Do creationists try to find and study fossils?

For this thread I think what you want to show is how this conclusion resulted from research and study.--Percy

It feels like this thread is going off in the wrong direction. Rather than rehashing flood geology, shouldn't we be discussing creationist fossil digs and field research?--Percy

Hi Faith,The PDF that Bernd ran down (http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/6389) is searchable - Romer never wrote what that website claims he said. If you Google around you'll find other creationist websites repeating the same erroneous claim verbatim.I think I found the original source of that quote: The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible by Paul Taylor. The quote begins on page 28 in the section titled Doesn't it take millions of years for a dinosaur bone to become a fossil?Creationist fossil digs and research seem to bear a strong resemblance to making things up. Paul S. Taylor makes things up in his book. Other creationists use quotes from books like his to make things up at their websites.Can I suggest you use this search engine: Google Scholar. If creationists are engaging in fossil digs and studying their fossil discoveries, this is where you would find it. A search for "rapid fossilization" turned up this interesting article: The Medusa effect: instantaneous fossilization--Percy

The made-up information might have an earlier source, but the specific words and phrasings of the cut-n-paste appear to be original in that book.--Percy

I provided the information in Message 76. The PDF is here: This PDF is searchable. Nothing like that quote appears anywhere in the article.I also identified the actual source of that quote in this book: The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible by Paul Taylor. The quote begins on page 28. Granny Magda already told you about limestone scale. Rather than going back and forth about the definition of fossil, maybe we can just say that if it doesn't bear any resemblance to the fossils (usually casts of the originals, actually) you see in museums, then it isn't a fossil. I think you're gonna have to point us to the particular text in the Wikipedia article that you're misinterpreting. The word "pores" doesn't appear in the article, neither does "boots".Someone else already asked you this, but I'm so amazed I have to ask the same question. Faith, this fossil boot is the kind of thing you see in sideshows and carnival "museums." You didn't think this fossil with the intact leather and embossed designs but with a completely fossilized leg a little bit of a stretch on credibility?Could I again suggest that you use the Google Scholar search engine? You might find it helps you post fewer howlers.From your Message 80: Since this is the topic of the thread, tell us more. I mean, tell us more in your own words. Please don't make us watch 80 minute slide shows presented in a monotone.--Percy

Could I again suggest that the flood is not the topic? Faith said she knows of only two creationists performing fossil studies, Austin and Cameron. We should be talking about them, not the flood.I couldn't find the original research papers about fossils from either one, but here's a link to a summary of a presentation Austin gave on his nautiloid research: The summary says the nautiloids were deposited suddenly: The details of the presentation that would presumably support this interpretation doesn't appear to be available online. Geez, wouldn't ya know, finally proof of the flood is found but no creationist has seen fit to make it available!Faith, are you sure there's a Paul Cameron doing fossil studies? All I can find about a Paul Cameron is a fundamentalist Christian, psychologist and homophobe with a sketchy record that caused his expulsion from both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association back in the 1980's. This doesn't sound like the right background for fossil research, so it must be the wrong guy.--Percy

I found this 1990 article by Steve Austin that includes his views on nautiloids in the Redwall Formation of the Grand Canyon: This is his most relevant assertion: He provides a reference for this assertion. Ripe with anticipation I go to the bottom of the article and look up reference 13, which says: In other words, Austin's cited reference for this assertion is...himself!I've now discovered that the details for Austin's claims do not appear in any research papers, but only in his book, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, no part of which could I find available on-line. This link has a good discussion of the nautiloid claims beginning about half way down at the paragraph that begins, "These nautiloids were free-floating..." The author, who examined areas of the Grand Canyon to which he was directed by Austin himself, expresses puzzlement over how Austin could reach his conclusions based upon the available evidence.--Percy

That's just the problem. Austin is the only one who has noticed a prevailing orientation of nautiloids, so his only evidence is his own observations. Typically a researcher like Austin would be just one member of a community of researchers whose individual biases would balance out, whose mistakes would be detected and corrected, and whose findings would be replicated and validated, but Austin has isolated himself. Is Austin correct about the orientation? Is he correct in his estimates of the current flow rate? There's no way to know, because Austin has not submitted his work to peer review. Just to help everyone out here, this is the video you're referring to: In a recent message you said you were planningto watch this video. When you're done hopefully you can describe for us the evidence for the nautiloid claims, and provide the time points in the video where this information is presented. But Austin's book isn't available on-line, and that article summarizes a few of Austin's claims from that book. That article provides information about Austin's views that you don't have, which should help you out in your search for material supporting the view that creationists do their own fossil research. Plus it provides a scientific context and perspective.But I think at this point we can provide at least a preliminary answer to the question of this thread: yes, there is a creationist who has done some fossil research, his name is Steve Austin, he hasn't published this work in the technical literature, and it isn't available online.--Percy

So I'm wasting my time trying to engage you in discussion about the topic?As the only one promoting creationist views in this thread you have a powerful influence on the topic, far more than 5% (you're one of nineteen participants), far more than 50% (there are two sides in the debate, and you represent all of one side). You probably have at least 90% control of what gets discussed. Evolutionists can only respond to what you say, and if you say little to nothing about the topic, then there will be little to no discussion about the topic.If people want to discuss the flood again, then someone should propose a flood topic.I know I'm behaving like a moderator, but I already joined as a normal participant, so participants should consider this a plea from a fellow participant to get on topic, not a moderator request.--Percy

Well, I think there are a few important points we can make relevant to the topic. Steve Austin has been conducting creationist-style research for at least 25 years, and I trust that he is a sincere and hardworking individual. He has published in the mainstream technical literature only once that I'm aware of, but that was an archeological article about a Biblical site that had nothing to do with Creationism. He has not, so far as I'm aware, even submitted his creationist research to any mainstream conferences or journals. No professional geologists or paleontologists have ever had the opportunity to peer review a technical paper by Steve Austin. The creationist community accepts the ideas of a single person without any critical analysis simply because they aren't geologists or paleontologists, their primary concern being that it agree with the Bible.Why doesn't Austin submit his papers to technical journals? Probably because he knows his work ignores too much known science. It's fine to challenge accepted ideas within science, that's a good thing, it's done all the time, blazing new trails is how one makes one's name in science and adds to our knowledge. But Austin knows that baldly ignoring decades and in some cases centuries of established research is fatal to getting his ideas considered.--Percy