In regard to the White Cliffs of Dover, I had emailed the following request to GRISDA:

From: David Koot [mailto:archierieus@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:40 AM
To: info@grisda.org
Subject: White Cliffs of Dover

Greetings!

I am an evangelist working in Northern California. Several people with whom I am working or communicating, believe in evolution. The White Cliffs of Dover have been presented as strong evidence in support of long-age evolution. One individual commented that he has never heard a plausible recent Creation/short-age Earth explanation for them. Could you direct me to any information about that?

Best Regards,

David Koot
archierieus@yahoo.com


I just now received the following reply:

"Subject: RE: White Cliffs of Dover
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:08:35 -0700
From: "Clausen, Ben (LLU)" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: "David Koot"
CC: ElaineGKennedy@gmail.com

Thank you for your message. It is being forwarded to a geologist who has visited the White Cliffs of Dover."

I shall of course share the response of the geologist, as soon as I receive it.

Dave

I picked at random, one website from the list of Creationist websites which I had posted above. I found this interesting summary by one Dr. Walter Veith, who seems to have a Ph.D. in zoology, is or has been a university professor, grew up an avowed evolutionist and atheist and taught evolution at State university, but now is SDA and a Creationist. He apparently is located in B.C.:

http://64.180.102.203/fossilrecord.html

Ok, let's examine this site

Quote:

---

Indeed the fossil record is today considered to be the severest blow to all anti-evolutionary ideas.

---

You saw my long list of items earlier - the fossil record is only one item in a long list. The White Cliffs of Dover cover a lot of issues apart from the fossil record.

Quote:

---

Catastrophism was rejected by exponents of the theory of evolution, many scientists are today returning to Catastrophism

---

This is a vast oversimplification of a long debate.

Quote:

---

No process occurring today can even remotely approach the magnitude of the catastrophe necessary to account for such a vast scale of universal burial of plants and other organic material.

---

He invents 'universal burial' by failing to distinguish between a series of floods and other events world wide, and a global flood, and then assumes without proof that all the burials happened at once, and assumes without proof that a global flood would account for the actual deposits seen.

In fact it won't - there is more material than a global flood can account for. A GLOBAL FLOOD IS TOO SMALL!

Quote:

---

The earliest organisms in the fossil record were thus complex organisms and there is no evidence for the progressive advance required by the theory of evolution

---

Right. Why we don't see birds in the earliest layers? Why does the evidence show the mammals evolving on land and then going back to the sea? Why don't we see early warm blooded animals? Why don't we see early legged animals?

The 'what floats' argument does NOT explain why we see some animals on one continent and not another - or worse still, why we DO see some early on (before they drift apart) and then the record takes different paths.

Quote:

---

Indeed creationists do just a little more chopping to the time scale

---

ROFLOL - they also completely ignore 99% of the actual evidence, as does this guy.

Quote:

---

The fossil trees that adorn our textbooks are based on inference and not the evidence of the fossils. The evolutionary sequences are morphological sequences and do not necessarily reflect the sequence in the paleontological record.

---

Again, ROFLOL - goggle "cladisitics"

/Bevin

ps: I note this guy lacks a PhD in geology - zoology is not exactly the same thing. Just like a mortician is not a doctor.

Upon reflection, it would seem important, Bevin, since you have raised questions and taken issue with Dr. Veith, to address them directly to him. His website does have a forum, from what I could tell, as well as email availability. Why don't you present your objections to him, and let us know his response?

One other point seems worthy of consideration. He is, after all, a Ph.D. and a university professor. He reportedly taught evolution, for years. He would seem to have some credibility, and, one could presume, a working knowledge of the subject.

This has to do with the reliability of evidence. Here is Dr. Veith, on the one hand, as well as various other scientists, making statements and assessments, based on their professional training and experience. On the other hand, Bevin takes positions which are at odds with them, and provides weblinks which bear, to greater or lesser degree, upon the subject. Thus, one is left with having to make a decision as to how much weight to assign each source of information.

Upon reflection, I don't buy completely into your suggestion about going beyond the person, and doing original research myself. The reason for that, is that I recognize my limitations, and the lack of professional training and methodology. I am a stickler for careful methodology, in my areas of competence. I look for and respect careful methodology, in other areas as well. It would seem fatuous for someone who does not have the professional training, to essay to go one better than the professionals.

Of course, it does happen that, for example, the geologists disagree amongst themselves. Then, other steps must be taken. I have carefully considered your statements, and personally followed up many of the weblinks which you have provided, as well as others which I have researched. I have formed opinions as to the nature and reliability of the evidence presented, based on my professional training and experience in the field of evidence. The picture is not yet complete, however, so I will hold off on making a final evaluation until a few more pieces are in place.

Dave

Quote:

---

I don't buy completely into your suggestion about going beyond the person, and doing original research myself.

---

Maybe our concept of 'original research' differs. I certainly did not envisage you going up to the White Cliffs with a geology hammer and other tools and trying to do something original!

However I did mean that you should read enough of the various science-writer's output that you can understand the breadth and depth of the issue, including what evidence is available to back up the current hypotheses.

Quote:

---

the geologists disagree amongst themselves

---

What is actually happening here is

(a) There are two pools of geologists - those that think the long-age hypothesis is the best fit, and those that think the short-age one does. The first pool is MUCH bigger than the second.

(b) Within the long age pool, there are many minor areas of disagreement, and a few major ones. None of these contradict the long-age hypothesis.

You are using these disagreements about details to argument that the big picture is wrong. This is not a valid argument.

/Bevin

I guess one added principle about listening to experts, especially when experts disagree, is to consider whether the experts have a conflict of interest. For example, there are conflicting experts on the issue of climate change - but oddly virtually all the experts who claim that climate change is a myth happen to be employed by major oil companies. I'd say their opinion needs to be seen in the light of that conflict of interest.

It's not strictly parallel to the long age debate, because it could be argued that experts on both sides have complicating factors and allegiances. But the really interesting find would be a geologist who is *not* a Bible-believing evangelical Christian and yet believes that the evidence points to a short age. (Incidentally, there are plenty of cases of the reverse - Bible-believing evangelical Christian geologists who nonetheless believe the evidence points to a long age.)

I just received this email response from Elaine Kennedy, the geologist who visited the White Cliffs of Dover:

"I have examined three areas in Southern England and find it hard to believe they require slow deposition. I have been struck by the purity of the chalks which requires rapid deposition of the coccoliths and the diatoms which migrate through the chalk and form nodules as the weight of the overburden increases. In addition there are upright stumps and their associated "stromatolites" preserved in the chalks and this again would require rapid deposition. I do not have any references for you as I am retired and no longer have the materials I collected regarding the sites.

Yours in Christ,
Elaine G. Kennedy, Ph.D.
Geology
website: http://origins.swau.edu
email: ElaineGKennedy@gmail.com