So, the MOR 1125 femur reported by Schweitzer et al happens to be one of the better dated dinosaur bones known to exist. The independently established age of this bone is based on 86 separate chemical analyses on three different kinds of minerals, based on four independent radiometric decay series. It doesn't get much better than that.
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.
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.
The appearance of soft tissue, hard tissue or no tissue has no bearing in the age of this material- organic or inorganic. What is the basis for these age determinations is the independent existence of geochemical "clocks" known as radiometric dating.
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:
An ancient age of the bone is supported by the (nonradiometric) amino racemization dating technique.
and when TalkOrigins was called on it, Hurd promulgates even further:
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.