Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 01-27-2002, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

And according to <a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/snelling.htm" target="_blank">NAIG's Andrew Snelling pages</a>, that gentleman gives new meaning to the term "two-faced". He lives a double life, with his Dr. Jekyll persona taking the old-earth position for granted in his publications in mainstream geology journals and his Mr. Hyde persona taking the young-earth position, including explicit rejection of the old-earth position and acceptance of Flood Geology, complete with implicit rejection of Philip Gosse's created-appearance hypothesis.

I think AIG made some kind of response saying that Snelling never denied being a YEC to his other employers. He was hired as a concultent (or something) and they knew he was a YEC. WHY he was hired when they knew that he was a YEC I have no idea. But that's AIG's (and Snelling's) story.

For obvious reasons I've never trusted anything AIG says. But that's what they're claiming.

ex-robot · 01-27-2002, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:


I think AIG made some kind of response saying that Snelling never denied being a YEC to his other employers. He was hired as a concultent (or something) and they knew he was a YEC. WHY he was hired when they knew that he was a YEC I have no idea. But that's AIG's (and Snelling's) story.

For obvious reasons I've never trusted anything AIG says. But that's what they're claiming.

The link to Snelling's response is here.
<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp" target="_blank">Snelling Response</a>

I am satisfied with his response. I think it is pathetic to continually cry about no publications and then quibble over this crap. (not directed at you tgamble)

Obviously, the reason why they hired him is because he was the right man for the job and a competent geologist.

xr

ex-robot · 01-27-2002, 02:10 PM

Quote:

ex-robot:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John, are you being fair to ICR? You make it sound like ICR presents this book as the latest and greatest in creation science. I would think it is more of a history book now. Did they actually tell you it was up-to-date? Did they make corrections or revisions in the 1995 reprint? I can't find it, but I recall that Snelling is doing a revision. I have not heard of it being finished yet. It looks as though it may have been the most definitive work in 1961. That is old. You may be beating a dead horse. Although most major creationists would give props to H Morris, I don't think they would say that The Geneis Flood is their manual of some sort. Just some thoughts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the feedback. I'd say I'm accurately representing them. To the best of my knowledge, they've made no revisions to the 1995 edition. That's actually on of the problems I have with Morris' style of research. He doesn't update his material.

I would agree for the most part. I thought I would just mention it. It should have been revised a long time ago.

Quote:

I haven't heard about Snelling doing a revision, but I think that'd be a good idea. In any case, I know that ICR still considers Morris' claims about thrust faults accurate since he made similar claims in various ICR Impacts. The 1999 book by John Woodmorappe put out by the ICR (title Studies in Flood Geology) makes similar claims about the McConnell thrust, which is a thrust fault that's related to the Lewis.

I know other creationist organizations still hold similar points of view about thrust faults, and I provided links to several YEC web pages at the end of my article.

Thanks for that info. I looked at ICR and could find no defense of their position. I have emailed ICR for specific details of this revision, release date, etc. I'll report back if I hear anything.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. If you want to keep up-to-date with ICR, go to their homepage at <a href="http://www.icr.org" target="_blank">www.icr.org</a> and click on newsletters. Subscribe to Acts & Facts online for free.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may just do that, thanks for the information.

No problem. And to you and Patric about Snelling:

No comment on Snellings previous work. I mentioned him for informational purposes only and not a global approval!

(global)

Valentine Pontifex · 01-27-2002, 04:02 PM

Quote:

John Woodmorappe (aka Jan Peczkis)

Of course an example of this is
<a href="http://www.rae.org/nihilism.html" target="_blank">http://www.rae.org/nihilism.html</a>
where John quotes Jan as if Jan was
not really John.

I was unconfortable with the idea of claiming that Woodmorappe was Peczkis since I had not seen the evidence that they are the same person. However recently on reading some real poison that Woody wrote at
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodgeo/wood1.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodgeo/wood1.html</a>
I noticed Woody mention that his contact is in his latest CRSQ article. I immediately though that it could not be that simple -- the guy is trying to cover his identity to the point of allegedly threating to sue people for saying he is Woodmorappe would not put his mailing address in a public source. Sure enough, I found his address listed in an Creation Research Society Quarterly article that was identical to that which the phone copy attributes to Peczkis. That it is known that they have the same degree, the same profession, that Woody is of Polish stock and just look at that name Peckis. So we can say that they are the same person. Furthermore I can say that at least for the addresses, I have independently confirmed the claim. Hense I have added Woodmorappe/Peczkis discussion to my proposed T.O. FAQ on creationist quotations:
<a href="http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/quotes/quotes.html" target="_blank">http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/quotes/quotes.html</a>

(BTW, I have now formally proposed it as an FAQ in the newsgroup.)

