Were Dragons Real?

[Timothy_Horton]

@PDPrice

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.

Do you now agree Mori’s work in no way supports your claim dinosaurs were around recently? And in fact directly contradicts your claim?

[r_speir]

“After looking at all the sources available, a consistent picture is emerging. It seems that these bones are indeed mostly unpermineralized, and that is an embarrassing and difficult-to-explain fact for those who maintain these bones must be millions of years old.” from article by @PDPrice

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this summation of the discussion at hand. It still remains a huge problem for your [evolutionary] paradigm.

[Timothy_Horton]

@r_speir

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this summation of the discussion at hand. It still remains a huge problem for your [evolutionary] paradigm.

Why are 70 million year old fossils a problem for evolution?

[T.j_Runyon]

Heres a good intro to the Liscomb bonebed which is within the Prince Creek formation. Our resident YECs are ignoring its geologic context

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40606500?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@PDPrice

Have you read my article explaining this? Mori has not retracted his description of the bones, that they are largely “unpermineralized”.

sigh

Yes, @pdprice, I did read it. You have apparently so dismissed the statement I am referring to in your mind, that you continue to misunderstand me. What you did not earlier admit (and what @Timothy_Horton is pressing you on) is that Mori specifically stated that the bones are ~70 million years old.

1. It is a safe assumption that Mori knows more about paleontology and taphonomy than you do and could have reasons for this age statement that you do not understand.

2. Until you get an actual explanation from Mori describing why he is stating an approximate age of 70 million years, you are accusing him of intellectual dishonesty.

3. It is poor form to use his words as evidence of your position without including his full statement that contradicts your position. Some would (and clearly, do) consider this a form of dishonesty.

As an ambassador for Jesus Christ (The Truth), I urge you to carefully consider the approach you are taking - not only here, but CMI and wherever else you discuss your thoughts.

[Timothy_Horton]

@T.j_Runyon

Heres a good intro to the Liscomb bonebed which is within the Prince Creek formation. Our resident YECs are ignoring its geologic context

(shrug) YECs ignore all data they can’t explain, which is virtually all the data. It is pretty funny watching them scramble to support each other even after one was caught red-handed with a quote-mining and brutal misrepresentation of a scientific paper.

[r_speir]

@cwhenderson

As an ambassador for Jesus Christ (The Truth), I urge you to carefully consider the approach you are taking - not only here, but CMI and wherever else you discuss your thoughts.

Please stop this nonsense talk. It persuades no-one but yourself. The issue at hand is that your dating methods are not dating the bone, and so are dismissed out of hand. These bones are not 70 million years old.

[r_speir]

@Timothy_Horton

YECs ignore all data they can’t explain

What was the carbon date of the find? That will be the actual date [or very nearly] of the entire fossil bed.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@cwhenderson

Mori specifically stated that the bones are ~70 million years old.

That is not the point. Mori stated this without providing his reasons for doing so, other than simply the fact that they are … dinosaurs. That assumption is never allowed to be questioned, otherwise he’d be labeled a creationist and he wouldn’t be getting published.

The point of the discussion is not Mori’s belief about the age of the bones. The point is Mori’s firsthand description of the bones—that they are unpermineralized save for a slight outer rust-colored coating which is insufficient to call them truly “permineralized”, in Mori’s estimation. And yes, this poses a problem if they are supposed to be millions of years old, because now, just like with dino soft tissue, red blood cells, etc., you have to explain how this organic bone material has survived for such an insanely long period of time without decaying to dust.

[r_speir]

@PDPrice

And yes, this poses a problem if they are supposed to be millions of years old, because now, just like with dino soft tissue, red blood cells, etc., you have to explain how this organic bone material has survived for such an insanely long period of time without decaying to dust.

Yes, meaning who are the actual ones here ignoring the evidence?

[Timothy_Horton]

@PDPrice

That is not the point. Mori stated this without providing his reasons for doing so, other than simply the fact that they are … dinosaurs. That assumption is never allowed to be questioned, otherwise he’d be labeled a creationist and he wouldn’t be getting published.

In what professional science journal did you publish your critiques of Mori’s work?

The point of the discussion is not Mori’s *belief* about the age of the bones. The point is Mori’s *firsthand description* of the bones—that they are unpermineralized save for a slight outer rust-colored coating which is insufficient to call them truly “permineralized”, in Mori’s estimation. And yes, this poses a problem if they are supposed to be millions of years old, because now, just like with dino soft tissue, red blood cells, etc., you have to explain how this organic bone material has survived for such an insanely long period of time without decaying to dust.

Which Mori explained in the reply to Fiorello. You “accidentally” cut out that part.

Do you understand most people consider quote-mining to be just a form of lying by omission?

[r_speir]

@Timothy_Horton

In what professional science journal did you publich your critiques of Mori’s work?

You are mischaracterizing @PDPrice. He is a journalist. When did he ever say he was critiquing Mori?

[T.j_Runyon]

@PDPrice

just like with dino soft tissue, red blood cells, etc., you have to explain how this organic bone material has survived for such an insanely long period of time without decaying to du

Maybe you’ll get around to reading the papers I sent you

[r_speir]

@T.j_Runyon

Maybe you’ll get around to reading the papers I sent you

Yeah, like all your other papers that date sedimentary rock based on foreign material introduced into fossil beds. Your science is faulty and dismissed out of hand.

[T.j_Runyon]

Update: I have now emailed multiple people about this specimen. Will update when they reply:

[T.j_Runyon]

@r_speir

Yeah, like all your other papers that date sedimentary rock based on foreign material introduced into fossil beds. Your science is faulty and dismissed out of hand.

Uhhh, I’m not even talking about dating methods here, douchebag.

[r_speir]

@Timothy_Horton

Whiny unsupported blithering

Only from you. Whining only comes from you.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@T.j_Runyon

Update: I have now emailed multiple people about this specimen. Will update when they reply:

I will be curious to read any responses you may get from any of the individuals involved here. I would not expect them to alter what they have already said in the academic journal, obviously.

[r_speir]

@PDPrice

I would not expect them to alter what they have already said in the academic journal, obviously.

Good observation and completely beside the point anyway. The point is – either explain soft tissue or change your paradigm!!!

[T.j_Runyon]

May be a few days. Pat is out of the office.