Mark Fox (Creationist) Caught Lying Again

From: LARRY SITES

George Rudzinski has looked into one of Mark Fox's sources and found that it not only does NOT support Mark's position, but it is arguably one of the absolute worst pieces of scholarship ever. Mark, you may remember made a big stink claiming that Darwin "plagerized" his theory from Wallace and went so far as to say in FamilyNet that no man who commits plagerism or fraud can be called a christian. Well Mark has not stated explicitly, though I asked without getting a reply from him, if this is his research or he plagerized it from someone else. His comment below that he "verified" it makes it appears that it is plagerism. Wheither plagerism or fraud on Mark's part, only he and the god that will judge him for it know. In any case, by Mark's OWN WORDS, he is NO CHRISTIAN. In EVERY case examined so far, Mark has been shown to be either grossly ignorant or a willfull liar.

GR> I went looking for the information from Mark Fox on the
GR> O'rourke quotes the help of Larry Meyering.

GR> Quoting Fox:

From: Mark Fox Subj: SCIENTIST QUOTES

A few evolutionists have made a few embarrassing quotes over the years, (usually not missed by Morris) that should be very entertaining for us Fundies to all read. I thought that I would post them here for fun sake. Please do not cry to much about original source value as I spent the better part of yesterday confirming most of these quotes. However, should you doubt, I am sure your local library has the same sources as ours.

"The principles have been applied in [biostatigraphy], which starts from a chronology of index files, and imposes them on rocks...If you doubt it, bring in a suite of good index fossils, and the specialist without asking where or in what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological order." O'Rourke--American Journal of Science 256:47-55

End Quote.

I found no such reference. But the American Journal of Science vol 256 is from 1959. I was able to find, to Larry's astonishment an abstract of O' Rourke's doctoral thesis which had nothing to do with these quotes.

Due to Larry Meyering persistence and intuition, for which I am grateful, he found the O'Rourke paper which Fox is quoting.

Here is what O'Rourke had to say in American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47-55 in the article "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy"

"These principles have been applied in Feinstratigraphie, which starts from a chronology of index fossils, abstracts time units from it, and imposes them on the rocks (Schindewolf, 1960, p. 7). Each taxon represents a difinite time unit and so provides an accurate, even 'infallible' date. If you doubt it, bring in a suite of good index fossils, and the specialist, without asking where or in what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological order, (Jeletsky, 1956, p. 692)."
O'Rourke p 51-52.

Schindewolf, O. H., 1960, Stratigraphische Methodik und Terminologie: Geol. Rundschau v. 49, p. 1-35.

Jeletsky, J. A., 1956, Paleontology, basis of practical geochronology: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 40, p. 679-706.

O'Rourke p. 55.

Now as you can see not only is the quote wrong, it wasn't even noted that O'Rourke was in fact quoting two different people.

This has to rank up there as one of the worst butchered quotes I have ever seen. It is a quote, of a quote, of two quotes with no original source given and an incorrect source given for O'Rourke to boot.

Further on, quoting Fox:

"By mid-nineteenth century, the notion of 'universal' rock units had been dropped, but some stratigraphers still imagine a kind of global biozone as 'timed units' that are supposed to be ubiquitous"--O'Rourke--American Journal of Science. Opcit.
Here is Opcit is incorrect because his original source is wrong. No such paper exists in the source named.

Now let's see what O'Rourke really has to say.

"By mid-nineteeth century, the notion of "universal" rock unites had been dropped, but some stratigraphers still imagine a kind of global biozone as 'time' units that are supposed to be ubiquitous although not everywhere manifest as rock."
As you see not finishing the sentence changes its meaning. Especially in light of the previous sentence which is:
"When experience showed that bio-units could be traced farther, specialists began to project them ahead of the litho-units."
Now the whole meaning of the plucked quote has changed.

And still further on quoting Fox:

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." O'Rourke--American Journal of Science 276:47-55
Here he finally gets the source correct. He fails to mention the rest of the article shows that it isn't circular reasoning. From the articles conclusion, that Mr Fox has obviously never read.
"The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The filed man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnostic rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from a great many man-years of work by his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach." O'Rourke American Journal of Science Vol 276 Jan. 1976 page 55
Translation.

If you write a good paper any intelligent human being should be able to come to the same conclusions as you do by examining the same rocks that you did.

And further quoting Fox:

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. The axiom that no process can measure itself means that there is no absolute time, but this relic of the traditional mechanics persists in the common distinction between 'relative' and 'absolute' age."--O'Rourke--ibid.
This is another beauty. It is quoted from two different paragraphs! Skipping a whole paragraph in between.

I'll quote all three paragraphs.

"Even after the analyses are calculated as dates, they have no geologic significance until placed in the context of previous work on maps. Otherwise each anlysis represents only its particular sample. Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.

The technique having passed its pragmatic test, some enthusiasts are already talking about its replacing stratigraphy entirely. They even say that radiometric dates calibrate stratigraphy (Vita-Finzi, 1973 p. xi, p. 1-3).

The axiom that no process can measure itself means that there is no absolute time, but this relic of the traditional mechanics persists in the common distinction between 'relative' and 'absolute' age. How can age be anything but relative, when it requires comparison of at least two points, whereas absolute means existing without relation or qualification? 'Absolute age' is a self-contradiction. For this reason, and for giving an exaggerated impression of certainty, the term was deplored by the very man who did the most to make radiometric dating practical (Holmes, 1963, p. xx-xxi)."

O'Rourke American Journal of Science Vol 256, Jan. 1976 page 54.

Vita-Finzi, C., 1973, Recent earth history: New York, Halsted, p. 138.

Big difference from Mark's supposed quotes.

george



Webactivism
Qnet
NameandShame