Nuclear decay rates are not constant

R1: regarding Los Alamos (all italics/emboldened and underlined letters are my emphasis) (1) I mentioned “assumptions” intentionally. Not only do they present formulaic issues when doing research, but because Humphrey’s study utilizes data from Gentrys 1982 study as a basis for his own (mentioned in Round 2), it possibly invalidates the whole thing. Dr. Henke, a geochemist, writes: First of all, Gentry et al. (1982a) assumed that the radiogenic lead concentrations […] of the zircons from each of the six samples averaged 80 parts per million (ppm). And continues through the actual calculations - provided in Appendix A [1] - to conclude, along with Loecelt that the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) would yield a Q0 of about 40 ncc […]. This value is more than twice as large as the Q0 value of approximately 15 ncc […] endorsed by Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 9). Henke goes on to say Rather than accepting that the assumptions in Gentry et al. (1982a) do not support a Q0 value of 15 ncc […], Humphreys (2005a) 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.” In other words, he assumes that Gentry’s 15 ncc are accurate without having calculated them himself. Now this study is highly technical but its critics reference certain data in Gentry’s paper - noted by Humphrey – that are inaccurate. And then, even after stating this, Humphreys uses that very data to support his study. (2) So why am I commenting on assumptions? Because Humphreys claims we should accept certain of Gentry’s assumptions despite admitting “that almost every other datum in this paper is a “typo” or “misstated” number” [1]. Why is Humphrey’s willing to support ANY assumptions at all after making such a claim? (3) To clarify for the reader; the calculations should be 40 ncc in this example, but are somehow 15! Humphreys and Gentry both, do not provide calculations on how Gentry obtained a Q0 value of only 15ncc […] [1]. And so, Humphreys uses inaccurate math as a basis for his research. R2: regarding bias (1) Why is it important that the ICR funds the study and “is not considered legitimate by the scientific community” as you concede? Because the ICR, AIG and other Young Earth Creationists flat out state as AIG does in Section 4, #6 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." [6] (2) What if I told you that the “Sky is green and I have the research with an institute to back me up - who paid for it - and it is proof that all the science we have for “the sky is blue” is wrong?” How would you respond? What if I then I told you that no matter what your evidence says, I am right? (That is what these institutions have said). (3) This bias is important because it raises ethical questions? A common example comes to us from the drug industry. Company ABC says we have a drug that cures cancer. It costs $1000 per pill. AND IT WORKS! We ask for proof and they give us a study from a source they paid to perform the study. Furthermore, they don’t provide any details so that other companies can reproduce the results and finally, do not explain the process by which it works. Would you trust this research? How do we know that the research isn’t manipulated? How can we be sure that the researchers weren’t paid off? These are questions should and DO ask, all of the time with companies like this. Why would ICR and Humphreys be exempt from this scrutiny? (4) I do not use the “Argument from Majority” as Pro claims. My refutation was based on the idea that for science to work it must allow for falsification by experimentation and requires multiple sources to confirm the research. Humphreys will not publish his research in a credible journal and it cannot be reproduced or reviewed by additional geochemists, geochronologists and physicists because – as mentioned above [see R1 (1)] – the calculations for identifying certain of the data points are not given. It therefore cannot be reproduced and fails as a hypothesis until it allows for experimentation. (5) At no point do I criticize the researchers “for who they are and what they stand for”. I am criticizing their research. My opponent concedes “such a controversial paper would never have been accepted into an accredited scientific journal”. Why not? If the research is sound, the study reproducible, the evidence and data correct, it would be reviewed and possibly published. My opponent cannot claim the article would be dismissed outright. Besides, making such a claim does nothing to further the argument that decay rates are not constant. R3: regarding diffusion (1) Humphreys “assumes” isotrophy for his zircons and biotites would only lengthen the helium diffusion time by no more than 30% (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 9) [1]. He does not provide any calculations for this. What is his evidence? (2) Why should I “assume” the Q/Qzero value of sample one is 0.58, when the analyses in the Gentry study indicate the value may be as low as 0.011? [1]. Humphreys uses data from the initial study that fits his model and changes data that does not [see R1 (1)]. (3) There are well established anisotrophic diffusion rates [2]. How then does Humphreys claim that anisotrophy only alters his results by “less than a factor of two” (Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 15). Why didn’t he use the accepted geochemical rates [1]? He is a physicist, not a geochemist, so manipulating these rates are not within his scope of practice. He would need to perform his own experiments to change the values. Again, he keeps what fits the model and changes what does not; i.e. manipulates the data to fit the young earth conclusion. R4: regarding external helium (1) Dr. Henke writes “extraneous helium could still be in the relatively impermeable zircons” [1]. Please provide evidence that external helium cannot enter the zircon. (2) All Humphreys has to do is “look for 3He in his zircons and 4He in surrounding low uranium/thorium quartz grains” [1], in order to identify extraneous diffusion methods. He could do this to silence critics but has not. What is stopping him? R5: regarding temperature (1) Not irrelevant! Please provide evidence that temperature does not affect diffusion. How can Dr. Humphreys “assume” that temperatures have been constant over time? This idea has been refuted [3] [4] [5]. R6: my contentions (1) Again, my opponent DID NOT indicate that I should limit my evidence anywhere so my contentions must be refuted. (2) Pro DID NOT respond to ANY of my contentions. This should constitute a forfeiture in itself. (3) I have repeatedly reminded Pro of the motion and he/she has continually referred to ONE study. (4) In an attempt to be fair however (since we have miscommunicated) I will not provide additional evidence so Pro may refute my contentions in Round 4 before the concluding round 5. Wouldn’t you like to know HOW decay rates change, as stated by Pro? (5) To the reader: ask yourself. “What have I learned about the evidence affirming the motion? Do you know HOW decay rates change? Do you know WHY decay rates change? Do you know WHAT causes decay rate change? If you are unable to answer these questions, then Pro has not provided you adequate evidence affirming the motion. (6) What Pro has given us is not even a hypothesis because it does not present us with a method whereby decay rates changes. Moreover, Pro has not shown that it is verified, testable or valid. Vote CON. [1] http://www.talkorigins.org... [2]http://sims.ess.ucla.edu... [3]http://adsabs.harvard.edu... [4]http://adsabs.harvard.edu... [5] http://www.asa3.org... [6] https://answersingenesis.org...