The driving force for me going to the International Conference on Creationism was the prospect of being able to present my own research. On a personal study, independent of the major YEC organizations, I have been investigating radiometric dating methods, the methods that mainstream scientists tell us how old rocks and bones are. I have been a skeptic of these methods for many years, but ten years ago, I decided I needed to take a deeper study into them.
In 2011, an article came out with new studies showing that DNA had a half-life of 521 years. The article then claimed that DNA would be detectable after 1.5 million years and totally decomposed after 6.8 million years. When I read that article in 2013, I immediately knew that was wrong, so I started crunching numbers. DNA, at that half-life, lasts only 19,000 years until complete disintegration. Their math was not only off, but it was off BADLY. And this passed peer-review. That got me thinking: What about radiometric dating? So that began my study.
I set out to do a mathematical internal integrity study of the whole system, testing to see if the published numbers actually agreed with each other. If that DNA math was off by that much, how much is this “darling” of everyone who believes in “millions of years”? I looked at various angles, but the one that really caught my attention was the measurement of the half-life. I did my studies, but a couple of years ago I hit a dead end because I didn’t have the equipment to do experiments to move forward. I needed help and advice, and this conference was the perfect place to get it. This is what my poster presentation would cover.
As I did my studies, I began learning that individual samples used to measure the decay rates were only being observed for minutes, hours, or maybe days with devices that had 20% efficiency rates, leading to requiring an 80% fudge factor. This led to calculations that these half-lives, that are supposedly billions of years, are being claimed using only 10 to 16 decimal points of a fraction of a sample space of the claim. The sample space was so small that no one could make a meaningful statement out of it without some extremely poor assumptions.
So, what do we do with that? We need to do some experiments. We could measure the physical amount of breakdown of the parent isotopes by calculating how much substance we have, then measuring again after a sufficient time has passed. For example, a 1000 kg sample of Carbon-14 would decay by one gram in three days, validating the half-life measurement of 5730 years. We could also measure how many counts we should be getting on the same sample and watch them get smaller over time to showcase an exponential decay pattern. From that, I suggested where my studied desired to go, such as figuring out if there is a consistent error factor in the calculations by the mainstream scientists determining the +/- factors that are presented, what could cause the decay rates to accelerate, and how water could pull these isotopes in and out of the system.
I proposed doing some experiments that test these measurements that I could not find any information about going into the conference. During the conference, I had a two-hour window to defend my poster and explain it, but I also got to explain it at various other times. Many people were able to follow the poster and when I explained it, they all pretty much agreed that these are things we should do. But then I got to talk to three of the scientists who were part of the RATE Team, who 15 years ago threw a bomb into the whole confidence in radiometric dating methods.
John Baumgardner said I had some good ideas but indicated that when the RATE team was doing their studies, there were many things they looked at which were not published because they did not get anything really conclusive. He did not say specifically, but I wonder if they did look at this aspect. Then Russel Humphreys came by, who is a physicist I highly respect. I really didn’t get a whole of useful information from him because he really wanted me to go look somewhere totally different, but he did make a specific comment about examining how our proximity to the sun during our orbit affects the decay rates.
Then the real help came from Andrew Snelling. He said I was on the right track and that the experiments I suggested needed to be done, but he also indicated that to at least some degree, they had already been done. I had not heard of any, but I got the impression that the direction I wanted to go was either a dead end or at a canyon without a bridge to cross it. He also made comments that when K-Ar dating showed to give wrong results compared to a Uranium date, they tweaked the half-life of K-40 to make it match. I could not get details on this other than a video presentation he had done, which was put on YouTube about five years ago.
However, before this, two of the full paper presentations really caught my attention. One was Snelling’s presentation on radiohalos. His presentation showed strong evidence of both accelerated decay and aquatic leaching because hydrothermal fluids (water and heat fluids) had to pull Polonium away from the Uranium to create the halos that were present in an extremely short time due to Polonium’s extremely short half-life. So, I had some pieces to the puzzle I was working on solving.
But even bigger than this was a presentation given by two college kids at Cedarville University. They did a statistical analysis of the published radiometric dates from the US Geological Databases, analyzing about 29,000 samples. They simply compared the results of the same methods to the same samples and different methods to the same samples to see how much they agreed. Using the bare minimum overlap as a “concurrence” or “agreement” (that is, if one method gave a range of 60-120 million years, and another method gave a range of 30-61 million years, that was a concurrence). Overall, their data showed that only 64% of the dating methods agreed with themselves.
