Re: [asa] ICR for January 2007: crisis in crater count dating

> Is there merit to this article?

It's probably true that secondary cratering is more important than
previously thought, though there's inconsistency in heralding that
claim as authoritative while slandering other science.

The rate of secondary cratering is strongly influenced by the rate of
primary cratering, so the claim that this totally overturns the dating
method is false. It's still true that a relatively crater-free
surface strongly suggests active processes going on relatively
recently, moderate levels of cratering suggest old surfaces, and very
heavy cratering suggests extremely old surfaces, probably dating back
to the heavy bombardments present in the early solar system.

The fact that relative cratering is only a very rough, relative dating
method makes changes in it rather unimportant and in no way justifies
a young solar system scenario.

The claim that putting things into a creation science framework makes
them Biblical is the most serious error.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.