The Earths Catrostophic Past, Geology, Creation and the Flood" by Andrew Snelling
OK let's look at your first witness for young earth creationism. Andrew Snelling is a hypocrite. He is a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo.
The rest of the time he is a consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.
Let me refer to one of his papers as quoted by one of his colleagues Dr Alex Ritchie
During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.
2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.
3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.
When he writes for his theological pseudo-science magazine he never makes mention of his acceptance of "millions of years". When he writes peer reviewed papers he never owns up to his young earth creationism.
Dr Ritchie concludes..
One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?
Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.
Shall we go on to look at the rest of your "sources"?
One thing that I have found interesting is the facts that evolutionists always, always engage in source attacks whenever any non-evolutionist resource is recommended (or even referenced) be it website or book.
The evolutionist who haven't read the publications will always do a "search" and immediately paste any neagtive info that they can find.
Evolutionists simply can't tolerate anyone actually reading any publications against their belief system.
They will consistently "review" books without reading then and try to dimiss them as "lies", or refer to other evolutionists reviews (that they haven't read, and dogmatically pronounce the non-evolutionary literature to have been "refuted"). Its also interesting since when they recommend pro-evo. resources the non-evolutionists usually don't behave in the same way.
These kind of consistenently employed tactics are one reason confirming to me anyway that the embrace of evolution is usually due to non-evidence based reasons.
For a response to the above ad hominem regarding Snelling see: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp
