Volume 2, Number 3 May/June 1997
A bimonthly newsletter of the Creation Research Society.
This Web version of Creation Matters
lacks the "Creation Calendar" as well as photos and special
graphics found only in the print version. The latter is automatically
sent to members of the CRS along with the peer-reviewed CRS Quarterly.
Models and Trends in Creationist Thinking
Report on the CRS Superstition Wilderness
Creation Wins Some More in New Mexico
Cosmic Axis Threatens Big Bang
Flood Models and Trends in Creationist
by David J. Tyler, Ph.D.
Dr. Tyler (B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Physics;
Ph.D. in Management Science) is a frequent writer on creationist geology
and other matters.
Editor's note: This important article is provided
to give an overview of the continuing developments in Flood geology.
One essential feature of such a discussion is reference to the Geological
Column. To assist the non-geologist reader, an outline of the "standard"
column is provided.
The revival of Flood Geology in the 20th Century owes much to the publication
of The Genesis Flood in 1961, by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris. Since
then, numerous creationist writers and speakers have acknowledged their
debt to this book, and most have developed their own thinking to harmonise
with that presented by Whitcomb and Morris. This Flood model, in turn,
drew in part on the writings of George McCready Price earlier this century.
Model I: the "End-Pliocene Flood model"
In brief, Whitcomb and Morris suggest that waters from a vapour canopy,
and others linked to the breaking up of the fountains of the deep, led
to a worldwide erosive event (marked in places by the Cambrian Unconformity),
above which were the flood deposits containing the remains of organisms
which perished in the Flood. They consider that the Flood was followed
by climatic instability causing the Ice Age (the Quaternary glaciations).
Patterns in the fossil record are recognised and various mechanisms
have been proposed to account for them:
The sequential inundation of ecosystems (preserving groups of organisms
together that had lived in close proximity in the pre-Flood earth),
Differential mobility (whereby fast moving animals could escape the
rising flood waters), and
Water sorting (whereby segregation of fossils could be discussed
by reference to specific gravity and morphology).
Whitcomb and Morris regard the Geological Column as a product of uniformitarianism,
inseparable from evolutionary thinking. They have made the charge of
tautology: that the evolutionary story about the fossils is essential
in order to construct the Geological Column, and yet these same evolutionary
stories can only be defended by reference to the Geological Column.
Morris, and others, have repeatedly pointed to anomalies which are claimed
to refute the Geological Column concept. Out-of-sequence fossils (particularly
human footprints and bones) have been regarded as conclusive proof that
the Geological Column is wrong. Whitcomb and Morris continued the tradition
(going back to Price) of suggesting that overthrusts are actually normally-deposited
strata, falsely identified as overthrusts by uniformitarians in order
to preserve the Geological Column.
Although the Column is rejected, the system names are often used by
advocates of this Flood model. This allows interaction with the technical
literature - but it also creates misunderstandings as there is always
the temptation to inject, for example, the idea that the lower part
of the Geological Column formed at the same time around the world, a
view that most adherents of Model I would probably reject. To avoid
possible confusion, several advocates of this Flood model have proposed
research programmes to establish new nomenclature which is more overtly
The onset of the Flood is considered generally to be marked by marine
deposition. The Palaeozoic record is dominated by marine organisms and
is viewed as the Flood sediments overwhelming marine ecosystems; the
Mesozoic record brings in a much higher proportion of land animals (dinosaurs
and birds, for example) and is interpreted as the Flood sediments engulfing
land ecosystems; the Tertiary has most of the mammalian fossil record
and is interpreted as the later stages of the Flood, where the more
mobile animals finally perished. The uppermost part of the Tertiary
is referred to as the Pliocene, which contains hominid fossils. These
are succeeded by Quaternary sediments, and the view taken by Whitcomb
and Morris was that the Quaternary represents a post-Flood glacial period.
This has been the majority view among diluvialists since the publication
of The Genesis Flood. However, a significant minority view exists: that
the Quaternary deposits represent the recession of floodwaters and are
indicative of catastrophic fluvial processes.
For the purpose of distinguishing this model from others, it is here
referred to as the "End-Pliocene Flood model" or "Model
I." However, it is necessary to acknowledge that a minority are
better described as holding to an "End-Pleistocene Flood model."
