To the authors:
When you published your first article, I was hopeful to read a scientific treatise in which the conclusions were fact-based on the age of the earth and creation. In that first article and all subsequent ones I have been disappointed. With apologies, you continue to write opinion pieces with selective facts to support your assertion for your point of view and in your ongoing disagreements with YEC, and this is no different.
I’m not a scientist. But you don’t address (although obliquely try) that it could be possible for life to exist in temperate climates before 11,000 years ago. Instead, you infer that life might not hospitable - while asserting that your work is conclusive proof that life didn’t exist here before 8,000 - 12,000 years ago. Your inference is that no life could exist before this time frame, but your suppositions about temperature and wind speed may at best suggest that life for humans would be difficult (should we talk about all of the animals and plants that could easily exist in the world you describe? Should we talk about marine life?) Your work is based upon ice core samples from the extreme ends of the world. Nothing in your information refutes other fossil records for either homo sapiens or other organic life. Your basic theory is that the earth itself is millions or even billions of years old, but that life itself is just 11,000 years and yet you do not explain botanical evidence or information to the contrary, in short your theories have just as many flaws as YEC, or Darwinistic, etc. Instead, you would rather having a spat with YEC adherents.
I have three issues with your continued publications. The first is that you take facts about ice cores (I don’t know the science and thus can’t affirm or deny those facts), but then you extrapolate that to a worldwide opinion that your facts don’t necessarily support. All that you say about ice core records in Greenland and Antartica could be true and there could still be life in the equatorial zones - your facts don’t prove or disprove this and you say it does.
The second issue I have is that you then tie your conclusions to Bible and EGW passages and assert that your statements prove that those authors are correct and their statements prove that you are correct. This is in no way supported by the evidence you provide.
Third, again with apologies, frankly I am offended that someone must take all of your assertions to be true and factual or their theology is in doubt. If I don’t agree that your conclusions support the idea of a 6 day creation, then in your mind the concept of the Sabbath is nullified. In my opinion, that is not your right to assert.
Finally, my I humbly suggest that these articles hurt your cause more than they help it. Having the appearance of scientific rigor, but leading to unsubstantiated and unsupported conclusions simply causes ridicule for your ideas even if the foundation of them is correct. It becomes all too easy to just label it junk science - because you claim proofs that your work does not prove. It would be much better to present your ice core data and write those specific conclusions that you can support and present them in peer-reviewed journal, including those journals of those that don’t believe in a creation week. If the facts stand up, they stand up, if not then you can go to the drawing board.