Talk:Russell Humphreys/Archive 1

Bias

An incredibly biased article. One might just as well have titled it, "Russell Humphreys - He's Wrong, and Here's Why". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.113.169 (talk • contribs)

I attended one of Dr. Humphreys lectures and found his explanations of human evolution and fossil records to be overly simplified. He states there are not enough Stone Age skeletons to defend evolution. In his pamphlet "they [ancient Homo sapiens] would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around." Dr. Humphreys does not take into account the required conditions for an intact fossil to exist. Only under rare conditions are bodies preserved. Fossils have to survive breaking, scattering, and destruction. Animals frequently scatter bones, fossils are subjected to erosion and many are lost under water with floods over thousands of years. The fact is most of the earth hasn't been excavated and we are still finding new fossils every year. I found all of the arguments he made about archaeological remains to be based on simplified ideas that ignore many of the factual evidence archaeologists have collected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.83.108 (talk • contribs)

The bias (from both perspectives) needs work. We need more coverage of what he actually says in response to all the criticism his opponents raise...--Gniniv (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Same as above

The person writing the article could at least try to hide his hate towards Mr. Russell Humphreys... Claiming "some people don't agree with him" is not enough for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zago MX (talk • contribs)

The article isn't written to a very high standard. It makes many claims about Dr Humphreys and his detractors in a very haphazard fashion.

Breaking the article down into sections on each of Dr Humphreys' works and then discussing them would make more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lti (talk • contribs)

I think it is a fair article

I actually believe the Starlight and Time theory, but I still feel this is a fair article. It presents his background, basics of theory, then shows some criticism, which is only fair. The criticisms only talk about evolutionary aspects and are very knitpicky at best. In all fairness I think the criticisms and history of "philosophical" exchange brought up by Hugh Ross could be included, also criticism by an average cosmologist if there are any.

I would like to see a support section though as well. There have to be some people out there that have gone through the theory and math who can say "this part, this part, and this part work, this part needs work".

In response to "we are still finding new fossils"---how many hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of dinosaur fossils have we found? How many trilobites, femurs of T Rex, ect. ect alone? Yet we find a grand total of, what is it, five, maybe ten fragmentory remains of "evolving humans"? And people that claim to be scientists, yet who really must not actually believe in the scientific method of observable repeatable results, have formed an entire theory around that? That my friend is oversimplification. And of those fragmentory remains, has gene/DNA testing been done to prove they weren't some genetic defect of an otherwise normal species? Of course not, because you can never attack a "scientific theory" that is treated as a law, only you "scientists" can attack other theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.138.51 (talk • contribs)

This is a discussion about the article, not a forum for diatribes, whether they are of the Darwinian or the Young-Earth Creationist slant. Also, please use four tildes (~~~~) in the future to sign your name when you post your incoherent rants. --Kajerm (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There have to be some people out there that have gone through the theory and math who can say "this part, this part, and this part work, this part needs work". No, there don't have to be. It is quite possible that anyone who has actually gone through the theory and math has said "well, that part's wrong, and that part's wrong, and that part's wrong...". Ming the Merciless (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My "incoherent rants", Kajerm, were in response to the initial discussion. And since this is a discussion page and not the actual article, one can discuss whatever one wants in relation to that article. And in response to "No, there don't have to be. It is quite possible that anyone who has actually gone through the theory and math..." it surely is possible that all his theory and math is wrong and people like you are just so infinitely smarter. But show the proof. Saying he is wrong with no backing is bullcrap. Show the proof or shut up. Here is my precious name, Kajerm. ````Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.196.146 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Not surprisingly, most scientists disagree with Humphreys' conclusions, since these conclusions are creationist-based and contradict most secular work." Shouldn't this be: "Humphreys' conclusions are not in scientific consensus, because these conclusions contradict most scientific understanding." The former seems loaded to imply scientists disagree due to some secular agenda rather than a minority view that requires contradicting current understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsinoyman (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

