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

Scientist Claims California University Fired Him Over Creationist Beliefs

Recommended Posts

And here we go again. A respected scientist discovers soft tissue in a triceratops horn and draws an obvious conclusion—it must not have lived millions of years go. Next thing he knows his boss storms in his office accusing him of practicing religion, and soon after that he finds himself laid off.

 

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.
Not sure how this is going to go legally, though.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pray it works out for Mark. I am also interested in knowing what they are planning to do with the evidence, and when will they make it World Wide News?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!"

 

Sorry, but this is the 1st image that popped into my mind when I read this. :)

 

 

ChickEvol2.gif

Look, if this is exactly how this all happened, the heck ya, he should win his law suit.

To fire someone solely for the reason of religious beliefs.

Forgive me if I feel that his account of the events sounds a bit exaggerated.

 

But I can also see the problem for a university trying to attract students to a science program that has a prof teaching something that has fallen out of favor with the consensus of science hundreds of years ago.

 

Its an interesting topic and I will look forward to see how it plays out.

 

I still have to look into this further before I can gain an opinion.

But it does appear that he published a legit paper on his findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...But I can also see the problem for a university trying to attract students to a science program that has a prof teaching something that has fallen out of favor with the consensus of science hundreds of years ago...

 

I appreciate your openness, but I don't think that's the real issue. I think most would welcome scientific paradigms, and don't really care if an old idea becomes a possibility again. This is all about the Bible. Anything that supports a literal reading of the Bible is abhorred by secular educators, and has to be resisted at all costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things need to be qualified 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

A few things need to be qualified 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."

 

1) And your argument is?

 

2) Again, what is the argument?

 

3) The paper was good enough to get through secular peer review....

 

4) Perhaps you can elaborate on this, thanks.

 

5) Sigh... So you think radiometric analysis must be used, despite that these findings throw doubt on the use of radiometric analysis.... Makes sense ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My read revealed the following:

1.Can anyone show me a link to his CV or duties at the university, and maybe a list of publications? Currently google is clogged with the subject of him being fired. To have a better understanding of the situation you need to know this.

 

2) The argument is that people at universities in research positions lose their pay when the funding runs out. My wife is in her last year of her PhD. She has signed a dozen temporary contracts over the years. After her PhD, very few are kept around for long here.

 

3) Please show me the paper. I’ve visited a dozen of these claims the guy got fired after publishing, but never a report of where and how this was published.
I pose the following questions:
- Who are the authors?
- Did they give consent to publishing the paper?
- How did these authors got choosen?
If the paper was published without the co-author’s consent, that is a good reason not to continue working with him. If he choose to publish it without co-authors despite their work on the research project, that is a good reason not to continue working with him. If he did not do the research in accordance with the tasks he was given, but used his time to write this paper, that is a good reason not to continue working with him.

 

4) I also cannot deduce this from the article given.

 

5) Sigh, I'll let sapiens respond to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My read revealed the following:

1.Can anyone show me a link to his CV or duties at the university, and maybe a list of publications? Currently google is clogged with the subject of him being fired. To have a better understanding of the situation you need to know this.

 

2) The argument is that people at universities in research positions lose their pay when the funding runs out. My wife is in her last year of her PhD. She has signed a dozen temporary contracts over the years. After her PhD, very few are kept around for long here.

1) You can probably find most of that with references in the other discussion mentioned by Cal in post #5.

 

2) It is entirely possible funding did actually run out. If so, it's likely everyone on his project was terminated. There's still way too much that we don't know to form a final opinion on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) You can probably find most of that with references in the other discussion mentioned by Cal in post #5.

 

2) It is entirely possible funding did actually run out. If so, it's likely everyone on his project was terminated. There's still way too much that we don't know to form a final opinion on this one.

Not 100% I agree. In research, funding can differentiate annually, quarterly, even monthly. Promotors (professor’s) take care of these funds and depending on them there will be budget for people, equipment etc. Theoretically, the funding was low and so maybe insufficient for all people. So not all people were fired, but some cuts had to be made.

After further reading of the case, I don’t think this was the case here.

 

I will go to the other topic to respond only in one place. (and I agree there is too much unknown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No argument, just fact, he is not a "scientist." Calling him a scientist is like calling me "Reverend," it gives the listener or reader the wrong idea.

 

2. Again, no argument ... just fact. Employment as a technician at university is not like a public sector job, say a cop or fireman ... it has none of the stability or assurance of continuance. In my forty years working at universities, I performed basically three different job functions but held about two dozen actual (and different) positions. I'd often be moved from one position to another, even though my duties would remain the same. That's the way it is. Hi claim of a "permanent" is just so much horse pucky offered up to buttress his discrimination claim.

 

3. The paper is a red herring, it makes not claims of age, but they are implied, and implied without support except for his subjective appraisal. It mazes me how you now suddenly believe in the sanctity of peer review, but deny its value for the huge body of support for evolutionary theory.

 

4. Proof in absolute terms does not exist. Falsification (disproof) in absolute terms does. When you make a claim that is way out there (at least with respect to the currently excepted views) you need to support the claim in as many ways as possible if you want to alter the existing paradigm.

 

5. There no doubt about the utility of radiometric dating when it is carefully applied and used with correlation between different isotopic dating methods to confirm the age of a sample. For example, a study of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland used five different radiometric dating methods to examine twelve samples and achieved agreement to on an age of 3,640 Ma, plus or minus 30 Ma. I understand that your faith demands that you invent problems with radiometric dating in as much as accepting the reality would contradict your core wrongheadedness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No argument, just fact, he is not a "scientist." Calling him a scientist is like calling me "Reverend," it gives the listener or reader the wrong idea.

 

2. Again, no argument ... just fact. Employment as a technician at university is not like a public sector job, say a cop or fireman ... it has none of the stability or assurance of continuance. In my forty years working at universities, I performed basically three different job functions but held about two dozen actual (and different) positions. I'd often be moved from one position to another, even though my duties would remain the same. That's the way it is. Hi claim of a "permanent" is just so much horse pucky offered up to buttress his discrimination claim.

 

3. The paper is a red herring, it makes not claims of age, but they are implied, and implied without support except for his subjective appraisal. It mazes me how you now suddenly believe in the sanctity of peer review, but deny its value for the huge body of support for evolutionary theory.

 

4. Proof in absolute terms does not exist. Falsification (disproof) in absolute terms does. When you make a claim that is way out there (at least with respect to the currently excepted views) you need to support the claim in as many ways as possible if you want to alter the existing paradigm.

 

5. There no doubt about the utility of radiometric dating when it is carefully applied and used with correlation between different isotopic dating methods to confirm the age of a sample. For example, a study of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland used five different radiometric dating methods to examine twelve samples and achieved agreement to on an age of 3,640 Ma, plus or minus 30 Ma. I understand that your faith demands that you invent problems with radiometric dating in as much as accepting the reality would contradict your core wrongheadedness.

 

At bottom line we don't care about whether or not he is a scientist: we care about the facts.The fact is that he discovered something that flies in the face of neo-Darwinian theory and it is at least the third time this has occured in the last ten years or so. (1) Mary Schweitzers discovery of soft-tissue in a T-Rex, (2) the supposed 80 million year old Hadrosaur discovery...

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090430144528.htm

 

and (3) the discovery of Armitage in California.

 

You cannot deny that Schweitzers find in particular set off a huge uproar in the scientific community because of the long held position that such soft tissue/red blood cells could not possibly last that long and you cannot honestly deny that her own comrades in evolution attacked her and tried to persuade her to admit that her analysis was corrupted or in some way erroneus. She proved them all wrong. Furthermore, you cannot honestly deny that she and her companions moved the goal posts to a belief that soft tissue can in fact last over an enormous time frame much to the chagrin of her comrades who realized that this was such a ridiculous position. But you see, THIS is the import of this thread and not Armitage's credentials, so stay on the subject, please.

