My wife brought a Smithsonian article about Dr. Schweizter's T-Rex Bone/Blood-Cell discovery to my attention.

Its essentially a propganda piece about how "shocked" they were to find the blood vessels, but how pleased they were that the bones are like bird bones since that's they're idea.

Of course they take a shot at YEC's, and how mad she is at them for twisting her discoveries. However; the only defense of the age of the bones is that geologists dated them, and that's it.

She of course accepts that the bones are 65 million years old, even though she is staring at evidence to the contrary, litterally "right under her nose".

At one point she says "There's a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assupmptions about".

Well, I agree with her on that, but she's barking up the wrong tree....

Terry

Well we can always explain something away we don't find convenient. Afterall, evolution is a "fact" of the natural world so the evidence must fit that timeline.
Have a look at
Talk Origin's response. Nothing unusual, accusing AIG of lying about the finds and not using appropriate resources.

Is there a link to the Smithsonian article in question?

You should see his response to the more recent find in April 2005, where actual soft tissue is observed, that completely nullified his original desperate attempt you linked above to detract and obfuscate on the 1997 find. Watching him now squirm in his response to the April 2005 was both sad, and I must say comical:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

He achieves his coup-de-tat in evo-babble all in one article, as he wasted no time including scores of ad hominem attacks, massive equivocation, the usual dose of strawmen, and the inevitable red herrings.

If we ever find a living dinosaur, I would not be able to stand the drama waiting for Hurd's spin of that!

Fred

One example:


1.) I find it fascinating that qualified scientists, who happen to believe in creation, can be ridiculed for simply not accepting the theory. I wonder if Talk Origins thinks it is possible to criticize evolution and have common sense at the same time? Apparently not. The above statement is nothing more than a generalization of an entire group of people. Just like me saying all liberals are socialists! While it is tempting to say it really is not true.

2.) Does it matter what "three thousand members of the clergy" say? Of course not! As Christians we care what the Bible has to say, and it happens to be very clear on the issue of creation. You can't put too much emphasis on what the "experts" say, study and learn for yourself.


Funny you should mention:


I have heard this same line of reasoning many times in the few years I have been interested in this creation/evolution debate. Which goes something like this, "Even if you found soft tissue the dating of the material confirms our hypothesis." It seems the idea of a younger age for this material is simply inconceivable.

Hurd continues:

So my question would be, why not? It is not common for this kind of material to survive for 60 plus million years. So why not consider another interpretation of data? Why must everything conform to the establishment?

‘Soft tissue’, sequence of events.

1. T’ Rex bone opened.

2. Reported soft tissue inside,

3. Claims of “how can soft tissue survive in something 65my old” (poor interpretations of less than accurate media releases).

The misconception:

The ‘soft tissue’ is not some bone marrow like you get from your Sunday roast, no, it is preserved ‘soft tissue’ i.e. fossilised soft tissue.


From the talk origins link: (my bold)



The ‘soft tissue’ is still a fossil. Indeed there are far older examples than Tyrannosaurus Rex, from the same link: (my bole)


If anyone should be criticised it should be the media for not understanding the issue, i.e. most fossils are just casts, the scientist were ecstatic about the preservation of something more detailed than a cast, (which they called it ‘soft tissue’). And from that point on a leap to ‘unaltered soft tissue’ tissue has been made. No doubt because of the popularity of the movie Jurassic Park.

From the BBC

That's correct, what was found according to Dr. Schweitzer,





So far it has been reported that what has been recovered is organic material. She has said what has been found is intact dinosaurian tissue, there is no questioning that part of the discovery. Allegedly, there is a mechanism for preserving this material for such long time. That's what this whole thing is going to come down to, explaining how this material was preserved over the long ages. Everything else will be far less important. Dr. Hurd claimed in the TO essay that Dr. Weiland made three errors, which I find two of them to be superficial.

-Weiland says the find is "So obvious to the naked eye," and Dr. Hurd takes issue with that. That seems quite superficial and off point. The real issue is we have the capability to view it and reach conclusion.

-Weiland says the tissue is unfossilized. Granted he should not have said that.

