Blatant LYING by a CMI geologist

This forum is for the discussion of the evidence for evolution. Anyone is welcome to post, however, scripture is not allowed. As the title says, Science Only please!

Moderator: Moderators

Blatant LYING by a CMI geologist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 25, 2015 12:11 am

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0045537 (I had to search for this because CMI fail to provide a proper direct link.)
Becomes:
http://creation.com/age-of-diamonds

Note that the CMI bigots are DELIBERATELY contradicting the PLOS ONE paper - without either admitting this or attempting to justify it. The Abstract states: "We report exceptional preservation of fossil wood buried deeply in a kimberlite pipe that intruded northwestern Canada’s Slave Province 53.3±0.6 million years ago (Ma), revealed during excavation of diamond source rock. The wood originated from forest surrounding the eruption zone and collapsed into the diatreme before resettling in volcaniclastic kimberlite to depths >300 m, where it was mummified in a sterile environment. Anatomy of the unpermineralized wood permits conclusive identification to the genus Metasequoia (Cupressaceae)."

CMI deliberately seek to deceive their readers by claiming: "Interestingly, the wood is fresh, unfossilised (unpetrified)". The write then lies again, both by what he does say "The presence of such fresh, unfossilised timber is a strong indication that the kimberlite rock is not millions of years old" and what he does not say "it was mummified in a sterile environment" (according to Wikipedia mummified wood fossils are unpermineralized wood fossils and they are "formed when trees are buried rapidly in dry cold or hot environments"). The wood is fossilised wood ie mummified - and CMI FAIL even to MENTION this.

Not petrified (even that is the case here) does NOT mean 'not fossilised'. Likewise not permineralized does NOT mean 'not fossilised' (or unpetrified; even if wood is unpetrified it could still be fossil wood as just mentioned). CMI are deliberately making a series of FALSE claims. (I have also checked at Wikipedia the definitions of permineralized and petrified - which are much the same as each other as regards wood.) I would assume that ancient wood preserved by mummification could still contain cellulose.

More strong evidence that deep time is true. You have to lie - a lot - to 'falsify' it!

'Creation via Confusion.'

Young Earth Creationist zealots have no shame and no scruples. They are either self-deluded or else they arrogantly think that they have been granted a 'licence to lie'.

I sending this to CMI (to their UK office). They will pretend not to see it and will carry on LYING.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Return to Science Only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest