Responses to Critics
Negative comments are below --
a number of these may be found in the Discussion section and are linked there.
There are two 'critics' who seem to have made a hobby of insulting one or both of us via emails. You probably know who you are. Your emails are now filed directly into "Deleted Items" and we never see them.
April, 2010 -- we don't just get criticisms -- we get a lot of compliments and encouragement, too. So we decided to put up a few of those on The Positive Side. We do encourage real criticisms. Several times we asked one creation internet group for any actual data which contradicts anything in the material here. We got nothing, despite the fact that the majority strongly supported the standard creation model which says Noah's Flood was responsible for the vast majority of the geologic column and almost all the fossils. We disagree with that, as can be seen in the material here. Nevertheless, we have so far gotten no actual data which disagrees with the material on this website -- interpretations, yes, of course. But data, no. If there is real data which needs to be considered which would change any part of the model here presented we need to know so we can effect the changes. Feel free to contact us, please.
Observational Evidence Weak?
Response to Professor Skiff
Why not build on established work?
The use of the SED approach
Waves or Frequency?
NEW, March 1, 2015 -- A Response to a ResponseResponse to questions about an article in Creation Ministries International
Bridgman was also a partial impetus toward the writing of Data and Creation, so that paper is "Response to Tom Bridgman, part 2."Response to Mark Kluge, #1
Response to Mark Kluge #2 -- Kluge pointed out a mathematical error in Quantized Redshifts and the Zero Point Energy. That error has been corrected in the appendix to Data and Creation. We wish to thank Kluge for his close inspection and correct observation.