Originally posted by JonF

They are active in research. Baumgardner, Walker, and Snelling have papers published in mainstream jopurnals (on mainstream concepts); I don't know about Austin. Walker explicitly accepts an old earth in his mainstream papers. They also are active in creationist "research", ranging from muddled apologetics to outright fraud.

In the case of Snelling, it is probably more accurate to say he was active in research. His last paper was in 1987 and concerned uranium exploration (he was third author). All in all, he published 6 papers, the first in 1979, and was lead author on two of them. They are pretty much all resource exploration type papers.

Tas Walker seems to have published a single paper, in 1973, as second author, on fluid dynamics in turbulent flow.

Baumgardner is still actively publishing, though not as first author since 1985. Presumably, his (apparently excellent) models are being used for other people's research, hence his name gets on the paper.

Originally posted by Agadirman

I don't see how Baumgardner could be a YEC and still believe in things like say Plate tectonics or continental drift . He did research in Geophysics after all.

He wrote a widely used computer program for mantle dnamics .. and then, for the YECs, plugged in some ridiculous numbers as input (e.g. viscosity) and "proved" catastrophic plate tectonics (continets twirling like drunken ballerinas).

How long will it be before my local science museum has to place a disclaimer in front of its dinosaur exhibits explaining that the dates shown are only theoretical and the actual date only predates the FLOOD

I hope never.

Originally posted by SteveF

In the case of Snelling, it is probably more accurate to say he was active in research. His last paper was in 1987 and concerned uranium exploration (he was third author). All in all, he published 6 papers, the first in 1979, and was lead author on two of them. They are pretty much all resource exploration type papers.

It looks like 1999 was the last time Snelling had his name on a published paper (only it was an Abstract). He was second author to Steve Austin, while Kurt Wise was the third.

I'm not sure whether it was a presentation or a poster (I'm thinking a poster), but it was presented at the 1999 Annual GSA Meeting in Denver. It was an abstract only entitled, "Canyon-length mass kill of orthocone nautiloids, Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona."


I couldn't find the Abstract, however, it appears Austin and Wise re-presented it at the 2002 Annual GSA meeting in Denver again. Below is the Abstract:

REGIONALLY EXTENSIVE MASS KILL OF LARGE ORTHOCONE NAUTILOIDS, REDWALL LIMESTONE (LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN), GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA

AUSTIN, Steven A., Geology Department, Institute for Creation Rsch, Santee, CA 92071-2833, saustin@icr.edu and WISE, Kurt P., Bryan College, Box 7585, Dayton, TN 37321-7000

Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.

Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.

Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks.

2002 Denver Annual Meeting (October 27-30, 2002)
Session No. 187
Paleontology/Paleobotany (Posters) II
Colorado Convention Center: Exhibit Hall
8:00 AM-12:00 PM, Wednesday, October 30, 2002

SOURCE

Originally posted by rach12

It looks like 1999 was the last time Snelling had his name on a published paper (only it was an Abstract). He was second author to Steve Austin, while Kurt Wise was the third.

I'm not sure whether it was a presentation or a poster (I'm thinking a poster), but it was presented at the 1999 Annual GSA Meeting in Denver. It was an abstract only entitled, "Canyon-length mass kill of orthocone nautiloids, Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona."

A meeting abstract doesn't count as a published paper. AFAIK, the YEC geologists don't give presentations at these meetings, solely posters. Anyone can present a poster; I could turn up with my "Martion green man theory of Precambrian tectonics" poster and get an abstract out of it.

I hate to point this out but the Cobb county school board has placed stickers in biology textbooks saying "Evolution is only a theory " . Those people live in the next county and I fear for Fernback.

Originally posted by SteveF

A meeting abstract doesn't count as a published paper. AFAIK, the YEC geologists don't give presentations at these meetings, solely posters. Anyone can present a poster; I could turn up with my "Martion green man theory of Precambrian tectonics" poster and get an abstract out of it.

I know, "published paper" is far too illustrious a word for the abstract, but technically, it can be considered "published." At least in Creationist La-La Land.

It would be my DREAM to be present at a Creationist oral presentation during an annual GSA meeting. haha

Originally posted by Agadirman

I don't see how Baumgardner could be a YEC and still believe in things like say
Plate tectonics or continental drift . He did research in Geophysics after all.

But this we digress. This is about YEC censorship of science. How long will it be before my local science museum has to place a disclaimer in front of its dinosaur exhibits explaining that the dates shown are only theoretical and the actual date only predates the FLOOD

More than likely they'll reach some sort of agreement to accomodate YEC pressure groups rather than pay for expensive litigation and security. Back in 2005 the Tulsa Park and Recreation Board in Oklahoma voted to put a display in the city's zoo depicting the Genesis account of a 6 day creation in response to YEC activism. Fortunately, after public outcry, they quickly reversed themselves. Back in the late 1990s the Tulsa Zoo was forced to modify a display that mentioned horse evoluion, and put a sign at the entrance with he disclaimer:

"There are many views on the origin of biological species and their behaviors. The information that accompanies our displays is based on compelling evidence of the natural sciences. Because scientific knowledge is subject to change, these displays may be revised as new informatin becomes available."

The future will see more and more museums - and zoos - bowing to YEC pressure and affording "equal time" displays or muzzling the ones that are already on exhibit.

Originally posted by JonF

They are active in research. Baumgardner, Walker, and Snelling have papers published in mainstream jopurnals (on mainstream concepts); I don't know about Austin. Walker explicitly accepts an old earth in his mainstream papers. They also are active in creationist "research", ranging from muddled apologetics to outright fraud.

Well, it's a given that they'd have published something, but are they still doing it now that they're pushing creationism?

Originally posted by Agadirman

I hate to point this out but the Cobb county school board has placed stickers in biology textbooks saying "Evolution is only a theory " . Those people live in the next county and I fear for Fernback.

That demonstrates a serious misunderstanding as to what it means to be a scientific theory. Germ Theory is another biological "theory".

And they're supposed to be in charge of education!

Originally posted by beoba

Well, it's a given that they'd have published something, but are they still doing it now that they're pushing creationism?

Baumgardner is, usually gets his name on a paper or two a year. Steve Austin also published a paper on a biblical earthquake a few years ago.

Originally posted by rach12

It looks like 1999 was the last time Snelling had his name on a published paper (only it was an Abstract). He was second author to Steve Austin, while Kurt Wise was the third.

I'm not sure whether it was a presentation or a poster (I'm thinking a poster), but it was presented at the 1999 Annual GSA Meeting in Denver. It was an abstract only entitled, "Canyon-length mass kill of orthocone nautiloids, Redwall Limestone (Mississippian), Grand Canyon, Arizona."


I couldn't find the Abstract, however, it appears Austin and Wise re-presented it at the 2002 Annual GSA meeting in Denver again. Below is the Abstract:

Interesting, and it sounds as ropey as hell. First word: 'Billions...'. How do you count billions of anything in rocks at outcrop, especially as their own data says they have a distribution at 1 per m2. Are there a billion square metres of this bed exposed? Then the opening line of the second paragraph deduces a mass kill from the distribution of shell sizes. This is roughly like saying that because you can find the bodies of men, women and children in a churchyard, everyone in that churchyard must've died at the same time. The last paragraph (in an abstract!) is devoted to meaningless logistics.

And it's an old trick of poor/pseudoscientists, to resubmit the same work in different places, in this instance two seperate conferences 3 years apart. Normally conferece abstracts are a lead-in to something you're going to publish later. Now, I wonder why that didn't happen....

K

Originally posted by SteveF

In the case of Snelling, it is probably more accurate to say he was active in research. His last paper was in 1987 and concerned uranium exploration (he was third author). All in all, he published 6 papers, the first in 1979, and was lead author on two of them. They are pretty much all resource exploration type papers.

99% certain that means he has actually *written* only 2 papers.

Tas Walker seems to have published a single paper, in 1973, as second author, on fluid dynamics in turbulent flow.

That means he hasn't written any papers at all.

Baumgardner is still actively publishing, though not as first author since 1985. Presumably, his (apparently excellent) models are being used for other people's research, hence his name gets on the paper.

Same story.

K

Bishop Adovo was interviewed on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" today. Boniface really believes that man has been around for 6000 years, Maximum! A real YEC. He wants the teaching of evolution to stop in Kenyan schools and the paleoanhtropological exhibits to be tossed out as "rubbish" > This insanity was broadcast coast to coast by NPR. How many people will think; it was on NPR so it must be true? School children are exposed to this without any disclaimers broadcast. This can cause untold damage.

[quot=Agadirman]I hate to point this out but the Cobb county school board has placed stickers in biology textbooks saying "Evolution is only a theory " . Those people live in the next county and I fear for Fernback.[/quote]

Fortunately Cobb County (Georgia) finally called off their legal battle to put the stickers in textbooks and agreed to no longer pursue the matter.

Since this threa is about "evangelical censorship of science," I thought that I should mention that In Kansas, the evolution pendulum swings... again! Kansas has thrown out the anti-Science school guidelines recently passed much to the embarrassment of many of its citizens.

