|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do creationists try to find and study fossils? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Well, Austin is the one who did the research on the orientation of the nautiloids so who else is he going to reference?
Umm, the purpose of a reference is to give someone a link to a source of more information. Referencing a person is done (e.g. "Fred Hemmerstein, 4 May 2013, personal communication"), but it's not encouraged. Referencing himself for the claim of orientation of the nautiloids is definitely inappropriate. If he wants to make that claim, he should present the evidence (photographs, etc.) in the paper in which he's making the claim or reference a source other than himself. If there's no source other than himself, there's no reason to make a reference, and then there's no excuse for not presenting the data in the paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Perhaps you are correct about the most proper form, but he referenced his own book because that's where he discussed the research he did to show the directional orientation of the nautiloids. Referencing books is standard scholarly procedure as I've always understood it. Most likely his space was limited in the article. He didn't reference his book. It is perfectly fine to reference a book, but he didn't. As Percy first pointed out, the reference for nautiloids at Were Grand Canyon Limestones Deposited by Calm and Placid Seas? is "[13] Observation of Steven A. Austin in Nautiloid Canyon, April 1989." Yeah, probably his space was limited. If he couldn't present the supporting information there, he should have referenced something that contains the information, or skipped the claim entirely. At Nautiloid Mass-Kill Event he claims to have measured the orientation of 71 nautiloids. But he doesn't give any statistics; were all of them oriented in exactly the same direction, or was there some variation? He says that several things led him to conclude catastrophic deposition, but he doesn't provide any data. At Another Visit to the Grand Canyon Prof. Steve S. Steve writes:
quote: Too bad the picture doesn't clearly show the fossils. Of course, that is also lacking in scientific data, but isn't a scientific paper and it does give us some reason to believe that catastrophic deposition isn't the only explanation. Austin has much more work to do if he wants to establish his claim. So far his scholarship looks pretty shoddy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Surely Austin described his conclusions from the nautiloid orientations in the article and if they demonstrate what he claims for them why not address that See my message above. In this particular case, I didn't engage his arguments because there isn't enough data available. Perhaps it's available in his book, but I don't have it and (at least in several articles) he didn't reference it. It's not ad-hominem to point out sloppy scholarship. And sloppy scholarship is a reason to question (not disprove) unfounded claims. Ar Bibliolatry Revisited: Review: Grand Canyon (to which Percy linked previously, we find a good example of specific detail:
quote: None of this disproves Austin's claim, but there certainly a lot of questions that are answered only in his book, if at all, The fact that he didn't reference his book makes it seem as if there's no place that the data and answers to these pretty obvious questions aren't there. But I'll find out. I'll have the book on Wednesday (used from Amazon, so I'm not supporting the ICR). We'll see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
The fact that every size and age of nautiloid is represented is another piece of evidence Please tell us what statistics Austin or Garner applied to establish this.
Also the huge number of them, in a limestone layer spread over thousands of square miles in the canyon and out to Nevada and California Please supply some details of how the extent and density were established, given that the vast majority of this deposit is buried.
No evidence for catastrophic burial or a mass kill? He must be joking. That's what he reported. It should be included in any evaluation, especially given the paucity of data. I'll be glad to engage on the merits of the claim when and if there's some data available. Austin's claim is no better supported than Prof. Steve's. The review from which I posted a large excerpt gives some specifics but not enough. I haven't seen the video you posted, and I'm not going to spend the time until you can establish (e.g. by answering my questions above) that it contains data and tables and calculations and direct observations good enough to see and evaluate the evidence in the ground.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
To be fair, Faith is being honest. All she knows is what's presented in the article and the video. She can't point to the data that's needed to evaluate the investigation as scientific research.
I guess the takeaway is that creation scientists do investigate fossils but they do so in an amateurish and unrepeatable way.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024