My statement said nothing in support of evolution, and certainly nothing in favor of global warming. All I said was that I appreciate the work being done by scientists "in the trenches" to discover as much as they can and be willing to write papers that seem to undermine their earlier conclusions.
I don't see anything being done by the ICR that amounts to much more than heckling from the bleachers.
As you can imagine from my sarcastic post below, there are two reasons for sparse ICR research: money and peer pressure.
Having said that, here is a link to a paper that Dr. Austin wrote a few years ago:
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/abstract_45610.htm
Abstract below:
Paper No. 187-4
Presentation Time: 8:00 AM-12:00 PM
REGIONALLY EXTENSIVE MASS KILL OF LARGE ORTHOCONE NAUTILOIDS, REDWALL LIMESTONE (LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN), GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA
AUSTIN, Steven A., Geology Department, Institute for Creation Rsch, Santee, CA 92071-2833, saustin@icr.edu and WISE, Kurt P., Bryan College, Box 7585, Dayton, TN 37321-7000
Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.
Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.
Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks.
2002 Denver Annual Meeting (October 27-30, 2002)
Session No. 187
Paleontology/Paleobotany (Posters) II
Colorado Convention Center: Exhibit Hall
8:00 AM-12:00 PM, Wednesday, October 30, 2002
© Copyright 2002 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions.
Here is another:
They actually gathered samples, had them analyzed in an blind-study fashion in an independent lab, and wrote the results and conclusions.
Depiction drawing of a nautiloid.
Well as the purpose of writing the papers int he first place is to have them read and analyzed and correlated with each other for various purposes, I’d call that work. In fact, I’d call that a crucial part of science. You might criticize flaws in their analysis, fine, but how can you criticize scientific analysis itself, per se?