orpiment99
New Member
Okay, it was suggested that I bring this up here and thrash it out with the critical thinkers at LoR.
http://www.examiner.com/a-2066470~UI_prof_s_daughter__Sheep_research_not_suppressed.html
This woman in now being investigated by the University in question for scientific misconduct. Yay! However, in the backlash from this I was thinking about our dear friend from the discovery institute, Casey Luskin and the information about him provided by Thunderfoot and others. He wrote a paper, for a peer-reviewed journal, that discussed paleomagnetics and radiometric dating!
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2003GC000661.shtml
"Paleomagnetic samples were measured from 26 sites, 23 of which (13 normal, 10 reverse) yielded site mean directions meeting our criteria for acceptable paleomagnetic data. Flow ages (on 21 sites) range from 5 ka to 5.6 Ma on the basis of 40Ar/39Ar dating methods. The age and polarity for the 21 dated sites are consistent with the Geomagnetic Reversal Time Scale except for a single reversely magnetized site dated at 0.39 Ma."
Should there be a "Universal Standard" for what constitutes scientific misconduct? What should that standard entail? Is misleading the public enough? Is inciting ignorance enough?
Anyway, thoughts?
http://www.examiner.com/a-2066470~UI_prof_s_daughter__Sheep_research_not_suppressed.html
This woman in now being investigated by the University in question for scientific misconduct. Yay! However, in the backlash from this I was thinking about our dear friend from the discovery institute, Casey Luskin and the information about him provided by Thunderfoot and others. He wrote a paper, for a peer-reviewed journal, that discussed paleomagnetics and radiometric dating!
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2003GC000661.shtml
"Paleomagnetic samples were measured from 26 sites, 23 of which (13 normal, 10 reverse) yielded site mean directions meeting our criteria for acceptable paleomagnetic data. Flow ages (on 21 sites) range from 5 ka to 5.6 Ma on the basis of 40Ar/39Ar dating methods. The age and polarity for the 21 dated sites are consistent with the Geomagnetic Reversal Time Scale except for a single reversely magnetized site dated at 0.39 Ma."
Should there be a "Universal Standard" for what constitutes scientific misconduct? What should that standard entail? Is misleading the public enough? Is inciting ignorance enough?
Anyway, thoughts?