Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Originally published in Creation 24, no 2 (March 2002): 5.
Last issue’s environment article got the most response. Most of the “anti” letters believed we had been “taken in” by environmentalist propaganda using poor science. We have no agenda in this, and try to take a balanced view. In fact, we have long stocked Mike Oard’s book Weather which takes a sceptical view of greenhouse, etc. We would therefore have been happy to publicize here any objections of substance. But none of the alleged problems seem to compel allegiance; we list the main ones here, followed by comment in brackets.
Brad Pemberton of Georgia, USA, loved the article, adding that Lake Superior used to be thought the world’s largest freshwater lake when surface area was the criterion, but Lake Baikal is cited today for its bigger volume. However, “both Lakes Baikal and Superior are dwarfed by Lake Michigan-Huron” (these two lakes, he says, are technically one since the water flows both ways between them) in both area and volume.
Mike McDaniel of Texas, USA, addressed the sidebar commentary “20% of the world’s population consumes 80% of its resources”, pointing out that a horse-drawn plow uses no diesel, but capitalist farmers feed much of the world. For the record, we also pointed out the shocking pollution history of socialist countries.
The Mount St Helens radiodating article (Creation23(3):23-25) drew some attacks from long-agers who generally missed the point. Of course the “millions of years” dates from this recent volcanic rock were because the sample contained some non-radiogenic argon. But a prime assumption in potassium-argon dating is that there is no non-radiogenic argon present (note that radiogenic and non-radiogenic 40Ar are identical). Thus one of the assumptions of the method has failed the test. Put another way—if experiments like those we often publish consistently show that one can’t trust the method on rocks of known age, how is it rational to believe the “millions of years” results for rocks of unknown age?
Thanks to Haddorn Thorn of Essex, England, for gently pointing out that on p. 39 of Creation24(1), “Days 4 and 5” should have read “Days 5 and 6”. Of course, no animals were created on Day 4. Blush.