Weiland says this find demonstrates that the previous ideas that these fossils lasted for long ages is not correct. I think this is a fair stance for Weiland. Considering that we now have two examples of biological material being preserved in 65 million year old fossils. He is supposedly incorrect because the dating methods will return the age despite the condition of the bones. Which of course begs the question, how do you know the dates being given are accurate. Except for a few errors in how he worded his article, claiming the material is completely unfossilized and fresh, he has not said anything outrageous.


Nevertheless, this scenario is an uncommon which is what lead to the original skepticism that the T-Rex was as old as commonly held. Of course there is an explanation presented of how a mechanism could have preserved the tissue. However, the issue is not resolved yet and we should be open minded until everything is conclusive. This still begs the question of how you know how old something is based on various dating methods.


The media is famous for misleading people especially with science related matters, but that can't be used an excuse for the existence of dissent.

That's correct, what was found according to Dr. Schweitzer,





So far it has been reported that what has been recovered is organic material. She has said what has been found is intact dinosaurian tissue, there is no questioning that part of the discovery. Allegedly, there is a mechanism for preserving this material for such long time. That's what this whole thing is going to come down to, explaining how this material was preserved over the long ages. Everything else will be far less important. Dr. Hurd claimed in the TO essay that Dr. Weiland made three errors, which I find two of them to be superficial.

-Weiland says the find is "So obvious to the naked eye," and Dr. Hurd takes issue with that. That seems quite superficial and off point. The real issue is we have the capability to view it and reach conclusion.

-Weiland says the tissue is unfossilized. Granted he should not have said that.

Weiland says this find demonstrates that the previous ideas that these fossils lasted for long ages is not correct. I think this is a fair stance for Weiland. Considering that we now have two examples of biological material being preserved in 65 million year old fossils. He is supposedly incorrect because the dating methods will return the age despite the condition of the bones. Which of course begs the question, how do you know the dates being given are accurate. Except for a few errors in how he worded his article, claiming the material is completely unfossilized and fresh, he has not said anything outrageous.


Nevertheless, this scenario is an uncommon which is what lead to the original skepticism that the T-Rex was as old as commonly held. Of course there is an explanation presented of how a mechanism could have preserved the tissue. However, the issue is not resolved yet and we should be open minded until everything is conclusive. This still begs the question of how you know how old something is based on various dating methods.


The media is famous for misleading people especially with science related matters, but that can't be used an excuse for the existence of dissent.

An exciting and new type of fossilisation find to shows such detail.




The ‘problem’ is in the it has been reported phrase and IMO is the root cause of the misconceptions surrounding this find. However your comments below deserve a reply but I am have a bit of difficulty in determining the quote from your comment so apologies in advance if I get it wrong.




I would be surprised if Weiland had access to the material to make such a statement, he would have been restricted to the same reports you and I have access to, and thus I think “obvious” is a rash statement.



Agreed.





I disagree. The new find implies that you need a large bone containing marrow and an set of unknown conditions. To imply anything else would require some sort of proof that the process is incompatible with long periods of time. As the ‘soft tissue’ is not actuality original material, the balance is tipped towards an unusual but not inconsistent fossilisation process.
The ‘outrageous’ part is only insomuch as Weiland inferring that dating of fossils is now incorrect because of this find.




Indeed it is uncommon, but unless Weiland or others can show why this process could not possibly occur over time periods in the millions of years he is speculating wildly.

Prediction: When the method is understood it will be consistent with contemporary fossilisation processes. Time will tell.




Agreed.

I first wanted to say, chance I find my discussions with you have been quite pleasant. Most online discussions on this topic devolve into insult as a result my disbelief of evolution. So thank you for your civility.

Anyway,

I was careful to quote Dr. Schweitzer directly and keep her quotes in their proper context so to avoid any of these issues. I also used the BBC article you linked to, because Dr. Hurd seemed to think they did a better job of reporting the story.


For the sake of being completely honest he should not have used the phrase, "obvious to the naked eye," however, it is still a superficial point. I would rephrase it to say, "When the proper tools are used, it is quite obvious what is being viewed. Regardless of the statement the debate is not altered either way.


That may not be true according to Dr. Hurd,


As it stands it is quite possible this is original material, it just simply is not known whether this is the case or not. Even if it was shown to be replaced by a resin compound of sorts, as Dr. Hendrik Poinar suggested, we still must find out if this "mechanism" fits the necessary timeline.


If he is right this find lends credence to the idea that the dating methods are flawed to some degree. I believe, as you do, Dr. Wieland overstepped the available facts, but this could turn out to be bigger than both of us think.


