I am pretty sure I remember somebody here menioning something about dating methods and a certain army medal. So, you can imagine my surprise at finding in aMessage 1 of 1 , Jun 1, 2003View SourceI am pretty sure I remember somebody here menioning something about
dating methods and a certain army medal. So, you can imagine my
surprise at finding in a church bulletin today, June 1, 2003, a repeat
of an undated article from Wayne Jackson. Wayne has his own paper at:
Wayne is the fellow, it was reported to me by Marion Fox shortly after
Marion had discussed the matter with Bert, that Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
tried to pawn off his moon dust blunder on a few years ago. Apparently
Bert was excusing the error as being something Wayne came up with. Even
though he was clued in years ago, it was only recently that Bert
finally, under circumstances that remain secret, deleted his faulty moon
dust promotion from one of his website articles.
Anyway, here's the relevant excerpt from the article:
Scientific Red Faces
Al almost everyone knows, the earth is supposed to be about 5 billion
years old, while man has been around only some 3 or 4 million years.
These estimates are pure speculation, based upon dating methods that are
grounded in evolutionary assumptions. There is NO hard-core test that
can determine the age of the earth. Most believe simply because they
accept what is presented in the media.
Several years ago some scientist discovered human bones buried under
thick deposits of mud in California. The bones were submitted to
"competent authorities", who declared them to be about 75,000 years old.
Unforntunately, however, as they dug deeper, they found an old United
States Army button. Now, maybe the United States ad an army 75,000
years ago-or just maybe the scientific dating methods are not all that
When Christians accept the dates which are part of the evolutionary
system, they are playing right into the hands of infidelity.
My further comments:
There were no references given, and I am not presently informed of the
facts of the matter.
So, what we have here is a little testimony from Wayne Jackson.
In such cases, the ad hominem fallacy is not committed when one raises
questions concerning reasons for doubting the man's testimony. Given
Wayne Jackson's involvement in the Bert Thompson, Ph.D. affairs and how
they handled those matters, I certainly have reason to doubt Wayne
Jackson's article is an honest representation of the facts or the
relevant issues in the case.
I suspect Wayne Jackson's claims are worth about as much as Bert
Thompson's claims concerning moon-dust and Matthew Maury.
We will see. Maybe someone who knows more about that story will fill us
in, or maybe I will find something more in my own travels.