epistle and, if they had, what they thought about it. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260 – 340 AD) quotes Origen (c. 184 – c. 254 AD) as doubting the authenticity of 2 Peter (Ehrman 2013, p. 223). Eusebius also referred to 2 Peter as a “disputed book” and rejected its authenticity (McDonald 2007, pp. 309, 396; Ehrman 2013, p. 223). Didymus the Blind (c. 313 – 398 AD) referred to 2 Peter as a forgery (Ehrman 2013, p. 223). Although Jerome (c. 347 – 420 AD) accepted 2 Peter as scripture, he mentions that many of his colleagues did not (Price 2006, p. 833). Even after doubts about the authenticity of 2 Peter began to wane in the early Church with the publication of Athanasius’ Thirty-ninth Festal Letter in 367 AD, the Syrian churches questioned it until the sixth century AD and Martin Luther had his doubts (McDonald 2007, p. 396). As discussed in “The Basic Assumptions of Protestant Young-Earth Creationism”, the development of the New Testament canon was often based on the subjective biases and irrational dogmatic traditions of the Church Fathers. Once the Emperor Constantine became sympathetic to orthodox Christianity in the early 4th century AD, he used his power to encourage the publication of orthodox scriptures and burn non-orthodox manuscripts (McDonald 2007, pp. 314, 316). The actions of Constantine and his Christian successors in the Church and government helped to promote the doctrines and scriptures of orthodox Christianity and destroy alternative, and perhaps more historically accurate, Christian doctrines and scriptures.

D.10 Currently, What is the Best Evidence about the Origin and Authenticity of 2 Peter?

Based on the content and Greek grammar and vocabulary of the epistle, secularists would generally argue that the author of 2 Peter was a liar and nothing more than a 2nd century AD forger. Even if the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter, secularists see no evidence of the apostles having divine inspiration. For them, 2 Peter is nothing more than religious opinion, like the Book of Mormon. In contrast, Christians must seriously deal with 2 Peter because the Church Fathers that believed that the epistle was divinely inspired eventually won and got it into the New Testament canon. Conservative Christians tend to assume that the Holy Spirit successfully kept forgeries out of the New Testament and that every book in their scriptural canon, and only their canon, is the inerrant word of God. However, differences in the scriptural canons of Jews, Mormons, Ethiopian Christians, and Muslims demonstrate that simply believing that “God created and protected our scriptures from error and everyone else’s canon is false” is not a monopoly of one religion. This belief is simply not a trustworthy assumption for anyone.

Most Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant scholars agree that 2 Peter was not written by Peter. Although a strong advocate of the Virgin Birth and other conservative Christian doctrines, the Roman Catholic The New Jerusalem Bible (p. 1995) refers to 2 Peter as a “forgery” and as having a “doubtful Petrine authorship.” When discussing modern scholarship, Ehrman (2013, p. 222) states that 2 Peter is widely viewed as a forgery even among scholars that are hesitant to admit that there is any “pseudonymous works” in the Bible. Many other modern church leaders are simply reluctant to use the word forgery. They prefer to describe 2 Peter as a “pseudograph”, which is nothing more than a “religiously correct” euphemism for a forgery.

Numerous Roman Catholic, liberal Protestant and secular sources discuss the Greek grammar and vocabulary, textural, historical and other evidence that is used to dispute the authenticity of 2 Peter. Some of this information is summarized in Ehrman (2013, pp. 222-225), McDonald (2007), Price (2006), and their references. Readers can review these arguments and judge their validity for themselves.

The grammar, writing style and content of 2 Peter are unlike 1 Peter. Critics of 2 Peter argue that if the same individual wrote both letters, their contents, grammar and writing style should be similar. Critics also ask how an illiterate fisherman from Palestine could have written the elaborate Greek found in 2 Peter. Although Ehrman (2013) argues against the following possibilities, conservative supporters of the authenticity of 2 Peter might argue that Peter had about 30 years to learn Greek and that two different ghost writers with different writing styles, including perhaps Silvanus or Mark (1 Peter 5:12-13), may have composed 1 and 2 Peter with the supervision and approval of the apostle. That is, the thoughts in 1 and 2 Peter are from Peter, but the Greek words are from the translator and scribe.

As noted above, the “end times” views of 1 and 2 Peter are different. 1 Peter in 4:7 goes along with other New Testament books and argues that the writer was living in the “last days.” Although 2 Peter 3:3 also makes reference to the “last days”, 2 Peter 3:8 quotes Psalm 90:4 and suggests that rather than the end of the world coming “soon”, the “last days” could refer to a long period of time based on God’s calendar.

Even if the author of 2 Peter was an eyewitness to the transformation of Christ and not quoting from a gospel, he had an extensive library of Christian literature, which included at least 1 Peter, Jude, and the letters of Paul. By itself, a large number of Christian references does not rule out Peter as the author, but it fits well with an author that was an educated mid-2nd century Christian that knew Greek and the Christian literature.

Unlike Jude, 2 Peter does not quote from 1 Enoch and the apocryphal account of Michael and the devil arguing over Moses’ body, which could be from the Assumption of Moses. Some opponents of the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter might argue that by the 2nd century AD, the Old Testament canon was better defined and that these apocryphal works used by Jude had fallen out of favor with proto-orthodox Christians. Thus, they were omitted from 2 Peter. However, the absence of citations of these apocryphal works from 2 Peter could mean nothing. For whatever reason, the writer of 2 Peter may simply have not liked these apocryphal works. By itself, this argument is weak in dating 2 Peter and Jude, but together with other evidence, it’s consistent with a post-Jude, 2nd century AD origin for 2 Peter.

Marcion, a prominent 2nd century AD Christian “heretic”, built his theology on the teachings of the apostle Paul. We have no copies of his New Testament, but descriptions by his critics (Irenaeus and Tertullian) indicate that Marcion rejected the authority of the Old Testament. His scriptures only included 10 of the Pauline epistles (excluding the Pastoral letters, which he may not have known about) and a shorter version of Luke (McDonald 2007, pp. 367-368). Based on what we know about Marcion’s proto-orthodox opponents, 2nd century AD proto-orthodox Christians certainly wanted to embrace Paul’s letters as scripture, but they also wanted other New Testament books and the Old Testament to be considered scriptural. So, how would 2nd century AD proto-orthodox Christians respond to Marcion and his followers’ use of Paul’s letters? 2 Peter 3:15-16 (KJV) provides a convenient answer when it refers to Paul’s letters as scripture, but yet “hard to understand” and distorted by “unlearned and unstable” people:

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Conservatives that believe in a Petrine authorship might argue that there were individuals during Peter’s life that were seriously misquoting and misusing Paul’s letters. Although this is possible, we don’t know much about these 1st century “heretics.” While there is no conclusive evidence that 2 Peter is specifically condemning Marcion and his followers, these verses are consistent with that conclusion. Now, conservative Christians might also invoke the supernatural and claim that Peter not only foresaw the evil rise of uniformitarianism when he wrote 2 Peter, but also the coming of Marcion and his fellow “heretics.” However, why invoke the supernatural when natural explanations are far more likely and plausible? That is, 2 Peter 3:15-16 may be referring to 1st century opponents of proto-orthodox Christianity or the letter is a 2nd century AD forgery that is a good description of the proto-orthodox view of Marcion.

Considering the valid questions about the authenticity of 2 Peter going back to the earliest Church Fathers, if YECs want to accept 2 Peter as authentic, then why shouldn’t they embrace other controversial books that also claim to have been written by Peter, such 3 and 4 Peter, the Gospel of Peter or the Muratorian Apocalypse of Peter? In particular, the Muratorian Apocalypse of Peter had considerable support in the early Church (Price 2006, p. 851), and may have only missed entering the canon because of its utterly repulsive descriptions of Hell. So, how does a conservative Christian objectively justify 2 Peter in the canon and keep out 1 Enoch, the Gospel of Peter, or the Muratorian Apocalypse of Peter?

D.11 Should Anyone Take the Contents of 2 Peter 3 Seriously in the Debate over Modern Uniformitarianism and Young-Earth Creationism?

The answer to this question is clearly no. Although YECs believe that the verses of 2 Peter 3 are a powerful spiritual weapon against uniformitarians, a careful review of the verses in context indicates that they have nothing to do with modern geology. This is true even if 2 Peter is genuine and was written by the apostle Peter. So, YEC efforts with 2 Peter 3 are superficial and have “petered out.” Anyone can pretend to have “powerfully fulfilled prophecy” if they’re willing to ignore the context of the verses and the history and language of a book. Doomsayers and other false preachers have been doing that for centuries.

Considering all of the evidence, including the doubts of many early Church Fathers that encountered a lot of forgeries, 2 Peter was probably written by a Christian apologist posing as the apostle Peter in response to 2nd century AD “heretics”, pagan and Jewish skeptics. In other words, 2 Peter is a forgery along with 3 Peter, 4 Peter, and hundreds of other manuscripts written in the 1st-4th centuries AD that used the names of the apostles and even Jesus to gain respectability for their lies. If we are to believe 2 Thessalonians, individuals were even forging Paul’s letters during his lifetime.

17.0 References

Amirkhanov, Kh. L., S.B. Brandt, E.N. Bartnitzkii, and S.N. Voronowskii, 1959, “The Diffusion of Radiogenic Argon in Feldspars”, Doklady Akademii Nauk. SSSR, v. 125.

Armitage, M.H., 2004, “Helium Retention in Deep-core Zircons,” American Laboratory, July, p. 17-20.

Armitage, M.J., 2007, “The Pillars of Evolution are Crushed by Microscopic Things”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 43, n. 4, March, p. 258 in pp. 252-260.

Austin, S.A., 1996, “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano”, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation), v. 10, n. 3, https://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/ (accessed May 30, 2020).

Axford, W.J. and V.M. Vasyliunas, 1986, “The Magnetic Field of Uranus”, Nature, v. 319, pp. 267-268.

Babinski, E.T., ed., 1995, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists, Prometheus, Amherst, NY.

Babinski, E.T., 2010, “The Cosmology of the Bible” in J.W. Loftus, ed., The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails: Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, pp. 109-147.

Bailey, S.W., 1984, “Crystal Chemistry of the True Micas,” Reviews in Mineralogy, v. 13, p. 13-60.

Batten, D., 2017, “Age of the Earth: 101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth and the Universe”, Creation Ministries International, https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth , (accessed May 30, 2020).

Baumgardner, J., 2012a, “Do Radioisotope Methods Yield Trustworthy Relative Ages for the Earth’s Rocks?”, Journal of Creation, v. 26, n. 3, pp. 68-75, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_3/j26_3_68-75.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Baumgardner, J., 2012b, “Could Most of the Earth’s U, Th, and K have been in the Mantle Prior to the Flood?”, Journal of Creation, v. 26, n. 3, pp. 47-48, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_3/j26_3_47-49.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Baxter, E.F., 2003, “Quantification of the Factors Controlling the Presence of Excess 40Ar or 4He,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 216, p. 619-634.

Bell, P., 2020, "Designed Atmospheres?: The Earth and Other Planets", Creation Ministries International: https://creation.com/designed-atmospheres (accessed January 15, 2021).

Bennett, J., M. Donahue, N. Schneider, and M. Voit, 2014, The Cosmic Perspective: Stars, Galaxies, & Cosmology: Pearson: Boston, Massachusetts.

Bigalke Jr., R.J., 2008, “The Preeminence of Biblical Creationism” in R.J. Bigalke Jr., ed., The Genesis Factor: Myths and Realities, Master Books: Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, pp. 95-123.

Broadhead, R., 2006, Helium in New Mexico: Geologic Distribution and Exploration Possibilities, New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, A Division of New Mexico Tech, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2006/06121broadhead/ (accessed May 30, 2020).

Brookins, D.G., R.B. Forbes, D. L. Turner, A. W. Laughlin, and C. W. Naeser, 1977, Rb-Sr, K-Ar, and Fission-Track Geochronological Studies of Samples From LASL Drill Holes GT-1, GT-2, and EE-1, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report LA-6229-MS, June.

Brookins, D.G., and A.W. Laughlin, 1976, “Isotopic Evidence for Local Derivation of Strontium in Deep-Seated, Fracture-Filling Calcite from Granitic Rocks in Drill Hole GT-2, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Dry Hot Rock Program”, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 1, pp. 193-196)

Brookins, D.G., and A.W. Laughlin, 1983, “Rb-Sr Geochronologic Investigation of Precambrian Samples from Deep Geothermal Drill Holes, Fenton Hill, New Mexico”, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 15, pp. 43-58.

Brown, R.H., 2004, “Lead and Helium Diffusion,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 41, n. 3, December, pp. 258-259.

Burruss, R.C. and L.S. Hollister, 1979, “Evidence from Fluid Inclusions for a Paleogeothermal Gradient at the Geothermal Test Well Sites, Los Alamos, New Mexico,” Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 5, p. 163-177.

Carrier, R., 2010, “Christianity was not Responsible for Modern Science” in J.W. Loftus, ed., The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, pp. 396-419.

Carroll, M. R, 1991, “Diffusion of Ar in Rhyolite, Orthoclase, and Albite Composition Glasses,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 103, p. 156-168.

Chaffin, E.F., 2000, “A Mechanism for Accelerated Radioactive Decay”, Creation Research Society Quaterly, v. 37, pp. 3-9.

Chaisson, E. and S. McMillan, 2005, Astronomy Today, 5th ed., Pearson-Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Cherniak, D.J. and E.B. Watson, 2001, “Pb Diffusion in Zircon,” Chemical Geology, v. 172, p. 5-24.

Cherniak, D.J., E.B. Watson, and J.B. Thomas, 2009, “Diffusion of Helium in Zircon and Apatite”, Chemical Geology, v. 268, pp. 155-166.

Chernicoff, S., H.A. Fox, and L.H. Tanner, 2002, Earth: Geologic Principles and History, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Christman, Timothy K, 2005, “Creation Science Rebuttals: Institute for Creation Research: Critique of RATE Group’s Zircon-Helium Diffusion Project” https://www.oldearth.org/RATE_critique_he-zr.htm (accessed February 27, 2020).

Clarke, J.T., 1982, “Detection of Auroral Hydrogen Lyman-Alpha Emission from Uranus”, The Astrophysical Journal, v. 263, pp. L105-L109.

Conner, S.R. and D.N. Page. 1998. “Starlight and Time is the Big Bang”, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation), v. 12, n. 2, pp. 174-194, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j12_2/j12_2_174-194.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Cook, M., 1957, “Where is the Earth’s Radiogenic Helium?”, Nature, n. 4552, January 26, p. 213.

Copi, I.M. and C. Cohen, 1994, Introduction to Logic, 9th ed., MacMillan Publishing Co, New York, Maxwell MacMillan Canada, Toronto, and Maxwell MacMillan International, New York, 729 pp.

Cosner, L. and R. Carter, 2020, “Bad Arguments for the Masoretic Text”, Creation Ministries International, https://creation.com/bad-arguments-mt-lxx (accessed May 30, 2020).

Creation Research Society Newsletter, 2020, "HOUR", November-December. This newsletter is mailed out to subscribers of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

CreationWiki #1, 2011, “Criticism of RATE’s Helium Diffusion Data,” Last updated: November 1, 2011, http://www.creationwiki.org/Response_to_criticism_of_RATE%E2%80%99s_helium_diffusion_dates (accessed October 10, 2024).

CreationWiki #2, 2015, “Helium Diffusion,” Lasted updated: November 24, 2015, http://www.creationwiki.org/Helium_diffusion (accessed October 10, 2024).

CreationWiki #3, 2009, “Zircons Retain Too Much Helium for an Old Earth”, Last Updated: November 11, 2009, http://www.creationwiki.org/Zircons_retain_too_much_helium_for_an_old_earth_%28Talk.Origins%29 (accessed October 10, 2024).

Cupps, V.R., 2019a, Rethinking Radiometic Dating: Evidence for a Young Earth from a Nuclear Physicist: Institute for Creation Research: Dallas, TX, USA, 138 pp.

Cupps, V.R., 2019b, "Helium Retention in Zircons Demonstrates a Young Earth": Acts & Facts, v. 48, n. 1, pp. 10-13.

Dalrymple, G. B., 1984, “How Old is the Earth?: A Reply to `Scientific’ Creationism,” in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, v. 1, pt. 3, Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites, eds., http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html (accessed May 30, 2020).

Dalrymple, G.B., 1991, The Age of the Earth, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 474 pp.

Dalrymple, G.B. and M.A. Lanphere, 1969, Potassium-Argon Dating: Principles, Techniques and Applications to Geochronology, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.

Davis, J.C., 1986, Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Delsemme, A., 1998, Our Cosmic Origins: From the Big Bang to the Emergence of Life and Intelligence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Dessler, A.J., 1986, “Does Uranus have a Magnetic Field?”, Nature, v. 319, January 16, pp. 174-175.

Dever, W.G., 2005, Did God have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 344 pp.

DeYoung, D., 2005, Thousands… Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, 190 pp.

DeYoung, D., 2008, “The RATE Project” in Bigalke, R.J. Jr., ed., The Genesis Factor: Myths and Realities, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, pp. 237-254.

DeYoung, D.B. "RATE Summary", Acts & Facts, September 29, https://www.icr.org/article/14288 (accessed October 1, 2023).

Dickens, H. and Snelling, A.A., 2008, “Precambrian Geology and the Bible: A Harmony”, Journal of Creation, v. 22, n. 1, pp. 65-72, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_1/j22_1_65-72.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Dobson, D., 2016, “Earth’s Core Problem”, Nature, v. 534, 2 June, p. 45.

Doyle, S., 2020, “Too Much Heat in Noah’s Flood?”, Creation Ministries International, July 25, https://creation.com/flood-heat-problem (accessed July 25, 2020).

Drake, G.P., 2004, “Helium Diffusion in Zircons,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 41, n. 3, December, pp. 256-257.

Duchane, D. and D. Brown, 2002, “Hot Dry Rock (HDR) Geothermal Energy Research and Development at Fenton Hill, New Mexico”, GHC Bulletin, December, pp. 13-19.

Dudás, F.Ö., 2020, Perspectives on the Age of the Earth and Why They Matter, Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 565pp.

Dunai, T.J. and K. Roselieb, 1996, “Sorption and Diffusion of Helium in Garnet: Implications for Volatile Tracing and Dating,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 139, p. 411-421.

Ehrman, B.D., 2009, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them), HarperOne: Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 292 pp.

Ehrman, B.D., 2012, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed., Oxford University Press: New York, 536pp.

Ehrman, B.D., 2013, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics, Oxford University Press: New York, 628pp.

Eller, D., 2004, Natural Atheism, American Atheist Press: Cranford, New Jersey, 352 pp.

Faulkner, D. and W. Spencer, 2000, “Biblically-Based Cratering Theory: Danny Faulkner and Wayne Spencer Reply”, CEN Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation), v. 14, n. 3, pp. 75-77, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_3/j14_3_74-77.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Farley, K.A., 2002, “(U-Th)/He Dating: Techniques, Calibrations, and Applications,” Reviews of Mineralogy and Geochemistry., v. 47, p. 819-844.

Farley, K.A., P.W. Reiners, and V. Nenow, 1999, “An Apparatus for High-Precision Helium Diffusion Measurements for Minerals”, Analytical Chemistry, v. 71, pp. 2059-2061.

Faure, G., 1986, Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Faure, G., 1998, Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Fechtig, H., W. Gentner, and J. Zähringer, 1960, “Argonbestimmungen an Kalium-Mineralien – VII. Diffusionsverluste von Argon in Mineralien and ihre Auswirkung auf die Kalium-Argon-Altersbestimmung”, (in German), Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 19, pp. 70-79.

Fechtig, H. and S. Kalbitzer, 1966, “The Diffusion of Argon in Potassium-Bearing Solids”, in O.A. Schaeffer and J. Zähringer, eds., Potassium Argon Dating: Springer-Verlag: New York, pp. 68-107.

Feeley, T., 2007, “An Evening with Rate”, Science, AntiScience and Geology, April 24, http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2007/04/evening-with-rate.html (accessed April 12, 2020).

Finkelstein, I. and Silberman, N.A., 2001, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts: The Free Press, New York, 385pp.

Freedman, R.A. and W.J. Kaufmann III, 2002, Universe: W.H. Freeman and Co.: New York.

Froede Jr., C.R., 2012, “Does Excess 40Ar Support RATE’s 6,000-year-old Earth?”, Journal of Creation, v. 26, n.1, pp. 37-39, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_1/j26_1_37-39.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Froede Jr., C.R. and A.J. Akridge, 2012, “RATE Study: Questions Regarding Accelerated Nuclear Decay and Radiometric Dating”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 49, pp. 56–62.

Froede Jr., C.R. and A.J. Akridge, 2013a, “Authors’ Response: Science, Theory, History, and Miracles,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 49, n. 4, Spring, pp. 323-331.

Froede Jr., C.R. and A.J. Akridge, 2013b, “Authors’ Response [to Lindauer 2013]”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 49, n. 4, Spring, pp. 332-334.

Geisler, T., R.T. Pidgeon, W. van Bronswijk, and R. Kurtz, 2002, “Transport of Uranium, Thorium, and Lead in Metamict Zircon under Low-temperature Hydrothermal Conditions,” Chemical Geology, v. 191, p. 141-154.

Gentry, R.V., G.L. Gush, and E.R. McBay, 1982a, “Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 9, n. 10, p. 1129-1130. http://www.halos.com/reports/grl-1982-helium-in-zircons.pdf (accessed May 30, 2020).

Gentry, R.V., T.J. Sworski, H.S. McKown, D.H. Smith, R.E. Eby, and W.H. Christie, 1982b, “Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,” Science, v. 216, April 16, p. 296-298. http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1982-lead-in-zircons.pdf (accessed May 30, 2020).

Girifalco, L.A., 1964, Atomic Migration in Crystals, Blaisdell Publishing Company: New York.

Goff, F.E. and S.L. Bolivar, 1983, Field Trip Guide to the Valles Caldera and Its Geothermal Systems, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, LA-9963-OBES, UC-66a, December, 58 pp.

Goff, F. and J. N. Gardner, 1994, “Evolution of a Mineralized Geothermal System, Valles Caldera, New Mexico,” Economic Geology, v. 89, p. 1803-1832.

Goff, F., L. Shevenell, J.N. Gardner, F-D. Vuataz, and C.O. Grigsby, 1988, “The Hydrothermal Outflow Plume of Valles Caldera, New Mexico, and a Comparison with other Outflow Plumes”, Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 93, n. B6, pp. 6041-6058.

Guenthner, W.R., P.W. Reiners, R.A. Ketcham, L. Nasdala, and G. Giester, 2013, “Helium Diffusion in Natural Zircon: Radiation Damage, Anisotropy, and the Interpretation of Zircon (U-Th)/He Thermochronology”, American Journal of Science, v. 313, March, pp. 145-198.

Ham, K, 1987, The Lie: Evolution, Creation Life Publishers, Master Books: El Cajon, California, USA, 168pp.

Ham, K., 1999, Did Adam Have a Bellybutton? And Other Tough Questions about the Bible, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, 192 pp.

Ham, K., 2008, “What’s the Best ‘Proof’ of Creation?” in K. Ham, ed., The New Answers Book 2: Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, pp. 111-120.

Hanes, J.A., 1991, “K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology: Methods and Applications” in L. Heaman and J.N. Ludden, eds., Applications of Radiogenic Isotope Systems to Problems in Geology, Short Course Handbook, v. 19, p. 27-57.

Harrison, T. M.; P. Morgan and D. D. Blackwell, 1986, “Constraints on the Age of Heating at the Fenton Hill Site, Valles Caldera, New Mexico,” Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, n. B2, pp. 1899-1908.

Hebert, J., 2025, "Five Global Evidences for a Young Earth" in Jake Hebert, Timothy Clarey, and Brian Thomas with Jeffrey P. Tomkins and Frank Sherwin, Age of the Earth: Evidence for Youth: Institute for Creation Research: Dallas, TX, USA, pp. 12-23.

Helmkamp, B.S. 2022a. "Latent Heat Could Solve Accelerated Nuclear Decay's Heat Problem - Part 1", Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 59, n. 1, pp. 29-38.

Helmkamp, B.S. 2022b. "Latent Heat Could Solve Accelerated Nuclear Decay's Heat Problem - Part 2", Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 59, n. 2, pp. 92-102.

Heimlich, R.A., 1976, Morphology of Zircons from Precambrian Rocks Penetrated by Geothermal Test Hole GT-2, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, LA-6433-MS.

Henke, K.R, c. 2000a, “Woodmorappe’s Shotgun Attack on 40Ar-39Ar Dating: Many Misses and Few Hits”, https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/woodmorappe_shotgun_henke.htm (accessed April 10, 2020).

Henke, K.R., c. 2000b, “Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating: A Few Examples of the Many Misused References in Woodmorrappe (1999)”, No Answers in Genesis, https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/hiding_the_numbers_woody_henke.htm (accessed May 4, 2020).

Henke, K.R., c. 2001, “Young-Earth Creationist ‘Dating’ of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals”, https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm (accessed April 12, 2020).

Henke, K.R., 2010, “Humphreys’s Young Earth Helium Diffusion ‘Dates’”, National Center for Science Education Reports, v. 30, n. 5, pp. 27-32.

Henke, K.R., 2017, updated 2021, “2 Peter: What It Really Says and Why the Evidence is Not What Young-Earth Creationists Want to Believe”: https://sites.google.com/site/respondingtocreationism/home/yecs-misuse-the-bible/2-peter (accessed March 28, 2021).

Heerema, S., 2009, “A Magmatic Model for the Origin of Large Salt Formations”, Journal of Creation, v. 23, n. 3, pp. 116-118, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_116-118.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Hill, T.W., and A.J. Dessler, 1985, “Remote Sensing of the Magnetic Moment of Uranus: Predictions for Voyager”, Science, v. 227, n. 4693, pp. 1466-1469.

Hudson, J. B. and R. Hoffman, 1961, “The Effect of Hydrostatic Pressure on Self-diffusion in Lead,” Transactions of the Metallurgical Society of AIME v. 221, August, pp. 761-768.

Humber, P.G., 2007, “Dear Theistic Evolutionist,” Creation Matters, v. 12, n. 1, January/February, pp. 1, 7-8.

Humphreys, D. R., 1984, “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 21(3), December, pp.140-149.

Humphreys, D.R., 1990, “Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation,” ICR Impact, n. 203, May, https://www.icr.org/article/beyond-neptune-voyager-ii-supports-creation (accessed May 30, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2000, “Accelerated Nuclear Decay: A Viable Hypothesis?”, Chapter 7 in L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Mo, pp. 333-379, http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf (accessed May 30, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R. 2002. “Nuclear Decay: Evidence for a Young World”, Impact, Institute for Creation Research, n. 352, October, 4 pp, http://www.icr.org/article/302/, (accessed July 18, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2003, “New RATE Data Support Young World,” Impact, n. 366, Institute for Creation Research, https://www.icr.org/article/new-rate-data-support-young-world/ (accessed May 30, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2004a, “Helium Diffusion in Zircons: Humphreys Replies to Drake,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 41, n. 3, December, pp. 257-258.

Humphreys, D.R., 2004b, “Lead and Helium Diffusion: Humphreys Replies to Brown,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 41, n. 3, December, pp. 258-259.

Humphreys, D.R., 2005a, “Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” in L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, Arizona, pp. 25-100, https://www.icr.org/rate2/ (accessed May 30, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2005b, “Helium Evidence for a Young World Remains Crystal Clear,” http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp (accessed May 30, 2020).

Humphreys, D. R., 2006a, “Helium Evidence for a Young World Overcomes Pressure,” http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp (accessed May 30, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2006b, “A Tale of Two Hourglasses”, Impact, n. 402, December, 4 pp, https://www.icr.org/article/tale-two-hourglasses (accessed May 30, 2020).

Humphreys, D. R., 2008a, “What ASA doesn’t Want its Readers to Know”, Creation Matters, v. 13, n. 2, March-April, pp. 1, 4.

Humphreys, D.R., 2008b, “Helium Evidence for a Young World Continues to Confound Critics,” http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics (accessed March 25, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2008c, “The Creation of Cosmic Magnetic Fields” in Snelling, A.A., ed., Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Creation Science Fellowship, and Dallas, Texas, Institute for Creation Research, pp. 213-230.

Humphreys, D.R., 2010a, “Critics of Helium Evidence for a Young World Now Seem Silent,” Journal of Creation, v. 24, n. 1, p. 14-16, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_1/j24_1_14-16.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2010b, “Critics of Helium Evidence for a Young World Now Seem Silent: Russell Humphreys Replies [to Loechelt 2010],” Journal of Creation, v. 24, n. 3, pp. 35-39, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_3/j24_3_34-39.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2011, “Argon Diffusion Data Support RATE’s 6,000-year Helium Age of the Earth,” Journal of Creation, v. 25, n. 2, pp. 74-77, https://creation.com/argon-diffusion-age (accessed July 9, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2012a, “Russell Humphreys Replies [to Froede 2012]”, Journal of Creation, v. 26, n. 1, p. 39, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_1/j26_1_37-39.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2012b, “Russell Humphreys Replies [to Loechelt 2012]”, Journal of Creation, v. 26, n. 2, pp. 48-49, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_1/j26_1_37-39.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2012c, “Zircons: God’s Tiny Nuclear Laboratories”, Creation Matters, v. 17, n. 3, May/June, pp. 1-2.

Humphreys, D.R., 2012d, “Argon from RATE Site Confirms that Earth is Young”, Creation, v. 34, n. 3, pp. 40-42.

Humphreys, D.R., 2013a, “Critics of RATE Overlook its Results”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 49, n. 4, Spring, pp. 319-323.

Humphreys, D.R., 2013b, “Planetary Magnetic Dynamo Theories: A Century of Failure”, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Humphreys, D.R., 2013c, “The Nature of Peer Review: Known Creationists Blacklisted at Major Journals”, February 17, https://creation.com/nature-peer-review , (accessed July 8, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2014a, “New View of Gravity Explains Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation”, Journal of Creation, v. 28, n. 3, pp. 106-114, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j28_3/j28_3_106-114.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2014b, “Magnetized Moon Rocks Shed Light on Precambrian Mystery”, Journal of Creation, v. 28, n. 3, pp. 51-60, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j28_3/j28_3_51-60.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2018a, “Answer to a Persistent Critic of RATE Helium Research”, Journal of Creation, v. 32, n. 3, pp. 49-57, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j32_3/j32_3_49-57.pdf , the quotations of this article by Dr. Loechelt fully comply with the citation requirements of the Journal of Creation, (accessed August 18, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2018b, “New Mechanism for Accelerated Removal of Excess Radiogenic Heat” in J.H. Whitmore, ed., The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, v. 8, article 21, pp. 731-739.

Humphreys, D.R., 2018c, “Answer to Loechelt”, Reply to Loechelt and Henke (2018), also published as Humphreys (2018a), https://greatdebatecommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Answer-to-Loechelt.pdf , (accessed August 13, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., 2020, “Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Site – A Reply”, Journal of Creation, v. 34, n. 1, pp. 53-54.

Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 1-17 in the following copy: http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Helium-Diffusion-Rates-Support-Accelerated-Nuclear-Decay.pdf (accessed May 30, 2020). Note: After this conference, the helium values in Table 1 of this paper were modified as shown in Table I of Humphreys et al. (2004). The linked copy was presented at the CRS conference and does not have these changes. In the past, a version of Humphreys et al. (2003a) with the modified helium values in Table 1 was posted on the internet without any type of announcement or errata. Apparently, all of these modified copies were removed from the internet after 2010.

Humphreys, D.R., S.A. Austin, J.R. Baumgardner, and A.A. Snelling, 2003b, “Recently Measured Helium Diffusion Rate for Zircon Suggests Inconsistency with U-Pb Age for Fenton Hill Granodiorite” Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting Supplement, American Geophysical Union Fall Conference, v. 84, n. 46, Abstract V32C-1047, Poster Title: “Precambrian Zircons Yield a Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years,” poster: https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/AGUHeliumPoster_Humphreys.pdf (accessed September 5, 2020).

Humphreys, D.R., S.A. Austin, J.R. Baumgardner, and A.A. Snelling, 2004, “Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 41, n. 1, June, pp. 1-16,

Humphreys, D.R., and De Spain, M.J., 2015, Earth’s Mysterious Magnetism and That of Other Celestial Orbs, Creation Research Society: Chino Valley, Arizona, ebook.

Hyndman, D.W., 1985, Petrology of Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Isaac, R., 2007, “Assessing the RATE Project,” http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm#helium (accessed May 30, 2020).

Isaac, R., 2008a, “A Dialogue about RATE: Isaac Replies”, March, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-pscf.htm#helium (accessed May 30, 2020).

Isaac, R., 2008b, “Helium Diffusion and Retention in Zircons”, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/helium-ri.htm (accessed May 30, 2020).

Isaak, M., 2005, “Claim CD015” (Helium Diffusion in Zircons), Talkorigins archive, last updated March 18, 2005, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html (accessed July 8, 2020).

Keppel, G., 1991, Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ.

Klein, C., 2002, Mineral Science, 22nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Kolstad, C.D. and T.R. McGetchin, 1978, “Thermal Evolution Models for the Valles Caldera with Reference to a Hot-dry-rock Geothermal Experiment”, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 3, pp. 197-218.

Kosmowska-Ceranowicz, B., M. Giertych, and H. Miller, 2001, “Cedarite from Wyoming: Infrared and Radiocarbon Data”, Prace Muzeum Ziemi, v. 46, pp. 77-80.

Kouremenos, T., 2003, “Aristotle on Geometric Perfection in the Physical World”, Mnemosyne, 4th series, v. 56, Fasc. 4, pp. 463-479.

Krauskopf, K.B. and D.K. Bird, 1995, Introduction to Geochemistry, 3rd ed., WCB McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts.

Kudo, A.M., 1974, “Outline of the Igneous Geology of the Jemez Mountain Volcanic Field” in C.T. Siemers, L.A. Woodward, and J.F. Callender, eds., New Mexico Geological Society 25th Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook, pp. 287-289.

Laney, R., A.W. Laughlin, and M.J. Aldrich, Jr., 1981, Geology and Geochemistry of Samples from Los Alamos National Laboratory HDR Well EE-2, Fenton Hill, New Mexico, LA-8923-MS, National Technical Information Service, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, USA.

Larson, R., L. Boswell, T.D. Kanold and L. Stiff, 2004, Algebra 2, McDougal Littell: A Houghton Mifflin Co., Evanston, Illinois, 1136 pp.

Laughlin, A.W., 1981, “The Geothermal System of the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico and its Exploration,” in L. Rybach and L.J.P. Muffler, eds., Geothermal Systems: Principles and Case Histories, Chapter 11, John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 295-320.

Laughlin, A.W. and A. Eddy, 1977, Petrolography and Geochemistry of Precambrian Rocks from GT-2 and EE-1, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, Report LA-6930-MS.

Laughlin, A.W., A.C. Eddy, R. Laney and M.J. Aldrich, Jr., 1983, “Geology of the Fenton Hill, New Mexico, Hot Dry Rock Site,” Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 15, p. 21-41.

Lee, J.K.W., I.S. Williams, and D.J. Ellis, 1997, “Pb, U and Th Diffusion in Natural Zircon,” Nature, v. 390, p. 159-162.

Levin, H., 2010, The Earth through Time: 9th ed., John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, New Jersey.

LieSvendsen, O. and M.H. Rees, 1996, “Helium Escape from the Terrestrial Atmosphere: The Ion Outflow Mechanism,” Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics, v. 101, n. A2, pp. 2435-2443.

Lindauer, D. 2013. “RATE’s Practical Application”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 49, n. 4, Spring, p. 332.

Lippolt, H.J. and E. Weigel, 1988, “4He Diffusion in 40Ar-retentive Minerals,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 52, p. 1449-1458.

Loechelt, G. H., 2008a, “Helium Diffusion in Zircon: Flaws in a Young-Earth Argument, Part 1 (of 2)”, September 10, http://www.catalystconsulting.com/fleminggroup/Hidden/New/Helium%20Diffusion%20in%20Zircon_%20Flaws%20in%20a%20Young-Earth%20Argument,%20Part%201%20(of%202).html (accessed March 15, 2020); also at: https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2008/09/09/helium-diffusion-in-zircon-flaws-in-a-young-earth-argument-part-1-of-2 (accessed January 15, 2021)

Loechelt, G. H., 2008b, “Helium Diffusion in Zircon: Evidence Supports on Old Earth, Part 2 (of 2)”, September 17, http://www.catalystconsulting.com/fleminggroup/Hidden/New/Helium%20Diffusion%20in%20Zircon_%20Evidence%20Supports%20an%20Old%20Earth,%20Part%202%20(of%202).html (accessed March 15, 2020); also at: https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2008/09/16/helium-diffusion-in-zircon-evidence-supports-an-old-earth-part-2-of-2 (accessed January 15, 2021)

Loechelt, G. H., 2008c, “Fenton Hill Revisited: The Retention of Helium in Zircons and the Case for Accelerated Nuclear Decay,” American Scientific Affiliation website, https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/helium-gl3.pdf (accessed March 15, 2020).

Loechelt, G. H., 2009a, “A Response to the RATE Team Regarding Helium Diffusion in Zircon”, American Scientific Affiliation website: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/helium-gl4.htm (accessed March 15, 2020).

Loechelt, G. H., 2009b, “Helium Diffusion in Zircon: A Response to Questions by the RATE Team”, April 22, 2009, http://www.catalystconsulting.com/fleminggroup/Hidden/New/Helium%20Diffusion%20in%20Zircon_%20A%20Response%20to%20Questions%20by%20the%20RATE%20Team.html (accessed March 15, 2020); also at: https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2009/04/22/helium-diffusion-in-zircon-a-response-to-questions-by-the-rate-team (accessed April 8, 2020).

Loechelt, G.H. 2010. “Critics of Helium Evidence for a Young World Now Seem Silent?: A Reply”, Journal of Creation, v. 24, n. 3, p. 34, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_3/j24_3_34-39.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Loechelt, G.H., 2012, “Argon Diffusion Data Support RATE’s 6,000-year Helium Age of the Earth: A Reply”, Journal of Creation, v. 26, n. 2, pp. 45-48, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_2/j26_2_45-49.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Loechelt, G.H., 2020a, “Accelerated Nuclear Decay in the Light of New Experimental Data”, Perspectives on Science and Faith, v. 72, n. 1, March, pp. 37-50. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2020/PSCF3-20dyn.html (accessed April 8, 2020).

Loechelt, G.H., 2020b, “Thermal History of the Fenton Hill Site”, Journal of Creation, v. 34, n. 1, p. 53.

Loechelt, G.H., and K.R. Henke, 2018, “Dr. Kevin Henke and Dr. Gary Loechelt Discuss Creationist Claims about Helium Diffusion Dates”, Steve McRae and Paulogia, YouTube Videos:

Part 1: Dr. Henke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXD33E9c7pk

Aftershow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1G09vk3bLk&t=1s

Part 2: Dr. Loechelt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmhHLJaH-w0&t=5s

Summary at Paulogia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khgqyd5LYsY

Dr. Humphreys’ replies: Humphreys (2018a; 2018c)

(all accessed July 18, 2020).

Loftus, J.W., 2008, Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 428 pp.

Loftus, J.W., ed., 2010, The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails: Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 422 pp.

Loftus, J.W., ed., 2011, The End of Christianity, Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 435 pp.

Ludwig, K.R., R.E. Zartman, and S.S. Goldich, 1984, “Lead Retention in Zircons,” Science, v. 223, n. 4638, p. 835.

Magomedov, Sh. A., 1970, “Migration of Radiogenic Products in Zircon,” Geokhimiya, v. 2, p. 263-267 (in Russian). English abstract: Geochemistry International, v. 7, n. 1, p. 203.

Malcolm, D., 1994, Helium in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation), v. 8, n. 2, pp. 142-147.

Manning, A.H., 2008. Ground-water Temperature, Noble Gas, and Carbon Isotope Data from the Española Basin, New Mexico, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5200. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5200/pdf/SIR08-5200.pdf (accessed May 30, 2020).

Mason, J., 2014, “Radiometric Dating”, Chapter 6, in R. Carter, ed., Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, Creation Book Publishers: Powder Springs, GA, USA, pp. 193-213.

McDonald, L.M., 2007, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, Massachusetts, USA, 549 pp.

McDougall, I., and T. M. Harrison, 1999, Geochronology and Thermochronology by the 40Ar/39Ar Method, Oxford University Press, New York.

McMillan, N.J. and V.T. McLemore, 2004, “Cambrian-Ordovician Magmatism and Extension in New Mexico and Colorado”, New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 160, 11 pp.

Meesters, A.G.C.A. and T.J. Dunai, 2002a, “Solving the Production-Diffusion Equation for Finite Diffusion Domains of Various Shapes Part I. Implications for Low-Temperature (U-He)/He Thermochronology”, Chemical Geology, v. 186, p. 333-344.

Meesters, A.G.C.A. and T.J. Dunai, 2002b, “Solving the Production-Diffusion Equation for Finite Diffusion Domains of Various Shapes Part II. Application to Cases with α-ejection and Nonhomogeneous Distribution of the Source”, Chemical Geology, v. 186, p. 347-363.

Miller, H.R., J.R. Michaels, and M.M. Miller, 2006a, “Pioneering 14C Dating of Wyoming Amber and Its Implications for a Young Earth and Global Catastrophism”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 43, n. 2, pp. 84-94.

Miller, H.R., J.R. Michaels, and M.M. Miller, 2006b, “Hanson Ranch Wyoming Dinosaur and Amber Excavations of 1996”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 43, n. 2, pp. 95-104.

Morris, H., 2008, “Neocreationism: A More Accepted Creationism?” in R.J. Bigalke, Jr., ed., The Genesis Factor: Myths and Realities, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, pp. 221-236.

Morris, J.D., 2000, “Prologue” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, L. Vardiman, A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin, eds., Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Mo, pp. iii-viii.

Morton, G. and G. L. Murphy, 2004, “Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism”, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, v. 24, n.1, pp. 31-32. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/cooling-mm.htm (accessed May 30, 2020).

Mussett, A.E., 1969, “Diffusion Measurements and the Potassium-Argon Method of Dating,” Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 18, pp. 257-303.

Nelstead, K., 2013, “A Young-Earth Creationist Magmatic Model for the Origin of Evaporites”, Geochristian.com, https://geochristian.com/2013/03/26/a-young-earth-creationist-magmatic-model-for-the-origin-of-evaporites/ (accessed July 14, 2020).

Ness, N.F., Acuna, M.H., Behannon, K.W., Burlaga, L.F., Connerney, J.E.P., Lepping, R.P., and Neubauer. F.M., 1986, “Magnetic Fields at Uranus”, Science, v. 233, n. 4759, July 4, pp. 85-89.

The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985, Doubleday: New York.

Nicolaysen, L.O., 1957, “Solid Diffusion in Radioactive Minerals and the Measurement of Absolute Age,” Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta, v. 11, pp. 41-59.

The North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature. 2005. “North American Stratigraphic Code”, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 89, n. 11, pp. 1547-1591, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Info/NACSN/Code2/code2.html (accessed April 12, 2020).

Oard, M., 2008, Flood by Design: Receding Water Shapes the Earth’s Surface, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA.

Oard, M.J., 2009, “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient ‘Ice Ages’”, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed, eds., Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J., 2011, Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries: How the Genesis Flood makes Sense of Dinosaur Evidence including Tracks, Nests, Eggs, and Scavenged Bones, Creation Book Publishers: Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 175 pp.

Oard, M.J., 2019, The Deep Time Deception: Examining the Case for Millions of Years: Creation Book Publishers: Powder Springs, Georgia, USA, 163 pp.

Oard, M.J. and R.W. Carter. 2021. Biblical Geology 101: Creation Book Publishers: Powder Springs, Georgia, USA, 194 pp.

