Talk:Russell Humphreys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

An incredibly biased article. One might just as well have titled it, "Russell Humphreys - He's Wrong, and Here's Why".

Contents

[edit] 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.


[edit] The article could use some work

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.


[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)