TASC - Triangle Association for the Science of Creation

Global flood astronomical date range

February, 2015

NOTE: (reprinted with permission from the author from CreationScienceHallofFame.org)


 

Dr. Walt Brown, nearly three months ago, announced an astronomical fix for the Global Flood. When he did that, he provoked the precise sort of debate scientists ought to have. Brown, with his customary boldness, challenged anyone who doubted him: “Check my math!” Dr. Matthew Jachimstahl, a skeptic (both of the Hydroplate Theory and of the Bible), accepted Brown’s challenge. Brown recently released the full results of that challenge.

A range of dates for the Global Flood.

Your correspondent has copies of all the correspondence between Drs. Brown and Jachimstahl. (In fact, that correspondence began early in July, after Dr. Brown revised his results earlier.) The result of that debate does not change Dr. Brown’s value for the most likely date of the Global Flood. But it does change the standard deviation of that value. The new standard deviation is 100 years. Thus the range of most likely dates for the Global Flood are the year 3290 BC, give or take 100 years.

TASC to Present Comprehensive Creation Series at North Carolina State University This Winter and Spring

January, 2015

Mark your calendars: TASC has been invited to present a series on creation this winter and spring at Grace Church, which meets on the campus of North Carolina State University. The 12 classes in the series are open to the public and will be held on Sunday nights from 6:30 to 8:00 PM starting January 25. TASC will use the new video series from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) entitled Unlocking the Mysteries of Genesis as the framework for the classes.

The complete schedule is below:

Bias

December, 2014

Have you ever wondered why some people seem so resistant to ideas? If you are a creationist, you might have wondered why some evolutionists seem so resistant to evidence against evolution. Or you might have noticed this in other fields, too. Well, it does seem amazing that the preponderance of evidence of evolution can be ignored, or discounted, so readily, so consistently, by some.

This is a phenomenon that has been observed and commented on down through time. Tolstoy wrote of this, 1 and so did Nobelist Max Planck. 2 Even evolutionist Gould wrote about this. 3 He wrote of a researcher who was so blind to the truth, to the evidence, that not only did he ignore the evidence of his own experiments, his own data, but he also fudged the data and was not even aware that he had fudged it. Whether true or not, this was stated by an evolutionist, so some evolutionists must at least believe that such bias is possible.

Pages