Oard, M.J., and J.K. Reed, 2017, How Noah’s Flood Shaped Our Earth, Creation Book Publishers: Powder Springs, Georgia, USA, 197 pp.

Olson, P., and U.R. Christiansen, 2006, “Dipole Moment Scaling for Convection-driven Planetary Dynamos”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 250, pp. 561-571.

Orear, J., 1967, Fundamental Physics, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, 472 pp.

Patterson, R. 2008. Evolution Exposed: Earth Science, Answers in Genesis: Hebron, Kentucky, USA, 300 pp.

Pidgeon, R.T., 1992, “Recrystallisation of Oscillatory Zoned Zircon: Some Geochronological and Petrological Implications”, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, v. 110, pp. 463-472.

Pitts, J. Brian, 2009, “Nonexistence of Humphreys’ ‘Volume Cooling’ for Terrestrial Heat Disposal by Cosmic Expansion”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, v. 61, n. 1, March, p. 23-28. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2009/PSCF3-09Pitts.pdf (accessed May 30, 2020).

Phillips, B.R., W.S. Baldridge, C.W. Gable, and J.M. Sicilian, 2007, “Duration of the Banco Bonito Rhyolite Eruption, Valles Caldera, New Mexico, Based on Magma Transport Modeling” in B.S. Kues, S.A. Kelley, and V.W. Lueth, eds., Geology of the Jemez Region II: New Mexico Geological Society 58th Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook, pp. 382-387.

Press, F., and Siever, R., 2001, Understanding Earth: 3rd ed., W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.

Price, R.M., 2003, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?: Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 389 pp.

Price, R.M., 2006, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Signature Books: Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 1209 pp.

Price, R.M., 2010, The Case Against the Case for Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel: American Atheist Press: Cranford, New Jersey, 298 pp.

Price, R.M., and Suominen, E.A., 2013, Evolving out of Eden: Christian Responses to Evolution, Tellectual Press: Valley, Washington, 339 pp.

Prothero, D.R., 2007, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, Columbia University Press, New York, 381 pp.

Purtymun, W.D., F.G. West, and R.A. Pettitt, 1974, Geology of Geothermal Test Hole GT-2 Fenton Hill Site, July 1974, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Report LA-5780-MS. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/5205745-2QlINR/native/5205745.pdf (accessed May 30, 2020).

Rao, D.D., 2012, “Radioactivity in Human Body and its Detection”, Radiation Protection and Environment, v. 35, n. 2, April, pp. 57-58.

Reed, J., 2013, Rocks Aren’t Clocks: A Critique of the Geologic Timescale, Creation Book Publishers: Powder Springs, Georgia, USA, pp. 121-122.

Reiners, P., 2005, “Zircon (U-Th)/He Thermocronometry” in Reiners, P.W. and T.A. Elhers, eds., Low Temperature Thermochronology: Techniques, Interpretations and Applications: Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, v. 58, pp. 151-179.

Reiners, P.W., K.A. Farley, and H.J. Hickes, 2002, “He Diffusion and (U-Th)/He Thermochronometry of Zircon: Initial Results from Fish Canyon Tuff and Gold Butte,” Tectonophysics, v. 349, p. 297-308.

Reiners, P.W., T.L. Spell, S. Nicolescu, and K.A. Zanetti, 2004, “Zircon (U-Th)/He Thermochronometry: He Diffusion and Comparisons with 40Ar/39Ar Dating,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 68, n. 8, p. 1857-1887.

Reinfort, E.M., 2019a, Young-Universe Creationism Versus Naturalism: Volume 1: Introduction and Background Issues, Amazon Digital Services, Kindle Edition.

Reinfort, E.M., 2019b, Young-Universe Creationism Versus Naturalism: Comparing the Best Responses from Two Opposing Sides: Volume 2: 12 Questions on the Solar System, Amazon Digital Services, Kindle Edition.

Reinfort, E.M., 2019c, Young-Universe Creationism Versus Secularism: Comparing the Best Answers from Two Opposing Sides: Volume 3: Biblical Cosmology: The Firmament, the Waters Above, the Windows of Heaven and More, Amazon Digital Services, Kindle Edition.

Reynolds, J.H., 1957, “Comparative Study of Argon Content and Argon Diffusion in Mica and Feldspar”, Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 12, pp. 177-184.

Riddle, M., 2006, “Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old? in Ham, K., ed., The New Answers Book: Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, pp. 113-124.

Robinson, J.A.T., 1976. Redating the New Testament, Westminster Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 369 pp.

Sanders, R.E., M.T. Heizler, and L.B. Goodwin, 2006, “40Ar/39Ar Thermochronology Constraints on the Timing of Proterozoic Basement Exhumation and Fault Ancestry, Southern Sangre de Cristo Range, New Mexico”, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 118, n. 11-12, pp. 1489-1506.

Sarfati, J., 2004, Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationism” (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross, Creation Book Publishers: Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 411 pp.

Sarfati, J., 2014, The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution, Creation Book Publishers: Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 333 pp.

Sarfati, J.D., 2015, The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11, Creation Book Publishers: Powder Springs, Georgia, USA, 785 pp.

Sarfati, J. 2021. "Physicist Staunchly Defends Biblical Creation: Jonathan Sarfati Chats with Dr. Russell Humphreys", Creation, v. 43, n. 1, pp. 44-47, https://creation.com/russ-humphreys-defends-creation (accessed February 28, 2022).

Sasada, M., 1989, “Fluid Inclusion Evidence for Recent Temperature Increases at Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock Test Site West of the Valles Caldera, New Mexico, U.S.A.”, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, v. 36, pp. 257-266.

Schneider, S.E., and T.T. Arny, 2012, Pathways to Astronomy: The Solar System, Volume 1, AST 191, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Shizgal, B.D. and G.G. Arkos, 1996, “Nonthermal Escape of the Atmospheres of Venus, Earth, and Mars,” Review of Geophysics, v. 34, n. 4, p. 483-505.

Smith, S. P. and B. M. Kennedy, 1985, “Noble Gas Evidence for Two Fluids in the Baca (Valles Caldera) Geothermal Reservoir,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 49, pp. 893-902.

Snelling, A.A., 1999, “’Excess Argon’: The ‘Archilles’ [sic, Achilles’] Heel’ of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon ‘Dating’ of Volcanic Rocks”, Acts & Facts, v. 28, n. 1, https://www.icr.org/article/436/ (accessed May 5, 2020).

Snelling, A.A.,2005, “Radiohalos in Granites: Evidence for Accelerated Nuclear Decay” in L. Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling, and E.F. Chaffin, eds., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative: Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, Arizona, pp. 101-207.

Snelling, A.A., 2009a, “Radiometric Dating: Challenging an Icon of Evolutionary Geology” in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed, eds., Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, pp. 185-206.

Snelling, A.A.,2009b, Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & The Flood: Volumes 1 and 2, Institute for Creation Research: Dallas, TX, 1102 pp.

Snelling, A.A., 2009c, “How Old Does the Earth Look?” in Ham. K., ed., The New Answers Book 3: Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, pp. 143-150.

Snelling, A.A., 2012a, “Radioactive Dating of Rocks?” in K. Ham and B. Hodge, eds., How Do We Know the Bible is True?: Volume 2, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, pp. 145-159.

Snelling, A.A., 2012b, “10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth: #6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks”, Answers Magazine, October 1, https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/ ; reposted without any updates or corrections at Answers in Genesis on August 8, 2021 (accessed August 10, 2021).