Background to alternative Flood models
Since The Genesis Flood was such an influential book, many observers
have viewed Model I as the essence of diluvialist thinking, not as one
of many possible models. It is difficult to describe the ferment of
ideas that have led to the emergence of alternative Flood models. Since
this review is intended to introduce and simplify the debate, reference
to specific papers and authors is omitted. My objective is to make the
debate among creationist geologists accessible to a wider circle of
people. However, although three models are described in this paper,
there are numerous variants and several of these are linked to the names
of individuals only. The overview attempted in this article must inevitably
fail to do justice to the details. Reference will be made to various
geologic evidences (similar to the way this has already been done in
describing Model I above) and to the terminology associated with the
A variety of biblical, philosophical and geological reasons can be
identified for the alternative models. These reasons are not necessarily
supported by all who are seeking to develop alternative models, but
they are presented here to indicate some of the lines of thought. There
is a fluidity in the debate and, in my opinion, not every participant
is wholly consistent in his views. It is not the purpose of this article
to evaluate the validity of the various models.
Considering first the biblical reasons for proposing alternatives,
it has been argued that Model I does not do justice to the violence
of the Flood, as it has animals and man surviving the destructive powers
of the waters until their waning phase. It is suggested that, in the
context of a global destruction, all talk of animals "escaping"
to higher ground is fallacious. It has also been argued that when the
Bible refers to the destruction of all flesh, it means that all the
air-breathing animals in the pre-Flood world were destroyed without
trace. The initial stages of the Flood were so devastating that nothing
identifiable remains of these animals. Whilst the Bible does portray
the Flood as the only event of global destruction, some point to other
Scriptures which support the idea of other catastrophes and suggest
that fossiliferous strata could have been formed on some of these occasions.
The philosophical reasons are varied, but most seem to be related to
the issue of methodology in the historical sciences. Probably the most
important instance relates to the status of the Geological Column. Advocates
of alternative models have one thing in common: they suggest that the
Geological Column concept has some substance. The charge of tautology
is perceived as a straw man argument (i.e., it is thought erroneous
to say that the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks:
statements like this are either a gross oversimplification of the issues
or a misunderstanding of the principles behind the Geological Column).
The Geological Column is considered to be far more the fruit of testable,
empirical research than is generally allowed by those advocating Model
The geological reasons for developing alternative Flood models have
tended to dominate in the literature and it is here that significantly
differing judgments are found among diluvialists who accept the general
validity of the Geological Column. Since divergences of view are simplified
for the purposes of this article, it should be remembered that a spectrum
of opinion is inevitable, especially where models are still being developed
The alternative models below suggest that significant thicknesses of
fossiliferous strata represent post-Flood catastrophism, linked to the
restoration of the earth to normality after the one-year Flood. The
return of tectonic plates to equilibrium is deemed to be a process lasting
longer than one year and properly belongs to the post-Flood phase of
catastrophism. Since the Geological Column is accepted as providing
stratigraphic horizons which are approximately time-equivalent, it becomes
meaningful to ask: "Where is the Flood/post-Flood boundary?"
from a global rather than a local perspective.
Model II: the "End-Cretaceous Flood model"
One group of diluvialists has suggested tentatively that the boundary
is approximately at the end of the Mesozoic. A number of evidences could
be used to defend this view - although publications to elaborate are
still awaited. For example, it would be possible to point to sea-level
evidences of a "high" in the Cretaceous (which could be interpreted
as a time when the Flood waters finally overwhelmed the land and brought
about the well-known Cretaceous/Tertiary extinctions). Waning sea levels
are the pattern for the Tertiary (which could be interpreted as the
recession of waters after the Flood). It is also possible to point to
a number of field studies of the Tertiary strata which suggest a non-marine
environment over timescales lasting longer than one year. Fossil evidence
relevant to biogeography (e.g., the marsupials) may be used to support
this general picture: the problems of interpretation are greatly reduced
if the Flood ended after the Cretaceous rocks were laid down.
There is some debate among this group about the onset of the Flood.
The Cambrian Unconformity is considered appropriate in some areas, but
in others, the boundary may extend into the Precambrian. For the purposes
of this article, this model is referred to as the "End-Cretaceous
Flood model" or "Model II."
Model III: the "End-Carboniferous Flood model"
Another group of diluvialists consider the Flood/post-Flood boundary
to be in the uppermost Palaeozoic strata, with the red sediments in
the Permian and at the base of the Mesozoic providing evidence of drying
winds after the recession of the floodwaters. The Mesozoic and Tertiary
rocks are considered to represent deposition on a regional and even
continental scale resulting from post-Flood catastrophism (with associated
movements of tectonic plates). According to this model, the initial
phases of the Flood were so destructive that no fossils of pre-Flood
land animals were preserved - the fossils of air-breathing animals are
attributed to post-Flood recolonisation. Mesozoic and Tertiary fossils
are interpreted as belonging to buried ecosystems which can be linked
to progressive recolonisation. Evidences of timescales lasting longer
than one year are suggested to support this interpretation (published
work has considered dinosaur nests, flood basalts, chalk deposits, estuarine
deposits involving successive plant growth horizons, etc.).
This model gives emphasis to the initial violence and destructive power
of the Flood: reducing the pre-Flood land surface to the created Archaean
cratonic basement, and laying down the immense thicknesses of Precambrian
sediments. Geological evidence has been marshalled to demonstrate global
flooding in both the Precambrian and Palaeozoic, and this is claimed
to have destroyed all pre-existing ecosystems and removed all pre-Flood
high ground (which is needed within Models I and II to provide refuge
for animals). This interpretation is referred to, for the purposes of
this article, as the "End-Carboniferous Flood model" or "Model
My personal perspectives on some of the key areas of debate about geological
evidences are noted below.
1. The Geological Column. Is the concept helpful or not? Advocates
of Model I have expressed great concern about the uniformitarian attitudes
which they believe are inherent if it is accepted that correlations
are possible and that the geological systems provide time-equivalent
information. Advocates of Models II and III do not concede that their
views on the Geological Column are a concession to uniformitarianism.
2. Fossil sequences. Whilst all three models recognise a pattern,
there are different explanations of these trends. For example, some
advocates of Model I argue that only local patterns exist and that a
global explanation is not required. Other advocates of Model I, who
do recognise a global pattern in the appearance of fossils, generally
make use of the concept of successive burial of ecological zones.
3. Biogeography. Model I has the animals dispersing from the
ark in the Quaternary; Model II has them dispersing in the Tertiary;
and Model III has dispersal commencing in the Upper Palaeozoic. These
differences are of major importance for any discussion of biogeographical
4. Reptilian and mammalian successions. Most of the claimed
examples of evolutionary successions relate to organisms in the Mesozoic
and Cenozoic and are within Family boundaries (which many consider to
be within the limits of variation of the Genesis "kinds").
Whereas such examples are perceived to be a challenge to creationist
thinking by advocates of Model I, some of the mammalian successions
could be acceptable within the Model II, and both mammalian and reptilian
successions might be deemed valid from the perspective of Model III.
There are enormous implications here for biologists - especially those
interested in non-Darwinian variations possible within the created kinds.
5. Dinosaurs. Both Models I and II interpret the dinosaur fossils
as having formed in the Flood, and face the challenge of showing how
the trackways and dinosaur nest evidence can be satisfactorily handled.
Model III suggests that a post-Flood explanation of these evidences
is appropriate. Some earlier comments are worth recalling here: both
Models I and II have reptiles and birds surviving a substantial part
of the Flood in order to lay down trackways in the Mesozoic before perishing.
The biblical arguments about the initial violence of the Flood have
been made by advocates of Model III.
6. Overthrusts. Most advocates of Model I have treated the claimed
overthrusts with great suspicion and have suggested that they are primarily
a means of preserving the Geological Column - which would otherwise
be falsified by field evidences of 'out-of-sequence' strata. This attitude
to overthrusts is not apparent in those developing alternative models.
They suggest that the evidences for overthrusting are present and that
the only plausible mechanisms for overthrusting are catastrophic in
There are undoubtedly numerous other points of contrast. These are
sufficient to show that diluvialists could easily spend the rest of
their lives debating this controversy, which is something no creationist
wants to happen. Consequently, there is an urgent need for diluvialists
to think through how they are going to handle this debate, and whether
we can make any real progress in our collective apologetic ministry
until these matters are resolved.
One danger of distinguishing these three Flood models is that it can
appear that Flood geologists are irreconcilably divided. It is worth
reminding ourselves that the common ground is immense: because we are
all seeking to be faithful to Scripture and to serve our God and Saviour.
Furthermore, these differences can be approached positively if it is
recognised that a healthy, emerging science is characterised by open
debate and mutual recognition.
Report on the
CRS Superstition Wilderness Trip
by Raymond Strom
Mr. Strom is a Geological Exploration
This three day trip (March 14-16, 1997), planned by Dr. John Meyer
of the CRS Van Andel Creation Research Center, presented a unique opportunity
to consider, first-hand, the flora and fauna of the sonoran desert,
in a volcanic terrain. The horse pack outing, utilizing the Donnelly
Stables of Apache Junction, allowed the 11 participants a view of the
volcanics located in the area. This report is a brief review of some
cursory observations, and is not intended to be a dogmatic position
of the author, nor does it represent an official position of the Creation
The geology of the area is unusual in that Superstition Tertiary volcanics
overlay Precambrian rocks. This represents a time gap of over 600 million
years (my), from an evolutionary perspective. The Superstition Mountains
are said to be remnants of two caldera fills (cauldrons) plus one caldera
which remains in a semi-filled state. [Ed. A caldera is a large, basin-shaped
depression formed by the collapse of a volcano.] The three main features
appear to be sequential in nature and are dated by conventional dating
methods as follows:
Superstition Cauldron - 30 my
Goldfield Cauldron - 15-16 my
Tortilla Caldera - 15 my
While these dates do not represent time scales utilized by creationists,
there may be something to be learned with regard to the apparent sequencing
of the ages provided. Dr. Steve Austin's dating of dacite lavas of the
dome created in the crater of Mount St. Helens may provide some background
to the problems associated with attempting to date volcanics extruded
under various conditions. A moderate amount of literature is available
regarding the hypothesized formation of the Superstitions which would
seem to indicate that Austin's suggestion (viz., that rock components,
and radiometrically dated minerals that have deep sources, may inherit
radiogenic material that is contained in the melt and is not representative
of the true age of the extruded lavas) may apply to the dates derived
for the Superstitions.
Potentially, zoned magma chambers, plus the concept that the three
subsequent calderas could have had a common, deep source, with progressively
altering magma composition, could account for the progression in the
indicated ages. As Austin discovered, lavas of considerable youth (less
than 10 years) can give undue old ages (approx. 3 my), and the dates
provided should not be trusted. In any event, the strata encountered
in the walls of the eroded cauldrons can be interpreted within a creation
framework, demonstrating that old ages and long periods of time are
not necessary for the placement of the Superstition complex.
In building a case for the Superstition, one must carefully observe
the sequences that are present. As mentioned before, the basement Precambrian
granites are exposed in a few localities around the base of the Superstitions.
These granites are eroded, with little, in terms of a transition zone,
present between them and the overlying Tertiary volcanics. It should
be noted that in several localities, in the dry washes that are sourced
from the Superstitions, there are conglomeratic boulders that I suspect
were sourced from this transition zone.
The desert plain contains outwash of Superstition rocks and is of some
considerable depth. Water wells drilled in the area encounter production
at depths of 400-800 feet, of variable quality, at rates of about 5-10
gallons/minute. Geology beneath the desert flats may be of considerable
interest, but is not researched by the author at this time.
Exposed layers of volcanics in the cauldron fills include basalts,
volcanic breccias, welded tuffs, unconsolidated ash, and lahars. [Ed.
A lahar is a mudflow on the flanks of a volcano. A tuff is rock formed
from volcanic ash.] Some of these are massive - welded tuffs, ashes
and possible lahars having depths of hundreds of feet. These can hardly
be considered normal. Catastrophic processes seem to be the rule here,
not the exception. It should be noted that there is a lack of excessive
talus around the base of the Superstitions. This argues for a short
time duration, following rather rapid erosion of the surrounding adjacent
strata. In the author's opinion, the volcanic complex is from late-Flood
to early post-Flood age.
Participants on this trip had an opportunity to learn some basic geology,
including elementary stratigraphy, plus some mineralogy. As we view
the volcanics in the Superstition Mountains of Arizona, we are reminded
of the judgment of God and His Supreme handiwork. At the same time,
we are prompted to view the geology as an opportunity to study the effects
of a worldwide Flood on the landforms around us. Creation geologists
are in an undersupply, as we view the magnitude of studying such areas
as the Superstitions, and we need to encourage young people to pursue
these areas of study from a creation perspective.
My thanks to Dr. John Meyer, who did a remarkable job of organizing
this trip. His love of people, and his dedication to the cause of Christ
and the Creation Research Society, is readily apparent in his actions.
