Replies

Ah, here we go.

This is an independent analysis of some of Condrad's specimens, by Andrew MacRae, a paleontologist with the University of Calgary's Department of Geology.

Short summary of his conclusions -- they're rocks, not bones (fossilized or otherwise).

Here's a side-by-side comparison of one of Conrad's specimens, and an actual dinosaur bone, at the same 128x magnification:

The difference in structure should be obvious to all.

Even Dr. Kurt Wise, a well known young-Earth creationist geologist (!) wrote a letter to the editor of a journal declaring his professional opinion that Conrad's specimens are just rocks, not bones.

From your link, Andrew MacRae

Ed and Ted's claims:

You can read the details of the claims being made for these fossils at: 'human bones in Carboniferous-age rocks". Basically, they can be summarized as three key claims:

The specimens consist of fossil bone
The fossil bone is not from an expected Carboniferous animal, it is HUMAN bone
The specimens occur in situ in Carboniferous bedrock.

By examining specimens, only the first two claims can be tested. Even if the specimens are fossil bone (#1), and are human (#2), Ted and Ed would still have to fully document the geologic context for these specimens (#3) before their claims would be fully substantiated. The importance of this can not be overemphasized -- fossil human bone without unambiguous, detailed, irrefutable documentation of the collection point of the same specimen (not just any specimen) is an absolute requirement. Without this, the isolated specimens are worthless for demonstrating the case even if they are fossil human bone.

Ted makes additional claims, but they implicitly depend upon the validity of the ones stated above.

I'm still waiting for the full geologic context for a lot of these claims, but I'm not holding my breath.