In an announcement of rthe reprinting of CRSQ vol 20, Emmett Williams
(Reprinted CRSQ Volume 20", CRSQ 31(June 1995, pp 56-58) wrote: Morton
(1984a, pp212-219) speculated that there is too much carbon in the form of
coal, oil and gas to maintain a belief in a young earth. Later Woodmorappe
(1986, pp. 205-218) effectively countered MOrton's claims and showed that
the antediluvian biosphere had the capacity to supply the entire fossil
record. In a note, Morton (1984b, pp 229-230) suggested that oil and gas
in the earth's crust is not as old as is claimed by uniformitarian
scientists. Tinkle (1983, pp. 94-95) exposed the ciruclarity of the
arguments for evolution from the fossil record." (p. 56)
What fascinated me is the ridiculous claim that I had said that there was
too much carbon to maintain a belief in a young earth. At the time I wrote
that article I was a committed young-earth creationist. I argued for an
inorganic origin of oil and gas IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A BELIEF IN A YOUNG
EARTH. Williams is doing sloppy research and engaging in historical
revisionism. No wonder modern society is rejecting what the young-earth
creationists say. They can't even get recent history correct.
Just so there will be no doubt, I do now view the carbon problem as a major
blow to flood theory. Today I beleive what Williams is claiming, but I
didn't believe it in 1984 and neither did I claim in 1984 what Williams
says I claimed.