Professor Claims California State University Fired Him Over His Creationists Belief

Seal_of_the_California_State_UniversityTriceratops-skull-Zachi-Evenor-002There is a controversy at the California State University where scientist Mark Armitage claims that he was fired for his creationist beliefs as an evangelical Christian. Armitage recently published a paper where he suggested that soft tissue that he found in a triceratops suggested that the animal died no more than 4000 years ago rather than the common view putting extinction at 65 million years ago. The school is investigating his claim of religious discrimination.

In his lawsuit, Armitage details his publications and research including the heralded discovery in 2012 of the largest triceratops horn ever recovered from the world-famous Hell Creek Formation in Glendive, Montana. The fossil then revealed an even more exciting discovery, soft tissue with what appeared to be live bone cells or osteocytes.

Armitage argued that the cells show would have long ago “decayed into nothingness” if it was millions years old. For creationists the point could not be more significant to suggest that the Earth is only a few thousand years old as stated in the bible. However, just days after the article was published, Armitage was fired.

While the university claimed that his temporary position was eliminated due to a budget shortfall, Armitage says that his superior, Dr. Ernest Kwok, was hostile to his religious beliefs and even once allegedly “stormed into” his lab and shouted, “‘We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!!”

While I have long been a critic of creationism and frankly I am a bit surprised to see a scientist clinging to such views, this does raise concerns over academic freedom unless the school can prove the budgetary claim. He is obviously an active and accomplished academic. His paper was published to express his view on the possible meaning of the find. (Note this is not the first such find and scientists have found such cells and, after prior find in fossils of a Tyrannosaurus rex, scientists concluded that the iron in the fossils had preserved the tissue from decay).

The controversy raises an interesting question of when such views are legitimate grounds for termination. For some scientists, a faculty member espousing creationist views is objectively unqualified. However, that would depend on how those views affect his teaching and research. Armitage is clearly functioning at a high level in this field, including the discovery and study of rare fossils. He is simply reaching a conclusion based on those findings that reflects a very small percentage of scientists. At what point does such minority views impact the status of an academic?

Armitage has a BS in Education from Liberty University and an MS in Biology (parasitology) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, CA. He later graduated Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University

He is currently listed as part of Creation Ministries. The site confirms what many would consider the distortive impact of faith on science:

“The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(B) BASICS
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches.”

146 thoughts on “Professor Claims California State University Fired Him Over His Creationists Belief

  1. OK, lefties and others who are intolerant of a) anyone who doesn’t think as you do and b) anyone who is religious, start the attacks and childish smears. I’ll pass on reading that gibberish as I’m looking for intelligent, mature discussions; won’t find them here, today.

  2. This guy is nuts. No two ways about it. Religion often conflicts with science. Where so, either one is wrong, the other is wrong or both are wrong. But 4,000 years is impossible. His data cannot be correct. His inherent creationism is showing, not any scientific objectivity. Let the investigation center on the assertions made in his science, which will undoubtedly be proven to be in error. And for that, he should be dismissed, unless of course he would recant.

  3. Creation Ministries…’Nuff said. Who wants to pay for an expensive education to learn stuff taught in church? Keep the Creation myths where they belong. It not science.

  4. Well, I am a Christian and I feel there is zero basis to the 6, 000 year old world stuff. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, not his actual diary. What this story points out is the impracticality of some discrimination laws.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  5. If you can teach classes in an objective manner, without pushing your religious dogma on students, having out-of-the-mainstream religious views should not, by itself, disqualify you from holding this type of position. Regarding his publication(s) (which I’ve not read), if he is arguing that the tissue is only 4,000 years old “cuz the Bible sez”, his scholarship has devolved into squalorship and he deserves to be let go. I wonder if CSU was aware of the nature of his religious beliefs when they hired him.

  6. Personal bias brought into scientific research can skew the results regardless of which side of the debate you are on. I’m curious to know if he has published research proving creationism might be false. (If this was already stated I apologize.)

  7. I go with intelligent design. Many times when I’m debating evolutionists, they recklessly try to attach my beliefs to the Bible. Some of the same reckless stuff may be going on here with Armitage. Lifting a paragraph from Creation Ministries to characterize this guy is not unlike characterizing all Catholics as pro life. I really need more to go on before hanging him. Dr. Ernest Kwok seems the real nut case here, for storming into a classroom and disciplining Armitage in front of students. That’s just something unheard of in a professional world, acting like a jackbooted stormtrooper. There may be more reason to dismiss Kwok than Armitage. Kwok seems like a guy who has zero tolerance for all views except is own. Some of us know him real well.

  8. The last part of this piece informs us that Mr Amitage is a graduate of Liberty University which was founded by Evangelist Jerry Falwell. Which leads me to wonder what their Science Department is like.

  9. Steve H.:

    Unless you are given to prejudgment, in which event your views are of no moment in any event, your conclusion regarding a lack of “intelligent, mature discussions” on the subject matter of this thread would have application only to your own comment, inasmuch as you were the first poster.

    Your belief that the rejection of creationism as a scientific theory is an attack on religion is uninformed. My particular branch of Christianity, for example, has been around longer than any of the others and finds no theological incompatability with evolutionary science.

    With respect to Prof. Armitage, if he was in fact terminated for teaching creationism as science, the university is on solid ground since he is, after all, a science teacher. If he was terminated for his religious beliefs, that is a different matter entirely. All we know at present is what has been alleged.

  10. ” Let the investigation center on the assertions made in his science, which will undoubtedly be proven to be in error. And for that, he should be dismissed, unless of course he would recant.”

    If getting it wrong is grounds for dismissing a scientist then we are going to have to fire them all.

    They ain’t none of ’em that get it right all the time.

    As for recanting, have you read any good recantations lately, or ever? Me nether. I think scientific fraud is the only time I ever heard of a journal withdrawing an article.

    In science the issue is not whether you get it wrong but how you respond when results falsify the hypothesis.

    If you cannot specify problems with his data or flaws in his reasoning and his arguments then your objections to his conclusions are not based on science.

    You cannot use the man’s religion to make a scientific criticism of his work. This guy is either using scientific principles in his work or he is not. If he is a scientist, he either made a mistake or he has found something very interesting. You either take a scientific approach to criticize his work or you don’t.

    What the man does in church is irrelevant to his scientific work. It is what he does in the lab that counts. If there is a problem with what he does in the lab then let them make the case.

  11. Why do we continue to give these childish beliefs such standing?
    It isn’t discrimination to say his nonsense religious belief is science, it isn’t
    it is nonsense
    But we contort ourselves because bugga bugga it’s a “sacred” religious belief It is nonsense, he can believe what he wants but the school is being reasonable-fire his ass it is bad science we don’t have to include bad science based in fantasy -that isn’t discrimination
    we don’t have to include this religious nonsense in the secular world keep it in your fantasy Jesus land

  12. Armitage recently published a paper where he suggested that soft tissue that he found in a triceratops suggested that the animal died no more than 4000 years ago rather than the common view putting extinction at 65 million years ago.
    = = =
    I would have hoped that the University would have afforded him an opportunity to have his thesis examined by having it peer reviewed if this is the basis of the termination. I’m guessing the university keeps budgetary records…

  13. At this moment we have one persons word claiming the head of his department running into his office shouting about the guys religious beliefs and the school claiming it was a temporary position & he was just let go. I’ll leave aside my personal belief that no rational adult would run around giving people cause to sue and say we need a bit more information.

    The person that should be fired is the one who actually hired a ‘scientist’ with a degree from Liberty U.

  14. Armitage recently published a paper where he suggested that soft tissue that he found in a triceratops suggested that the animal died no more than 4000 years ago rather than the common view putting extinction at 65 million years ago. ” – JT

    That is no reason to fire him, even if peers conclude differently after examining the data, especially the “soft tissue.”

    If it became a habit, and if he was proven scientifically wrong time and again, that would indicate scientific incompetence, and they would have grounds.

  15. If a history professor wrote a paper on the existence of unicorns in Atlantis right before Joseph Smith found his golden plates, I think the history department would have legitimate reason to part ways.

    I would imagine the views of a professor matter, particularly when teaching. And a class on paleontology is not a religious class.

    And a BS from Liberty University? It’s BS all right.

    Steve H: Pre-emptive whining is not an argument.

  16. In his lawsuit, Armitage details his publications and research including the heralded discovery in 2012 of the largest triceratops horn ever recovered from the world-famous Hell Creek Formation in Glendive, Montana. The fossil then revealed an even more exciting discovery, soft tissue with what appeared to be live bone cells or osteocytes.” – JT

    The scientist heading up the Triceratops research at Hell Creek says that the location has material showing an evolution of the Triceratops over a couple of million years:

    “The new study finds evidence that not only did Triceratops change shape over the lifetime of an individual, but that the genus transformed over the course of the end of the age of dinosaurs,” Mr Scannella said.

    Over two million years at the end of the Cretaceous period, Triceratops went from having a small nasal horn and long beak to having a long nasal horn and shorter beak.

    The dinosaur with a small nasal horn and long beak is a Triceratops horridus. It was only found lower in the Hell Creek Formation.

    The dinosaur with a long nasal horn and shorter beak is a Triceratops prorsus. It was only found near the top of the formation.

    Skulls found in the middle of the formation showed characteristics of both Triceratops horridus and Triceratops prorsus.

    The paleontologists also found that Triceratops is the most common dinosaur in the Hell Creek Formation.

    (Research Provides New Insights into Evolution of Triceratops).

    The two positions, a 4,000 year old Triceratops per Armitage, and Scannella who says the bones found show 2 or so million years of evolution of the Triceratops, the most recent being the top layer of fossils, the oldest being the deeper layers, as would be expected.

    The only way to reconcile the two positions is to argue that the Triceratops survived the Fifth Mass Extinction, 65mya, caused by the Chicxulub asteroid cum meteorite impact on the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico.

    Armitage would have had to find his specimen in the top layer, would have to scientifically rule out any contamination by other organic sources, and then explain any differences in other bones of that dinosaur at that level which did not have the osteocytes.

  17. The reason Armitage was hired was to teach Microscopy, not any biological science (Complaint).

    His expertise as a microscopist gives him no say in the field of dinosaur evolution.

  18. Good for you ‘California State University….. You should have fired this ‘creationist’…. His views reflect poorly on an ‘institute of higher learning’……!

  19. Diane – “Why do we continue to give these childish beliefs such standing?
    It isn’t discrimination to say his nonsense religious belief is science, it isn’t
    it is nonsense
    But we contort ourselves because bugga bugga it’s a “sacred” religious belief It is nonsense, he can believe what he wants but the school is being reasonable-fire his ass it is bad science we don’t have to include bad science based in fantasy -that isn’t discrimination
    we don’t have to include this religious nonsense in the secular world keep it in your fantasy Jesus land”

    Diane, How do you know “it is bad science” did you read his research? Did you find out how he came to his conclusions? How do you know?

    Dave – “If a history professor wrote a paper on the existence of unicorns in Atlantis right before Joseph Smith found his golden plates, I think the history department would have legitimate reason to part ways.”

    Dave, this is just bad logic. The history teacher in your analogy is just flat out lying (unless they have found something that supports their unicorn story). Did Armitage flat out lie? If so, how do you know this?

    I am not a creationist (I actually have a Geology degree) but what is sad to me is you would think scientists would be excited about this discovery and how it challenges the current view. It should open an avenue of research to explain how the soft tissue stayed around.But instead, we turn it into a firing. How many scientific discoveries where due to accidents?

  20. He should have kept it quiet while teaching on campus. Or argued problems with carbon dating and data reliability.

    Example: Isaac Newton. He entered Cambridge University in 1661; he was elected a Fellow of Trinity College in 1667 and Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in 1669.
    He remained at the university, lecturing in most years, until 1696.

    Optics, mathematics, calculus, mechanics, gravitation, alchemy and chemistry.

    Newton also wrote on Judaeo-Christian prophecy, whose decipherment was essential, he thought, to the understanding of God. His book on the subject, which was reprinted well into the Victorian Age,
    represented lifelong study. Its message was that Christianity went astray in the 4th century AD, when the first Council of Nicaea propounded erroneous doctrines of the nature of Christ.
    The full extent of Newton’s unorthodoxy was recognized only in the present century: but although a critic of accepted Trinitarian dogmas and the Council of Nicaea, he possessed a deep religious sense,
    venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God’s providential role in nature.

  21. “For creationists the point could not be more significant to suggest that the Earth is only a few thousand years old as stated in the bible.”

    This phrase could use some nuance. :p No where does the bible state the age of the earth. Some people impose a (mis)use of the genealogies to (impose a) dating that gets them to that age. It’s debatable at best, a minority view in any case, and certainly not “stated in the bible).

  22. I am not a creationist. Like MkeA, although educated primarily by religious people, creationism was not taught. A Jesuit would die first! I am also not a chickenlittle the sky is falling climate changer either. I am someone who listened and observed for a living. I’m pretty good @ it. I was taught to have an open mind and to listen to ALL people. I was taught to embrace that wide diversity and taught the skills to analyze it, separating the wheat from the chaff. I never saw myself as a PI when I was in school until late. I studied history and was going to be a teacher, something I also have done. What has changed dramatically in colleges and universities in the 40 plus years since I matriculated has been the intolerance. I thankfully was educated during a tolerant era. When I returned to college to get my teaching certification in 1999 I saw, first hand, how colleges have changed. The university of Wi. where I attended is one of the worst PC, doctrinaire, speech code, intolerant schools in this country. It took my breath away to see it firsthand.

    I don’t agree w/ this professor. But, you don’t cast away people w/ whom you disagree. You engage them. There are some people who are very liberal here w/ whom I am able to engage. Free thinkers loathe a world where they are always in agreement w/ those around them. Liberals crave and demand that conformity.

  23. How does anyone with this guy’s academic background (degrees from Liberty and ICR??) get involved in significant research or work of any kind at a reputable institution? It’s clear that even if he wasn’t truly fired for budgetary reasons, there was a more than sufficient basis for firing him for junk science.

  24. Nate,
    How do you know what he did was “junk science”? Did he make up his discovery? Did he just report was he observed? How do you know?

    Nick, As a PI, what evidence do you see that this guy did “junk science”.

    Again, what is sad is you would think this research would be embraced as a really cool find and now how do we explain its existence.

  25. Why was he hired in the first place? His education shows that his science will most probably be skewed towards the beliefs he learned when he got his degrees.
    Paul Broun is an MD and believes the same thing about the 6000 years and yet he sits on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
    Member, Subcommittee on Environment.
    This pseudo science has become way too mainstream and it has nothing to do with one’s religious beliefs. It has to do with the science.

  26. Jim, I did not call it “junk science.” My point was I do not believe climate change is going to end the world as we know it as is the “settled science.” When people use the term “settled science” you know they are ignorant. No science is ever SETTLED. I did not call climate changet junk science either. I don’t believe either theory. It’s just interesting to me how politics influences science and there are some politically correct theories and some not deemed politically correct.

  27. Jim, I somewhat agree w/ your last sentence. Any new discovery should be applauded if you are a true scientist, whether it comports w/ your theory or not. True scientists care only for the truth, not their egos or grant money.

  28. A question, and an observation:
    Q. How did Prof. Armitage get this gig without a doctorate? This lends strength to the administration’s claim that he was a temp.
    O. The episode with Prof. Kwoc may well have had to do with proselytizing, from which faculty are generally proscribed.

  29. The institute for creation research?? Why not just state he got is divinity degree? I am with leejcaroll. Why was this suspect scientist hired in the first place at any respected non-religious institution?

  30. For clarity:
    1. California State University has 23 campuses. Armitage was let go from the Northridge campus.
    2. Armitage’s work was published in Acta Histochemica, an international, open access journal published by the International Federation of Societies for Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, whose editor is a biology professor from Cal State-Northridge who studies cancer. Although the journal is refereed, submitters recommend their own referees.
    3. Armitage’s article on the triceratops was co-authored by a professor from Arkansas State University.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
    4. Armitage was fired in February 2013. His paper was published in July 2013.
    7. Armitage was not a professor or instructor at Northridge. He was the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy.
    5. The Institute for Creation Research is not an accredited institution.

    Considering Armitages’s background, it’s questionable whether he was qualified to be working at his position and to be publishing on applied paleontological chemistry. Further, he was not on the faculty, so academic freedom does not apply here. Even if budgetary constraints was a ruse to fire him, incompetence is not.

  31. Oxa – if you actually expect people to be qualified, then half of the professors on any university campus would be gone. I took education classes from professors who had never set foot in an elementary or high school class room. Still, they were telling me how to teach.
    I do not know whether he is right or wrong, but he is not the first to come to these conclusions. There are academics who work outside the mainstream at their own risk. I went to a talk by an archeaologist who was finding human remains that pre-dated the Clovis people by about 5000 years. It did not conform to the current ice bridge theory of migration so she just kept quiet about the dates, hoping someone else would speak up first.

  32. Nick,
    Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn’t trying to imply that you said he did junk science, My thinking is I find it weird that many here knee jerk to the use of the phrase “junk science” when they haven’t read his research or know how he came to his conclusions. I was asking you in your professional opinion if you see anything from what we know about this guy if he used “junk science”.

  33. jim, Ridicule is the go to play in the liberal playbook. Squeeky posted a video on the GAO thread, you will love it.

    Regarding this guy, I am not qualified to say if what this guy is using is junk science or not. I am secure enough to say, “I don’t know” when indeed I don’t know.

  34. Nick – there is no one who is saying his findings are flawed. Only his conclusions. This is not the first time this sort of thing has been found.

  35. It must be hard being an evangelical Christian in a nation where almost every member of Congress (more than the population at large) is a Christian or at least religious to some extent. About 5-10% of Americans don’t believe in a god, but not one member of COngress comes out as a clear non-believer.

  36. Jerome,

    I believe that Rep. Stark from California became the first openly atheist member of Congress a few years back.

    JT

  37. Thanks for that link Elaine, no wonder they fired him. Looks like he had an agenda to prove that the earth was created by an omnipotent being 6 thousand years ago. I hope students get a refund on their tuition for his class.

  38. His findings show it was 4000 years old not 4, 40, 400, 40000, 400,000 or even 400 million years old. Liberty university grad, creationist and member of the Creation Ministries. Hmmmm. Please don’t fuss if I jump the gun and say this guy’s science is shoddy at best and he twisted facts to meet a preconceived notion. No, I did not read his paper nor will I do so. When chemists, geologists, biologists and the remaining bulk of scientists across every disciple conclude that, yes, the earth is only several thousand years old, then and only then, will I go back and read his ground breaking/earth shattering paper. He deserves the same ridicule heaped on members of the Flat Earth Society. I hope the California State University System doesn’t have any of them on their Geography Department too.

  39. Let us think through this timeline (approx. years).
    – The universe, Earth, humans, dinosaurs, and asteroids were all created 6,000 years ago (4000BC).
    – Humans and dinosaurs live simultaneously for 2,000 years until either:
    A. Dinosaurs–like all species–are saved from a global flood on a giant boat and exist to this day;
    B. All species except dinosaurs are saved on a giant boat; or
    C. A massive asteroid strikes Earth and destroys dinosaurs, but humans survived (2000BC).
    – 500 years later (1500BC) the history of creation and human genealogy is dictated and recorded, but a few pesky details about those big lizards are neglected.

    It all makes sense now.

  40. Well, people have been poking fun at “simplistic” Christians since Mark Twain and earlier. There are some people who do not do well with “grays” and “maybes” and “probablys” so they have to narrow down God to their level of understanding and make every word of the Bible literally true. But that is not the way all Christians are, nor is it what every Christian believes. But those simplistic Christians make a great straw man and whipping boy for the scoffers.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  41. Here’s an interesting column about some of Armitage’s “scientific” research that was published in a “journal.”

    They call this “science”?
    4/2/2008
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/02/they-call-this-science/

    Excerpt:
    The Institute for Creation Research is a treasure trove of sloppy pseudoscience. I mentioned one “research” article that they put out that was nothing but a flurry of bible verses wrapped around an argument from incredulity; now a reader has pointed me to another article that tries very hard to ape the form of a real scientific paper, and fails horribly.

    It’s titled “COMPLEX LIFE CYCLES IN HETEROPHYID TREMATODES: STRUCTURAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DESIGN IN THE ASCOCOTYLE COMPLEX OF SPECIES”, by Mark Armitage. Oooh. Sounds so sciencey. And then you read further, and you see that it almost follows the correct form.