 

 

You said, "I understand that your faith demands that you invent problems with radiometric dating in as much as accepting the reality would contradict your core wrongheadedness."

We don't invent anything...we know. The fact is that it is very common that geologists run many tests on their samples and filter out any time frame that does not agree with the established status quo idea of dating by neo-Darwinist thought. Good grief, friend, we have documented that fact hundreds of times on this website and we certainly not alone. Talk to Bonedigger in particular about this since he is our resident authority in such matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No argument, just fact, he is not a "scientist." Calling him a scientist is like calling me "Reverend," it gives the listener or reader the wrong idea.

 

Can you provide evidence for this claim?... Or is this an attempt at damage control?

 

Even if he was simply a lab assistant etc, nobody... I repeat NOBODY should be fired for their religious beliefs.

 

 

 

2. Again, no argument ... just fact. Employment as a technician at university is not like a public sector job, say a cop or fireman ... it has none of the stability or assurance of continuance. In my forty years working at universities, I performed basically three different job functions but held about two dozen actual (and different) positions. I'd often be moved from one position to another, even though my duties would remain the same. That's the way it is. Hi claim of a "permanent" is just so much horse pucky offered up to buttress his discrimination claim.

 

When someone is fired there needs to be a reason. So how does your experience of being moved around relate to someone being fired? If it turns out that there was a reason then that is fine... (depending on how realistic the reason is)... However for many people, including me, no realistic reason = discrimination.

 

 

3. The paper is a red herring, it makes not claims of age, but they are implied, and implied without support except for his subjective appraisal. It mazes me how you now suddenly believe in the sanctity of peer review, but deny its value for the huge body of support for evolutionary theory.

 

Have you read the paper? Perhaps you can provide evidence as to your claims about it here?... Simply stating your opinion is not a form of argument, nor is it stating facts.

 

Was I claiming anything about the "sanctity of peer review"? More the opposite since I know that for secular journals there is a bias towards evolution and old earth interpretations, ergo for a paper which challenges these worldviews is peer-reviewed and accepted implies the data must have been pretty water-tight.

 

 

 

4. Proof in absolute terms does not exist. Falsification (disproof) in absolute terms does. When you make a claim that is way out there (at least with respect to the currently excepted views) you need to support the claim in as many ways as possible if you want to alter the existing paradigm.

 

Perhaps you can demonstrate how he didn't support his claims, rather than stating he didn't without your own support... (which is pretty hypocritical and ironic don't you think ;) ).

 

 

5. There no doubt about the utility of radiometric dating when it is carefully applied and used with correlation between different isotopic dating methods to confirm the age of a sample. For example, a study of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland used five different radiometric dating methods to examine twelve samples and achieved agreement to on an age of 3,640 Ma, plus or minus 30 Ma. I understand that your faith demands that you invent problems with radiometric dating in as much as accepting the reality would contradict your core wrongheadedness.

 

The radioactive dating methodology (including the different isotope variations) gives false positive results with items of known age, how do scientists determine which result is a false positive and which is actually real with items of unknown age?

 

How can the age of something be determined if the initial amount of the substance is not known?...

 

 

I understand that your faith demands that you invent problems with radiometric dating in as much as accepting the reality would contradict your core wrongheadedness.
Um not inventing, just pointing out factual issues with the method... Many of which are completely ignored by evolutionists...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I never said anyone should be fired for their religious beliefs, did I? I said the calling him a scientist, whether you base that on education or philosophical alignment, is a mistake in his case.

 

2. My point is that in positions like the one he (and I) held there is little security.

 

3. Yes, I've read the paper, it does not seem particularly earth shattering, but then it is not my field. He makes claims that he has found osteocytes, I have my doubts and will await independent confirmation. But even if they are, it proves nothing specific except that osteocytes can survive much longer than anyone thought possible ... it does not mean that the horn is 4,000 years old! And BTW, I never stated an opinion ... I said, "The paper is a red herring, it makes not claims of age, but they are implied, and implied without support except for his subjective appraisal." By that I meant implied in this and similar discussions, not in the paper itself. Sorry if I was unclear.

 

Y'all make a big deal about the fact that the paper was in a reviewed journal ... yet you denigrate the value of peer review when it comes to conclusions that contradict your belief system, seems two-faced to me.

 

4. Rather hard to show what someone does not do. But, in any case, the usual ways of supporting a controversial idea are to develop independent methods of confirmation. In this case that might include DNA, imuno-assays, radiometrics, etc. Best not to shoot your mouth off without some other support for such a far out claim.

 

5. Radiometric dating is a well proven technique. It has problems and errors when individual techniques are used, but when multiple techniques are used and cross compared with samples of know ages, radiometry has been shown to yield useful and accurate dates. I know that you can't accept this because it knocks all you believe into a cocked hat ... sorry. Have you ever done any radiometric dating? Do you even know how it is accomplished and what the cross checks are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I never said anyone should be fired for their religious beliefs, did I? I said the calling him a scientist, whether you base that on education or philosophical alignment, is a mistake in his case.

 

2. My point is that in positions like the one he (and I) held there is little security.

 

3. Yes, I've read the paper, it does not seem particularly earth shattering, but then it is not my field. He makes claims that he has found osteocytes, I have my doubts and will await independent confirmation. But even if they are, it proves nothing specific except that osteocytes can survive much longer than anyone thought possible ... it does not mean that the horn is 4,000 years old! And BTW, I never stated an opinion ... I said, "The paper is a red herring, it makes not claims of age, but they are implied, and implied without support except for his subjective appraisal." By that I meant implied in this and similar discussions, not in the paper itself. Sorry if I was unclear.

 

Y'all make a big deal about the fact that the paper was in a reviewed journal ... yet you denigrate the value of peer review when it comes to conclusions that contradict your belief system, seems two-faced to me.

 

4. Rather hard to show what someone does not do. But, in any case, the usual ways of supporting a controversial idea are to develop independent methods of confirmation. In this case that might include DNA, imuno-assays, radiometrics, etc. Best not to shoot your mouth off without some other support for such a far out claim.

 

5. Radiometric dating is a well proven technique. It has problems and errors when individual techniques are used, but when multiple techniques are used and cross compared with samples of know ages, radiometry has been shown to yield useful and accurate dates. I know that you can't accept this because it knocks all you believe into a cocked hat ... sorry. Have you ever done any radiometric dating? Do you even know how it is accomplished and what the cross checks are?

 

Do you know what the words 'life expectancy' means?rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Yes, I've read the paper, it does not seem particularly earth shattering, but then it is not my field. He makes claims that he has found osteocytes, I have my doubts and will await independent confirmation. But even if they are…..

 

LOL. You guys crack me up. "I don't believe it. I'm going to wait for confirmation. This is not evidence. I don't like the guy's credentials! Oh and even if it's true it proves nothing." happy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

LOL. You guys crack me up. "I don't believe it. I'm going to wait for confirmation. This is not evidence. I don't like the guy's credentials! Oh and even if it's true it proves nothing." happy.png

I think our friend Calvin sums it up for us nicely...

denial.jpg

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

LOL. You guys crack me up. "I don't believe it. I'm going to wait for confirmation. This is not evidence. I don't like the guy's credentials! Oh and even if it's true it proves nothing." happy.png

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, confirmation is required. This is not evidence, it is a refusal to rush to an unlikely judgement.

 

I don't care about the guy's credentials, that has no bearing on his claims. But I do object (as a separate issue) of the misrepresentation.

 

Yes, even if his claim is true, it does not indicate that the triceratops is 4,000 years old.

 

“Tell someone that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a him invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it."

with apologies to Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please quote what you were replying to? Since it seems much of what you have said has already been address by my reply.... The one you are replying to.... I can see why you left it out since if people read your reply next to what you are responding to, it wouldn't make any sense...

 

1. I never said anyone should be fired for their religious beliefs, did I? I said the calling him a scientist, whether you base that on education or philosophical alignment, is a mistake in his case.

 

I never said that you said that.... If you had quoted me people would see it ;)

 

And I am saying what does it matter if he is a scientist or not... NOBODY deserves to be fired for religious beliefs, whether the person is a scientist, lab tech or even street sweeper...

 

Why did you claim "it gives the reader the wrong idea"?

 

IS scientist being fired for religious beliefs a bigger issue than a lab tech being fired for religious beliefs? Because if so then my statement above applies.....

 

 

Additionally I'd like to see your evidence for why he isn't a scientist?

 

 

2. My point is that in positions like the one he (and I) held there is little security.
As I said, people are fired for a reason... If there is no realistic reason given then one can expect discrimination is being applied.
It sounds like you're in damage control.... ;)
I already said this before, if you had quoted me you and others would have seen it ;)

When someone is fired there needs to be a reason. So how does your experience of being moved around relate to someone being fired? If it turns out that there was a reason then that is fine... (depending on how realistic the reason is)... However for many people, including me, no realistic reason = discrimination.

 

 

3. Yes, I've read the paper, it does not seem particularly earth shattering, but then it is not my field. He makes claims that he has found osteocytes, I have my doubts and will await independent confirmation.

 

Already confirmed... There are many articles detailing soft tissue in fossils.

 

 

 

 

But even if they are, it proves nothing specific except that osteocytes can survive much longer than anyone thought possible
That is one interpretation.... Yet there is no evidence for this, and defies what we already know about decay rates.....

it does not mean that the horn is 4,000 years old!

 

Why not? That is another interpretation....

 

 

And BTW, I never stated an opinion ... I said, "The paper is a red herring, it makes not claims of age, but they are implied, and implied without support except for his subjective appraisal." By that I meant implied in this and similar discussions, not in the paper itself. Sorry if I was unclear.

 

You've just given (again) your opinion on the paper... Opinions are not arguments, DEMONSTRATE where he did these things you claim. That is what "giving evidence" is called.

 

I already said all this before.... I asked you to DEMONSTRATE your claims...

 

 

Have you read the paper? Perhaps you can provide evidence as to your claims about it here?... Simply stating your opinion is not a form of argument, nor is it stating facts.


 

Perhaps you can demonstrate how he didn't support his claims, rather than stating he didn't without your own support... (which is pretty hypocritical and ironic don't you think wink.png ).

 

 

 

 

Y'all make a big deal about the fact that the paper was in a reviewed journal ... yet you denigrate the value of peer review when it comes to conclusions that contradict your belief system, seems two-faced to me.

 

Please READ what I said....

 

Was I claiming anything about the "sanctity of peer review"? More the opposite since I know that for secular journals there is a bias towards evolution and old earth interpretations, ergo for a paper which challenges these worldviews is peer-reviewed and accepted implies the data must have been pretty water-tight.

 

Repeating what you said before, even after I addressed it only makes you look the fool :)

 

 

 

 

 

4. Rather hard to show what someone does not do. But, in any case, the usual ways of supporting a controversial idea are to develop independent methods of confirmation. In this case that might include DNA, imuno-assays, radiometrics, etc. Best not to shoot your mouth off without some other support for such a far out claim.

 

Was I asking you to show what someone doesn't do? I asked you to demonstrate where he makes unsupported claims.... Like you have been, which (as I said) is hypocritical... Someone complaining about someone else not supporting their claims, whilst not supporting their claims of that person not supporting their claims...

 

You are doing what you are complaining Mark did. Here is what I said before....

 

Perhaps you can demonstrate how he didn't support his claims, rather than stating he didn't without your own support... (which is pretty hypocritical and ironic don't you think ).

 

One way to do this is to read the paper and give some examples of where he made claims etc without support... Not hard dude.

