Creationist Comedy (NAiG)
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
This article on the No Answers in Genesis website details the contempt that some evolutionists have for creationists, naming the webpage title, "cretin comedy" [1]. The NAiG article is in response to an article originally published in the Creation magazine in June 1997, written by Carl Wieland [2].
F. C. has become reliant upon comedy rather than representing the other sides arguments truthfully. In fact the Creation magazine has and editorial team comprising Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, and Tasman Walker.
The meat of Dr. Carl Wieland's article is not to only conclusively show that ice core dating is based on false premises and nothing else, but rather to show that rapid processes such as the burial of these planes undermines often though evolutionary presuppositions. What is trying to be displayed through the real-world example of these World War II planes is that as a creationist, Mr. Wieland finds that catastrophic processes are the cause.
| “ | None of the discoverers had thought that the planes could possibly be buried under more than a light cover of snow and ice. And why would they? After all, the impression the general public has is that the buildup of glacial ice takes very long time periods — thousands of years for just a few metres. | ” |
Again F.C. is missing the point. Weiland sees a culture saturated within evolutionary thought that massive amounts of time are needed for natural processes to accomplish their various formations. The adventurers conclusion is that little had buried the planes in 50 years, which is logical given the line of thinking.
Taking the figure of 7 feet per year of ice build-up, and given that it takes 10 feet of snow to produce one foot of ice, there would have to of been 70 feet of snow per year in order to produce 7 feet of ice build-up per year. 50 years x 7 feet of ice build-up per year, we have 350 feet of ice in 50 years since the plane crash. That is a considerable amount considering deep time is needed for natural glaciers to form through the evolutionary framework of interpretation.
| “ | After all, the impression the general public has is that the build up of glacial ice takes very long time periods - thousands of years for just a few metres. | ” |
Indeed un-informed individuals making conclusions based upon evolutionary assumptions is the point. However we are not talking about just snowfall but rather glacier formation, 250 feet of which are said to of covered the planes. This was formed in 50 years and not the all so often taught evolutionary assumption that, "in polar regions, where annual snowfall is generally very low because the air is too cold to hold much moisture, it may take snow about 1,000 years to turn into ice" [3] or that in most cases,"this process takes over a hundred years." [4]
| “ | In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years. | ” |
| “ | Allowing of course for compression of lower layers, (which is also offset by the inevitable aftermath of a global Flood, namely much greater precipitation and snowfall for a few centuries) there is ample time in the 4,000 or so years since Noah's day for the existing amounts of ice to have built up even under today`s generally non–catastrophic conditions. | ” |
Information for this article is mostly from:The Lost Squadron, Life magazine 15(14):6068, December 1992 and Search for a Fork–Tailed Devil, Compressed Air Magazine, pp. 3036, March 1996.
And "creation scientists" like Wieland wonder why no one with the brains of a gnat takes them seriously.
Wieland continues his journey into ignorance, in Footnote 9:| “ | Argonne National Laboratories in the US combined wood, water and acidic clay, and heated in a sealed container (with no added pressure) at 150 C for 28 days, and obtained high–grade black coal. R. Hayatsu, et al., Organic Geochemistry, 6:463471, 1984. | ” |
They obtained not "high–grade black coal" (anthracite) but "an insoluble material resembling low rank coals" for the shorter intervals, and a material somewhat resembling slightly higher grade coal (vitrinites) for longer times.
Thus the distinguished Dr Wieland's assertion of rapid high–grade coal formation is at best uninformed. Either he doesn't know the difference between high grade black and low rank soft brown coal, has never actually read the original article or a genuine abstract of it, or he's deliberately lying. He seems to be either relying on inaccurate secondary sources, or else pulling his information out of his hat.
Given the demonstrated creationist practice of continuing to spout falsehoods even after they have been informed of their errors, it is reasonable to conclude that Wieland is either a deliberate liar or an ignoramus, and perhaps both.
| ||||||||||||||