After their presentation, Andrew Snelling gave some detailed feedback along with John Woodmorappe (most famous for his book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study) on how they need to zoom in on their comparisons to separate the whole rock samples from isochron samples (don’t worry about that difference here) and from isotopes with a solid daughter product from those with a gas as a daughter product. Then I made a comment about those concurrences in how aligned they really were, whether a strong overlap or a just barely overlap. I spoke with both that I would like to take their study and take that step, and I also mentioned it to their mentor, Paul Garner, who initiated the thought for the study and then guided them throughout it. I now had a direction I could go.
What I learned in this process is how even in science, man can make his plans but God directs his steps. I got shut down from going the direction I wanted to go, despite all positive feedback, but I am not to go that direction, at least for now. I instead got a new direction I can look at and when these papers are released. When you take your academic studies and submit them to God’s will and God’s purpose, He will take you directions you could not imagine, and I am by far not done here. I’ll take some time to let things settle, while teaching gets going again for this school year, and once I get some time to review the papers of this conference, I’ll be able to start going down the next step of my journey.
The next International Conference on Creationism is slated to be at Cedarville University again in about four years. A LOT can happen between now and then, but my goal is to publish a full paper with my statistical analysis, and I am also considering doing a theologically based paper as well, possibly showing how a compromise in Genesis leads to compromise everywhere else individually or over generations. But we will see what God does and how He leads me as the dust continues to settle from this conference.
I want to leave this series with this note: science and the Bible are not enemies. They are allies, and as long as you let God direct everything and let Him get the glory, He will show you things beyond your imagination. You can believe the Bible as written and do proper science. You may not make many friends in the academic world, but if you tap into the mind of Christ, you can run circles around their whole departments. Do not fear them nor their mocking. Trust in the Lord and He will bless your studies, including in the sciences. He certainly has blessed mine, and I’m just getting started.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
The heart and soul of the International Conference on Creationism is the papers and abstracts. As this is the first and only professional conference I have been to, I do not have much of sample space for this type of thing as a whole, but it is my understanding that the general idea is not that much different in the mainstream or secular professional conferences.
At this conference, there were full papers and abstracts in which the author(s) got to give a defense of their paper before an audience composed of laymen and other professionals. Each paper and abstract still went through the peer review process, but here the authors got to present before the audience. The paper authors were given 50 minutes to give an overview of their paper and clarify things, whereas the abstracts were only given 20 minutes. You can watch this video to learn about some of these authors.
I am not going to attempt to describe the technical details of these papers here. The only reason I had a remote clue of what was going on in most of these papers was being already familiar with the topics and even then, a lot of it went over my head. What I will emphasis here is what I talked about two weeks ago. The Biblical Creationists are doing true, valid, and legitimate science. During the presentations I sat in, I saw legitimate science. I didn’t agree with every statement or every conclusion. But if Creationists are “not doing legitimate science” then NO ONE is. I’ve seen what is coming from mainstream journals and there is no evidence that science was ever done in some of their papers.
Here are some highlights on a few of the topics. Tim Clarey expanded his published “Carved in Stone” research to showcase through five continents of mapping the six major “geologic megasequences” that the Flood did happen gradually over the course of the year-long event with the peak of the waters only around day 150 and then receding. Australia’s mapping wasn’t finished yet, but Clarey indicated that Australia could be the best of the six continents to show the Flood’s reach. Andrew Snelling discussed radiohalos and showcased how polonium had to be pulled away from uranium to produce their own halos. This would be evidence for accelerated radioactive decay and evidence that such accelerated decay would not produce the heat problem that skeptics insist upon. Steve Austin gave a presentation about Hopi Lake, which would be a great lake that would breach to carve the Grand Canyon.
There were other presentations about statistical comparisons about radiometric dating results, other radiometric dating topics, issues with the Ice Age and the Flood, discussions about animal longevity, and the list goes on – paleontology topics, genetic topics, more Flood geology topics, and even some theological topics. To try to describe them all would overwhelm almost anyone.
There were at least one or two papers that people said were unimpressive and likely should not have passed peer-review. There were papers that disagreed with other papers being shared, but science does that. There are competing ideas over the same central theme. There were other papers that were good enough for getting through peer-review but needed modifications and tweaks to further the study. I’ll hit one in particular next week as it related to my own research.
What was really cool though was despite the disagreements, the whole conference had a central theme: demonstrating the validity of the Bible’s accounts and seeking how the events took place. Some discussions did get heated, and we have to face the fact that we are not yet fully redeemed. There is so much we still have to learn, and some of what we think is going on now may not be actually happening. Some of the scientists have pointed out that they are on their third or fourth version of their models, tweaking things as they go, and would eventually reject the models if the evidence really turns against it. The creationists are doing all the legitimate science that the mainstream only boasts about doing. There is no valid reason to reject their findings on the grounds that “they don’t do science” or “they are biased.”
Next week, I’ll wrap up my series on the International Conference on Creationism by examining my personal experience with my own research and what happened as a result of the feedback I received.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
The International Conference on Creationism did something that usually is not done in many conferences. Instead of just one keynote speaker for each evening speaking for 1-2 hours, they decided to give multiple speakers the opportunity to speak on different subjects about where the science based on Creation is standing. There were eleven keynotes over three evenings. I will not be able to cover everything in this blog post, of course, but here are some of the highlights.
Bill Barrick from The Master's Academy International opened up discussing theology. He called out a few of the old earth teachers by name for poor theology but also called out some of the errors that young earthers have made too by using certain Scriptures out of context. He called for bringing back theology as the queen of the sciences and that every scientific study group or team should have a good, qualified (or proven) theologian on the team to show that the models are in line with what Scripture teaches.
Andrew Snelling from Answers in Genesis spoke about geology and listed 12 different fields of geology to be addressed. These included comparing the real geologic column in the physical earth to the textbooks’ models, to further studying where the Flood started and stopped, to dealing with radiometric dating and calling for a more complete model of radioactive decay that is in agreement with Scripture and the Flood.
Russel Humphreys spoke about physics and presented four different projects for future physicists to address. While I have greatly respected Humphreys and his work, I was rather disappointed in this one as one project called for a naturalistic explanation for supernatural events (the forming of galaxies) and another greatly misused a verse from Ecclesiastes where there is nothing new under the sun to suggest that time is “circular.”
Joe Francis from The Master's University spoke about biology with a strong focus on immunity and microbiology. He spent most of his talk explaining the immune system and how much it truly requires an intelligent designer, including how it can tell the difference between real and fake substances.
Douglas Petrovitch from Brookes Bible College spoke about archeology, focusing on the finds from the 2nd century BC. He was featured in the Patterns of Evidence series, namely on “The Moses Controversy” part. He pointed out that all the evidence points to Pharaoh Amenhotep II being the Pharoah of the Exodus, as he is the only king that meets all the criteria. He showcases several stone slabs where Israel is mentioned as a nation but some that actually date all the way back to Joseph with the early Hebrew alphabet, written by Joseph’s first son, Manasseh. He listed several other finds that showcase the Bible’s history and the evidence that Hebrew was indeed the first alphabetic written language in history.
Danny Faulkner from Answers in Genesis spoke about astronomy. He addressed how early on, creation research was more about Big Bang bashing than creating our own models, and he bemoaned that we lack in this area due to lack of qualified experts to study it, a lack of Biblical specifics, and the dangers of having that kind of great freedom to explore many other options. But he also pointed out some of our gains in examining cratering, aspects of Venus and Mars, and how the exoplanets (5700 of them) continue to showcase the uniqueness of Earth.
Then John Baumgardner from Liberty University spoke about Numeric Modeling. Most of his talk was how he used numeric modeling to create the TERRA program in Los Alamos Labs that the government uses today. It was numeric modeling that helped him create Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and various other things.
John Sanford from Logos Research Associates spoke about genetics, possibly for the last time as a focus of study, because another topic related to the sexual identity crisis has his attention. He pointed out five different geneticists who have made a tremendous impact, including himself with “Genetic Entropy” and Rob Carter on Mitochondrial diversity who was the first to discover that humans to trace back to a single woman. Then he addressed Liu-Y.G. (I did not get this full name) for showing how many viruses got their immunity, mentioned Jeff Thomkins (ICR) for his chimp vs human DNA comparison (showing only 84% similarity instead of the claimed 99% similarity), and concluded with Nathaniel Jeanson and his books Replacing Darwin and Traced.
