: Hey, well put. It helps immensely. But could/does it account for the scarcity of helium? Maybe, maybe not.Yes. It *can*; no doubt about that; the question is whether it does or not.
This is where falsifiability comes in. If you take a set of spectrographs of a planetary atmosphere over time, you can observe how the composition of excited gases changes over time.
If what you were saying is true, then the helium emission lines in the spectrograph would be getting stronger all the time; as the amount of helium in the atmosphere increased.
Observations show no such increase; the level of helium in the atmosphere remains roughly constant. This means that either the equipment is at fault or the assumptions are at fault. Repeated experiments by different teams produce results which corroborate with each other; thus the assumption that helium is increasing is falsified; there is experimental data to show that it is not increasing.
Your initial axiom (that helium levels are increasing continually) is provably untrue by observation of the atmosphere. This means that either helium is escaping from the atmosphere, or it being absorbed by ground-level rocks, or it is not being produced at all.
As you yourself said, there is experimental evidence to show that helium is being produced by the alpha-decay of uranic rocks; there is no corresponding experimental evidence to show that helium is being absorbed at ground level by rocks or biomass; there is evidence to show that helium floats to the top of the atmosphere; thus, the simplest theory which explains all the observed facts is that helium is escaping from the atmosphere into space.
The alternative axioms have been demonstrated incorrect by the experimental data; thus the escape of helium is strengthened as a theory. That's the beauty of falsifiability.
: The websites you linked me to say yes, BUT they are written from the evolutionist perspective, not a creationist. I obviously haven't done field research myself in this area.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you examining the scientific data or doing experiments for yourself. Science encourages second opinions and independent verification of experimental data; it is the only way to minimize the chance of experimental error.
: Maybe other creationists have who could interpret the data from our perspective.
Can you come up with an axiom consistent with the Creation that would falsify the theory of escape; and can you back it up with observed data?; no-one has managaed it yet.
: A temporary point to you on this one. In essence then, I understand that this argument is a null one, helping neither me nor you, is that correct?
A null one? Hardly. I've shown your initial claims to be incorrect, given you a mechanism by which my theory works and produced experimental observations to back up my theory.
Your claim seems oddly reminiscent of the Black Knight's in Monty Python and the Holy Grail;
"BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's last leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: Ooh. All right, we'll call it a draw."
You're going to need to read up in physics and the philosophy of science more...
Gideon.
