Replies

Riiiiight...now this is curious because I don’ t recall the part about scientists tripping all over themselves to correct said “media idiot”...

do you metmom? GGG?

**********************************
well, just because the three of you have limited “recall”...doesn't make it, “not true...”

I would refer you to 9/15/09 of ICR (the article GGG
heralds...surely, he read the article??)at footnotes 2 and 3, which refer to scientific (not Creationist) articles that, early on, challenged Hurum’s boasts (implicit or otherwise).

Also, in the string of replies, there is a link reference to an Australian news service article(days after the Hurum announcement), quoting another dispute over his claims.

My recall is that pretty early on, IDA went in the dumper; old news...

If you look closely, #2 refers to an ICR article and #3 refers to a Scientific American article. Within a couple of days IDA was being questioned in the ICR site and by others like Chris Beard and the author of this article:

“Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt ‘Ida’ Is Your Ancestor
By Clara Moskowitz
posted: 20 May 2009 02:13 pm ET

This fossil has been hailed as the eighth wonder of the world. Frankly I've got 10 more in my basement,” said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. Though the fossil is a beautiful specimen, it is not dissimilar to many slightly less well-preserved primate fossils from around the same period.
“In some ways the most amazing and startling result of all of this is that we've now set a new standard in how to promote a new fossil,” Beard told LiveScience. “And I have mixed feelings about that.”

That's a excerpt from the article but I think it makes the point.

I think the “media circus” drew a more sharp eyed scrutiny for Ida than otherwise might have happened and being presented as a predigested package didn't help either. No one cared for show biz.