Pray that God will continue to bless him, as his responsibility for
the Van Andel Creation Research Center occupies much of his time, and
outings such as this one can have such a great impact on members and
Some More in New Mexico
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
See following article for author information.
Last fall I reported in this newsletter that the New Mexico State School
Board had refused to give in to evolutionist demands to explicitly include
evolution in the broad curriculum guidelines for New Mexico's public
schools. In a moment, I will tell you about some exciting victories
for creation science which have stemmed from that event, but first I
want to explain some more about why the State Board took that stand
At the time I didn't know that a State School Board member named Roger
Lenard had a lot to do with it. Roger, a physicist at Sandia National
Laboratories and a Christian, became interested in creation science
when he stopped by at the end of an "Answers in Genesis" (Ken
Ham) seminar in Albuquerque in January 1995. He was too late to hear
any of the speakers, but he bought a few creationist books. Two months
later, the governor of New Mexico, a Republican conservative with whom
Roger was acquainted, appointed Roger to a four-year term on the State
School Board. In the ensuing months Roger and I had a few conversations,
but I didn't know he was on the school board.
As Roger read the books he bought, he began to get enthused about the
case for creation and against evolution. When Roger gets enthused, things
happen! One reason is that he is a very persuasive speaker, combining
the verve of Rush Limbaugh with the vocabulary of William F. Buckley.
Another is that he is quite likable. When the board asked him what he
thought of this evolution stuff, he was more than happy to tell them.
By last August, the whole school board was quite sympathetic to creation
science, except for one highly liberal feminist whose term was about
That brings us to the next events. The feminist board member, seeing
that the board was about to vote 13-to-1 against her desires, began
to agitate the local evolutionists and secular media. After the board's
action the largest newspaper in the state, the Albuquerque Journal,
commissioned a public opinion poll about the matter. The Journal was
shocked to find out that 73% of New Mexico voters supported the school
board's action and wanted both evolution and creation taught in the
public schools! Furthermore, that opinion cut uniformly across regional,
age, gender, educational, and party differences.
The local anti-creationists, strongly aided by the editor of the Albuquerque
Journal, began a heavy-duty media campaign, besieging the state with
editorials, editorial cartoons, biased "news" articles, etc.
Their main complaint was that the school board was intending to suppress
evolution and teach "religion" and creationism in the schools.
The board responded by restating that they were planning to allow evidence
both for and against evolution, and assuring that they were not going
to introduce creationism per se into the schools.
Despite these assurances, the evolutionists continued to complain vociferously,
finally introducing a bill before the state legislature requiring the
public schools to teach evolution in conformance with the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) recommended standards for school curricula. In testimony
before legislative committees, it became clear that the evolutionists'
real worry was the school board's intention to allow scientific evidence
against evolution, such as the systematic absence of transitional fossils.
Conformity with the NAS standards would suppress such evidence, because
those standards treat evolution only as an "established fact."
New Mexico evolutionists pulled out all the stops to get their bill
passed, even dragging a Nobel Laureate in physics, Professor Murray
Gell-Mann (who invented the quark theory), out of retirement to testify
for them. Gell-Mann's testimony showed great ignorance of creation science;
apparently he was just parroting what his handlers had told him. Despite
some early successes, the bill began to encounter heavy flack from a
coalition of New Mexico Christians, particularly home-schoolers, political
conservatives, and creationists. The House Education Committee eventually
killed the bill on March 20, in the last days of the legislative session.
The biggest ally in stopping the bill was the arrogance of the evolutionists
themselves. They managed to offend so many people in state government
that it may be years before they can attempt a similar action again.
For a month or so after that, the local evolutionists and secular media
became very silent about creationism. For example, they tried to black
out a public seminar held April 12 in Albuquerque by the Creation Research
Society, and they backed away from providing an opponent for Dr. Duane
Gish at a debate we had proposed in association with the event. In spite
of the secularist blackout, the local Christian media enthusiastically
promoted the seminar, and it was a huge success!
In early May, the State School Board began to do what they had always
said it would do, namely to approve a set of detailed performance standards
which include evidence both for and against evolution. The evolutionists
and secular media are now publicly trying to claim this step as a victory,
but in private they are still deeply worried about that "evidence
against." They know that if the public ever becomes fully aware
of how tenuous their case is, it's all over for their theory!
Cosmic Axis Threatens Big
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Dr. Humphreys, a Senior Physicist at
Sandia National Laboratories, is a board member of the Creation Research
Society, and is a leader in the Creation Science Fellowship of Albuquerque.
New evidence suggests that the universe is rotating! This weighs against
Big Bang cosmologies, but it strongly supports creationist cosmologies.
There is also evidence that the evolutionist establishment doesn't want
you to know about the new evidence - see last paragraph.
The 21 April 1997 issue of Physical Review Letters has an article
(pp. 3043-3046) by physicists B. Nodland and J. Ralston titled, "Indication
of anisotropy in electromagnetic propagation over cosmological distances."
It is a well-done article reporting a systematic angle difference, beta,
between the polarization of radio waves from distant galaxies and the
long axis of the elliptical optical images from those galaxies.
This new paper confirms an earlier report by P. Birch [Nature
Vol. 298, 29 July 1982, p. 451], whose data were not quite as clear,
since he did not try to separate out the effect of distance and some
other variables. Birch's suggestion that the whole universe is rotating
caused a minor splash in the newspapers at that time. Later authors
[Panov and Sbytov, Sov. Phys. JETP, Vol. 74, No. 3, March 1992,
pp. 411-415] claimed that rotation (or "vorticity") in an
unbounded Big Bang-style universe (Goedel universe) would not cause
an effect having a cos(gamma) dependence. However, they did acknowledge
the validity of Birch's data set itself, saying, "to this day the
[Birch] effect has not been convincingly refuted."
The authors of the new report, Nodland and Ralston, do not suggest
rotation as a possible explanation, offering instead the possibility
of a new effect whereby the vacuum itself would twist the polarization
of radio waves to a degree depending on their direction of travel. They
probably avoided rotation as an explanation because of reports like
that of Panov and Sbytov.
However, using back-of-envelope calculations on this effect (envelope
backs are the traditional media whereon all the best physics is done!),
it is beginning to look to me as if the simplest explanation is a real
rotation of all the mass in a bounded-mass cosmos around a common axis.
Panov and Sbytov could not consider such a cosmos, because it violates
the Copernican Principle (see my book, Starlight and Time, pp.
18-19, 86-89). [S&T (Starlight
and Time) is available from the CRS.- Ed.] But with reasonably
slow rotation rates, and a mass and size of the order of what I assumed
in my book (S&T, p. 105), my reckonings say that we would
get the same r cosine dependence and same value for lamda as the observations
suggest. In the coming months I will check this out carefully to make
sure I haven't slipped a decimal somewhere.
Big Bang theorists resist rotation around a common axis because it
implies a center of mass and, thus, a boundary on the mass of the cosmos.
While this is not foreign to the popular MISconception of the Big Bang
theory, it is anathema to the experts, who know the Big Bang assumes
there is no center or boundary for the mass in the cosmos. See my book
if that information is new to you.
On the other hand, rotation is an expected feature of the cosmos I
proposed (S&T, pp. 32-34, 36, 75-76, 123-124). That is why
on pages 127-128 of my book I cited Birch's observations and "vestiges
of rotation in the cosmos" as among the possible evidence to be
expected for my theory. Also, the theory of orbiting galaxies proposed
by Robert Gentry, and later elaborated by J. K. West [Creation Research
Society Quarterly Vol. 31, No. 2, Sept. 1994, pp. 78-88] might be
modified to give a cosmos with net angular momentum; thus it could have
a similar effect as my theory. So the recent evidence seems to support
creationist theories and to hurt evolutionist ones.
Interestingly, it looks like people high up in the evolutionist establishment
may have reached the same conclusion. Unlike what happened with Birch,
both scientific and secular media were quick to issue criticisms. In
contrast to the careful two-year review Physical Review Letters
gave the Nodland-Ralston paper, the criticisms were hasty and rather
half-baked. Is it possible that evolutionists want to suppress evidence
against the Big Bang theory? That is what prompted me to get the word
Editor's note: Dr. Humphreys has informed me that
his letter to Science, regarding that
journal's critical report on the Nodland-Ralston paper, was rejected.
A publication of the Creation Research
Volume 2, Number 3
Copyright © 1997 Creation
All rights reserved.
General Editor: Glen Wolfrom
For membership / subscription
information, advertising rates and information for authors:
P.O. Box 8263
St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263
Articles published in Creation Matters
represent the opinions and beliefs of the authors, and do not
necessarily reflect the official position of the Creation Research
© Copyright 2001-2013, Creation
Research Society. All rights reserved.
Copyright & Permissions