It is indeed speculation, and maybe a little overblown, but excluding the errors we have discussed thus far I think his claim fits well within a young earth framework. As far as your prediction goes, we will see. If the time comes I will renounce the claim and not use it. However, I feel an explanation will be aranged that does not satisfy all questions.

Chance, you wrote: “I would be surprised if Weiland had access to the material to make such a statement, he would have been restricted to the same reports you and I have access to, and thus I think “obvious” is a rash statement.”

Then you go and claim: “…the ‘soft tissue’ is not actuality original material”. How do you know? Apparently you have access to the material?

Here is what Chance is claiming is completely fossilized:



I hereby feel very safe to proudly and loudly declare that this is unfossilized material, and indeed as Wieland declared, it is "obvious to the naked eye"..

Chance hopes beyond hope otherwise. Even Schweitzer can't help but admit "It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything." [emphasis mine]. Chance quoted the subsequent paragraph where the BBC report trys to spin it essentially into "that's not really what she said, trust us". Oh yes it is. The BBC, like Chance, is trying desperately to spin this obvious problem for evolution into some wonderous fossilization process we don't understand yet!



It's been over a year, Chance. Are these scientists that incompetent that they cannot come out with any kind of evidence that this is permineralized? Is not this easy to detect? Its either the real deal, or not.

See my signature below.

Where did that quote come from? In all of the material posted I can't find that quote in particular?

Thanks. The sentiments are reciprocated.




Without re reading the article, I would agree with you if the phase in question was in context, but as the only criticism seems to be that “soft tissue” = young age, I am sceptical.




IMO typical scientific cautionary language, because the process is unknown. There is perhaps a remote possibility that original material is entirely encased and mummified (at a microscopic level). To say that something is impossible without being in full charge of the facts is rather a rash thing to do.




Agreed. I’m sure this is high on the “to do list”.




Agreed.




OK. A good compromise.

My opinions are entirely based on the internet reports I can find.

As I see it, only Dr Schweitzer is in a position to be certain of what is or is not “soft tissue” and what is meant by that phrase. We are all working either second hand (or worse) from those statements. Do you agree?



It is an important and salient fact that, “things are not always what they seem”.

Are you so sure that the 2D magnified picture of a 3D object, reduced to some pixels compatible with your computer of unknown resolution and quality, is sufficient evidence to claim “it’s obvious to the naked eye”!




Are you of the opinion that if a scientists (or anyone for that matter) uses a phrase poorly in public, you are justified in using that original phrase as some sort of proof?

How do you determine which claim to use? (paraphrased example below)

Scientist – “I have found soft tissue in the leg bone of Tyrannosaurus Rex”

Press – “soft tissue found in T’Rex fossil”

Scientist – “what I mean by ‘soft tissue’ is that the fossil contains fossilised soft tissue”

Press – Britney Spears is reported to have been seen with Tom Cruse last week, reports that she has broken up with her boy friend last week have ………



I have not been following this issue so am not able to comment with certainty. But I don’t think being cautious with a single sample is justification for a claim of incompetence.

Perhaps and IMO likely, they are playing it safe because they only have one sample and are not willing to ‘cut’ into it yet. It would be a shame if they performed the wrong sort of tests and destroyed part of the sample.

P.S. I searched for articles re the “a Smithsonian article about Dr. Schweizter's T-Rex Bone/Blood-Cell discovery” so as to see what 92g meant by “Smithsonian, Engaging in Anit-Creationist Propaganda”. As yet I have not been successful in finding any articals connected with this issue.

Has anyone got the article in question?

We shall leave at that for now.


You asserted that it was not original material and that is not correct. It is quite possible this is original. We still need to understand the "mechanism" if there is anything new to learn that is.

I actually did not mean to imply they are incompetent, in fact it was meant to use their competence and expertise in this area to emphasize the following - as experts in this area they should easily have an explanation by now. The reason they don’t is because it is original material. That’s what their expertise tells them. I just can’t imagine it is that hard to determine whether the soft tissue is the real deal, or permineralization or some other replacement.



Yes, we are both working with second hand info. I was just pointing out that you weren’t applying the same standard to yourself. You called our direct interpretation “rash” because it was based off second hand information, while you also made a direct interpretation from this same second hand info, an interpretation that was the precise opposite of ours.

