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 Ã¢â‚¬Å“supportedÃ¢â‚¬Â 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.
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 canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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?
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.
Appearances can be deceiving, just because it Ã¢â‚¬ËœlooksÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ like something, does not mean that it isÃ¢â‚¬Â (a dolphin looks like a fish, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see how you justify that position.
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.
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 Ã¢â‚¬Å“HurdÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s silly defenceÃ¢â‚¬Â plenty of explinations and clarifications.
Now I ask you this, who has the Ã¢â‚¬Ëœhigher moral groundÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ in this situation, Hurd or Wieland?
Has Wieland acknowledged the truth behind the two cases of Ã¢â‚¬ËœbloodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ or Ã¢â‚¬Ëœsoft tissueÃ¢â‚¬â„¢? 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.
I think that about as close to consensus as we are likely to reach. One point re Dr. Schweitzer's statements, Ã¢â‚¬Ëœoriginal materialÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ does not mean itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fresh (6000, to 10000y). As pointed out in talk-origins and Dr. Schweitzer, the likely explanation is some component of Ã¢â‚¬ËœhemeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ has survived (to me this means the fossilisation process has reacted chemically with the Ã¢â‚¬Ëœsoft tissueÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to form a stable compound).
ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a valid line of enquiry, and if Ã¢â‚¬Ëœscientific creationismÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ is to win itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s spurs and live up to the scientific bit of itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s title, then this should be investigated, not by Ã¢â‚¬Ëœarmchair semanticsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ 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. Ã¢â‚¬Å“the rate projectÃ¢â‚¬Â). 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.
Hmmmm subjects for a separate topic I think.