Jump to content


Smithsonian


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

#41 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 May 2006 - 01:53 PM

chance>
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.

Willis>
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.


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?



willis>
The issue of the condition of the material was not considered as important from what I read of Dr. Hurd's paper,

(Dr. Hurd)
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.


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.




chance>
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).

Willis>
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.


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.



chance>
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?

Willis>
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 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).


chance>
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).

Willis>
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.


Hmmmm subjects for a separate topic I think.

#42 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 May 2006 - 02:28 PM

92g post #39

chance>
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.

92g>
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......


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


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

92g>
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 do you calculate such odds, when the sample size is so low? (your answer will not be reliable).


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

92>
I think it already has.


We shall see.


92g post #40

chance>
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.

(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.


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.....


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?



chance>
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.

92g>
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.


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. :)

#43 willis

willis

    Member

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

Posted 23 May 2006 - 04:17 PM

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?

Are you trying to determine that the femur is 200k or 65 million? That's the only reason I say it's not appropriate. This has been my point regarding the AAR dates, they are absolutely useless in the long term because they give a max of 200k. Do you think if they had not applied the racemization technique Talk Origins would have changed their position at all? Chances are nothing would be different.

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!)

Very well, looks can be deceiving. But we cannot just leave the situation at that and then claim this is a rare fossilization process.
That's an artificial distinction in my opinion. The only reason it is different is because we classify them differently. In this case we have a reall reason for the inquiry even though some may want to classify it as not out of the ordinary.

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.

-In the end the AAR dates are not that important as I discussed above. Which means the basis for using the Amino Acid Racemization, the condition of the material, is not that important.
-Nearly all of Dr. Hurd's defense, from which I quoted, was a case for the dates of the geologic formation. He directly said the condition of the fossils is not the most important issue.

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 haven't been able to find much data on the Racemization dates accept for what was posted in that feedback. What I read there I don't find to be such great clarification.

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).

This is what they have rationalized and I think this is as far as the issue will go in terms of an explanation of the find. I know several fossils have been recovered that contain similar material. But I think the idea that these fossils are indeed young and the result of rapid burial is a better explanation than "Unkown fossilization"

#44 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 23 May 2006 - 08:17 PM

chance>
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?


Willis>
Are you trying to determine that the femur is 200k or 65 million? That's the only reason I say it's not appropriate. This has been my point regarding the AAR dates, they are absolutely useless in the long term because they give a max of 200k. Do you think if they had not applied the racemization technique Talk Origins would have changed their position at all? Chances are nothing would be different.


The radiometric tests were used to determine the actual age (65my was the average). The AAR tests were used to detect bio content, it can do this to a range of 200k. I don’t think there is any doubt to which is the more reliable when considering this new type of find.



chance>
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!)

Willis>
Very well, looks can be deceiving. But we cannot just leave the situation at that and then claim this is a rare fossilization process.
That's an artificial distinction in my opinion. The only reason it is different is because we classify them differently. In this case we have a reall reason for the inquiry even though some may want to classify it as not out of the ordinary.


Fair enough, I agree there is a real reason for more research. The facts are:

a. radiometric test – 65my
b. AAR test – possible bio content (no age possible)

That’s about it as far as current science has it re age. To topple ‘a’ you need to some ground breaking discovery to throw out the science of radiometric testing. The anomaly is ‘b’ i.e. what is it exactly. Until the final word comes down from the labs, speculating on looks is rash, we should put definitive of “it’s Blood” or “it’s fresh” on hold, and state that we are speculating. This leaves ‘a’ as a default. The AiG article http://www.answersin...19/i4/blood.asp
in contrast “jumps right in” the whole tone of the article looks like blood was found. A careful read of that article however will reveal several ‘outs’ in the language used.


Chance>
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.

Willis>
-In the end the AAR dates are not that important as I discussed above. Which means the basis for using the Amino Acid Racemization, the condition of the material, is not that important.
-Nearly all of Dr. Hurd's defense, from which I quoted, was a case for the dates of the geologic formation. He directly said the condition of the fossils is not the most important issue.


OK, a logically sound defence from the position of Hurd. I.e. one must topple radiometric dating before one can discard it.


chance>
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.

Willis>
I haven't been able to find much data on the Racemization dates accept for what was posted in that feedback. What I read there I don't find to be such great clarification.


I got a small hit on the wiki http://en.wikipedia....ki/Racemization

chance>
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).

Willis>
This is what they have rationalized and I think this is as far as the issue will go in terms of an explanation of the find. I know several fossils have been recovered that contain similar material. But I think the idea that these fossils are indeed young and the result of rapid burial is a better explanation than "Unkown fossilization"


An example here http://www.ncbi.nlm....2&dopt=Abstract

#45 willis

willis

    Member

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

Posted 23 May 2006 - 09:32 PM

The radiometric tests were used to determine the actual age (65my was the average). The AAR tests were used to detect bio content, it can do this to a range of 200k. I don’t think there is any doubt to which is the more reliable when considering this new type of find.

So why use AAR in the first place? You are going to use radiometric dating to determine the age because it is more "accurate". And the presence of hollow blood vessels is not going to have much of an impact on the outcome, which is why the Racemization was applied in the first place.


Until the final word comes down from the labs, speculating on looks is rash, we should put definitive of “it’s Blood” or “it’s fresh” on hold, and state that we are speculating. This leaves ‘a’ as a default. The AiG article http://www.answersin...19/i4/blood.asp
in contrast “jumps right in” the whole tone of the article looks like blood was found. A careful read of that article however will reveal several ‘outs’ in the language used.

We must wait to see how this unfolds, if it ever does. However, remaining skeptical is not the same as being rash or reaching unwarranted conclusions. Regarding Wieland's article, perhaps you could reword that point. I can't understand what you mean.

OK, a logically sound defence from the position of Hurd. I.e. one must topple radiometric dating before one can discard it.

But then we're back to begging the question of how we know the layers are 65 myo.


I got a small hit on the wiki http://en.wikipedia....ki/Racemization

That's not what I meant. I wanted more data on these specific tests. I could find nothing in any of Dr. Hurd's papers about them, nor anything in the TO archive.

An example here http://www.ncbi.nlm....2&dopt=Abstract

Another example of what we are dealing with now in this T-Rex femur no doubt. From what I can gather, understanding this process of fossilization is still in its infancy.

#46 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 May 2006 - 02:57 PM

chance>
The radiometric tests were used to determine the actual age (65my was the average). The AAR tests were used to detect bio content, it can do this to a range of 200k. I don’t think there is any doubt to which is the more reliable when considering this new type of find.

Willis>
So why use AAR in the first place? You are going to use radiometric dating to determine the age because it is more "accurate". And the presence of hollow blood vessels is not going to have much of an impact on the outcome, which is why the Racemization was applied in the first place.


To determine if biological components were present, the current use of that test has been shown to be accurate in ages down to 200k. I certain I have not read anywhere so far where AAR was used specifically to determine age, that’s just a by product.


Chance>
Until the final word comes down from the labs, speculating on looks is rash, we should put definitive of “it’s Blood” or “it’s fresh” on hold, and state that we are speculating. This leaves ‘a’ as a default. The AiG article http://www.answersin...19/i4/blood.asp
in contrast “jumps right in” the whole tone of the article looks like blood was found. A careful read of that article however will reveal several ‘outs’ in the language used.

Willis>
We must wait to see how this unfolds, if it ever does. However, remaining skeptical is not the same as being rash or reaching unwarranted conclusions. Regarding Wieland's article, perhaps you could reword that point. I can't understand what you mean.


If you read the AiG article one is left with the impression that blood, soft tissue was found. E.g.

Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous—to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.

and

Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago.

But some of the wording is phrased as

report on the evidence which seems to strongly suggest that traces of real blood

(my bold) that sort of thing.


chance>
OK, a logically sound defence from the position of Hurd. I.e. one must topple radiometric dating before one can discard it.

Willis>
But then we're back to begging the question of how we know the layers are 65 myo.


Certainly, can you prove this to the satisfaction of mainstream science?



chance>
I got a small hit on the wiki http://en.wikipedia....ki/Racemization

Willis>
That's not what I meant. I wanted more data on these specific tests. I could find nothing in any of Dr. Hurd's papers about them, nor anything in the TO archive.


Same here, I could not find any. Tried some of the original reports but it’s all glossed over and just gives the findings, which we already are aware of. I suspect this sort of testing is just too focused in the scientific circles.


Chance>
An example here http://www.ncbi.nlm....2&dopt=Abstract

Another example of what we are dealing with now in this T-Rex femur no doubt. From what I can gather, understanding this process of fossilization is still in its infancy.

.

Agreed.

#47 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 24 May 2006 - 06:45 PM

I happened upon this recent article Smithsonion-206

The interview is with Dr Schweitzer some time in 2006, in (I presume) the Smithsonian. She is certainly not happy with her treatment from creationist sources. Extract

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”



#48 willis

willis

    Member

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

Posted 24 May 2006 - 06:46 PM

To determine if biological components were present, the current use of that test has been shown to be accurate in ages down to 200k. I certain I have not read anywhere so far where AAR was used specifically to determine age, that’s just a by product.

I think that proves my point. So far we have been told that the condition of the material does not affect the age of the femur nor the strata it is found in. Since this is the case simply detecting material does not prove anything! This includes proving the ancientness of the fossil.

First we are told,

The age of the specific T. rex bone which was the principle database for Schweitzer et al is not based on either its macro- or microscopic appearance but of the age of the rock that it was found in, "... the base of the Hell Creek Formation, 8 m above the Fox Hills Sandstone, as an association of disarticulated elements."


Then in the creationist claims section we are told,

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



Regading Wieland's article,
I understand what you mean thanks for clarifying. By the way, isn't a good thing that he allows himself some leeway? If this turns out to be easily explained by paleontology then he has a way to explain himself.

Certainly, can you prove this to the satisfaction of mainstream science?

No more than a Libertarian can convince a democrat that our Welfare system is flawed. ;)

I think to some degree this has been done, obviously not on the scale required to make a difference, but nevertheless there is some scholarship developing behind the idea. This falls into the catastrophism issue.

#49 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 25 May 2006 - 03:17 PM

chance>
To determine if biological components were present, the current use of that test has been shown to be accurate in ages down to 200k. I certain I have not read anywhere so far where AAR was used specifically to determine age, that’s just a by product.

I think that proves my point. So far we have been told that the condition of the material does not affect the age of the femur nor the strata it is found in. Since this is the case simply detecting material does not prove anything! This includes proving the ancientness of the fossil.


Agreed.

Willis>
First we are told,

Quote - Dr. Gary Hurd>
The age of the specific T. rex bone which was the principle database for Schweitzer et al is not based on either its macro- or microscopic appearance but of the age of the rock that it was found in, "... the base of the Hell Creek Formation, 8 m above the Fox Hills Sandstone, as an association of disarticulated elements."

Willis>
Then in the creationist claims section we are told,

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


Previously agreed, it’s poorly phrased.

Links such as http://darwiniana.or...thods.htm#Other and

http://www.geo.umass...o/aalintro.html should be provided,

from the 2nd link:

Acid Geochronology is a relative, and sometimes absolute, dating method that relates the diagenesis of fossil protein preserved in carbonate materials with time (geologic age of the sample) and temperature (long term chemical temperature of the enclosing sediment). Stratigraphic applications of the method have been demonstrated from both marine and non-marine sequences all over the world using a variety of carbonate fossil materials including mollusks, foraminifera, bone, ostrich egg shells, ostracodes, and tooth enamel. Of limited usefulness are studies on pedogenic soil carbonates and tufas.


And

http://www.mnsu.edu/...cemization.html

Racemization can date samples to approximately 5,000 - 100,000 years old. However, there are dates as old as 200,000 years produced by this method. It is said that Racemization can date older materials than what Carbon 14 can date. As a dating technique, racemization has practical application in the fields of Archaeology, Geochemistry, Marine Geology, Geochronology or Geoscience



#50 willis

willis

    Member

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

Posted 26 May 2006 - 12:29 AM

Agreed.
Previously agreed, it’s poorly phrased.

Links such as http://darwiniana.or...thods.htm#Other and

http://www.geo.umass...o/aalintro.html should be provided,

from the 2nd link:

And

http://www.mnsu.edu/...cemization.html

View Post

You have told me exactly what we both understand and acknowledge. This specific method can detect material up to an age of 200,000 years. Talk Origins is talking out of both sides of their mouths on this one. The presence of blood cells, soft tissue, or heme does not affect the age, that is determined by radiometric dates. At the same time, the presence of biological material can be used to determine a general ancientness of the fossils. A lot of rubbish if you ask me.

#51 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 28 May 2006 - 02:40 PM

You have told me exactly what we both understand and acknowledge. This specific method can detect material up to an age of 200,000 years. Talk Origins is talking out of both sides of their mouths on this one. The presence of blood cells,  soft tissue, or heme does not affect the age, that is determined by radiometric dates. At the same time, the presence of biological material can be used to determine a general ancientness of the fossils. A lot of rubbish if you ask me.

View Post


I don’t, I think all boils down to an interpretation of the word ‘supported’. But, all that aside, and getting back to the original question posed by 92g, I don’t think that’s enough to condemn them with.

#52 willis

willis

    Member

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

Posted 28 May 2006 - 03:32 PM

I don’t, I think all boils down to an interpretation of the word ‘supported’.  But, all that aside, and getting back to the original question posed by 92g, I don’t think that’s enough to condemn them with.

View Post

Certainly seems like a contradiction in methodology. 'Biological material has no affect on the age'. 'Detection of Amino acids can be used to determine a general ancientness'. Of course there is an "out" factor by not claiming a specific date but nonetheless the idea seems contradictory and the argument a poor one.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users