Kurt Wise from Truett McConnell University spoke on paleontology and with much gusto and energy. He spoke about many fossils and said that studying fossils like studying living creatures. While I got where he was coming from, I could not really agree with him on that. He also made a point about horse evolution, just on a YEC time scale, and he is not in a lot of agreement with the rest of the YEC community on that one.
Matt McLain from The Master's University spoke about education. He tried to give it as much of a positive spin as he could, but only 14 colleges still teach YEC and only two of them have YEC-friendly grad school programs. It is critical for teachers to pour into the next generation, and he called for more YEC schools, more YEC programs, more students doing YEC research, more careers available to them, and a need to rethink what it means to prepare a student for success.
Then, finally, Aaron Hutchinson from Cedarville University spoke about chemistry, an often-neglected field in Creation with very few chemists. He suggested that solubility rates and studies would be a valuable field to examine. He pointed out that with many reactions being reversible, we should be looking at solution equilibrium and rock formation, how they form quickly. He specified dealing with carbonates coming from biology and from materials similar to salts. We should look at hot hydrothermal fluids as sources for metals, carbon, and sulfur, along with sorting by solubility going on. Of course, such experiments are quite dangerous as they can explode. As Dr Hutchinson said, as a chemist, he’s not exactly opposed to such notions. He concluded by pointing out that the conditions in which a rock formed could affect the ratio of stable and unstable isotopes regarding the dating methods.
So that is a quick summary of the content of the keynote speakers from the International Conference on Creationism. I’ll touch on the papers and abstracts and posters next week. My point in sharing this is that there is a lot of research being done to validate and verify the Bible’s account regarding origins, and there is still a lot more research to do. We are just starting to catch up to the Bible. We have a long way to go, and that is one of the fun parts of being a scientist who believes the Bible as written. We are finding so much that it is a shame we aren’t being recognized for it. Many of our finds are truly Nobel Prize worthy and beyond. More on this next week.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
One of the common charges against Biblical Creationists (who hold that God made everything in six days, that there was a global flood, and that the earth is only 6000 years old) is that they do not and cannot do science. I have long argued that such notions are absolute nonsense and flat out lies. I will argue that not only can we do science, but we do BETTER science than the extreme majority of our mainstream, secular peers.
We have to understand that science is a tool, not an theory. Science is a tool we use to analyze how the universe works and operates; it does not tell us “truth.” As a tool, science can be used correct or incorrectly. It can build up and support or it can tear down and destroy. It can lead to truth, or it can be manipulated to teach lies. Just because someone calls it science or just because someone has “PhD” with their name does not make it truth.
The scientific method and scientific processes are about observing, testing, analyzing, and seeking how things work and operate. The secularists boast that science is about questioning things, though it sure is amazing to me how little they actually question. But if one is going to call it “science,” then it should be backed up by experimentation. While there are areas like theoretical physics, they are not in the same category as hard science” Nikola Tesla stated over 100 years ago that “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
Do Creationists, who believe in the supernatural, miraculous creation, do real science? The answer is yes. I have known this for a long time, but at the International Conference on Creationism, I got to see it first-hand. During this conference, 29 full papers were presented along with 27 abstracts and 22 posters, each showcasing scientific study and either experimentation or pointing towards experimentation. My own poster didn’t have any experimental data because of not having equipment, but I did have data for what experiments should showcase. All the presentations had guidelines to follow including the concept, idea, materials, methods, data, conclusions, etc. All those things you may have seen in your high school science fair are actually what is practiced in the real world, too. For the posters, you just had a few minutes to discuss your research. For the papers and abstracts, you not only dealt with presenting much more detailed research, but you also faced questions from elite scientists.
“But you are all creationists and therefore you are just affirming your own worldview and your own position,” says the skeptic. Don’t the mainstream journals do the same? Do they allow critique from creationists as they demand we let them do with us? To this day, I have yet to hear a single complaint against Biblical Creationists that is not practiced by those very complainers. We aren’t perfect, and we do get things wrong. The science by YEC is not the gold standard; Scripture is. Likewise, to the secularist, their “science” is not the gold standard; to them naturalism and “millions of years” is. Don’t believe me? Question it in front them and they defend it religiously, like it is a sacred cow.