Originally posted by Kulindrichnus

Interesting, and it sounds as ropey as hell. First word: 'Billions...'. How do you count billions of anything in rocks at outcrop, especially as their own data says they have a distribution at 1 per m2. Are there a billion square metres of this bed exposed? Then the opening line of the second paragraph deduces a mass kill from the distribution of shell sizes. This is roughly like saying that because you can find the bodies of men, women and children in a churchyard, everyone in that churchyard must've died at the same time. The last paragraph (in an abstract!) is devoted to meaningless logistics.

On the subject of Nautiloids, a retired prof at UC Riverside discusses the issue. Here are a couple of paragraphs:

I have examined these nautiloids in only a few localities within the Grand Canyon National Park, to which he was kind enough to direct me, where I noted that a nautiloid fossil occurred about once every 4 or 5 square meters. From this I infer that either Austin has collected most of the samples from these localities or the abundance of nautiloids claimed is exaggerated. However, unlike Austin, I hesitate to extrapolate from observations at a few isolated localities to a huge area. Furthermore, most of the nautiloid fossils I saw, and that Austin illustrates, were intact. Could they have survived the turbulence that must occur in a fast moving, subaqueous, debris flow? In nature, mass-kill events certainly occur — by red tides, volcanic eruptions, and storm-induced processes flows, for example. However, in order to recognize a mass-kill, we need to understand the population structure of the animals concerned, and to consider factors such as episodic spawning, variable growth rates, the complex diurnal behavior of cephalopods, and so on.

Evidence bearing on the question “Did this nautiloid assemblage accumulate instantaneously or over many generations?” should be present in the deposit itself. Do the dolomitization and the prominent chert horizon overlying the nautiloid bed represent diagenesis during a hiatus in deposition? Similarly, are Austin’s “water escape tubes” actually poorly preserved animal burrows (Skolithos)? High concentrations of fossil nautiloids occur elsewhere, for example, in Morocco and in the Czech Republic. Ferretti and Kríz (1995) describe several such examples in the Silurian of the Prague Basin and attribute them to the effects of surface currents or re-deposition in shallower environments by storm events during broad scale fluctuations in sea level. Why not the same in the Grand Canyon?

There is more about 2/3 of the way down this document:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rnc...12_30_1899.asp

There is also a jokey piece at Pandasthumb on Nautiloids (NB; Gish doesn't refer to the YEC):

We evaluated a number of creationist arguments on the trip. For example, in his book, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Steve Austin claims that the long axes of nautiloid fossils are disproportionally oriented in the same direction, and in papers he has presented at geology conferences, he says that this is evidence for their having been the result of a catastrophic, mass kill. But when we looked at nautiloids on Seven Cave Shelf and in Nautiloid Canyon, Gish pointed out that even if there was a tendency for the fossils to be oriented the way Austin says they are, they could be that way just because the current carried them there; there is no necessity for catastrophic burial nor evidence for a mass kill. Gish pointed out that, in fact, these fossils looked like they had died “normally” rather than catastrophically. Their body chambers and distal ends had dropped off, leaving the central, body portion intact – which is what happens when a nautiloid dies, floats, and disintegrates over time. Had they been buried catastrophically by the Flood, they would have been smashed into bits. I think they are pretty fossils

AT the bottom of the NCSE article there is also the following YEC gem!

Another fascinating mystery is why there were animals leaving footprints so late in the flood. … Dinosaur tracks, which are often found in the Morrison formation, are located at even higher levels in the geologic strata. It would appear that some animals were able to escape the water until later in the flood. Many were strong swimmers but they may have migrated to higher ground or clung to floating vegetation and were killed later as the waters finally reached them. Dr John Baumgardner, a research scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, has suggested that circulating water inundating the continents may have formed giant whirlpools with dry floors near the center until late in the flood. This may have allowed animals near the center of the continents to initially escape the flood waters but were then overwhelmed when the events of the flood reached their zenith (Vardiman 1999: 17).

Elders isn't too impressed:

The Morrison Formation occurs approximately 3000 m above the Precambrian crystalline basement rocks. Since fossils of these dinosaurs are absent from the intervening strata, apparently all of them possessed the necessary agility to escape. This is surprising, because a simple calculation of the centripetal force necessary to sustain a whirlpool 3 km deep and with a radius of 3 km reveals that the water at its base would have to rotate at a linear velocity of more than 30 000 km per hour! Bigger whirlpools require bigger velocities. We see footprints of fast-moving dinosaurs, but where are the footprints of these supersonic whirlpools?