Jump to content


Smithsonian


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
51 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 May 2006 - 03:18 AM

QUOTE(Gary Hurd)
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.


:o :o :o

Talkorigins Lie,

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. :) :) :unsure:

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

#22 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 20 May 2006 - 10:28 PM

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.

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

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

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,

The Hell creek Formation happens to be one of the better dated hunk of rock on the planet. The data below were compiled by Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple, and published (along with many more) in "Radiometeric Dating Does Work!" which can be read at the National Center for Science Education website.

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

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.

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.

#23 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 May 2006 - 01:29 PM

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

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.

#24 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 May 2006 - 01:56 PM

Re burial, and claims of age:

92g


QUOTE(Gary Hurd)
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.




92g>
This is truly sad, and as Fred says comical at the same time. This guy 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.


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>
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.

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


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.

#25 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 May 2006 - 02:13 PM

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?

#26 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 21 May 2006 - 03:09 PM

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.

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.

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?


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

Your claim reports that amino racemization (AAR) was used to confirm the ancientness of this bone. But this technique can only date back 200,000 years (and not terribly reliable at that).

T.Rex died out 65 Million years ago, so how can AAR prove anything (except that it didn't die recently)? How come radiometric methods haven't been applied, which could settle the ancientness issue properly?


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.

#27 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 May 2006 - 06:39 PM

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?


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.

To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.


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

#28 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 May 2006 - 07:25 PM

chance>
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.

Willis>
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 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).





chance>
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?

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


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.

Johanus Dagius>
from the link Your claim reports that amino racemization (AAR) was used to confirm the ancientness of this bone. But this technique can only date back 200,000 years (and not terribly reliable at that).

T.Rex died out 65 Million years ago, so how can AAR prove anything (except that it didn't die recently)? How come radiometric methods haven't been applied, which could settle the ancientness issue properly?

The reply in the green box follows:

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

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



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.


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.

#29 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 May 2006 - 07:45 PM

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

chance>
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?

92g>
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.


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.

#30 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 May 2006 - 08:16 PM

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.


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.


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.....?


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.

#31 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 May 2006 - 08:42 PM

92g>
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.


AiG>
To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.


The response to this can be found in http://www.talkorigi...saur/blood.html, with the full article linked at http://www.pnas.org/...ract/94/12/6291

Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.


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.

#32 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 21 May 2006 - 11:42 PM

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#33 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 May 2006 - 02:02 PM

chance>
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).

Willis>
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.


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


chance>
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.

Willis>
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.


The actual quote from talk origins is:

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

(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?


chance>
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.

Willis>
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.


As a logical argument I cannot fault this.



But, I think the idea of layers forming rapidly is a valid explanation.


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).

#34 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:32 PM

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).


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.


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. 


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.

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.


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

Terry

#35 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2006 - 03:34 PM

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.

View Post


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

#36 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 May 2006 - 07:11 PM

chance>
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).

92g>
a. The sedmentary rock was not dated using radiometric dating. That is a date extrapolated from a long age interpretation.

b. 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.

(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”

So, the MOR 1125, and MOR 555 femurs happen to be some 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.

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

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

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.



chance>
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. 

92>
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.


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.


chance>
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.

92>
Amino-acid racemization is a very important concept to this topic in general. You really should study up on it.


Please correct me when you see a mistake.

#37 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 May 2006 - 07:22 PM

chance>
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.


92g>
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.


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.


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


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?

#38 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 22 May 2006 - 11:37 PM

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.

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,

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.


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).

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.


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?

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.

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).

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.

#39 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2006 - 01:56 AM

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.


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......

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


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.

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


I think it already has.

Terry

#40 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2006 - 02:16 AM

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.


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.


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).


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.....


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.



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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users