Coming into this conference, the very weekend we arrived, an article was released regarding updated models of how the universe came about due to the images of the James Webb Telescope. They are now calling to push the age of the universe to 27 billion years instead of the 13.8 billion we have been taught for decades. Fully intact galaxies and stars that totally refuted the current Big Bang models keep showing up. Instead of changing their models because they were refuted by the evidence, they simply change the target and tweak things to make it fit.
One comment really caught my attention. This doubling of the age of the universe was necessary so the “constants could evolve.” I teach physics for a living. Constants in science are, well, constant. Yet this is published and accepted for mainstream science. If a creationist were to say this, we’d be the laughingstock.
In 1994, Dr. Owen Lovejoy infamously sought to explain the hip of the Lucy fossil by using a Dremel to “fix” the hip. This was shown on public TV on NOVA. Imagine a Creationist doing this. Lovejoy gets a pass, but what about Creationists? We are held to far stricter standards. And guess what? The science we are doing still holds against such standards. That said, secularists can do true science, too. They can build computers and rockets and medical machines just as easily as we can. But when it comes to anything related to origins, secular science is truly the lowest quality work that can be conceived, with the false priests of “Word of Faith” people being their prime competition.
During the ICC, I got to see the film “Is Genesis History: Mountains After the Flood,” a quasi-sequel to the original film. The film primarily focused on the work of Andrew Snelling and John Whitmore in their investigation of the Grand Canyon and the folded rocks that take all sorts of wild shapes. Snelling was denied access to the Grand Canyon on religious grounds and had to win a lawsuit to do his work. The film focused on this study, walking the audience through the field work. This is not storytelling. Snelling is not an Evolutionist or an “Old Earther” who does little study and tells many stories. He gets out there and gets his hands dirty. We see Dr. Whitmore measuring the angles of the Coconino Sandstone in person, easily refuting decades of textbook literature which has it all wrong because they did not go out and actually do the measurements themselves. We see here what professional science looks like. You go out, you do the experiments, and your experiments can be replicated. Any mainstream person can go do what Snelling and Whitmore did. None of us can do what the “old earthers” tell us they did because it’s storytelling.
The old earth experiments they actually do look nothing like what they are extrapolating. They say you can bend a chunk of ice with just the right pressures without bending it, therefore stacks upon stacks of rocks can bend with just the right heat and pressure too. But they only did this with a single block of ice, not stacks of ice each of which would bend the way they did at different pressures. Also, when you DO bend rock like that, there are signs of fractures and some metamorphosis involved. What Snelling showcased was that no such pressures were present upon solid rock, and a blind test with a similar rock just upstream of the Grand Canyon that was NOT bent could not be distinguished. This proved that the folded rocks were bent when they were soft, justifying the Flood models and refuting the mainstream models.
There are things that creationists have gotten wrong, but my point is that if you hear someone claim that Creationists cannot do science, you can be sure of at least one of several things: 1) they have never read any Creationist literature, 2) they don’t understand science, and 3) they are in denial. We do science, and we do good science, certainly a higher quality than what the mainstream practices. It was Creationists who founded the extreme bulk of the fields of science we know today, and it is Creationists who are leading the studies on finding facts. Read the Creationist journals; we are constantly finding things. Read the mainstream journals; they are constantly getting things wrong. To say we don’t do science is either ignorance, naivete, or simple dishonesty. It is time we stop letting the scoffers set the terms and force them to actually engage our material. They won’t, because they wouldn’t know what to do, but don’t let them off the hook.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
The week of July 16-19, 2023, was truly an opportunity of a lifetime for me. Back in November, the El Paso Creation Network that I am an active part of hosted Dr. John Whitmore of Cedarville University, one of the top geologists in the creation community, and Nate Loper of Canyon Ministries (touring the Grand Canyon from a Biblical perspective) to talk about the Flood. During the conference, I told Dr. Whitmore about studies I have been doing regarding radiometric dating methods and the need for a more scrutinous examination of them. He suggested I do a poster presentation at the 9th International Conference on Creationism, held only every 4-5 years. I had never heard of that before. When I looked it up, I likely had those big cartoon eyes with glee and excitement!
This conference is a gathering of the top Biblical Creation scientists in the world, focused on not merely gathering together and pooling resources but to get research published and presented in a professional format. You can watch a video about the conference here. This is not your normal conference where you bring in speakers to give talks about different subjects. This is a professional conference where people are presenting their research and getting published. In my circles, I am often one of the larger fish in the pond, and here I knew going in and fully confirmed when I was there that I was one of the smaller fish in a much larger lake.
The conference was the evening of Sunday, July 16 through the afternoon of Wednesday, July 19. I flew to Michigan to visit family for a week and a half before the conference, and then my parents drove me to Cedarville University in Ohio (outside Dayton. For the return trip, I joined the caravan from El Paso that was coming separately.
There are keynote speakers during most conferences of this type, but this one was different. Instead of having a single keynote speaker each night, Dr. Whitmore and his crew decided to have someone speak on each of the major fields Creationism addresses: 11 speakers in all over three nights.
The formal paper presentations were each of the three mornings. There were two types of presentations: full papers and abstracts. The full papers are the heart of the conference. There were 29 full papers presented in three different rooms at a time, with four sessions each morning. So, each person could sit in during four full papers each day, but they would miss 1-2 others each time slot. Each presenter would be given 50 minutes to address the highlights of each paper, some behind the scenes, and deal with questions.
Alongside the full papers were the abstracts. In formal papers, the abstract is a basic summary of the whole paper and whole concept. The abstract presentations were only 20 minutes each and would basically give the main overview of a topic, but not yet complete enough to give it full paper status. There were 27 abstracts presented, at the same time as the full papers. Needless to say, no one got to see it all. None of the presentations were recorded to my knowledge without expressed permission, and the main reason why is because they wanted people to focus more on the paper itself, not just the presentation that would be just a sampling of what was going on.
The afternoons had three major events: roundtable talks, poster presentations, and field trips. The round-table talks were a group of experts who formed a panel to discuss a variety of topics and address questions from the public. There were three roundtables, and I didn’t sit on any of them because I was busy doing other stuff. One roundtable dealt with “feathered dinosaurs,” another dealt with the Flood boundaries, and the third dealt with the biogeography in the post-Flood world. Several people commented that the discussions were really good, and they were having some good debates.
The poster presentation was one of the highlights for me as this is where I got my turn to shine. I was one of 22 posters, and I had a two-hour time slot on the second day to “defend” my studies. I’ll make a separate post on that specifically. The posters were meant to present initial ideas and studies that were not ready for full papers. This time operated like a science fair on steroids. I had awesome feedback which I will share later as I further report on this conference. The posters were up for the entire conference, and I got to share my studies throughout the conference.
The field trips went outside the campus to discuss the geology and botany of the area. I was not on any of those trips so I cannot comment. But prior to the poster presentations we got a full viewing of a current draft of the film “Is Genesis History? Mountains After the Flood.” This is a quasi-sequel to the first “Is Genesis History?” film that went to theaters, but this one focused specifically on the studies that Andrew Snelling spearheaded in the Grand Canyon to analyze the folded rocks in the area and to prove/disprove how they folded. The film followed him, Dr. Whitmore, and Dr. Steve Austin in their studies in this field, showcased how Creationists have been doing their research, and much more. It is my understanding this film will not go to theaters when it is finished so it may go straight to DVD.
Then the evening closed with the keynotes, and we had a “soft” closing to the whole conference. After the final presentations that Wednesday morning, we had lunch and a few events for people to choose from, but most started scattering. Oddly, there were no closing final remarks in a large group.
This conference may well have sparked a new chapter in my life. I most certainly plan to come again the next time hopefully to present a full paper, not a mere poster. Whoever says that Biblical Creationists don’t do science either has never read anything, never looked, or doesn’t even know what science actually is. This conference proved that we don’t just do science, we do it well. I had respect for these guys going into the conference; that respect has truly skyrocketed, and it is a total shame that these scientists like Dr. Whitmore, Dr. Snelling, Dr. Austin, Dr. Baumgardner, and Dr. Humphreys are not considered among the greatest scientists of our day. Their research is top-notch and impeccable.
Watch for more of my reflections from this conference in my posts for the next few weeks.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
