Questions for Dr. Russell Humphreys from creation.com

Homepage Forums Questions for Upcoming Debates Questions for Dr. Russell Humphreys from creation.com


Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    • #902
      Steve McRae

      This will be the starting page for questions that will be directed to Dr. Russell Humphreys. Questions need to be concise, precise and specifically related to claims made by Humphreys and related to his scientific areas of expertise.

      (Use Tag Humphreys)

    • #1271
      Steve McRae

      Email by Dr. Humphrey’s (made public by permission):

      Okay Steve. I’d been waiting for something from you to follow up on what I agreed to do. I’m going on a three-day trip to Canada the morning after your program with Dr. Henke and Dr. Loechelt, so I might not be able to get any comments in for a while. I’ll be interested to see whether either of them come up with something new, since they each have been silent, as far as I know, for many years after I replied in print to their last criticisms. Here are some relevant articles:




      — This is a summary with a table listing all the criticisms of the RATE helium project up to November 2008, and brief answers to them. I discuss the 12th item in the table, from Dr. Loechelt, in several paragraphs just below the table.


      —- This is a letter exchange with Dr. Loechelt in the December 2010 Journal of Creation. It didn’t seem to me that he added anything of significance to his previous article in item 12 above.


      — This was a 2nd letter exchange in the August 2012 Journal of Creation. Again, I didn’t see that Dr. Loechelt added anything substantially new. Until yesterday (when you told me about the broadcast) I hadn’t heard anything further from him, for 5 years. Google Scholar didn’t find anything by him subsequently on this topic.




      — This is an April 27, 2005 reply of mine to an article by Kevin Henke on March 17, 2005.


      —This was my January 5, 2006 reply to an extensive November 24, 2005 revision by Henke of his March 17, 2005 article. As far as I know, he didn’t make any detailed reply to my rejoinder to his revision, but perhaps he made some further revisions. Anyhow, I haven’t heard from him or about him for more than 11 years.


      Perhaps you might want to stimulate both Loechelt and Henke into commenting on significant points in my replies. One of those was the improbability of the experimental data lining up so closely by accident with the predictions of our “6,000-year” model, as I mentioned in the closing section of the 1st link above.

      “We published the ‘6,000 year’ model (red diamonds) in the year 2000. The experimenter, not knowing what answer we wanted, produced the blue data dots in the graph in 2003. The close fit of the model and the experiment is strong evidence that both are essentially correct, because the probability of an accidental fit is low.”

      As far as I know, none of the helium project critics has addressed that improbability. Do they think RATE was just lucky? J

      By the way, there is no “S” in the acronym RATE.

      Cordially in Christ,

      Russ Humphreys

    • #1273
      Steve McRae

      Hi Steve:

      We found a fair amount of “non-silience”. For example, we found differences up to a factor of two in isochron dates by different decay types in the same rock sample or formation. For example, see Figures 11-13 on pages 433-434 of this RATE II book chapter:


      The differences in dates were far outside the error bars. The most likely explanation I can imagine is that the nuclear decay acceleration factors were different for different types of decay. For example, alpha-decay ages were consistently greater than beta-decay ages in any given rock sample.

      However, there was an overall correlation between the radioisotope dates and the geologic strata, even though there were large deviations from the average curve. We knew this before we started the research. For example, see chapter 7, pages 341-344 and Figure 3 of the RATE I book:


      Yes, of course, there were millions of years’ worth of decay recorded in each of our samples. But in the RATE II book we offered multiple lines of evidence that roughly a half-Billionfold decay acceleration took place during the year of the Genesis flood. That would compress the millions of years down to months. The relative dates would in general still be useful. For example, a radioisotope age of “500 million” years would likely be from a stratum laid down about 4400 years ago near the beginning of the year of the Genesis flood. A stratum with a radioisotope age of “10 million” years would likely have been laid down about 4400 years ago near the end of the year of the Genesis flood.

      Yes, it is fine with me for you to make this and subsequent e-mails public, and I’d especially like you to make my e-mail to you yesterday public also, preferably before Drs. Loechelt and Henke make their presentations.


      Russ Humphreys

      From: Steve McRae [mailto:steveaskanything@gmail.com]
      Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 3:08 AM
      To: Russ Humphreys ; Jerry Bergman
      Subject: RATE (Quick Question)

      Would it be acceptable to say that RATE did seem to agree that there was an consilience with various isochron dating methods indicating an old age, and that millions of years of radiometric decay was also indicated…however, the position of RATE (and YEC) is that “accelerated decay” would explain that even if those dates were indicated, they would not explicitly mean that the Earth is old?

      Would what I just said in any way be incorrect?


      (Responses and other correspondence on this topic will be public if that is ok)

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Editor's choice