unsigned. my bad. -Tsinoyman (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the statement in this form is that it essentially says that RH's views are not in the scientific consensus because they disagree with the scientific consensus. Zero information. His model is already described as controversial earlier in the article, so it probably doesn't need to be restated here. I keep coming across disagreement with scientific consensus in criticism sections, as if scientific truth is somehow voted into being. Each and every revolutionary scientific breakthrough in history has by definition been against the scientific concensus. In other words, in each case the scientific concensus was wrong, or at the very least inadequate to the point of inhibiting progress. The article should stick to the specific criticisms. That is, if indeed a criticism section is even appropriate. Any publishing scientist will draw criticism from other scientists - so we should perhaps have a project to include criticism sections in ALL bios of publishing scientists and researchers. Also, this particular criticism section says that RH "claims" and "thinks" while his critics "note" and "explain". These are weasel words and POV. I would propose using "state" or something equivalent for each of these sentences - assuming we are keeping the section  :) LowKey (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

The section on controversy should be limited to critiques of his cosmology. His opinions on fossils, zircons, salt water, etc., and the critiques thereof, are of tangential value. His signficance for YECs is his cosmology; that is his work, and that's what the critiques included in this article should be directed toward.67.168.205.112 (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Humphreys Bibliography

I've extracted a bibliography of Humphreys' writings in the scientific literature from the NASA Physics Database. I think I've correctly distinguished D. Russell Humphreys from the other D. Humphreys in the system.

Query Results from the ADS Database Retrieved 10 abstracts, starting with number 1. Total number selected: 10.

• Humphreys, D. R., Baumgardner, J. R., Snelling, A. A., & Austin, S. A. 2003, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts Recently Measured Helium Diffusion Rate for Zircon Suggests Inconsistency With U-Pb Age for Fenton Hill Granodiorite

• Baumgardner, J. R., Humphreys, D. R., Snelling, A. A., & Austin, S. A. 2003, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts The Enigma of the Ubiquity of ¹⁴C in Organic Samples Older Than 100 ka

• Sanford, T. W. L., Humphreys, D. R., Poukey, J. W., Marder, B. M., Halbleib, J. A., Crow, J. T., Spielman, R. B., & Mock, R. C. 1994, Unknown Preradiation studies for non-thermal Z-pinch wire load experiments on Saturn

• Humphreys, D. R., Francavilla, T. L., Gubser, D. U., & Wolf, S. A. 1987, Presented at the 6th Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Va., 29 Jun. 1987 Progress toward a superconducting opening switch

• Cook, D. L., Allshouse, G. O., Bailey, J., Barr, G. W., Boyes, J. D., Burgess, E. L., Boyer, W. B., Cap, J. S., Coats, R. S., Dreike, P. L., Fifer, H. G., Furaus, J. P., Gerber, R. A., Goldsmith, S., Goldstein, S. A., Hamil, R. A., Humphreys, D. R., Leeper, R. J., McDaniel, D. H., Martin, T. H., Mendel, C. W., Jr., Miller, P. A., Mix, L. P., Neau, E. L., Olsen, J. N., Peterson, G. D., Prestwich, K. R., Quintenz, J. P., Rochau, G. E., Rosenthal, S. E., Rovang, D. C., Ruiz, C. L., Schneider, L., Seamons, L. O., Seidel, D. B., Simmons, T. N., Slutz, S. A., Stinnett, R. W., Stygar, W. A., Sweeney, M. A., Tolk, K. M., Turman, B. N., Wilson, J. M., & Van Devender, J. P. 1986, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion Progress in light ion beam fusion research on PBFA II

• Turman, B. N., Martin, T. H., Neau, E. L., Humphreys, D. R., Bloomquist, D. D., Cook, D. L., Goldstein, S. A., Schneider, L. X., McDaniel, D. H., & Wilson, J. M. 1985, Presented at the 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conf., Washington, D.C., 10 Jun. 1985 PBFA 2: A 100 TW pulsed power driver for the inertial confinement fusion program

• Humphreys, D. R., Penn, K. J., Cap, J. S., Adams, R. G., Seamen, J. F., & Turman, B. N. 1985, Presented at the 5th IEEE Pulsed Power Conf., Washington, D.C., 10 Jun. 1985 Rimfire: A six megavolt laser-triggered gas-filled switch for PBFA 2

• Adams, R. G., Humphreys, D. R., Woodworth, J. R., Dillon, M. M., Green, D., & Seamen, J. F. 1984, Presented at the 16th Power Modulator Symp., Arlington, Va., 17 Jun. 1984 Ultraviolet laser triggering of the 6 MV PBFA-2 gas switch

• Levit, L. B., Humphreys, D. R., & Porter, L. G. 1974, Nuclear Instruments and Methods Wide range multi-channel analog switch

• Coxell, H., Gillespie, C. R., Huggett, R. W., Humphreys, D. R., Pinkau, K., & MacKeown, P. K. 1969, International Cosmic Ray Conference Studies of hadron interactions at energies around 10 TeV using an ionization spectrometer-emulsion chamber combination

Note that most of his publications, from his graduate student days through his work at Sandia labs, either concern the design of high voltage switching circuits or relate to the scientific results gained using the switching circuits on which he worked. The two most recent papers on radioisotope dating (which are only conference abstracts and not peer-reviewed papers) appeared after he left Sandia and began working with the Institute for Creation Research. His career profile is more that of an engineer than a research scientist. --SteveMcCluskey 13:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Humphreys is one of those very rare young earth creationists who actually knows what real scientific research is, and who has done some himself and had his work published in relevant professional science publications. However, unfortunately for his position and the position of his fellow young earth creationists, none of the genuine scientific research that he has conducted has anything to do with his young earth creationist beliefs. In regard to those particular ideas he doesn't publish any research in professional peer-reviewed science journals. Greeneto (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Cosmological Model/Criticisms merger

Hrafn has merged Criticisms into Cosmological Model, so the actual criticisms of the cosmological model are where they should be. Apart from that improvement, though, these sentences are still clunky and/or weaselly as I said above. I am loathe to actually fix them in the article myself, as my article edits of late seem to attract major knee-jerks. LowKey (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cosmological Model

I have re-included a reworked explanation of RH's cosmological model that had previously been removed. It was deleted as uncited but I THINK than the cite challenges were on specific statements rather than the whole explanation, as most of it just summarised RH's model as laid out in his book. It seemed a bit disjointed to move on to quite specific criticisms without first giving some detail of the model itself. I also moved a chunk about criticism of RH's cooling model. It might have been in the right place originally, but with section merges it doesn't currently fit in the "Cosmological Model" section. I have nothing on that model at present so the whole section consists of the criticism for now. I also modified the wording in the criticisms. If one party is reported as claiming or thinking and another party is reported as explaining or noting, then the reporting is POV. LowKey (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you cite where you got the information from? Page numbers? Webpages? If you just reworked previous material how do we know its correct? We66er (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The information is in ‘Starlight and Time’. I don’t have page numbers because a) I don’t have the book with me and b) I have never come across page number cites for a summary of a book in WP yet (I did btw include a cite for the quantised redshift issue). The book explains the model; the model is the topic. If a wikipedian’s exposure to a topic is limited so that a basic summary of the topic’s major reference is outside that exposure than I would recommend becoming a little more familiar with the reference before substantially editing the topic. Otherwise, how would one know if the criticisms are valid? More importantly, how would an otherwise uninformed reader of WP know? I don’t mean correct; I mean valid. If a critic challenges RH’s method at some point, how else would one even know that he used the method?