Regardless, because something is second hand does not mean we cannot make a reasonable deduction. Virtually every find in science comes to us “second hand”. I’ve never seen originals (or even replicas) of most of the famous fossils (ie Lucy, Pakicetus, etc), but we can reach very reasonable conclusions based on the evidence presented to us. For example, I can rightly conclude that statues of Lucy in some of our museums that show human-shaped feet is wrong (and deceptive) based on the published photos of the actual fossils found and the accompanying evidence that has been accumulated over the years on this animal.

In regard to the T-Rex find, I can look at the photos and accompanying testimony on the evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion that the fossil is not fully permineralized, that it indeed has original material. While I am not a paleontologist, I’ve seen plenty of fossils in my life and I’ve never seen a single example of a fossil that is even remotely close to showing the distinct colorization and detail as seen in the above photos. Nor have I ever seen full permineralization be sufficient to produce some imitation compound that shows flexibility reamrkably similar to the real thing, as was noted with the blood vessels.

So, to answer your next question…



Yes, I am thoroughly convinced, and I am willing to entertain anyone who is willing to make a wager on it! Would you be prepared to make that bet?

The reason evolutionists want desperately to explain this one away is because it clearly contradicts a part of their worldview, but you can bet they would not put money on it because they know they are at great risk to lose! If this were the bone of a Mammoth, then evolutionists would right away agree it contains original soft tissue (evos believe they went extinct only 10K years ago or so). But since it’s the bone a T-Rex that was supposed to have gone extinct some 65 million years ago, then the spin & deny machine comes out in full force, despite the clear evidence staring them right in the face.

I predict that eventually enough evolutionists will be so embarrassed by this obvious and clear evidence for a recent dinosaur, that they will fall back to the “living fossil” card in their grab bag and admit some survived in some as-yet-to-be-unexplained niche. It’s the theory that has a grab bag answer for every problem! (which removes it from the category of theory)

Fred

In the BBC link chance posted in post #6.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm

Not unreasonable and I somewhat agree with you, but perhaps there are other priorities or restraints that we are not aware of.




I see your point. The critical thing as I see it is, where shall the “final word” or the “authoritative opinion” come from (especially when it relates to who said what)?

e.g. If was as simple position like:

“I think this it’s an apple”,

“I think this is an orange”.

then the protagonists are more or less on an equal footing.



But the situation we have been discussing is more like this:

“This looks like an apple”,

“It is an apple”,

“No, I said it looks like an apple.” “It’s most likely an orange, perhaps with micro bits of apple in it …….. may be”.


Ok, oversimplified humorous, analogies notwithstanding, IMO if the author clarifies a point later on, then the wording of the original statements should be interpreted in light of that clarification, it is poor form not to acknowledge that clarification.



(my bold)

hmmmmmm. I’m not sure I agree with this when it is applicable to science. The scientific process is (simplified):

a. Discovery,
b. devise theory,
c. test theory,
d. publish.

All the “deduction” has been done on our behalf by the scientist during phases ‘b’, and ‘c’. You and I can merely agree or disagree with that deduction. Unless we are prepared to do some research ourselves, we are just background noise.





You may be right, but equally you may be very wrong. Your previous experience with fossils may not be applicable to this specific find. When something new is encountered, one should entertain the possibility that something different has happened.






Yes, what are your conditions, and what is your claim.

My position is mirrored by the wiki article below:


To clarify my position - whatever the preservation process is, the ‘soft tissue’ will not contradict existing old earth models, i.e. the material is not ‘fresh’ (6000, to 10000 years old).




It would contradict our world view if the material turns out to be something less than 65myo.

Is the “put money on it” one of the conditions of your wager challenge to me? Personally I will be content with a simple acknowledgment on this forum if you are shown to be in error.

What ‘spin’ has come from the side of science? Do you consider a clarification on a statement as ‘spin’?



I predict that the explanation will be a unique form of preservation/fossilisation, and that the “living fossil” (I presume you mean something like the coelacanth) will not even be put forward.

Hey, chance, if this find is genuine where does the evolutionary timeline stand?

This is truly sad, and as Fred says comical at the same time. This guy is is not capable of logical thinking, and writes dishonestly. The only just part of this is that people who read his tripe and believe it, probably deserve it......

