The results of Paul Garner's "research" with John Whitmore ?

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

The results of Paul Garner's "research" with John Whitmore ?

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:19 pm

This seems to have appeared today, or is it old waffle ?

The Petrology of the Coconino Sandstone (Permian), Arizona, USA
by Dr. John Whitmore, Raymond Strom, Stephen Cheung, and Paul Garner on December 10, 2014


https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ro ... t=FaceBook

Edwin McKee appears to be someone who is often quote (mined) by YECs these days.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: The results of Paul Garner's "research" with John Whitmo

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:27 am

Peter Henderson wrote:This seems to have appeared today, or is it old waffle ?

The Petrology of the Coconino Sandstone (Permian), Arizona, USA
by Dr. John Whitmore, Raymond Strom, Stephen Cheung, and Paul Garner on December 10, 2014


https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ro ... t=FaceBook

Edwin McKee appears to be someone who is often quote (mined) by YECs these days.



New 'peer-reviewed science'. :mrgreen:
I haven't read it due to my activity tonight on threads elsewhere - such as this one (whoops I will now be pursued there by someone else who reads my posts here) and also two, mentioned in the 'moronic' thread here, where I have questioned the far-fetched computer claims of that well known expert Mr K Ham:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 3552419450
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8923
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The results of Paul Garner's "research" with John Whitmo

Postby jon_12091 » Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:18 pm

They've published on the AiG website, its a big piece with a lot of data collected. Basically they're pushing reinterpretation as a giant subaqueous sandwave. I'll need to read it properly.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The results of Paul Garner's "research" with John Whitmo

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:38 pm

jon_12091 wrote:They've published on the AiG website, its a big piece with a lot of data collected. Basically they're pushing reinterpretation as a giant subaqueous sandwave. I'll need to read it properly.


Oh.

When I tried to click on Jon's link at the UKIP thread I received the message "You are not authorised to read this forum." Which I found rather odd :?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8923
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The results of Paul Garner's "research" with John Whitmo

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:51 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:
jon_12091 wrote:They've published on the AiG website, its a big piece with a lot of data collected. Basically they're pushing reinterpretation as a giant subaqueous sandwave. I'll need to read it properly.


Oh.

When I tried to click on Jon's link at the UKIP thread I received the message "You are not authorised to read this forum." Which I found rather odd :?


It's in the member's only section Ashley. If you're already a BCSE member then it should work OK.

If not, PM Brian and he'll sort you out either way.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:23 am

My recollection is that I did join at some point, not too long ago ... by sending an email to the address as suggested on the home page.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8923
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The results of Paul Garner's "research" with John Whitmo

Postby jon_12091 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:12 pm

Okay, read the paper. The foundation is a pretty solid piece of field geology and petrographic data collection. Whitmore strikes me as a thorough geologist based on other stuff I've read. It takes a good tilt at misconceptions and misunderstandings of the petrology of aeolian sands and exposes some cavalier summary sentances about the Coconino. I really can't comment on whether their assessment of the literature or lack of it is correct (but I'd guess at correct). Its also difficult for me to place the results in any kind of regional context. Now there is a but, and its a fairly big one, they tell you where they got their samples, but not what units/facies they sampled. There are no field logs (at least in this version)! This does make me question their interpretation. Their approach to drawing conclusions seems weak as they don't appear to consider the possibility of marine sediments being reworked....

My initial suspision was that they might end up proving that some of the Coconino is more marine-influenced than aeolian and my initial conclusion is that is what they have done (though the caviat about a lack of local knowledge applies and they haven't included a geological map).

I'm actually slightly surprised this rocked up in ARJ. You could not play creationist bingo with this paper!
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:03 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:My recollection is that I did join at some point, not too long ago ... by sending an email to the address as suggested on the home page.


It maybe hasn't been processed yet Ashley. Think you need to get in contact with Brian.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: The results of Paul Garner's "research" with John Whitmo

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:17 pm

jon_12091 wrote:Okay, read the paper. The foundation is a pretty solid piece of field geology and petrographic data collection. Whitmore strikes me as a thorough geologist based on other stuff I've read. It takes a good tilt at misconceptions and misunderstandings of the petrology of aeolian sands and exposes some cavalier summary sentances about the Coconino. I really can't comment on whether their assessment of the literature or lack of it is correct (but I'd guess at correct). Its also difficult for me to place the results in any kind of regional context. Now there is a but, and its a fairly big one, they tell you where they got their samples, but not what units/facies they sampled. There are no field logs (at least in this version)! This does make me question their interpretation. Their approach to drawing conclusions seems weak as they don't appear to consider the possibility of marine sediments being reworked....

My initial suspision was that they might end up proving that some of the Coconino is more marine-influenced than aeolian and my initial conclusion is that is what they have done (though the caviat about a lack of local knowledge applies and they haven't included a geological map).

I'm actually slightly surprised this rocked up in ARJ. You could not play creationist bingo with this paper!


Yes, indeed Jon.

My knowledge on geology really isn't such that I could comment on the "research". What I do know is the Coconino sandstone is a wind blown desert deposit sitting on top of what is supposedly a global flood deposit, which doesn't make any sense.

Hence the desperation to find "evidence" the coconino was laid down by water. I'm really not sure in what way their "research" changes the current paradigm on the coconino sandstone, but no doubt the faithful will lap this up as real scientific research confirming a global flood.

The bottom line is that it must be presented before a recognised geological society or peer reviewed science journal. Otherwise, it's just meaningless drivel.

The ARJ doesn't count as it's not a peer reviewed science journal. Peer review amongst other creationists isn't peer review. You may as well say astrology peer reviewed amongst other astrologers is peer reviewed science.

Then again, they could present it before the GSA without even mentioning the global flood.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: The results of Paul Garner's "research" with John Whitmo

Postby jon_12091 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:58 pm

The more I look at the paper, particularly in the context of what little information I have immediately to hand, the more I find it lacking. They completely ducked the issue of depositional environment and there is literature on that issue which isn't referred to in the paper. The piece I cast an eye over this afternoon suggests that the Cocnino Sst is not a uniform environment, something I recall from previous debates, and changes over time from aeolian dunes to beach dunes and sabkha (which would explain the dolomite, but it's hardly classic Flood facies material). So the 'but' about where they collected their samples from in the overall sequence is getting bigger.

The source PhD thesis for all this also interests me. I suspect it dates from around the time that giant sandwaves were the latest thing and the existence of a work looking to reinterpret a known geological unit in the light of a potential new model isn't that surprising. But what really interests me is whether the thesis covers all the Coconino or such a part of it.

The paper appears to be setting up a false dichotomy that the sandstone is either all dune or all Sandwave.

I'll see if I can dig something more directly related to the petrography of desert sands.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The results of Paul Garner's "research" with John Whitmo

Postby jon_12091 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 10:14 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:The bottom line is that it must be presented before a recognised geological society or peer reviewed science journal. Otherwise, it's just meaningless drivel.

The ARJ doesn't count as it's not a peer reviewed science journal. Peer review amongst other creationists isn't peer review. You may as well say astrology peer reviewed amongst other astrologers is peer reviewed science.

Then again, they could present it before the GSA without even mentioning the global flood.

I do find the style and tone interesting and why in ARJ? There are some big holes in it. Depositional sub-environments will have an affect on the rocks petrography and I find it odd that someone, Whitmore, who is clearly capable of walking the walk would completely omit something so critical and likely to get a paper kicked back by reviewers.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron