ex-robot

Nothing more than someone's personal opinion I suppose. In my case, I am referring to scientists who believe in creation. If you keep yourself in the loop over at AIG or have read In Six Days, some scientist is always giving props to the Genesis Flood. Of course, it is always referenced back in the 60s from what I recall. I don't believe I have ever heard it having an impact in recent times.

xr

ex-robot

Real Translation: I really don't care or know if they still do or not. I was just putting out the possibility since I had heard Snelling was doing a revision. What exactly is he revising? Don't know...

xr

ps418

Snelling is with AiG, not ICR. And regardless of who accepts what at the current moment, there are today a zillion creationist webpages still promoting the same falsehoods regarding the Lewis Thrust, many of which cite Morris' book.

Patrick

ex-robot

Patrick, Snelling hasn't worked for AIG in eons. He is full-time staff I believe. If you look at their list of scientists, it has (ICR) next to him and not adjunct faculty like the rest. I agree about the importance of the Lewis Thrust as I said before. It is good stuff.

xr

Theophage

If this is indeed your position on the subject, then I apologize for mischaracterizing it.

But when it comes to the question of whether or not a creationist group has changed their position on something due to it being outdated, it is much more likely that they haven't changed than that they have. Thus even without knowing for certain if ICR has changed their opinion on overthrusts, a betting man would be relatively safe saying that they haven't.

Unfortuately, I sill haven't heard any word back, yet, but I'll keep this thread informed when I do.

ps418

You were right and I was wrong, ex-robot.

FWIW, though, I've read many of Snelling's papers on the flood published in Ex Nihilo, and I think they are just as error-filled as Henry Morris' Genesis Flood.

Patrick

John Solum

ex-robot:
Thanks for the feedback. I'd say I'm accurately representing them. To the best of my knowledge, they've made no revisions to the 1995 edition. That's actually on of the problems I have with Morris' style of research. He doesn't update his material.

I haven't heard about Snelling doing a revision, but I think that'd be a good idea. In any case, I know that ICR still considers Morris' claims about thrust faults accurate since he made similar claims in various ICR Impacts. The 1999 book by John Woodmorappe put out by the ICR (title Studies in Flood Geology) makes similar claims about the McConnell thrust, which is a thrust fault that's related to the Lewis.

I know other creationist organizations still hold similar points of view about thrust faults, and I provided links to several YEC web pages at the end of my article.

I may just do that, thanks for the information.

John Solum

Darwin's Finch and theophage. Thanks a lot for your kind words. Maybe I'll submit it to a creationist journal, I'd like to read the rejection letter.


exrobot, I agree with Patrick that Snelling's work leaves something to be desired. Here's a recent example of problems with his carbon dating of "wood" from a Triassic formation.
<a href="http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/crefaqs.htm#who" target="_blank">http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/crefaqs.htm#who</a>

tgamble

"Andrew Snelling (of Answers in Genesis) claims that a piece of 'wood' obtained from a Triassic sandstone yielded a C-14 age that was much too young for it to be a Triassic deposit. In doing so, he claims to have invalidated the C-14 dating method and the old earth time scale."

I thought c-14 had a limit of 50000 years anyway. Why would this invalidate the age of the earth even if it DID invalidate teh c-14 method?

lpetrich

That URL mentions something really odd: some creationists had published articles in the mainstream geological literature that take for granted the mainstream old-earth viewpoint:

Andrew Snelling
John Baumgardner
John Woodmorappe (aka Jan Peczkis)

And according to <a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/snelling.htm" target="_blank">NAIG's Andrew Snelling pages</a>, that gentleman gives new meaning to the term "two-faced". He lives a double life, with his Dr. Jekyll persona taking the old-earth position for granted in his publications in mainstream geology journals and his Mr. Hyde persona taking the young-earth position, including explicit rejection of the old-earth position and acceptance of Flood Geology, complete with implicit rejection of Philip Gosse's created-appearance hypothesis.

To be more specific, if he had accepted the Gosse hypothesis, he could have claimed that he was only describing the created appearance in mainstream journals. However, he has not.