My re-work was to remove each of the statements that was challenged for source, as these where qualitatively different from the main body of the explanation and as I stated above the challenges looked to me to be of the specific statements. I also removed other statements qualitatively similar to the challenged statements. I then extensively re-cast much of what was left. I called it ‘re-work’ to encourage editors to compare the two explanations. The whole section makes more sense if the key points of the model are laid out so that readers know what the model is about (i.e. more specifically then “cosmology”) before reading what other scientists have to say about it (pro or con). Have a read and see what you think. Meantime when I get a bit of time I will see if there is either a web-based edition to reference, or possibly a review that gives a summary.LowKey (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CITE#Including_page_numbers. You must include page numbers for specific claims. If not, its unsourced and then: How do we know you or someone else didn't just paraphrase someone else's misreading of the work? We66er (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:CITE#Including_page_numbers - "Page numbers within a book or article are not required when a citation is for a general description of a book or article". As I said above, it is a summary of the book. The role of quantised redshifts in the model is a specific claim, and I included a separate citation for that. That said, would it be acceptable if I cite the FIRST instance of each element in the summary? It may take a few days though, as I do not have the book with me.LowKey (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added in tags for places that make specific claims. Those, including the run-on sentence, need page citations. My concern is not the summary, but it is as I wrote above, the specific claims. We66er (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We may be defining "summary" differently, but it doesn't matter with the tags in place. However, I repeat - would it be acceptable if I cite the FIRST instance of each element...? It may take a few days though, as I do not have the book with me.LowKey (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CITE#Including_page_numbers: "If you are quoting from, paraphrasing, or referring to a specific passage of a book or article, you should if possible also cite the page number(s) of that passage." Each specific claim needs a page. Example: "not a geocentric model of the solar system" needs a cite, "proposal is premised on gravitational time dilation" needs a cite, and so on. Those are specific claims that are without WP:V. We66er (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking issue with WHAT needs citing. I am not arguing against the citations. I am not debating the need for citation. You appear to be finding disagreement where non exists. I didn't cite because I didn't see the need (as per above). You challenged that and required citations, as per normal WP practice. What I want to know is: in the case of EACH claim or statement for which I supply a citation, would you accept that I cite the FIRST instance of said claim or statement in the book? It's a yes/no question. There is no need for it to be this difficult. LowKey (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The best page citation would be where the author goes into detail about the claim. Since the book is only 130 pages it should be easy to do. When you get to that have a look at Starlight_problem#Starlight_and_Time:_.22White_Hole.22_Cosmology. BTW: You were being difficult or misread some of my earlier comments. We66er (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC) _{I asked a yes/no question, and your response contained no answer, so I asked again.LowKey (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}

You mean have a look at to fix the citations there too?LowKey (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. We66er (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't being clear there. Do you want me to look at the starlight problem article BEFORE getting these cites (presuming it to be an example of what is expected), or do you want me to fix the cites here and then move on to put them into the starlight article as well (presuming it is not sufficiently sourced). I am fine with either way.LowKey (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidences for a Young World video?

"Evidences for a Young World" is listed under video. Anyone have evidence such a thing exists? We66er (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is "Evidence for a Young World", which is an article available on-line via CMI (and probably AiG). There is a note that it is available as a booklet, but I saw no mention of a video. I got a few search hits on the CMI site, but they dead-ended with a "no product that matches" message. From what I understand, that may mean the AiG produced something but CMI no longer carry it due to pricing issues arising from The Dispute.LowKey (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no confirmation of such a product. Mention removed. We66er (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a video entitled "Scientific Evidences for a Young Earth", which shows a talk given by Thomas Kindell (of Reasons for Faith Ministries) at the 2004 Seattle Creation Conference. You can watch/download it from here: http://kindell.nwcreation.net/videos.htm . Kindell refers to Humphreys (at ~08:25), and cites Humphreys's work to suggest a geocentric model of the universe. Yes, of the universe. Squagnut (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)