Speaking of trying to obfuscate, why did you omit this passage from Mori in his 2016 reply to Fiorello?
We thank Anthony Fiorillo (2016) for the concerns he raised regarding our characterizations of the Liscomb bonebed fossils in our paper describing Ugrunaaluk kuukpikenis from the Prince Creek Formation of Alaska, USA (Mori et al. 2016). We did not imply that the bones are not “fossilized”. The bones are from animals that lived in the geologic past (∼70 million years old) and are therefore fossils by definition. In our generalized description of bone preservation, we used the modifier “typically” in describing the degree to which bones are uncrushed and permineralized. We did not contend that bones are never uncrushed or permineralized. We recognize that the bones are ferruginous in color reflecting some degree of iron-bearing mineral infiltration, which technically can be categorized as permineralized. However, vertebrate paleontologists typically reserve this term for cases where mineral infiltration lines the vascular canals and trabecular spaces of bones and is visible macroscopically. We are aware that some bones in the Liscomb Bonebed exhibit this type of preservation, but maintain that it occurs in a surprisingly small, currently unquantified percentage of bones. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Finally, in supporting our general diagenetic comments about the Liscomb Bonebed, we cited the comprehensive works by Gangloff and Fiorillo (2010) and Fiorillo et al. (2010)—the two most relevant works on the subject. These would have been glaring omissions had we not done so
Do you realize that the text you’ve just quoted is Mori saying that the bones are not permineralized in the traditional use of the term? Saying they are “fossils by definition” is just Mori playing the word game and demonstrating his fealty to the Darwinian paradigm! He is saying they are fossils by definition simply because they are dinosaurs.
We are aware that some bones in the Liscomb Bonebed exhibit this type of preservation, but maintain that it occurs in a surprisingly small, currently unquantified percentage of bones.
He also said they’re still fossils and still 70 million years old. Why did you try to falsely portray Mori’s work as showing these fossils supported a young Earth when you apparently knew Mori said the exact opposite? Was that an honest thing to do?
Right now you’re demonstrating a level of intellectual dishonesty that indicates to me that further dialogue with you is a pointless exercise. I invite others to read and digest what I communicated here:
I’m not the one who tried to falsely represent a scientific work as supporting a young Earth. One of us is certainly intellectually dishonest but it’s not me.
Of course you’ll make any excuse to run from all the questions you can’t answer. Creationists always do.
Sure, that’s one possible option. We do see that in the Bible in the book of Job. But I don’t think that’s what they would call each and every possible kind of dinosaur. I wonder what they might have called a Daspletosaurus? Certainly not an alligator.
And you dismissing entire fields of study and tons of research without even trying to understand isn’t demonstrating your fealty to the YEC paradigm? Ok, buddy.
Dr. Mori did clarify in the 2016 reply to Fiorello which PDPrice quote-mined. I posted the whole thing above. You’ll have to ask Price why he deliberately omitted Mori’s explanation and confirmation the bones were indeed 70 MYO fossils.
Yes, I did contact him. As I recall, I don’t believe I got a reply from him, but I did get one from Fiorillo, which you can read about in the article I linked above. I believe Mori has moved back to Japan and doesn’t seem to be answering his US email. Again, this was several years back, but if Mori had responded then I would have included that in the article.
Also, it’s not a “weighty accusation”- it’s literally what he wrote.
I had assumed it was clear that I was referring to your accusation. You dismissed the statement by an expert in his field in favor of your own, admittedly non-expert, opinion.
Have you read my article explaining this? Mori has not retracted his description of the bones, that they are largely “unpermineralized”. He is not alone in describing them in this way, either.
Now they are largely unpermineralized? Sooo they are permineralized?
I would also like you to explain why there are “unpermineralized” fossils in a bone bed with permineralized fossils? How does that happen if they aren’t the same age? Let me guess. The flood?
Heres Mori:
“We are aware that some bones in the Liscomb Bonebed exhibit this type of preservation, but maintain that it occurs in a surprisingly small, currently unquantified percentage of bones.”