Snelling, A.A., 2015, “Radioisotope Dating of Meteorites: V. Isochron Ages of Groups of Meteorites”, Answers Research Journal, v. 8, pp. 449-478, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/age-of-the-universe/radioisotope-dating-meteorites-v-isochron-ages-groups-meteorites/ (accessed July 15, 2020).

Snelling, A.A., D. Menton, D.R. Faulkner, and G. Purdom, 2013, “What Are Some of the Best Evidence in Science of a Young Creation?” in Ham, K., ed., The New Answers Book 4: Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, pp. 111-129.

Snelling, A.A. and J. Woodmorappe, 1998, “The Cooling of Thick Igneous Bodies on a Young Earth,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Aug. 3-8, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 705 Washington Dr., Pittsburgh, PA, USA 15229.

Spencer, W., 2015, “Magnetized Moon Rocks, Impacts, and the Precambrian – A Response to Humphreys”, Journal of Creation, v. 29, n. 1, pp. 116-119, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j29_1/j29_1_116-119.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Stamm, N.R., B.R. Wardlaw, and D.R. Soller, 2000, “GEOLEX – The National Geologic Map Database’s Geologic Names Lexicon”, Digital Mapping Techniques ’00 – Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-325, https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-325/stamm.html (accessed April 12, 2020).

Stenberg, D., 2012a, “A New Magnetic Field Theory and Flood Model – Part 1”, Journal of Creation, v. 26, n. 2, pp. 57-62, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_2/j26_2_57-62.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Stenberg, D., 2012b, “A New Magnetic Field Theory and Flood Model – Part 2”, Journal of Creation, v. 26, n. 2, pp. 63-69, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_2/j26_2_63-69.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Stenberg, D., 2012c, “A New Magnetic Field Theory and Flood Model – Reply to Reece”, Journal of Creation, v. 26, n. 3, pp. 46-47, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_3/j26_3_46-47.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Stenberg, D., 2012d, “Could Most of the Earth’s U, Th, and K have been in the Mantle Prior to the Flood? - Reply to Baumgardner”, Journal of Creation, v. 26, n. 3, pp. 48-49, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_3/j26_3_47-49.pdf (accessed August 24, 2020).

Stenger, V.J., 2012, God and the Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion: Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, 407 pp.

Stefani, F., Gailitis, A., Gerbeth, G., Giesecke, A., Gundrum, Th., Rüdiger, G., Seilmayer, M., and Vogt, T., 2018, “Laboratory Experiments on Dynamo Action and Magnetically Triggered Flow Instabilities: Fluid Dynamics,” arXiv:1803.03421, https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.03421 (accessed May 30, 2020).

Tagami, T., K.A. Farley, and D.F. Stockli, 2003, “(U-Th)/He Geochronology of Single Zircon Grains of Known Tertiary Eruption Age,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 207, pp. 57-67.

Thébault, E., Langlais, B., Oliveira, J.S., Amit, H., and Leclercq, L., 2018, “A Time-averaged Regional Model of the Hermean Magnetic Field”, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, v. 276, pp. 93-105.

Thomas, B., 2025, Is Young-Earth Creation Crazy? in Jake Hebert, Timothy Clarey, and Brian Thomas with Jeffrey P. Tomkins and Frank Sherwin, Age of the Earth: Evidence for Youth: Institute for Creation Research: Dallas, TX, USA, pp. 9-11.

Thompson, T., 2003, “On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth’s Magnetic Field”, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html , (accessed May 17, 2020).

Tolstikhin, I.N. and B. Marty, 1998, “The Evolution of Terrestrial Volatiles: A View from Helium, Neon, Argon and Nitrogen Isotope Modeling,” Chemical Geology, v. 147, pp. 27-52.

Tomkins, J.P., D.W. Daniels, and J.J.S. Johnson, 2019, “Extensive Messianic Prophecy Corruptions and Flood-related Chronology Errors Disqualify the Septuigant (LXX) as a Reliable Source for Creationist Research”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 56, pp. 40-47.

Tov, E., 2001, Textural Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd revised edition, Fortress Press: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 456 pp.

Truesdell, A.H. and C.J. Janik, 1986, “Reservoir Processes and Fluid Origins in the Baca Geothermal System, Valles Caldera, New Mexico,” Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, n. B2, p. 1817-1833.

Trull, T.W. and M.D. Kurz, 1993, “Experimental Measurements of 3He and 4He Mobility in Olivine and Clinopyroxene at Magmatic Temperatures,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, v. 57, p. 1313-1324.

United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Washington, DC, https://www.govinfo.gov/help/cfr (accessed July 14, 2020).

United States Geological Survey (USGS) – Association of American State Geologists (AASG). National Geologic Map Database, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/search (accessed June 7, 2010 and April 12, 2020).

Vardiman, L., 1990, The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California.

Vardiman, L., 2005, Evidence for a Young Earth from the Ocean and Atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Vardiman, L., 2008, “Evidence for a Young Earth from the Ocean and Atmosphere” in R.J. Bigalke Jr., ed., The Genesis Factor: Myths and Realities, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, pp. 187-201.

Vardiman, L., 2011, “Both Argon and Helium Diffusion Rates Indicate a Young Earth”, Acts & Facts, v. 40, n. 8, pp. 12-13 http://www.icr.org/article/6229/ (accessed May 30, 2020).

Vardiman, L., A.A. Snelling and E.F. Chaffin, eds., 2000, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA and Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, Missouri. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf (accessed May 30, 2020).

Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, eds., 2005, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, Arizona.

Walker, T. 2024. "Evolutionists can't Prove Millions-of-Years: Exposing the Fatal Flaw with Radiometric Dating", https://creation.com/evolutionists-cant-prove-age (accessed June 8, 2024).

West, F.G. and A.W. Laughlin, 1976, “Spectral Gamma Logging in Crystalline Basement Rocks,” Geology, v. 4, p. 617-618.

Whitefield, R., 2008, “The RATE Project Claims 22,000 oK? Really?” http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/helium-rw.pdf (accessed February 27, 2020).

Whitmore, J.H., A. Hutchison, R. Garbe, J. Guthrie, R. Moak, P. McDorman, and A. Payne, 2007, “Questions from CRSEF”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 43, n. 4, March, p. 268-270.

Wieland, C. 2004. "Radiometric Dating Breakthroughs", Creation, v. 26, n. 2, March, p. 42-44 https://creation.com/radiometric-dating-breakthroughs?utm_source=creation.com&utm_medium=slider&utm_campaign=homepage_slider

Williams, A. and J. Hartnett, 2005, Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, 346 pp.

Winkler, H.G.F., 1979, Petrogenesis of Metamorphic Rocks, 5th ed., Springer-Verlag: New York.

Wise, K, 2002, Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe, B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN, USA, 287pp.

Wolfe, M.R. and D. F. Stockli, 2010, “Zircon U-Th/He Thermochronometry in the KTB Drill Hole, Germany, and its Implications for Bulk He Diffusion Kinetics in Zircon,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 295, pp. 69-82.

Woodmorappe, J. (pseudonym), 1999, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.

Woodward, L.A., 1987, “Geology and Mineral Resources of Sierra Nacimiento and Vicinity, New Mexico”, New Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources Memoir, v. 42, pp. 1-84.

Zartman, R.E. 1979. Uranium, Thorium, and Lead Isotopic Composition of Biotite Granodiorite (Sample 9527-2b) from LASL Drill Hole GT-2, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report LA-7923-MS.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse