RE: cracks in creationism

Arthur V. Chadwick (
Thu, 11 Dec 1997 16:38:28 -0800

At 04:32 PM 12/11/97 -0500, Chuck wrote:
>It seems to me that, rather than check on the details of the C-14
>analysis, whether or not 40 ka is "pushing the analytical envelope,"
>some obvious questions should be raised. That was the intent of my
>response. I have not heard or read any explanation on how a leaf can
>leave an imprint in basalt. Seems to me that the ball is in the court
>of the proponent.

Absolutely. I agree, but maybe we should be charitable enough to direct our
concerns to Andrew, to see if maybe he can respond to some of them.
Clearly the burden of proof lies with him. I did not mean to be picking on
anyone in particular, just a perceived attitude.

>Another point is that the results reported by Andrew Snelling don't
>agree with the generally accepted understanding of the age of the earth
>(I don't want to get into "secular" or "non-secular" views; that's not
>the point). Changing our theories is a lot of work; it's easier to
>challenge a set of results and let the other guy do the work. This is
>not because we are lazy, but because we are (I am, anyway) surrounded by
>alligators in the form of deadlines to meet, etc.

True enough. Those of us in academia might be tempted to do sniping right
now if we are even reading our mail!

>Christmas season or not, we need to be charitable to our brothers and
>sisters in Christ in all our dealings with them.

Agree! And Merry Christmas to all of you!