Replies

That's a non-retraction retraction ("Well, we were wrong... but the evolutionsts view is wrong, so we were right anyway.")

And it only took them *how* many years to post that *waaaay* down at the bottom? While leaving the lies and falsehoods and BS for all the world to skim over and get the wrong ideas about up top?

If you write a chapter of a book based on an entirely wrong premise, if you find out it's just dead wrong, you don't come out with a new edition that reapeats it all but puts a tiny disclaimer on it. If you are honest, you remove or replace that chapter entirely, preferably with a disclaimer at the end of the new chapter saying "anybody with a first edition... I'm sorry, but I was wrong."

Out of sheer politeness, they should have nailed the disclaimer to the *top*.

Oh, and a little mental exercise for you: read through the disclaimer your excerpted, and see if you can find the massive logic flaw with it. There is an internal inconsistancy that's just damend funny.

Yes, there seems to be some double speak, CYA and keep your eye on the walnut shells while I move them around. I suppose if I slipped on my left foot I would shift my weight to the right. Interesting, the mechanism of dust diminishment was not mentioned in the earlier argument, but the weight of the original argument relied heavily on the original math, which apparently was wrong. Probably sloppy penmanship, a misread decimal place. We always tell our engineers to write legibly because a life may be in the balance down the road.

Ok, for the next chapter in this book......
Hope you don't mind going through this...

The Geologic Column as a Meteor-Shower Gauge
According to the theory of evolution and its requirement of eons of time for earth history, the "geologic column" has been gradually building up for hundreds of millions of years. The geologic column is the name geologists give to the layers of sedimentary rock we can see, for example, when a hill is cut away to make a roadbed for a highway. One of the most spectacular views of such stratified layers is provided by the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists believe that these rock layers have been building up gradually for millions of years.
If these millions of years were a reality there would have been countless numbers of meteors encountering the earth's atmosphere. As previously mentioned, the vast majority of these meteors would have burned up before reaching the ground, but a small percentage would reach the earth's surface each year as meteorites. With the passage of vast amounts of evolutionary time, these accumulating meteorites would be incorporated into the geologic column, and there should be many of them contained in the rock layers today. Paleontologists and other scientists doing research in the geologic rock layers should frequently encounter meteorites.
Most creationist scientists, however, do not believe that the geologic column has been building up, and thus been open to meteors, for millions of years. They argue, on the basis of a great deal of data and evidence, that the geologic column was laid down quickly under catastrophic conditions and thus has not been exposed to meteorites for very long. If this is the case, there would be very few meteorites in the geologic column and finding one would be a rare occurrence.
On the basis of the opposing recent-creation and evolution models, we have two distinctly different predictions about the number of meteorites in the geologic column. The evolution model predicts a high number of meteorites, which should turn up fairly often in geological research. Recent-creationists, by contrast, expect a very small number of meteorites in the geologic column. Thus, finding one should be an extremely rare event.
What do the data show? A clear result in favor of a recent creation. One survey of the literature a few years ago failed to turn up a single case of a meteorite being found in the geologic column.1 The meteorite clock reads clearly to the effect that the earth is not very old.2

Upon reading this over it appears to me, not to be a good argument for either side. Just to many variables. First, finding intact meterorites of lets say just for discussion the size of large deformed marbles would not be easy, since in most cases even if it did reach the ground and impact, the thing would pulverize as it traveled tens of feet into the ground maybe even driving through two or three layers of sediment depending on the density of the deposits. Second, the rates these things enter varies greatly and percentage that make it to impact is relatively small. Although, if my memory serves me, satellite's were employed to keep everyone honest who signed up on the nuclear test band treaty which soon after their employment began to register high energy releases. Since no one was testing nuclear bombs it was determined that the register of energy releases was meteors impacting the surface of the earth. The rate was surprisingly high as I remember. Thirdly the creation concept of worldwide destruction would really jumble up any evidence if it actually was abundant prior to the catastrophe. Again, (meteors plus or minus) not a good argument or indicator for either side.