If the bone is buried in some material that is "dated" to a certain, age, it does not mean that the bone is of that age. It only means its buried in something that "dated" to that age. You are not dating the bone, you are dating the material surrounding it.

That conclusion is based on assumptions, and while being a scientific guess, its not a scientific fact.



IOW, don't bother me with the facts......

What he fails to mention in any of his diatrabe is that organic material breaks down over a certain period of time. If the Amino acids exist in a non-racemic solution, and it seems highly unlikely that they don't, at least in the material that looks like blood cells, or can be considered soft tissue, then it certainly challenges any notion of them being more than 200k years old.

What's even more shocking(well maybe not) is that Talkorigins even outright lies(I'm sorry, but I don't see how this can be construed any other way) about this:

QUOTE

An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino racemization dating technique.

Talkorigins Lie,

and when TalkOrigins was called on it, Hurd promulgates even further:

QUOTE

The point of the amino acid racimization analysis was indeed to demonstrate that the organic residue she had extracted was not a recent contaminant

Hurd's silly defense.

I'm sorry, but to those people who can't see through this type of diatribe, I really pitty you...

As it is written:
2 Thes. 2:11
Because of this, God sends them a working of error, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be judged who didn't believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

So, the scientific community basically ignores the data right under their nose, by using petty insults about what's "obvious to the naked eye", while totally ignoring, or better lying about the "fact" that amino-acid racemization contradicts the idea that these bones are even in the same universe when it comes to their age.

Terry

We are in agreement, Sir. But to think otherwise would turn uniformitarianism on its head and that cannot be allowed to happen.


It would have been more appropriate to say, "That is a legitimate point, I withdraw the claim." But notice next how he slithers through the criticism,

Well gee that's swell, but what about the soft tissue which has been recovered? How about we stay on topic?


Chance and me discussed this above, a large portion of the essay is dedicated to making Dr. Weiland seem foolish for the "naked eye" remark.

In tatters! (If the find proves that Tyrannosaurus was 6000 to 10000 years old.) Evolution requires time, as the mechanism works on a ‘generation level’ not an ‘individual level’.

If have no doubts that the find is genuine, a hoax on this scale would permanently destroy the scientist’s reputation. There are just too many video cameras, around these days, your every word is recorded for posterity in the media.

Re burial, and claims of age:

92g



A Literally true argument, there is a rare possibility that the fossil could be reburied, i.e. it could have been exposed due to erosion, collapse into a river and reburied. But there are ways to determine this. The only presumption not addresses is that the fossil was discovered in ‘undisturbed’ layers. There is nothing dishonest in this, it’s just a convention (assume all writings are talking about non reburial events).

e.g. if you were excavating the foundations (poured concrete footings) of a building, known to have been erected in 1955, would you expect to find a coin minted in 1966, inside that footing?

Now, unless the footing had a hole drilled into it’s core a coin deposited in that hole (reburial), then fresh concrete poured into seal, I think we can be certain that the coin is a forgery.




92g, Willis

If you are certain of this, please list the conditions under which you feel a fossil does not presume to take on the age of the material it is embedded in.

I have list one i.e. reburial.

92g, Willis I am confused about the talk origins lie 92g claim to have found.
After reading the links provided, I get this sequence of events:

a. organic material breaks down over a certain period of time.
b. amino racemization dating technique will detect fresh material (max 200k years).
c. the assumption is, that blood should have given a positive reading.
d. No such positive was recorded. Quote “The point of the amino acid racimization analysis was indeed to demonstrate that the organic residue she had extracted was not a recent contaminant” end quote. (my bold)

Where is the lie?

How about the lack of consistentcy between this material and material found in the same strata? I would imagine this would call the validity of age into question.



I would call it a flawed argument that doesn't strengthen Dr. Hurd's case at all.
Here was the original feedback:


So the point being that a date of 200,000 years does not demonstrate the ancientness of the fossil in question. In terms of millions of years, 200,000 is relatively young.

Its right there in front of you.... 200k years is 2.5 orders of magnitue less than 70 million years. Its a lie to say that amino-acid reacemization was used to confirm the "supposed" age of that bone. It was not..... I suppose they used carbon dating to confirim the "ancientness" of the bone too.... And as far as there being actual detectable amino-acids in the recent discovery, I don't know, but there is a reasonbable probability that they were detected in the 1997 bone, but that was ignored to.



