Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Calypsis4

Scientist Fired Over Soft Tissue In T-Tops Dino

Recommended Posts

 

Good friend, don't let piasan hijack this thread with talk about Amitage's credentials or the accreditation issue. He loves to deflect the discussion to lesser important things.

 

Hold his nose to the grindstone of truth....the ridiculous idea that soft tissue and/or blood cells could possibly be found in the fossil of a (supposed 60 million yr old) triceratops...and even worse for him/them, the notion that there could be the same thing found in a 68 million yr old T-Rex (a la Mary Schweitzer/Jack Horner). The bottom line here is that these things destroy the time frame that neo-Darwinians demand for such things and they DON'T like it when creationists expose their view for what it is.

 

Heh, I was just about to explain how "accreditation" system works in Sweden, but I guess after reading your post I must agree that such a discussion would be nothing but derailing this thread. So I back off, and let the debate return to where it belongs.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Heh, I was just about to explain how "accreditation" system works in Sweden, but I guess after reading your post I must agree that such a discussion would be nothing but derailing this thread. So I back off, and let the debate return to where it belongs.

 

Regards

 

Good for you. You've just taken away all his talking points.topic_closed.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good friend, don't let piasan hijack this thread with talk about Amitage's credentials or the accreditation issue. He loves to deflect the discussion to lesser important things.

 

 

I'm not the one who initiated the discussion of Armitage's credentials or accreditation. That issue was raised by one on your side.... Kairos

 

Good for you. You've just taken away all his talking points.topic_closed.gif

 

 

With the note that the matter of accreditation was mentioned three times before I commented on it, I agree that particular issue is off topic and have started a new discussion for it. I'll discuss on topic issues in another post. My apologies for any inconvenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wikipedia isn't all too reliable and generally has an evolutionist slant.. I figure calling it "unaccredited" was an "accidental" addition wink.png

 

Edit: Just checked out the link and it is the "Evowiki page" so we can definitely expect an evolutionist slant. If it is recognised then it is accredited... The "unaccredited" part has no reference so it seems it is artistic license wink.png

 

Yea I noticed that. They should correct it. I thought it was odd why it was named 'EvoWiki'? I couldn't find his name in Wiki at first, and when I searched his name the 'EvoWiki' was listed. I think they need to remove 'EvoWiki' and put it in the Wikipedia otherwise there might be some confusion. Especially when I have guru friends who can search in seconds. I don't know about everyone here, when I'm searching in Google it normally list a Wikipedia link which I like to read off unless they have their official site. I think this is a common search for some/most. I am only interested in the truth, otherwise if its not truthful then I can't use it in a normal conversation which is why I like to double/triple check. I remember reading up on Jason Lisle 'Epistemology' article 'How do we know', and found it very useful. Anyway, I hope this becomes breaking news World Wide to bring it into perspective that the Bible is true.

 

 

I'm not the one who initiated the discussion of Armitage's credentials or accreditation. That issue was raised by one on your side.... Kairos.

 

Sorry piasan, I was only questioning why it said "unaccredited but recognized by U.S Department of Eduction".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I actually found the creation wiki site here: http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

 

Mark's page: http://creationwiki.org/Mark_H._Armitage - I'm not sure if its updated? Last modified in (5 May 2012, at 14:11)

 

So it looks like they did build a wiki site for creation (woohoo). I find it odd that it doesn't rank above the evo wiki page, or no where to be seen on the first search page of Google. Anyone else experiencing differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the Fox News article on the subject. Seems the story is gaining steam. If the lawsuit goes well, this could bring awareness of this subject to the public.

 

Scientist claims California university fired him over creationist beliefs

 