  42. Charlie – there is some new thinking on the demise of the dinosaur. Instead of a great meteor strike, they (some scientists in the arena) are now adding several other probable causes.

  43. Paul, Actually I took a peek at the article. The author explains correct form and how the “scientific” article complies, sort of.

  44. Squeeky:

    The problem is not with simplistic religious belief. The problem is that those “straw men,” as you call them, have last names like Inhofe and Gohmert and Smith, and dictate congressional policy on science issues.

  45. So teachers can sexually assault their students and do other heinous things and NOT get fired; but you preach about faith; now that’s a firing offense.
    Good is bad; bad is good.
    Thank you Professor Turley for highlighting this to all of us.

  46. Mark Armitage was a part-time/”at-will” employee of a university. He didn’t have tenure. As far as I know, he hadn’t signed a contract to teach at the school for a specified number of years. Such employees can be let go at anytime–and from what I understand–without cause.

  47. semby:

    When you find those posts in which Prof. Turley is defending teachers who “sexually assault their students and do other heinous things,” be sure to get back to us.

  48. ” Please don’t fuss if I jump the gun and say this guy’s science is shoddy at best and he twisted facts to meet a preconceived notion. ”

    On the other hand, only science can refute his paper. Religion – his or anyone else’s – cannot tell us anything about the scientific validity of his results.

    1. Maybe is sample really is from the species he claims and really is 4,000 years old. There is no general principle of science that would prevent that from being true. The claim seems unlikely to me. But only science can tell us if the claim is supported by the evidence or not. Science cannot dismiss a claim simply because the probability is remote. If you really believe we can use science to simply dismiss an unlikely claim then perhaps you would care to outline, in principle, how to use science to prove there are no white crows in the universe.

    2. Maybe the sample was misidentified and is from some other species that lived about 4,000 years old. That possibility would invalidate his claim but much of scientific technique – the dating process – would be valid.

    3. Maybe the sample is from the species he claims but is much older. That would suggest that his dating technique is flawed. Dating techniques for really old samples are much less reliable and precise than most people realize. If he made a mistake in dating the sample that puts him in the same boat with many other scientists. As a matter of fact some of the really interesting issues in palaeontology revolve around dating techniques and their application to specific situations or samples.

    4. Maybe his sample is from the species he claims but was subjected to some unusual process that makes it appear to be about 4,000 years old – despite being much older – when subjected to the usual dating techniques. That would invalidate his results. But it would also be a very interesting situation worthy of additional research.

    5. Maybe he committed scientific fraud. But the article does not mention fraud and no one has presented evidence to suggest that.

    The nature of science is that most results will be invalidated. The fate of most scientists is necessarily to be proven wrong.

    If Mann’s technique is sloppy of he has an agenda that ought to be easy to demonstrate from his work. It ought to be obvious but it bears remarking, there is no way to demonstrate his work is sloppy or he has an agenda without examining his work.

    It is only by examining his work for flaws in his data, errors in his calculations or fallacies in his reasoning that we can demonstrate problems with his science. If we cannot show problems with his data, calculations or reasoning then he has presented us with a situation worthy of serious research.

  49. Elaine – the claim by the school is that he is ‘at-will.’ However, even at will employees have rights in the CSU system.

  50. When the Sumerian clay tablets were discovered, not one person so far has denied they had been etched by intelligent beings or argued the manuscripts were random consequence of chance in the universe. But if someone stumbles across clay tablets that have the entire human genome etched on them, evolutionists would deny intelligence had a hand, lining up on one side of a line drawn in the sand, while pro-ID and creationist folks stand against them on the other side. It’s as though an electrical switch was flipped, electromagnetically separating the negatively charged evolutionists from the positively charged pro-ID and creationist folks. Only Kool Aid explains this evolutionist phenomenon. Why else would someone deny the logic, bringing onto themselves the stigma of having a mental disorder, with absolutely no shame in it for them?

  51. We don’t have all the facts yet. So far…we have only Armitage’s side of the story. It’s best to get the university’s side/explanation before we make a judgment regarding Armitage’s claims and accusations.

  52. In what journal was this professor’s paper published? I seriously doubt it was published in a credible peer-reviewed scientific publication if his paper includes any speculation that the fossil remains are no more than 4000 years old.

  53. Just to be clear, I am a creationist and believe that God created the heavens and the earth. However, in these case were talking about 4000- 65 million years. I looked it up, it can take a few days to several months for a body as large as an elephant to decompose. So even in the case of 4000 years soft tissue remains seem daunting. Because no one wants to look at this with any type of objectivity I guess me the creationist will.

    To be frank everything about this stinks. Nothing makes logical sense. Soft tissue should not be available. Dating techniques are not especially accurate. Anyone who is honest will tell you there is flaws. But for me the find itself that should be called into question.

    It is a triceratops horn, with soft tissue that is 4000 – 65 million years old. Not matter what side you fall in on this would almost be impossible to believe. The tissue being preserved that long just dose not seem possible. Obviously we do not have any dinosaurs running around today as they were, but this just does not add up.

    Either the find is questionable or it would seem by a miracle that the tissue was preserved that long at all. For those of you who think this could have lasted millions of years….well you go with that I cannot help you. However, dating it 4000 years is still gutsy at best especially given decomposition just dose not take that long, especially of tissues.

    Now before people start quoting what can effect decomposition rates, keep in mind until this find NO OTHERS HAVE BEEN FOUND WITH IT. There is no need to try and give me a president when no others have been set. Don’t feed me the mammoths frozen in ice this was not found in a glacier. Obviously, there is not debate this is a triceratops horn; the enigma remains how the issue was preserved so long.

    In any case that is what deserves the attention. The find, we can debate the outcome but not the find until there is evidence to suggest tampering or it could be from something else. Once someone can tell me how something could have lived so long ago and still have preserved tissue

    How old the tissue is at this point seems irrelevant, or at least a mute point because IT IS STILL THERE. Until someone can give me a definitive answer on that I could care less about the age, that data is debatable at best.

  54. They want to teach creationism in the high and middle schools. No matter where you fall on the argument the US has already fallen behind in science. Teaching creationism leaves our students even farther behind in a world where where creationism is not considered scientific or science.

  55. I think Elaine M. at 12:13 referred us to a news article that tells us there are other examples of soft tissue preservation and that the accepted hypothesis is that iron, presumably from the body of the animal, acted as a preservative.

    Preservation of soft tissue for millions of years, which the article points out usually takes place in a short period of time, apparently is not controversial.

  56. My planet has been spying on your planet Earth for more than ten thousand years. You have had many charletons come along in the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost. On the way in to Earth I always look on the clouds to see if there are any angels who made it up that way to your “Heaven”. There is some microsoft and google information up there but no former humans. If some schmuck purports to study science but he is hung up on the holy grail then you must fire him toute suite. We are from France.

  57. dogfightwithdogma – it had the same peer-review qualities that Michael Mann demands for his articles.

  58. looked up and no this is not the first Dinosaur with flesh found on it. I read the research there. So I was wrong on that point I never heard of it until that point. The article somehow suggests that the iron allowed the collagen to be preserved for millions of years? That is not controversial? I would beg to differ. But on the point of another Dinosaur being found with flesh I was wrong. I can at least admit that. Blindly excepting answers handed out dose not serve science it allows the debate to quelled with out any one else having a say. Either the tissue is not as old as science is saying it is or this iron theory could hold some merit but there is no way to duplicate millions of years of weather, pressure, microbe activity and 100 other factors that would have to go into something lasting that long. So to say that this is not controversial or is not that controversial is drinking the cool aid

  59. “If it became a habit, and if he was proven scientifically wrong time and again, that would indicate scientific incompetence, and they would have grounds.” Dred

    Apparently M. Armitage is no stranger to scientific incompetence. He has used other specious claims for a young earth. He claims the presence of radiohalos in diamonds discounts the millions of years required for its formation thus a young earth. He is well known to the young earth/old earth crowd and a Michael Behe wannabe. Check out wiki evolution. He’s a creationist crackpot. He and the person who hired him should be drummed out the university.

  60. leejcaroll – ”
    They want to teach creationism in the high and middle schools. No matter where you fall on the argument the US has already fallen behind in science. Teaching creationism leaves our students even farther behind in a world where where creationism is not considered scientific or science.”

    Yea, blame creationism for the decline of our schools. What a joke! I am not a creationist but to think it is the reason for the decline is well, just stupid. The libs have run the school system for decades now so they own the decline. Especially when you add the fact that you all have a coronary when a teacher does something like wear a cross to school. Which is their constitutional right by the way. I would also add that the complete opposite is most likely true. Ever since the libs took over they have pushed God out of the schools and replaced it with the state, removed discipline, removed competition and made everyone a winner and done more to hurt math and science with curriculum’s that teach 4/3 doesn’t equal 1.33333…

  61. Michael – that Armitage is a creationist does not make him a crackpot. Michael Mann uses proprietary data to make claims about climate change. Data he refuses to let others see. Is he a crackpot?

  62. Whose God should be allowed to be present in schools? Allah, Buddha, Zoroaster? If you want the Christian God in your child’s school, send them to parochial school, that’s your right.

  63. Annie, No it’s not my right to send my kids to parochial school. The govt. has a monopoly on education. I am not allowed to stop paying public school taxes and send my kids were ever I want. If we were allowed to do that, that would be awesome.

    I’m also not advocating teaching any particular God in school, just stating that God has been pushed out to the point where the side that preaches tolerance, won’t even tolerate anyone wearing anything that depicts their personal religion of choice.

  64. Wait a minute. Cal State is not a school, Cal State is a redistribution program. It redistributes the wealth of the taxpayer to students who don’t want to pay tuition and union teachers who strike the “deep pockets” of the taxpayers to obtain absurd levels of pay (their governmental worker colleagues then get “comparable pay”).

    There is no constitutional mandate for taxpayers to pay for another person’s tuition; no logic either. Taxpayers aren’t mandated by the Constitution to pay for other people’s houses, entertainment, food, clothes, cars, vacations, recreation, dentist, golf clubs, etc. Ridiculous.

    Cal State doesn’t exist as a legitimate business in the education industry, Cal State is a nonviable, insolvent ward of the state but for the compulsory funding by the taxpayer. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of the redistribution of taxpayer dollars are foreigners.

    Pity the parasitic teachers and students who were never taught life’s most important lessons: self-reliance and endeavor. In California, they believe education and everything they desire is free. The one party, communist, people’s republic of California. Decent people would be embarrassed to be on the public dole at such preposterous rates.

    Parasitism is a good life, right, Comrades?

  65. Jim22,
    Yes you do have the right to send your kids to parochial school or to home school them. And if you own real estate you will have real estate taxes which cover municipal and county and township expenses along with park districts and school district expenses.

  66. Max-1, Sure. I have no issue with people worshiping whatever they want, even a mock religion. If it makes them happy cool.

    rafflaw, I get it, your idea of choice is having to pay twice or quit my job. That’s not really a choice. Even worse, you can’t even choose a different public school that you feel is better because the monopoly won’t let you. It’s weird to me that libs love the choice to kill a fetus, but any other choice, no way. You have to use this light bulb, toilet, school, healthcare, etc….

  67. If he was fired for this… Then he should be reinstated…. If other issues…. Well…. Good riddance….

  68. leejcaroll – ”
    They want to teach creationism in the high and middle schools. No matter where you fall on the argument the US has already fallen behind in science. Teaching creationism leaves our students even farther behind in a world where where creationism is not considered scientific or science.”

    Jim 22 said: Yea, blame creationism for the decline of our schools.You say. You need to learn some critical reading skills. I did not say anything of the sort. I wrote specifically about the issue of science and teaching something that is out of line with the rest of the world and scientific community.

  69. Jim you have the right to send your kids to parochial school ut you also have a responsibility to pay taxes that allow most kids to get an education. I do not have children. I pay a hefty school tax every year because those kids are the ones who will be the doctors, engineers, teachers, etc for me as I age, for my children if I had any etc. It is a responsibility to the society as a whole that we ensure our kids are educated.

  70. leejcaroll

    “Jim you have the right to send your kids to parochial school ut you also have a responsibility to pay taxes that allow most kids to get an education. I do not have children. I pay a hefty school tax every year because those kids are the ones who will be the doctors, engineers, teachers, etc for me as I age, for my children if I had any etc. It is a responsibility to the society as a whole that we ensure our kids are educated.”

    First let me state that my kids are already out of school so I am arguing this point after the fact. Not that I necessarily agree that if you don’t have kids you should still pay for other people private decisions like having kids. But fine, then how about when my kids are of school age I don’t have to pay school taxes but instead pay for where they go private or parochial and then after they graduate the the govt. can return to stealing my property again? Why should I have to pay twice for a choice away from the monopoly?

  71. leejcaroll – ”They want to teach creationism in the high and middle schools. No matter where you fall on the argument the US has already fallen behind in science. Teaching creationism leaves our students even farther behind in a world where where creationism is not considered scientific or science.”

    Jim 22 said: Yea, blame creationism for the decline of our schools.You say. You need to learn some critical reading skills. I did not say anything of the sort. I wrote specifically about the issue of science and teaching something that is out of line with the rest of the world and scientific community.”

    Lee, I don’t want creationism taught in the science class either, but to think that, that is a major issue/concern with our school system is the least of our worries. I would say the liberalization of education is more of a threat. Teach the fundamentals and stop worrying about two daddy/two mommy families and that everyone is a winner. Learning isn’t all about fun, it is work, hard work at times and there are winners and losers.

  72. Because Jim you are paying for the society and what it becomes via the educating of our children. If I had had kids and paid to send them to private school I would (maybe begrudgingly) pay my school taxes because, again, those kids in the public schools will be my kids and grandkids doctors, engineers, architects, in other words the people who will be responsible for my safety and the safety of the next and the next generation.

  73. Nick, What? You don’t feel like you should have to pay for other peoples life choices like getting married, having kids or owning a house? What is wrong with you?

  74. Jim22 – the retirees in Sun City, AZ refused to pass enough bond issues for the school district they were in that the school district finally set new boundaries with Sun City on the outside. Now they pay no school property taxes.

  75. Jim22 – I was watching a rerun of Numbers last night and they were talking about The Old One creating the Higgs-Boson. Is this creationism? I believe in an Uncaused Cause and when science can prove there is no Uncaused Cause I will move on. Still, this is a form of creationism.

  76. Lee, I think we are just going to disagree on this one. But what is wrong with this?
    “But fine, then how about when my kids are of school age I don’t have to pay school taxes but instead pay for where they go private or parochial and then after they graduate the the govt. can return to stealing my property again?”

  77. I have already replied to where I stand on your position. Paying taxes is not stealing property. (Yes there are many issues with taxes, wasted dollars etc) it is for the common good so that we have roads, bridges, safety nets, schooling, etc. We obviously will never come to agreement and nothing wrong with civil disagreements. ((*_*)) That’s what makes this kind of forum well worth the time.

  78. Paul, When I say I don’t believe creationism should be taught I’m referring to the more classical creationism where God makes Adam etc… As for creating the Universe? I’m not smart enough to know how that happened and either is science at this point. Now, I may believe that a God kicked it all into motion but I still don’t think that should be taught unless it shown as only one of many hypothesis. I always believed that one of the issues here is that we just can’t imagine something coming from nothing. Similarly, we really can’t understand a forth dimension and in reality we can’t understand 1 or 2 dimensions either since we live in a third dimension world. If you haven’t read “Flatland” I highly recommend it.
    http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/eaa/FL.HTM
    Hawkins had a chapter in his “Brief History of Time” book I believe titled “Black Holes Ain’t So Black”. In it he say’s something about matter and anti-matter spontaneously existing just outside of the event horizon of a black hole and if one or the other happens to fall on the other side of the event horizon it gets sucked in living it’s partner to be observed. This has always stuck in my head since it is still a question to me about the “spontaneous” part. What is going on there?

  79. Lee, You never answered my specific suggestion of giving people a tax holiday while their kids are in school and letting them pay for the school of their choice and then resuming property taxes when they graduate. It’s another way to state a voucher.

  80. Jim22 – the problem is that many scientists cannot deal with the Uncaused Cause. They cannot overcome it, so they do not want to have to face it. And their way of not facing it is to ridicule all creationists theories. However, to not deal with it is to be intellectually dishonest.

  81. ” I think schools should be supported by a consumption tax, not property taxes.”

    Consumption tax or user fees?

    And if it works for education why not for the entire government. All we need is an accounts receivable department for DOD and DOJ so each citizen can pay for the amount of defense and law enforcement he uses.

    But then it gets confusing. Do the rest of us have to pay to have DOJ prosecute the crooks, or does the crook have to pay for the attorneys presenting the case against him?

    Government is so complicated.

  82. bfm – I have suggested several times that we have check-off for what we would like our tax dollars to go to. For example, you could check off National Defense, CIA, NSA or Food Stamps, Section 8, etc.

  83. ” the problem is that many scientists cannot deal with the Uncaused Cause. They cannot overcome it, so they do not want to have to face it. And their way of not facing it is to ridicule all creationists theories. However, to not deal with it is to be intellectually dishonest.”

    Not all questions are scientific questions. Aside from speculation on what might account for or come before the big bang, I am not sure there is any data currently available that would allow for scientific analysis of an uncaused cause.

    If you cannot specify an object that you claim is an uncaused cause and tests that would confirm or reject that cause as being uncaused then maybe that subject is not ripe for scientific investigation.

    That does not mean the phenomenon is not there, just that what ever you think you know is not susceptible to scientific analysis.

    Maybe you need to gather some more anecdotal evidence that could be used to build a testable hypothesis.

  84. bfm – the question of the Uncaused Cause was settled in the Medieval Period, actually before. It has not been disproved.

  85. I am all for making government competitive. Take city water, for example, with two independent water municipalities providing water, letting consumers and taxpayers choose which water company they want to use, their tax dollars funding only their choice. The infrastructure would be owned by an umbrella government, which gets its tax funding not from consumers but from the water municipalities. All those guys leaning on shovels whenever a water main breaks, suddenly disappear. Same thing with utilities. And the police departments. Would police brutality disappear if police departments suddenly find themselves competing with each other, and competing for tax dollars? Charter schools are already a variaton of this concept. So are some utilities, such as telephone service. Take the idea all the way to Washington. The usual suspects will scream and complain, saying it cannot be done, but with determination anything is possible, and certainly far better than anything we have now. Competition has a way with keeping folks honest, checking their greed.

  86. samantha – when I was living in the City of Peoria, AZ there was a minor mishap with the water system that was privately owned. The City decided that they should take the water delivery over and use eminent domain to buy out the owners of the water company. The citizens of the city pitch a fit, so the water company is still private. However, where I live now, the water is supplied by the town along with sewer and garbage collection. I will say the garbage collection is superb. Bulk collection once a month, a central depository for harmful product disposal, etc.

  87. Schulte, I understand there are some municipalities in Arizona where the monthly water bill approaches $150.00. All across the nation, people are seeing huge increases in water, sewer and garbage, not to mention doubling and tripling of property taxes. People are faced with runaway inflation when it comes to government services, yet their incomes are stagnant. At some point, everybody will have no choice but to default not just on bills but taxes too, not unlike what’s going on in Detroit. Bureaucrats have killed the golden goose.

  88. ” the question of the Uncaused Cause was settled in the Medieval Period, actually before. It has not been disproved.”

    I am going to guess the Uncaused Cause is somewhat reminiscent of the prime mover argument for the existence of god. Some people find that convincing some do not. I put it up there with Plato’s argument that no man can knowingly do wrong – interesting but unconvincing to me.

    I would argue that logic cannot be taken as a complete and accurate guide to reality. It surprises some people but even when applied to purely logical systems such as mathematics, logical deduction has to be either incomplete or inconsistent.

    Depending on your assumptions, logical systems fall into one of two categories: there will be true statements that cannot be deduced or there will be statements that you can deduce that contradict other statements you can deduce.

    When you couple that characteristic of logical systems with the observation that quantum mechanics is filled with observations that seem to contradict our ordinary, logical understanding of reality I think you are left with the conclusion that it takes more than logic to get to the totality of reality.

    Maybe there is an uncaused cause. But I would like to see some data and a test, that could in principle give a negative result, that was applied and found to be positive.

    If we cannot find some data and specify a test that in principle could refute the existence of an uncaused cause, then we are probably not talking about science.

    Maybe there is some sort of god particle or god process that is the basis of everything we know and everything we can know. But without some data and some tests, knowledge of that particle or process is outside the realm of science.

  89. bfm – you can avoid or dismiss the Uncaused Cause, but, like death, it is still there in the shadows.

  90. Schulte, here are some excerpts, without the links to avoid WordPress burial. Just google outrageous water bills in Arizona. There are more stories than you want to read, and thousands more throughout the US. One lady in Anthem said that her water bill exceeded her mortgage payment. Raping of consumers and taxpayers cannot continue much longer. We are not far behind the bloody infighting that is going on in Ukraine.

    Jul 23, 2014 – SURPRISE — Residents in West Valley are fed up with what they consider outrageous water rates… … The Arizona Corporation Commission is seeing one of its fiercest water-rate …

    Mar 8, 2014 – Are the water bills outrageous in the anthem country club and … pstoegger, Home Buyer in Anthem, AZ …
    Epcor Water West Valley (Tucson, Glendale: balloon payment, sale …

    Oct 4, 2012 – Anyone else experiencing jacked up water bills from EPCOR WATER. … They bought out Arizona American Water. … but the bills I’m seeing are outrageous, in the $200 month range.

    What is it like to haul water in Sahuarita?

    Outrageous | Payson Roundup – Payson, AZ
    May 9, 2014 – So it’s possible that the company will first collect the surcharge and then impose water hauling charges.

    Wickenburg residents paying outrageous water bills – ABC15 Arizona
    Jan 30, 2012 – Wickenburg resident outraged over dramatically high water bills.
    You have high water bills? Let me know…. – Joe Ducey

    Epcor could no doubt give you the details about Anthem water rates. … Denise Palmer Maricopa outrageous bills! … Last year EPCOR water took over Arizona American water and charged me triple.

    Jan 12, 2011 – The water bill was extremely high for December use. … Real Estate Investor from Chandler, Arizona ..

    Skyrocketing water bills mystify, anger residents – CNN.com

    Mar 2, 2011 – Imagine paying as much for water as you do for your mortgage.
    Global Water Company – Topix…

    Feb 3, 2009 – 20 posts – ‎11 authors
    I find it outrageous that Global Water charges a $25 Water Basic Charge …. Arizona Sales Tax $2.55

  91. Samantha, Just anecdotal but I have seen none of those bills go up. My garbage is thru a private company and that may have increased 2$ quarterly. My taxes have stayed the same for over 3 years.

  92. Jim, I don’t believe in the voucher system. I think it makes 2 tiers of education. As for a holiday no I am not for that either. The kids are still in school whether “my” kids are in private school or not. It is not as though private school is a necessity. We pay for everyone’s kids to be educated. Maybe someone who has a kid in private school should have subtracted from his taxes the cost of educating one student so then you are not paying double for your own kid(s) by not paying the tax that would cover your kid(s)

  93. ” you can avoid or dismiss the Uncaused Cause, but, like death, it is still there in the shadows.”

    Just curious, would the big bang count as an uncaused cause? Is that what creationist are getting at?

  94. samantha – have read these and we do have a corporation commission that HAS to approve all rate hikes by public or private utilities. I am sure they well be down in Phoenix for the hearing when it comes up.

  95. Schulte, from what I have read, the Corporation Commission is a rubber stamp, no less out of control than is Washington, responsible for approving the rate hikes in Anthem and, I forget the town, in a community southeast of Phoenix. I’m surprised you haven’t heard of any of these stories, in as much as you live in Arizona. The people that I know from Arizona, hate the place after having been overrun by tax and spend loonies and illegal aliens buying 3 shopping carts of food at a time, mostly junk and processed food, using food stamps, their kids gaining weight so quickly, they need bigger clothes every 60 days, the greedy healthcare providers all too eager to treat them with every known disease, such as diabetes, billing taxpayers with the ambition of buffalo hunters bent on wiping out the herd. Many diseases believed wiped out are returning with a vengeance in communities that are overrun with illegal aliens. You don’t find this news in the mainstream media, so you have to look for it.

  96. Samantha – the Corporation Commission is an elected body and is rarely a rubber stamp. They have their own investigators who prepare a report and recommendations and then there are public hearings. I think they are term limited as well.
    The illegals are Obama’s fault. Not the fault of Arizona. We have tried to arrest and send them back, but Obama keeps catching them and releasing them in cities and towns in Arizona.

  97. I was curious about how any scientific journal would allow religion-based speculation in an article, and why Dr. Anderson, Armitage’s co-author, would claim authorship, if the article contained such speculation.

    I was too cheap to pay $35 to download the Armitage and Anderson paper describing the finding of soft Triceratops tissue,
    Acta Histochemica 115, (2013) 603-608,
    so I joined ResearchGate, just to download it for free. Had to present all kinda research credentials.

    I have read the entire article. There’s zero commentary concerning the possible age of the tissue, or the fossil bone found with it.

    It’s all science, reporting of what they found, micrographs of the tissue. Not even a hint of doubts about the age of the earth. No wild speculation.

    If Armitage used these findings to argue for a young earth, he didn’t do it in a research article in any reputable scientific journal. A letter to the editor, perhaps?

    Armitage was a part-time, temporary microscopy instructor. Not tenured, not a professor. It seems that he was offering religion-based interpretations of the soft-tissue he’d found, to those whom he was instructing in the use of microscopes. Totally off-topic, not in his job description.

    A non-tenured, temporary employee at a University can be terminated at any time, without compensation. I was a non-tenured researcher at the University of CA, and when the grants that paid my salary expired, so did my employment. I didn’t like it, but that was the nature of my employment.

    The University is unlikely to provide much information on Mr. Armitage’s termination. That’s a personnel matter, and discussing it brings lawsuits.

    I’m feeling verklempt. Talk among yourselves. No suggested topic.

  98. “I have read the entire article. There’s zero commentary concerning the possible age of the tissue, or the fossil bone found with it.”

    That is interesting stuff. Based on your report, it sounds like what ever this guys problems, the paper is not reasonably a part of them.

    So really we ought to be discussing the boundaries for classroom discussion lead by non tenured instructors. I would also guess that when the instructor is non tenured the boundaries are pretty much what ever the department head says they are – within the limits of free speech of course.

  99. That’s correct, Mike. Mr. Armitage has published an article, which does assert Biblical accounts of creation, in a Creationist journal. The University wouldn’t have a problem with that, since they didn’t endorse it. His religious beliefs are his business.
    The University hired Mr. Armitage to conduct Microscopy, and to instruct others in it. If he was proselytizing during the instruction, that would be an issue, if a student reported it.
    Every account from theological blogs, that I’ve seen so far, attribute his firing to his article on Triceratops tissue. Very unlikely. Mr. Armitage probably provided the photographs of the microscopy work, and the materials and methods that he used to do that work. Mr. Armitage is probably not a paleontologist, so it’s likely that he did not write much of the rest of the paper. I’m familiar with that situation. I did the magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy work for other scientists who were experts in their fields. My name was added to many articles.
    Mr. Armitage’s name was probably added to the Triceratops tissue article for much the same reason.

  100. Sorry, but Good science and Good Theology will always go hand in hand. Bad science and or Bad theology will always conflict. The bible and science go together perfectly.

  101. “Bad science and or Bad theology will always conflict.”

    Always? Isn’t it possible there is at least one example where bad science and bad theology support each other?

    What about “4,000 dinosaur remains prove earth is only 4,000 years old” or “domesticated dinosaurs prove man’s dominion over the earth”?

    OK, maybe that was too easy.

    What about “Good science and Good Theology will always go hand in hand”

    OK, lets try: “There is no evidence that Plan B, Ella, or the Mirena cause abortion by any definition” vs Hobby Lobby.

  102. Mike,
    That’s why I’m puzzled. I don’t understand the meaning of any of Damon’s three sentences.
    “Good science and Good Theology will always go hand in hand.”
    What’s Good Theology?
    I think I know Bad Science. It’s not Science.
    What’s Bad Theology?
    “The bible and science go together perfectly.”
    In what way?
    I don’t see…any going together…at all, sir.
    Perspiring minds want to know.

  103. “I don’t see…any going together…at all”

    I think there is a principle of logic that any statement follows from a false proposition.

  104. Bob – the phrase “good science good theology and bad science bad theology” I have paraphrased for short-hand. Basically I thought it meant nothing.

  105. Paul – was this an attempt to hijack the thread, so that we’d be discussing your favorite obsession?
    Why not write to him, tell him of your obsession, and ask whether he’d leave Michelle, to be with you? It’s healthier to just get it out into the open.
    I don’t suggest knocking on the front door. People might think you’re a little creepy. Or one of them ad hominem weirdos.

  106. Bob – which Paul are you referring to. There are at least two of us on here regularly. If it is me you are referring to, that is an ad hominem attack. FYI, I like my women less muscular than Michelle O. More Amy Adams.

  107. I’m referring to the Paul who has an obsession with Barack Obama. You.
    The fellow who also attributes every comment to an ad hominem attack. The guy in the mirror.

    You know, if you notice a lot of people making ‘ad hominem’ attacks on you, maybe they’re just trying to tell you something.
    Jes’ sayin’.

  108. Bob – thank you for your comments. What those ad hominem attacks tell me is that I am winning the argument. If you follow me carefully, which you have not, as evidenced by this post, you would learn that I engage with many people without being attacked. We may not agree, but it does not drop to that level.
    I am obsessed with Obama only because he affects my life so much. As such, I should be obsessed by him and his administration. You, too, should be obsessed with him and his minions.

  109. I’ll try to be obsessed with him, on your recommendation, Paul. But I don’t really think he’s my type.
    I’m very glad that you don’t think that everyone you talk to is mounting an ad hominem attack. That’s a step forward.

  110. If every half-assed “scientific” claim asserted by someone with an agenda (or without an agenda) had to be directly refuted before we can call it wrong, then we would be spending all our time arguing with morons. Some claims are just so far outside the scientific consensus, they violate so many well-founded and based upon evidence scientific theories, that they can be dismissed out of hand; they do not require investigation. I can assert that the speed of light is actually 50 billion miles per second, and quasars are therefore much closer than astrophysicists believe, so the universe must be younger than they claim; NOBODY has to run experiments to prove me wrong. The experiments have already been run. I am wrong. Period. It doesn’t matter how I interpret or explain my evidence. I am wrong. Period. Nobody needs to waste time refuting me. I can, and should, be ignored. Claiming a dinosaur fossil is 4000 years old falls into the same category. Nobody has to run further experiments to prove it is not possible. It is junk science BECAUSE the science has already been done, and the 4000 year old claim ignores that reality. It is junk logic to not acknowledge that fact. Some science is junk. Some logic is junk. Not calling junk junk gives us a world filled with junk.
    By the way, I taught in the CSU system. It is absolutely given to wild ideas. Of all types. I do not recall anyone not being allowed to express whatever belief they felt like expressing. I do recall them being asked for the evidence to claim it is more than just a believe.

  111. Claims about the speed of light and the age of dinosaur tissue are very different.

    The speed of light is a physical constant. We have strong evidence that the speed of light is the same whenever and where ever we measure it. If you stand beside me or on the other side of the galaxy we believe your tests will show the speed of light to be approximately 300 thousand meters/second.

    Dinosaurs, on the other hand, died out due to a cataclysmic accident. There is no fundamental scientific reason why they could not have survived to this very day. We have evidence to believe their demise began approximately 65 million year ago. But even that extinction may have taken millions of years.

    So the question remains, could there be dinosaur tissue 4,000 years old? Well… could a colony of dinosaurs have survived 64996,000 years without anyone noticing? It doesn’t seem very likely to me. But I can guarantee you this, my opinion has absolutely no influence over the age of dinosaur tissue. If you want to know the age of dinosaur tissue – you have to test it – unless you believe in faith based science.

  112. Yup. If you assert things that refute the current theory of how things work, all you gotta do is prove them.
    Simple.
    If you find tissue in 60 million-year-old rock layers, and you claim it’s a few thousand years old, or a week old, you got some explainin’ to do.
    Should be a damned good story.

  113. Fascinating stuff. And if you really want to burn some time, try looking up measurements for the speed of light over the decades and see if there is any trend in the measurements. I had a college buddy who was pretty sure the universe is slowing down.

  114. Haven’t scientist been arguing both sides of every issue for centuries? This is a hypothesis based on both parties beliefs. Debate, testing and re-examining is how all science consensus is determined. Sometimes, it may be years or even centuries before claims are proven. Many findings have been reversed in their original claims.
    In my estimation, I think Mr. Armitage was let go for his religious beliefs. The majority of public colleges hire atheists and agnostics to be on their staff. They claim that these teachers will be balanced in their thinking. However, we all know that they also have their definite set of beliefs and hammer them into the young vulnerable minds of college students.
    When I returned to college in my 50’s, I witnessed this in some of my classes. I, and others, were frowned upon for asking questions that challenged my professors, who in turn would squirm and try to evade the question or give a indignant and defensive answer, often not making any sense at all.
    It would be great to have a variety of teachers in our college system, or teachers who offer all sides of an issue, so young adults would be challenged to think for themselves, analyze and research issues and then make up their own minds..

  115. leejcarroll–The voucher system gives the parents the freedom to send their children to other public schools as well. A parent does not have to jump through hoops or break any laws, by using false a address, to send their child to a school in another district.
    ~It would inspire public schools to be more competitive in teaching the students.
    ~A voucher would help a family, who otherwise could not afford it, to send their children to the private school of their choice.
    ~If we are a truly free country then we should have the options of choosing the educational institution we wish to send our child.

  116. leejcarol–How do we know if the scientific point of view is correct? Both sides of the issue should be taught to stimulate great thinkers and to entice further research in young adults.

  117. Gigi, You have the option to send your child to any educational institution you want, even home school.
    We know that fossil dating is legitimate scientific process. Creationism is a religious point of view.
    scientific concensus is based on data and studies that are replicatable. Creationism is based on belief and nothing more.

Comments are closed.