Dino Blood!


The problem with dating the bone only using the surounding environment, is that it does not allow the bone to speak for itself. The characteristics of the bone suggest that the dating methods are wrong, but if you bury your head in the sand, or better yet, sandstone, you'll miss the data.

This is much like the discovery of the ozone hole over the antarctic. There was a sattelite collecting the data for 10 years, but no one knew about it. Why????? Because the people who programmed the data analysis software said that reading could never go that low, so the set the programm to ignore the data as errors.

Its no different here.....

Terry

I need you to be more specific and explain what you understand to be consistency, an example would help.
For example, I would agree if you mean the ‘fossil sequence’. Or do you mean something like, a hard fossil is removed right next door to a ‘mushy one’ (not sure if such a thing could happen you understand, just trying to second guess what you mean).







I think at the very most I would call it poorly worded or confusing, rather than flawed. If you look at the link again, both chapters (in blue) below are from the same author - Johanus Dagius.

The reply in the green box follows:

the remainder is about what does date the fossil, i.e radiometric methods.





While the racimization analysis can’t tell you how old the fossil is, it can certainly tell how old it is not.

I can’t find anywhere in all those examples where Hurd has stated that the racimization analysis proves the find is 65my old, only that it proves the find is older than 20ky old.

A couple of topics to answer, so I best deal with them one at a time.



But 92g, the statement does not claim any dates, the wording is not a recent contaminant (i.e. <200k years). The remainder article goes on to explain how the actual date was determined!

The racimization analysis eliminates a young age, not confirms an old age.

No, even if I presume that you are right, at the very most, you would have a dilemma about which test to trust.

The situation is this:

a. Rock dated using radiometric methods = 65my (the fossil is in the rock)
b. amino racemization on the ‘soft tissue’ = less than 200kyn (by virtue of a nul result).



So, unless there is some doubt about the fossil being reburied, how can the burial of the fossil not be of the age of the rock sedimentation? And I’ll state that in principle, this holds up for a Biblical account of age as well as an evolutionary one.




IMO a different problem. The ranges of the various testings of age are known with some certainty.
By contrast, not anticipating the range, will produce a result ‘hard up against the stops’, unless the data is dropped, producing a nul. I’m not sure how a amino racemization is produced but would suspect it would be one or the other.

The response to this can be found in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html, with the full article linked at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/12/6291


All this is a bit hard going, but the gist of it as best I can report it is: “heme is present” but this does not mean that it is blood. In other words, some fragment of blood chemical has been preserved. This is a far cry from claiming it’s fresh.

You have the right idea but I don't think such find is probable. But the basic idea of finding one fossil which varies significantly from others in the same strata. Perhaps a hominid skull with a morphology far more modern than the others surrounding it. That's one example that comes to mind. Anything of that nature would in my opinion and I think this find fits that scenario.


Here you can find Talk Origins claiming it proves an "ancient age" But like I said before, 200,000 is a relatively young age in terms of evolutionary history. When the other dating methods are applied you are dating the layers of the formation itself and not the actual fossil. That's why I said it's does not strengthen the argument very much.


But you are assuming that the date given to the Hell Creek Formation is accurate. There is certainly a possibility that the layers are not as old as is currently thought. Therefore, the fossils contained within are not as old either. If reburial is the only option for an explanation than you are correct. But, I think the idea of layers forming rapidly is a valid explanation.

Ok, generally referred to as “out of sequence”.




The actual quote from talk origins is: (my bold)

Well this is getting a bit picky but I agree that there is some room for improvement. On it own that sentence is not definitive enough, and to be precise one should have stated is supported in part by. This would have left no doubt that “supported” was not referring to a single line of evidence.

However IMO a poorly phrased sentence does not equate to lying, especially when one follows the links and finds the in depth explanations that clarifies the situation (nothing is hidden). Now I ask you this, who has the ‘higher moral ground’ in this situation, Hurd or Wieland?
Has Wieland acknowledged the truth behind the two cases of ‘blood’ or ‘soft tissue’? has Wieland updated the article in AiG? Do you think he has any ground to still maintain his position?




As a logical argument I cannot fault this.