=========

BTW,

Several of the FAQs at the T.O. Archive have had their list of links updated (or added) in addition to being converted to XHTML but have not been listed in "what's new" since their articles were not updated (other than a few corrected typos):

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html</a>

tgamble · 01-27-2002, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-robot:
Obviously, the reason why they hired him is because he was the right man for the job and a competent geologist.

He's also a YEC. Being a competant geologist and a YEC is obviously impossible!

ex-robot · 01-27-2002, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:


He's also a YEC. Being a competant geologist and a YEC is obviously impossible!

"Obviously", the companies that have employed him would disagree with you.

xr

John Solum · 01-28-2002, 04:33 AM

Lord Valentine,

I saw your post on T.O., but I thought I'd post my comments here since I have a hard time posting to T.O.

I think your proposed FAQ is excellent, and I like the way you've organized it. I think your links section is very valuable, I've been trying to find something like that for a while now.

Thanks a lot for your hard work.

John Solum · 01-28-2002, 07:35 AM

tgamble:

Quote:

"Andrew Snelling (of Answers in Genesis) claims that a piece of 'wood' obtained from a Triassic sandstone yielded a C-14 age that was much too young for it to be a Triassic deposit. In doing so, he claims to have invalidated the C-14 dating method and the old earth time scale."

I thought c-14 had a limit of 50000 years anyway. Why would this invalidate the age of the earth even if it DID invalidate teh c-14 method?

It's my understanding that C-14 dating has a limit of 50,000 years if it's measured in the "traditional" way, but it can be increased to 70,000 years if measurements are made using a type of spectrometer that is more sensitive (i.e. it can detect smaller quantities of C-14).

Here's Snelling's reasoning:

Quote:

This is, therefore, a legitimate radiocarbon �age�. However, a 33,720 � 430 years BP radiocarbon �age� emphatically conflicts with, and casts doubt upon, the supposed evolutionary �age� of 225�230 million years for this fossil wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.

Although demonstrating that the fossil wood cannot be millions of years old, the radiocarbon dating has not provided its true age. However, a finite radiocarbon �age� for this fossil wood is neither inconsistent nor unexpected within a Creation/Flood framework of Earth history. Buried catastrophically in sand by the raging Flood waters only about 4,500 years ago, this fossil wood contains less than the expected amount of radiocarbon, because of a stronger magnetic field back then shielding the Earth from incoming cosmic rays. The Flood also buried a lot of carbon, so that the laboratory�s calculated 14C �age� (based on the assumption of an atmospheric proportion in the past roughly the same as that in 1950) is much greater than the true age.

I agree with you that even if his experiment invalidated C-14 dating (which I don't think his experiment does), it doesn't invalidate other dating techniques or the age of the earth.

Valentine Pontifex · 01-29-2002, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:


He's also a YEC. Being a competant geologist and a YEC is obviously impossible!

I suppose it might depend on just precisely what he does for the mining company. I suppose that a YEC could do an adequate job at a special task being a narrow-minded specialist. Also even if he does not believe in mainstream geology does not prevent him from using its results to do his job even if those results should immediately suggest to anyone that the world is a lot older than ten-thousand years. This might be inconsistant, but lets face it: most of us are to a certain degree.

If we are going to attack a creationist for living a double life, I would go after Woody.

ps418 · 01-29-2002, 01:34 PM

One can do fine descriptive work and still be a moron when it comes to making inferences to account for that which is described. Robert Gentry and Steve Austin are good examples of this.

Patrick

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-28-2002, 04:33 AM	#27
John Solum Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 139	Lord Valentine, I saw your post on T.O., but I thought I'd post my comments here since I have a hard time posting to T.O. I think your proposed FAQ is excellent, and I like the way you've organized it. I think your links section is very valuable, I've been trying to find something like that for a while now. Thanks a lot for your hard work.

01-29-2002, 01:34 PM	#30
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	One can do fine descriptive work and still be a moron when it comes to making inferences to account for that which is described. Robert Gentry and Steve Austin are good examples of this. Patrick

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.