A California university says it is investigating religious discrimination allegations made by a prominent scientist and former employee who claims he was fired for his creationist beliefs.
Mark Armitage, a scientist and evangelical Christian, claims he was fired from his job as a lab technician at California State University at Northridge because he published an academic paper which appeared to support his creationist views, according to a lawsuit filed last week.
Armitage, who does not believe in evolution, was lauded by his colleagues and the science community after he discovered in 2012 the largest triceratops horn ever recovered from the world-famous Hell Creek Formation in Glendive, Mont.
Upon further examination of the fossils under a high-powered microscope, Armitage made a stunning find -- soft tissue inside the triceratops horn with bone cells, or osteocytes, that looked alive.
Scientists who study dinosaurs have long believed that triceratops existed some 68 million years ago and became extinct about 65 million years ago.
Armitage's finding, however, challenged that assertion. He argued the triceratops must be much younger or else those cells would have "decayed into nothingness," according to the July 22 lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Armitage, a long-time microscope scientist who has some 30 published papers to his name, believes the bones are no more than 4,000 years old -- a hypothesis that supports his view that such dinosaurs roamed the Earth relatively recently and that the planet is young.
On Feb. 12, 2013, a science journal published Armitage's triceratops soft tissue findings. Days later, Armitage was fired from his position.
According to Armitage's attorneys, the university claimed his 38-month employment had been "temporary" and that there was a lack of funding for his position. Armitage, however, claims he was called "permanent part-time" and allowed the full benefits package offered by the university.
The lawsuit alleges that in the weeks leading up to his termination, Armitage's boss, Ernest Kwok, "stormed into" his lab and shouted, "'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!!"
The complaint also claims that Armitage's creationist view was known to members of the university's biology department prior to his employment.
When Armitage applied and interviewed for the position, he "informed the panel of CSUN personnel who interviewed him" that he "had published materials supportive of creationism," according to the complaint.
"Because of plaintiff's exceptional qualifications, these publications did not disqualify him from the position," the lawsuit says.
Lawyers with the Pacific Justice Institute, who represent Armitage, claim Kwok was not among those who hired his client and came on as his new supervisor when Armitage's old boss retired in June 2012.
Neither Armitage nor Kwok were able to speak about the matter due to pending litigation.
Jeff Noblitt, a university spokesman, told FoxNews.com that the school is in the process of investigating all allegations within the complaint.
Though Noblitt would not comment on the specifics of the case, he said the university, "strictly forbids discrimination on the basis of religion and we do not base employment-related decisions on an employee's religious beliefs."
"We have a long history of welcoming a diversity of perspectives and championing free thought and discovery within our academic environment," he said.
Noblitt noted that Armitage served as an instructional support technician and was considered a "temporary employee." He declined to provide a reason for Armitage's termination.
The discovery of soft tissue cells within dinosaur remains is controversial. When soft tissue was found in 2005 on the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex -- believed to be 68 million years old -- researchers last November provided a physical explanation for it: iron within the dinosaur's body had preserved the tissue from decay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you answered him once which was sufficient. Why belabor the point since you already told us you were going to delay your assessment of this matter?

He asked another question which was worthy of another response. I have taken the matter of accreditation to another thread.

 

As for my assessment, where did I say anything about Dr. Armitage himself? All I did was to produce reference material from creationist websites in response to questions from YEC. It's certainly relevant as the basis of Armitage's complaint is that he was fired for his creationist beliefs. That said, there is now additional information that has become available as this discussion has progressed.

 

Notice, I called him "Dr." Armitage. There are those who have PhD's from non-accredited universities and use those "degrees" to gain (undeserved) credibility. I decline to use the term "Doctor" to describe those individuals because I believe it disrespectful for the many who have completed the hard work to earn this particular title of academic respect and honor. On the other hand, I've never hesitated to grant this respect to many creationists with legitimate PhD's including, but not limited to: Dr. Danny Faulkner; Dr. Russell Humphreys; Dr. Jason Lisle; Dr. Henry Morris; Dr. Larry Vardiman; Dr. Walt Brown; and (now) Dr. Armitage. While there may be some issues with regard to Armitage's Master's degree, there is no question his PhD is from a fully accredited university and he is entitled to the respect he has earned. I would prefer it be in a science, rather than education.... but it is a legitimate doctorate regardless. Further, he has published in mainstream literature. So, I will make myself absolutely clear on this point... as far as I'm concerned, Dr. Armitage is fully qualified.

 

Now, with regard to:

Here's the Fox News article on the subject. Seems the story is gaining steam. If the lawsuit goes well, this could bring awareness of this subject to the public.

 

Scientist claims California university fired him over creationist beliefs

 

....Upon further examination of the fossils under a high-powered microscope, Armitage made a stunning find -- soft tissue inside the triceratops horn with bone cells, or osteocytes, that looked alive.
....On Feb. 12, 2013, a science journal published Armitage's triceratops soft tissue findings. Days later, Armitage was fired from his position.
.....When Armitage applied and interviewed for the position, he "informed the panel of CSUN personnel who interviewed him" that he "had published materials supportive of creationism," according to the complaint.
....Kwok was not among those who hired his client and came on as his new supervisor when Armitage's old boss retired in June 2012.
Neither Armitage nor Kwok were able to speak about the matter due to pending litigation.
Jeff Noblitt, a university spokesman, told FoxNews.com that the school is in the process of investigating all allegations within the complaint.
Though Noblitt would not comment on the specifics of the case, he said the university, "strictly forbids discrimination on the basis of religion and we do not base employment-related decisions on an employee's religious beliefs."

As I have previously pointed out, I saw nothing controversial in the abstract of Armitage's paper. The discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is no longer big news. It's much like the discovery of extra-solar planets..... at first it was big news, but as more and more examples are discovered, the newsworthiness declines.

 

I notice, from the news article that CSUN knew of Dr. Armitage's creationist beliefs when they hired him. So, it is clear to me that any alleged discrimination that may have taken place was not the result of university policy. The article conveys the impression that this termination was done by a new supervisor (Kwok) acting on his own volition.

 

Of course, at this point in time, CSUN will not comment beyond the statement of policy made by Noblitt due to the pending legal action. That is pretty much standard practice and is to be expected whenever a lawsuit is filed. So we're still not getting all the facts.

 

If the CSUN investigation finds that Armitage was improperly fired in violation of school policy, I anticipate that they will settle the case out of court without any admission of wrongdoing on the part of the university. (Note: The university may also settle out of court if they believe it less expensive to simply pay him off rather than fight the case.... it happens all the time.) It is also likely that an out of court settlement will be accompanied by a gag order preventing Armitage from discussing the case as part of the settlement. That happens all the time too... but it means we probably will never know all the facts of the incident.

 

So, to summarize my position at this point, with the understanding that new evidence may cause a reassessment of the situation.....

Armitage was fully qualified for the job he was doing. Based on his 38 months in the position, it seems he was performing his job adequately. CSUN knew of his creationist beliefs before hiring him, so it is unlikely university discriminated against him. A new supervisor may have fired him improperly for reasons that may have been in violation of school policy. The issue of whether or not he was in a "permanent" position and entitled to some protection on that basis remains to be settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have previously pointed out, I saw nothing controversial in the abstract of Armitage's paper. The discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is no longer big news. It's much like the discovery of extra-solar planets..... at first it was big news, but as more and more examples are discovered, the newsworthiness declines.

 

I'm sorry, who decided soft tissue was no longer newsworthy? So when it happened it was big news. Then a bunch of evolutionists came forward claiming it was a fluke and not really dino tissue, etc. Then as more discoveries overturned their assertion, it's just no longer big news?

 

CSUN knew of his creationist beliefs before hiring him, so it is unlikely university discriminated against him…..

 

Because of course, nothing like this has ever happened before. Evolutionists are very openminded about these things. kaffeetrinker.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accreditation is rather straightforward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_accreditation

 

 

A few other things need to be undertood here:

 

1) He is not a "scientist" nor is he a "professor" he is a technician who on occasion has performed as a lecturer as an ancillary duty (often done with special skills like microscopy or, in my case, research diving).

 

2) There is not really such a thing as a "permanent" position (in the dictionary meaning of the word) with the exception of the top and bottom: tenured faculty and union contracted maintenance personnel, everyone else is there at the whim of funding. Middle management and technicians are not real secure positions.

 

3) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

4) One (or two, or even a dozen) individual observations mean nothing. The more extraordinary, the more supporting evidence needs to be brought forward. He went off half cocked.

 

5) Conversely, it only take a single falsifying observation to disprove something ... but this is not it. First it must be demonstrated that this really is original soft tissue then other explanations need to be falsified, and even then all you've done is prove that soft tissue can stick around a long time. I'd suggest that both DNA and radiometric conformation would be needed to prove it is original material and that it is "young."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have previously pointed out, I saw nothing controversial in the abstract of Armitage's paper. The discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is no longer big news. It's much like the discovery of extra-solar planets..... at first it was big news, but as more and more examples are discovered, the newsworthiness declines.

 

I'm sorry, who decided soft tissue was no longer newsworthy? So when it happened it was big news. Then a bunch of evolutionists came forward claiming it was a fluke and not really dino tissue, etc. Then as more discoveries overturned their assertion, it's just no longer big news?

Notice I compared the newsworthiness of soft dino tissue with that of extrasolar planets.

 

When the first extrasolar planets were discovered, it was huge news. Each additional discovery got a little less attention. Then the first extrasolar system of planets was confirmed.... that didn't make a lot of news either. The first image of an extrasolar planet didn't get a lot of fanfare either. Now there are hundreds of confirmed extrasolar planets with thousands of candidates. They're confirmed in bunches and it's no longer big news.

 

When Schwizer's discovery was announced, the first thing I thought of was that there is a potential wealth of information about dinos sitting in our museums and we didn't even know it. It was an absolutely huge finding. After all, who had thought to crack open a dinosaur bone? During my research on this topic, I ran across a comment that organic material had been found in over 200 of around 460 bones that had been tested. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I think it was around 40% or so. That's why such discoveries are no longer big news.

 

Now, let's get back on topic..... the firing of Armitage.

 

Why do I need to keep repeating this....

There was nothing controversial in the abstract of Armitage's paper. If there is anything in that report that got him fired, it must be in the text of the paper itself. I'm not about to pay $36 to look at it.

 

CSUN knew of his creationist beliefs before hiring him, so it is unlikely university discriminated against him.

 

Because of course, nothing like this has ever happened before. Evolutionists are very openminded about these things. kaffeetrinker.gif

Wow ! ! ! You lift this out of the summary and ignore the context of my comment. Above that, I had pointed out that Armitage says, in his complaint, that CSUN knew of his creationist beliefs. You pointed this out in your post #31 where you quote: "When Armitage applied and interviewed for the position, he "informed the panel of CSUN personnel who interviewed him" that he "had published materials supportive of creationism," according to the complaint."

 

What I also pointed out was that "it is clear to me that any alleged discrimination that may have taken place was not the result of university policy."

 

Armitage is now in the position of saying: "They knew I was a creationist when they hired me and after 38 months they fired me because I'm a creationist." Claiming that is somehow a matter of CSUN policy might be kind of hard to sell in court.

 

What I see in the evidence so far is that this was an act by Armitage's supervisor, not due to any policy of the university. There's a lot more I need to know before forming a final opinion. For example, I'd like to what's in the article and what's in his personnel file.

 

My prediction is that it will be settled out of court with no admission of guilt by the university.... and a gag order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mark H. Armitage earned a BS in Education from Liberty University and an MS in Biology (parasitology), under Richard Lumsden (Ph.D. Rice and Dean of Tulane University’s graduate program) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, CA. He later graduated Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University and is a doctoral candidate there."

 

Liberty University is unaccredited, its degrees are not recognized by accredited institutions (so called "real" schools). He would not be eligible to enter into any graduate program at an accredited school. Thus, as far as "real" schools are concerned, he is a high school graduate (MAYBE).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberty University is unaccredited, its degrees are not recognized by accredited institutions (so called "real" schools). He would not be eligible to enter into any graduate program at an accredited school. Thus, as far as "real" schools are concerned, he is a high school graduate (MAYBE).

The accreditation of ICR may be questionable. Liberty University has full academic accreditation

Source: .https://www.liberty.edu/ms/libertyonlinedegrees/accreditation.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The accreditation of ICR may be questionable. Liberty University has full academic accreditation

Source: .https://www.liberty.edu/ms/libertyonlinedegrees/accreditation.php

 

Plus how does any of this matter? A janitor could have discovered the soft tissue. If it's dino tissue, who cares? This is just stubborn denial based on religious beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The accreditation of ICR may be questionable. Liberty University has full academic accreditation

Source: .https://www.liberty.edu/ms/libertyonlinedegrees/accreditation.php

 

Plus how does any of this matter? A janitor could have discovered the soft tissue. If it's dino tissue, who cares? This is just stubborn denial based on religious beliefs.

Just for the record.... I'm on your side on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record.... I'm on your side on this one.

 

Well stranger things have happened. unsure.png Just seems Sapiens is so disturbed about the actual facts, he's trying to divert the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well stranger things have happened. unsure.png Just seems Sapiens is so disturbed about the actual facts, he's trying to divert the topic.

 

Right. But what else are they going to do in light of the facts discovered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

piasan I appreciate the open-mindedness on this. I can't help but asking, is any of this swaying you that dinosaurs may have lived with man? Not only do you have this soft tissue phenomena which is popping up all over the place now, but dragon & dragon slayer legends all over the world. You've got a description of a very Sauropod-sounding creature in Job 40.

 

[edit - also the ancient drawings and artifacts lifepsyop linked below] 8.gif

 

I don't know if you're really staunch in your evolution, or perhaps just nominally in that camp. Just ask'n.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only do you have this soft tissue phenomena which is popping up all over the place now, but dragon & dragon slayer legends all over the world. You've got a description of a very Sauropod-sounding creature in Job 40.

 

This site has some awesome images of dinosaur-like creatures depicted throughout ancient artifacts and architecture.

 

http://s8int.com/WordPress/tag/living-dinosaurs/

 

 

Ornamental box from Shang Dynasty 1700 BC

 

fang%20jian%20dinosaur2%20small.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of course, nothing like this has ever happened before. Evolutionists are very openminded about these things. kaffeetrinker.gif

I've never seen evolutionists be irrational. Not once. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we go again.

 

Seabed worm fossils still soft after 500 million years?

by David Catchpoole

Siboglinidae.jpg

Siboglinid marine worms such as the beard worms shown here live on the sea floor at depths ranging anywhere from 100 metres to 10,000 metres (300–30,000 ft).
Credit: Wikipedia.org

Numerous fossil remains ‘dated’ as being many millions of years old are hardly mineralized (i.e. where minerals take the place of the creature’s original tissue), if at all. For example, Tyrannosaurus rex bones containing red blood cells and soft ‘squishy’ tissue boggle the minds of those who claim that dinosaur remains are 65 million years old, at least.1Such soft tissue finds utterly contradict the widely believed old age of the earth.2

And now, a new find exceeds all previous claims for persistence of the remains of dead creatures to the present day—that is, according to the mind-stretchingly bizarre pre-Cambrian ‘age’ assigned to these fossils. The remains of marine worms ‘dated’ at 550 million years old found in Russia have been examined by a team of researchers led by Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska (pronounced approx. “mou-go-ZHAH-ta mo-chid-WOF-ska”) of Uppsala University, Sweden.3

The tube of S. cambriensiswas flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation—Moczydłowska et al., Journal of Paleontology, 2014

They found that the tube casings of the seabed worm Sabellidites cambriensiswere still soft and flexible. After comprehensive laboratory analysis, the researchers assessed the seabed worm’s remains to be still composed of the original organic compounds. They ruled out the possibility of modern contaminants and of preservation by various means of mineralization. In the researchers’ own words (from their Journal of Paleontology paper):

“The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.”3

And:

“The tube of S. cambriensis was flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation, and composed of fibers perfect in habit and parallel arranged in sheets, and then sheets in layers.”3

Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm—Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska

Accompanying electron microscope photographs showed these ‘perfect in habit’ fibres to be less than half a thousandth of a millimetre wide. Yet these delicate fibres are still soft after supposedly half a billion years!?

The researchers were even able to chemically tease the fibres apart for further examination, and concluded that the structure of the fossil worm tube casing is “consistent with the ß chitin tubes of siboglinid animals”.3 In other words, the same as seabed dwelling worms such as beard worms today (see photo above). Why has there been no evolution in all that (supposed) time?4

One obvious answer is, there hasn’t been ‘all that time’! Creatures were created only about 6,000 years ago to reproduce “according to their kinds”, not to ‘evolve’.

Preservation of the worms … and bacteria upon them!

How could there be such great preservation of these marine worm fossil remains, and also the bacteria that feed on them? Professor Moczydłowska had earlier reported to the Palaeontological Association in Copenhagen that she had identified clumps of nanobacteria on the flanks of S. cambriensis fossils found in Lithuania. They were similarly ‘dated’ at half a billion years old, and believed to be the smallest fossilised lifeforms ever discovered.5

It was a storm the likes of which the earth had never seen before, and never will again

Magnifying the nanobacteria 2,500 times with a scanning electron microscope revealed tiny filaments “flexible and deformed like macaroni”. Chemical analysis showed “they were neither modern contaminants nor mineral deposits.”5 Professor Moczydłowska offered the following scenario as to how these had come to be preserved:

“After the worm died, the nanobacteria started eating into it in oxygen-free water at the bottom of a marine basin. Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm. Nanobacteria activity ceased and they were rapidly fossilised.”5

Perhaps stirred up by a storm? But storms today don’t seem to ‘pack the punch’ required to explain the exquisite preservation seen in the ‘fossil record’. It seems Professor Moczydłowska and her evolutionary colleagues are unaware of (or have deliberately forgotten?—2 Peter 3:3–6) a colossal worldwide storm that would account for the abundance of preserved creatures found in sedimentary rock layers all around the world. It was a storm the likes of which the earth had never seen before, and never will experience again (Genesis 9:11–17). And the Bible indicates that this was only around 4,500 years ago.

source

I know I know. It proves nothing. All evidence like this should be ignored. unsure.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we go again.

 

Seabed worm fossils still soft after 500 million years?

by David Catchpoole

Siboglinidae.jpg

Siboglinid marine worms such as the beard worms shown here live on the sea floor at depths ranging anywhere from 100 metres to 10,000 metres (300–30,000 ft).

Credit: Wikipedia.org

Numerous fossil remains ‘dated’ as being many millions of years old are hardly mineralized (i.e. where minerals take the place of the creature’s original tissue), if at all. For example, Tyrannosaurus rex bones containing red blood cells and soft ‘squishy’ tissue boggle the minds of those who claim that dinosaur remains are 65 million years old, at least.1Such soft tissue finds utterly contradict the widely believed old age of the earth.2

And now, a new find exceeds all previous claims for persistence of the remains of dead creatures to the present day—that is, according to the mind-stretchingly bizarre pre-Cambrian ‘age’ assigned to these fossils. The remains of marine worms ‘dated’ at 550 million years old found in Russia have been examined by a team of researchers led by Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska (pronounced approx. “mou-go-ZHAH-ta mo-chid-WOF-ska”) of Uppsala University, Sweden.3

The tube of S. cambriensiswas flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation—Moczydłowska et al., Journal of Paleontology, 2014

They found that the tube casings of the seabed worm Sabellidites cambriensiswere still soft and flexible. After comprehensive laboratory analysis, the researchers assessed the seabed worm’s remains to be still composed of the original organic compounds. They ruled out the possibility of modern contaminants and of preservation by various means of mineralization. In the researchers’ own words (from their Journal of Paleontology paper):

“The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.”3

And:

“The tube of S. cambriensis was flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation, and composed of fibers perfect in habit and parallel arranged in sheets, and then sheets in layers.”3

Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm—Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska

Accompanying electron microscope photographs showed these ‘perfect in habit’ fibres to be less than half a thousandth of a millimetre wide. Yet these delicate fibres are still soft after supposedly half a billion years!?

The researchers were even able to chemically tease the fibres apart for further examination, and concluded that the structure of the fossil worm tube casing is “consistent with the ß chitin tubes of siboglinid animals”.3 In other words, the same as seabed dwelling worms such as beard worms today (see photo above). Why has there been no evolution in all that (supposed) time?4

One obvious answer is, there hasn’t been ‘all that time’! Creatures were created only about 6,000 years ago to reproduce “according to their kinds”, not to ‘evolve’.

Preservation of the worms … and bacteria upon them!

How could there be such great preservation of these marine worm fossil remains, and also the bacteria that feed on them? Professor Moczydłowska had earlier reported to the Palaeontological Association in Copenhagen that she had identified clumps of nanobacteria on the flanks of S. cambriensis fossils found in Lithuania. They were similarly ‘dated’ at half a billion years old, and believed to be the smallest fossilised lifeforms ever discovered.5

It was a storm the likes of which the earth had never seen before, and never will again

Magnifying the nanobacteria 2,500 times with a scanning electron microscope revealed tiny filaments “flexible and deformed like macaroni”. Chemical analysis showed “they were neither modern contaminants nor mineral deposits.”5 Professor Moczydłowska offered the following scenario as to how these had come to be preserved:

“After the worm died, the nanobacteria started eating into it in oxygen-free water at the bottom of a marine basin. Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm. Nanobacteria activity ceased and they were rapidly fossilised.”5

Perhaps stirred up by a storm? But storms today don’t seem to ‘pack the punch’ required to explain the exquisite preservation seen in the ‘fossil record’. It seems Professor Moczydłowska and her evolutionary colleagues are unaware of (or have deliberately forgotten?—2 Peter 3:3–6) a colossal worldwide storm that would account for the abundance of preserved creatures found in sedimentary rock layers all around the world. It was a storm the likes of which the earth had never seen before, and never will experience again (Genesis 9:11–17). And the Bible indicates that this was only around 4,500 years ago.

source

I know I know. It proves nothing. All evidence like this should be ignored. unsure.png

 

That's excellent information.

 

I've noted this before when considering Mary Schweitzers discovery of soft tissue and red blood cells in the '68 million yr old' T-Rex, but the whole thing becomes ludicrous to think that soft tissue could be found in anything so old when you consider that the body of King Tut having been discovered 'dry as a bone' in Egypt after only (approx) 3,000 yrs. But evolutionists just want us to turn off our brains and accept whatever they tell us.

 

http://emhotep.net/2009/12/02/egypt-in-the-news/king-tuts-death-solved-resolved-or-just-restated/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Paleontology report, "Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary [not replaced], preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics." The paper included electron micrographs of some of those fabrics' fossilized fibers.

 

The study authors described the worm wall as still "flexible, as shown by its soft deformation." And just to be clear, they wrote, "The body wall of S. cambriensis [fossil worm] comprises a chitin-structural protein composite."

 

Fresh-looking material like this soft chitin and its associated proteins should not cause researchers to merely doubt the worm fossils' 551 million year-old age assignment, but to utterly reject it. However, unless secularists pay homage to the Geologic Time Scale's age designations for characteristic rock layers, their work would almost certainly fail to be accepted as "scientific."

 

soft_worms_pic.jpg

 

http://www.icr.org/article/8059/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nature just published an article on the case (http://www.nature.com/news/university-sued-after-firing-creationist-fossil-hunter-1.16281). I particularly found the quote of Jack Horner amusing:

Creationists often appeal to soft-tissue preservation as evidence that dinosaur fossils are thousands rather than millions of years old, says palaeontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana. “Science is about building hypotheses and then attempting to falsify them,” he says. “Creation science or any kind of pseudoscience is just the opposite. It is coming up with an idea or a notion or anything else and finding evidence to support it.”


This is coming from the guy who refused a grant to radiocarbon date the T-Rex material. Yeah. That's really "attempting to falsify hypotheses". rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nature just published an article on the case (http://www.nature.com/news/university-sued-after-firing-creationist-fossil-hunter-1.16281). I particularly found the quote of Jack Horner amusing:

 

This is coming from the guy who refused a grant to radiocarbon date the T-Rex material. Yeah. That's really "attempting to falsify hypotheses". rolleyes.gif

 

Yeah, it figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is coming from the guy who refused a grant to radiocarbon date the T-Rex material. Yeah. That's really "attempting to falsify hypotheses". rolleyes.gif

 

Yes, he surely did refuse.

 

Also,

 

Jack Horner...

 

"Creationists often appeal to soft-tissue preservation as evidence that dinosaur fossils are thousands rather than millions of years old, says palaeontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana. “Science is about building hypotheses and then attempting to falsify them,” he says. “Creation science or any kind of pseudoscience is just the opposite. It is coming up with an idea or a notion or anything else and finding evidence to support it.”

 

 

Note the subtle "No True Scotsman" (Fallacy)....what a worm (No Pun Intended)

 

 

Somebody call Jack and have him explain, Step By Scientific Method Step wink.png, HOW Paleontology is "science" and not a Begging The Question (Fallacy)/"Just So" Story IN TOTO? acigar.gif

 

He wouldn't last a Planck Time on this forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms