Tom Lawson was asked to respond to this and said that he has already answered everything and the reader can judge.
So reader! [Hello... Hello? Is anybody out there?] Please go ahead and judge.
October 28, 2000
OK, One More, Tom.
I promised that my last rebuttal would be the last, since we were now going in
circles, and for all areas except the Grand Canyon, that is true. Those who are
interested can look back at my earlier responses to see that Tom's objections
have been answered. (I suspect, however, that nobody is really listening. The
first person besides Tom who sees the following poem, copies it and e-mails it
to me will get $10.00)
Every day upon the stair,
I see a man who isn't there.
He wasn't there again today;
O, how I wish he'd go away!
The Grand Canyon data is part of an unfinished conversation from further back and I will make two comments. The significance of the missing strata in the Grand Canyon is not that it is missing, but that there appears to be no erosion and no deposition during the time period that is missing -- allegedly 200 million years. And in fact, there is a blending of the strata above and below the missing period. That means that in the usual scenario, the land lay all that time exactly at sea level. Nothing was deposited and nothing was removed and the layers remained soft so that when it all sank below sea level 200 million years later, the new deposits blended with the old. The evidence fits much better with the creationist scenario: a continuous series of deposits laid down by colliding currents in a worldwide flood. That is the significance of the missing strata.
The pollen in the Pre Cambrian rocks were indeed found again in the Creation
Research Society study, duplicating the work of Burdick. Chadwick used a
different technique to extract the pollen. The significance of the study on
possible contamination was to show that neither Burdick's data nor the repeat
experiments can be explained as contamination. The real story behind the story
is the suppression of data and the persecution of those who challenge the
prevailing paradigm, something confirmed by Jerry Bergman in his book The
Criterion. Why does science get unscientific when dealing with origins?
Because there are some people who do not want to face the conclusion that they
may be responsible to a Creator.