That’s a valid line of enquiry, and if ‘scientific creationism’ is to win it’s spurs and live up to the scientific bit of it’s title, then this should be investigated, not by ‘armchair semantics’ but by real field work (picks, shovels and skinned knuckles). [pre-emptive reply] One should not rest and claim victory on a single anomalies (i.e. “the rate project”). Finds should be subject to peer review, no one gets a free ride [/pre-emptive reply]

Things that need to have an alternate explanation that is better than old earth (throwing doubt about the accuracy is not enough, creationism is not a default position):

a. The fossil sequence (one does not even need special equipment for this).
b. Validity of dating methods. ( a dozen or so of corroborating and consistent methods).

The sedmentary rock was not dated using radiometric dating. That is a date extrapolated from a long age interpretation.

I have seen nothing about this bone having been dated using racemization techniques. I'm only aware that you cannot date the bone to 65million years using those techniques, and to suggest that its even possible to try such a test, as was done with the 1997 bone, means that the bone most likely has an upper age of 200k years, which is a far cry from 67 million years.




That depends on how you get to the age of the rock formation. If you got buried in ocean due to being washed out in a hurricane, the age of the sediment would not change, but something certainly younger would be buried in it.



Amino-acid racemization is a very important concept to this topic in general. You really should study up on it.

Terry

As previousy stated, the fact that you can even do such a test, and produce such results, radically contradicts the idea that the bone is 67 million years old, and puts a an upper limit of the age at 200k years, which is more likely to be 4k years than 67 million.

IOW, you can take your long age interpretation of sedimentary rock layers and put them in the garbage.

Terry

(my paragraphing)

reply to ‘a’. The establishment of the dates of strata was explained in the very link that you yourself posted as “Hurd’s silly defence” there can be no doubt about what is being tested, as the links proved take you to Dino Blood and the Young Earth and then to Dino Blood Redux . In these links the 7 methods used to date the rock (all producing ages in the vicinity of 65my).

Nothing hidden, no lies.

Reply to b. again the answer is found in the very same “Hurd’s silly defence” link this is obviously in reference to the ‘soft tissue’ not the exterior of the fossil. The same two links Dino Blood and the Young Earth and Dino Blood Redux fully explain what was tested on what.

No lies, nothing hidden.

It is as I previously summarised:

a. Rock dated using radiometric methods = 65my (the fossil is in the rock)
b. amino racemization on the ‘soft tissue’ = less than 200kyn (by virtue of a nul result).

If your still not convinced, I need you to post the actual extract in a quote box where you feel the lie is. I feel as if the current points have been explained fully, the only area of doubt is if you consider a poorly worded phrase a lie if the actual situation is fully explained in a link or reference. Personally I see no ambiguity in Hurd’s articles on this subject with the exception of the one Willis found (see post #33, re “supported”) and even that is borderline.





Yep, reburial is a valid phenomenon as I have stated. But this has not been such a case, no mention of reburial, so we can safely assume the fossil was buried in situ.




Please correct me when you see a mistake.

Absolutely not, a unique and rare fossilisation process is discovered, and you want to apply some arbitrary rule of: “there some component of heme therefore it must be fresh”! Come on that not science, that’s stifling objectivity.




Based on what? a process that the discoverer has yet to fully explain, I think not.

How about we wait until the final part of this story unfolds?

But it doesn't support anything. In the long run they are not going to rely on AAR dates to determine anything. They will rely on the radiometric dates to determine the age. This is obvious as most of Dr. Hurds defense of the find was the dates given to the Hell Creek formation. The issue of the condition of the material was not considered as important from what I read of Dr. Hurd's paper,



I never called it a lie. I said it serves very little purpose in the debate because in the end the data will not be very relevant. As for an in depth explanation I didn't see Amino Acid Racemization anywhere in Dr. Hurd's rebuttal, although I could be wrong.



In retrospect I think both of them reached hasty conclusions. Dr. Wieldand, that this was completely unfossilized 'fresh material' and Dr. Hurd, that this requires no extraordinary explanation because it proves nothing. I think there is more here than the scientific community is going to acknowledge and Dr. Hurd is just one example of such. Yes Wieland still has ground to stand on, although he may have exaggertated some of the details, this issue is far from settled. According to Dr. Schweitzer's current statements this is original dinosaurian tissue.


I absolutely agree on this point. Many creationists have done this in the past, the likes of Dr. Kent h*vind and Dr. Carl Baugh. Both are honorable guys but their materials on the issue of radiometric dating and geologic time consist mostly of skepticism and not alternative explanation. However, in the recent years I think Creation scientists have done a good job of addressing this challenge. Catastrophism has been developed well and has gained some credence in scientific circles. The rate project is a good start and there is much more in store in that respect. I think much of the issue has to do with finding funding for the research since ICR does not get any of the tax dollars specified for scientific research.

A unique and rare fossilizatin process is hopefully discovered. You don't know if such a process even exists, and you proclaim it as a scientific fact. Give me a break......



The odds are likely that such a process does not exist. They've had 9 years to work on this, and there is no real explanation for it.



I think it already has.

Terry

Its a bald-faced lie to suggest that AAR dating was used to confirm the age of either bone(1997 or 2005), and if anything it contradicts it regarding the 1997 bone. Hurd's explanation is nothing more than back pedaling because they got called on it.

Its confusing to people who might read that, and without the understanding of how AAR works, they would get the wrong impression. Its a lie, intelectually dishonest, and bad writing. Its also par for the course for just about anything I've read from that website, and why its generally a waste of time to wade through their muck.




There was no null result from the 1997 bone, and I've seen no data from the 2005 discovery.

They did detect heme from that 1997 bone. Heme is formed from proteins. Proteins are formed from amino-acids. Amino-acids racemize over time, which means that heme should no longer exist. Therefore there is some kind of upper limit while its really not known, of the lifetime of those heme compounds. Therefore, based on current scientific understanding of how long those compounds could exist, the dection of the heme-compounds contradicts the "supposed" age of the surrounding material.

If I'm wrong about this, then you can research it an explain why.....





Of course you accept their explanation, but calling it poorly worded is nothing more than political spin. I've explained my opinion on this well enough, and if your not satisfied, then I suggest we just move on.

Terry

If you have a test that can determine age to a max of 200K (as well as confirm some bio content) and both give a negative reading why can’t that evidence be considered as supportive? Granted it wont give age, but it certainly eliminates some things,

As the visual aspects of the find suggested original material, I think it was appropriate to consider experiments that could test for that.

What is wrong with such elimination techniques?





Appearances can be deceiving, just because it ‘looks’ like something, does not mean that it is” (a dolphin looks like a fish, but it’s a mammal!)

IMO the appearance was the trigger for using AAR, from my understanding the condition was the cause for much excitement and speculation and testing, I don’t see how you justify that position.






appolgies, it's 92g who makes the accusation of a lie. I agree that the AAR is a minor issue re the age of the specimen. Follow the links from 92g's link “Hurd’s silly defence” plenty of explinations and clarifications.





I think that about as close to consensus as we are likely to reach. One point re Dr. Schweitzer's statements, ‘original material’ does not mean it’s fresh (6000, to 10000y). As pointed out in talk-origins and Dr. Schweitzer, the likely explanation is some component of ‘heme’ has survived (to me this means the fossilisation process has reacted chemically with the ‘soft tissue’ to form a stable compound).




Hmmmm subjects for a separate topic I think.

92g post #39


Your right, I propose a truce re the actual nature of the ‘soft material’ until Dr. Schweitzer publishes further on the matter, yes?




How do you calculate such odds, when the sample size is so low? (your answer will not be reliable).




We shall see.


92g post #40
(my bold)

It would be a bald faced lie if they were the words actually uttered. BUT this is not the case AAR was stated to ‘support’ (not confirm) In addition to pages of subsequent clarification.

I am at a loss to know how to proceed on this matter, I can only conclude that your understanding of what a lie is, is different to mine. It appears that no amount of explanation and ‘in-context’ quoting, negates a verbal quote.




Again, the question you fail to consider is, “is this assumption a valid one, given the unique conditions of these finds?” Is it not possible to consider some exotic fossilisation process at the molecular level?





I would ask nothing less of yourself if you were in a similar situation. Have you not ever posted something on this forum that you could have not worded better in retrospect? Would it be fair for me to accuse you of lying in such a situation? And then continue with that POV no matter how many times you clarified it? I fear you are using too harsh a standard that no one could live up to.

I agree that we should move on, neither of us is convinced by the other’s explanation of the events.

‘chance’ slowly backs away from the gun on the floor.