 

 

5. Radiometric dating is a well proven technique. It has problems and errors when individual techniques are used, but when multiple techniques are used and cross compared with samples of know ages, radiometry has been shown to yield useful and accurate dates. I know that you can't accept this because it knocks all you believe into a cocked hat ... sorry. Have you ever done any radiometric dating? Do you even know how it is accomplished and what the cross checks are?

 

You've completely ignored what I said....

 

The radioactive dating methodology (including the different isotope variations) gives false positive results with items of known age, how do scientists determine which result is a false positive and which is actually real with items of unknown age?

 

How can the age of something be determined if the initial amount of the substance is not known?...

 

 

Um not inventing, just pointing out factual issues with the method... Many of which are completely ignored by evolutionists...

 

 

How was it "Proven"?

 

When you get false positive results for items of known ages, how on Earth can you expect to get correct results for items of unknown age?

 

This applies to radiometric dating as a whole... so variations of the method are still going to have the same issues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Tell someone that his wife is cheating on him, …..and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it."

 

Boy, you hit the nail on the head there. That is in essence the emotional attachment evolutionists have to millions of years. Their whole world literally crumbles without it. I've said it for years—it's not about logic and evidence for them. It's spiritual and emotional. They're like the guy that wants to believe his wife is faithful, and ignores all evidence to the contrary. If they can't give up that relationship, they'll always be able to create a spin for any evidence that comes along.

 

Soft tissue surviving hundreds of millions of years? No problem!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Boy, you hit the nail on the head there. That is in essence the emotional attachment evolutionists have to millions of years. Their whole world literally crumbles without it. I've said it for years—it's not about logic and evidence for them. It's spiritual and emotional. They're like the guy that wants to believe his wife is faithful, and ignores all evidence to the contrary. If they can't give up that relationship, they'll always be able to create a spin for any evidence that comes along.

 

Soft tissue surviving hundreds of millions of years? No problem!

I'm an atheist, I have no more emotional attachment to evolution as any other part of biology, no more than I have for quantum physics, or for mathematics. It has no particular significance beyond science.

 

If evolution were disproved, it would affect me not one little bit. I'd be happy, if anything, as it would mean science had discovered a more accurate understanding of the evidence and adjusted.

 

It appears to be the creationists who, when presented with a discovery (soft tissue) that *could* potentially help their pre-existing dogmatic faith-based belief in creationism, jump to the conclusion that the discovery *must* be proof of such. It *could* signify that the animal was only a few thousand years old, or it *could* signify that some soft tissue can survive for long periods in the right conditions. There is no proof either way, as far as I know. It also has to be seen in the context of all the other evidence, the age of the bones etc, and not in isolation. When looked at in isolation, we get a false picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an atheist, I have no more emotional attachment to evolution as any other part of biology, no more than I have for quantum physics, or for mathematics. It has no particular significance beyond science.

 

If evolution were disproved, it would affect me not one little bit. I'd be happy, if anything, as it would mean science had discovered a more accurate understanding of the evidence and adjusted.

 

Well generally yes, that's what virtually all evolutionists/atheists claim. Yet what I've found is just the opposite. The atheists I've come across in my life are among the most religious dogmatic people I've ever met. They can spin evidence better than any other religious group.

 

Now you mention science making this discovery, but when you say science, you're likely referring to uniformitarian science which precludes non-uniform historical causes. You don't realize it, but you've already stacked the deck, and ruled out an explanation which is beyond your view of science, all before the evidence has been presented. This is classic blind faith, seemingly born out of a strong emotional tie to your world view. You don't possess an epistemological system that can explore possibilities beyond your world view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can spin evidence better than any other religious group.

Is there any evidence explained by the evolution theory that cannot be rebuffed by your religion then?

Or do I understand your statement wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any evidence explained by the evolution theory that cannot be rebuffed by your religion then?

Or do I understand your statement wrong?

 

Any evidence can be spun by anyone. Emotions are powerful. I'm just saying, atheists are not only not except, they are often among the most determined to dismiss any evidence that contradicts their religious dogmas.

  • Like 1

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