Response to the "wood" issue:
Here's the text of correspondence quoted in the second of the above links;
From: Alex Cherkinsky[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:58:55 PM
To: Meert Joe
Subject: Re: Some questions
Dear Joe
I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits especially if it is sand or sandstones which could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions. If you have more questions please let me know.
Best regards.
Dr.Alexander Cherkinsky
Radiocarbon Lab Manager
It seems you use a web site that will claim something is a piece of wood when the company employed to date it says it isn't. They don't mention it. You would call equivalent behaviour in a scientist you disagree with (i.e. an evolutionist) 'dishonest' or 'deceitful'.
Apparently the company employed "Geochron" may have given different communications on the "wood" issue. It appears that Cherkinsky did not dispute that the sample was not wood in any written correspondence. Therfore giving Cherkinsky the benefit of the doubt that he did attempt to convey to the submitter his belief that the sample was not wood, he probably phoned someone at AIG. However we do not know who he spoke with, how strong his words were, or even if Snelling recieived this information in a clear way at all. Even Meert commented:
Cherkinsky claims 'he told the submitter'. Snelling wants a letter, but Cherkinsky may have phoned Snelling, a secretary or a lab assistant. At this point, we simply do not know.
We do know that the written correspondence from the lab used the term "wood."
the analytical report from Geochron Laboratories described the sample as wood and under the heading 'Pretreatment' reported that 'The wood sample was cleaned of dirt or other foreign material and was split into small pieces. It was then treated with hot dilute HCl to remove any carbonates and with hot dilute NaOH to remove humic acids and other organic contaminates. After washing and drying, it was combusted to recover carbon dioxide for the analysis.'
Apparently the company employed "Geochron" may have given different communications on the "wood" issue. The only correspondence that can be shown that Snelling received was written and used the term "wood", so I see no substantaition of a charge of "dishonesty"
AIG has even offered the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6-26-2000.asp
"AiG would be prepared (indeed we would be very pleased) to consider a proposal to explore this issue further. We would consider allowing more of the sample to be submitted to an agreed expert for identification, provided the procedures were agreed beforehand and, by advance agreement, the results properly reported and made fully available to AiG, including for publication if desired. We would also require the opportunity of observing any tests that were conducted."
