3
   

Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil

 
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 06:43 pm
@layman,
Mary Shweitzers specimens comport with the actual agreed-upon verified dates of the HEll Creek Formation. (70 million to bout 66 million). NOT 40000 years. Mary SChweitaer has done some real science on these specimens (Hers was a T rex ), and by verifying the actual range of isotopic dates by the above methods I enumerated, She and another geologist were able to brush off the "Hot Red Meat" argument that the Creationists ere trying to push out there.
The argument that gunga hs been pushing was that "hot red meat means the age is not 65 million years plus, its only a few thousand at most. Thats basically a garbage argument that's been easily debunked

BTW, Armitage is a microscopist and is not trained in paleo, geo, evo/devo or any rlated discipline. Hes a tech who teaches electron microscopy.

Gunga has a list of dino that sshow up with 20 to 40000 ybp dates and they all vary all over the plce yet were all found within the same geologic horizon which is clearly 60 million plus years old.

Again, did Armitage "bury his own Triceratops"?. Where did he get it and how did h doctor it up to produce the phony dates?
The Cretionist crowd is not byond faking spcimens and carving footprints of humans next to Cretaceous dino tacks of the Paluxey River.
Even Piltdown Man was finally brought down by some geologic lab rats who didnt believe the hype from 4 decades earlier.

Frud i done for money nd religion. We can see the "faking for dollars" its another felonious enterprise done mostly by the Chinese fossil diggers. Faking for Jesus is a lot more indidious in that it fucks with science just so its own Chritin worldview can be presented as fact.

0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 07:02 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Or more likely it could be that blog posters don't understand the first thing about carbon-14 dating.


According to the website in question, this particular "blogger" happens to hold a PhD in nuclear chemistry. It is probably "likely" that you did not bother to mention that when you announced what is "more likely," eh?
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 07:26 pm
@layman,
you seem to have a big lean upon the "power of authority" as if degrees conferred preclude making of mistakes.
Wile has had the answer about the validity of the samples that ARmitage had sent in. It was known that the samples were covered with a preservative (lac) and then sent to the lbs without any documentation. Some of the very sampls discussed were commented to hve shellac. ALSO it was extracted using what , acetic acid, a
hemical that contains NEW carbon. its made either by fermentation (wood alcohol) and its reacted with carbon monoxide. (None of these carbon compounds wre ever tested to see that they were C14 FREE.

This is old news and the traces of doubt you seek aint there. Armitage, IMHO, faked the samples by NOT disclosing the lac coating or then the samples were treated to react the apatite (They never disclosed whether it was even a Calcium apatite or the more likely (Flouroapatite). APATITE in bones takes up flourine and as the bone crystal takes on Flourine, there is enough reaction surface to adsorb atmospheric nitrogen 14 or carbon.

The lab just did what it knew and had not suspected that the very existence of C14 ( the "artificially introduced" amount which could be "mathed out" ) that was the whole issue so, a date of 40K is maybe one molecule per Avogadro unit and 20K is four. These amounts are easily in the realm of bullshit and introduced contamination and the lab was not "in on it" so that they could carry our extreme cleanups or, what they really should have done, Tell Armitage "Thank but no thanks" cause any C14 we see is introduced by us (not even counting the shellac)

You dont know what you dont know about this whole issue.
rosborne979
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 07:32 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
He wasn't fired for finding soft tissue.

He was fired for being an idiot (in a number of ways).
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 07:41 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
You dont know what you dont know about this whole issue.


I don't know where you got the idea that I claim to know a damn thing about it, Farmer. In that last post I was just commenting on a comment Parados made, no more, no less.

Quote:
Wile has had the answer about the validity of the samples that ARmitage had sent in. It was known that the samples were covered with a preservative (lac) and then sent to the lbs without any documentation. Some of the very sampls discussed....


You go on at great length here, and I didn't bother to quote it all, but the whole thing suggests that you (unlike Parados) think the blogger (Dr. Wile) DID, in fact, understand carbon dating.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 07:49 pm
@layman,
Sorry, but youre posing some of the same "points" that gunga was using as "proof of concept" several years ago.
I get annoyed when folks dont see the obvious fraud that can be concluded.

And he had the cojones to take up a lawsuit as if hes the injured party.

Remember, we dont know nobody on thee boards (I know maybe 3 people, but not well).

I had to agree with Prados that you seemed to have been trying to occupy both sides of the argument. Its ok to have simultaneous conflicting opinions, it just sounds funny strange when we try to pose them both at the same time.

If youre interested in this whole thing, follow the HOT RED MEAT story surrounding Dr Mary SChweitzer . People o A2K were swering up and down that she found DNA in T rex .


layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 07:55 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I had to agree with Prados that you seemed to have been trying to occupy both sides of the argument. Its ok to have simultaneous conflicting opinions, it just sounds funny strange when we try to pose them both at the same time.


Would you care to explain how and why it "seemed" that way to you? As I recall, he was making a claim about me that was unable to distinguish between a claim of fact and a conclusion inferred from that fact. For example:

Claim of fact: I claim that the ground is wet.
Conclusion: I therefore conclude that it rained recently.

Two different things, aint they?
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 07:58 pm
@layman,
Wile is a respected scientist. You are misreading what he really said. Its often a big thing to try to ferret out what the entire points are.
Another respected scientist is a guy named Dr Roger Wiens (he is also a practicing Christian) has published the validity re isotopic dataing and has nicely exposed the BS associated with "doctoring" for carbon 14 jusst to make it appear that Crretaceous fossils contain dateable C14.
He was the one who first began the isolation of the isotopic ages of volcanic ash deposits that underlie and overlie all the fossil beds of the HEll Creek. Like a geologic envelope that cannot be successfully denied.

The LAW of Superposition is still in effect and these guys like Armitge (nd gunga by extenion) are just defiantly ignorant . They shut their ears and "preach" their Flood Geology and Creationist beliefs and try to make-believe its science

Its all a matter of simple honesty .Its damned impossible to be "cientifically detached" when all about are lying sacks o **** wearing lab coats on.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 08:04 pm
@layman,
Im too fuckin sleepy to want to go back and hunt for the statements. Also, I aint Timur or Frankie. I wanna move on.
All I ask (nd Im trying to be more sensitive of my own scatterbrained deliveries), we are not the best arbiters of what we say on the boards. We are read by others and, despite what you think you may have said, you must recognize that you were heard by at least 2 people saying something else.

No real biggy, I apologize for bustin on you for you not buying the issue right off based upon our brilliant "presentation".
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 08:21 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I apologize for bustin on you for you not buying the issue right off


What issue? I am pretty sure that you and I have been addressing completely different issues through out this entire thread.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 08:27 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
...we are not the best arbiters of what we say on the boards. We are read by others and, despite what you think you may have said, you must recognize that you were heard by at least 2 people saying something else.


I agree with your basic point here, but, nonetheless I think that:

(1) what I (or you, or anyone else) actually said is the first "arbiter" of what was said, and

(2) in the event of any ambiguity or alternate interpretations as to what meaning was intended, I am the best arbiter of my own posts (and you of yours).
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 09:28 pm
@layman,
You don't seem to know what the paper said and yet you want to argue what conclusions where obvious from what facts he presented in his paper?

Armitage lists no facts about doing a C-14 test on the horn. He lists nothing about the age of the specimen but references other papers which would imply it is millions of years old like other fossils that have contained soft material. Armitage's claims of the fossil being several tens of thousands of years old aren't obvious based on the paper. It would fly directly in the face of what the paper says. It would imply that he hid certain facts when he published the paper if the conclusion was obvious.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 09:50 pm
@parados,
Quote:
It would imply that he hid certain facts when he published the paper if the conclusion was obvious.


What? For him personally, a certain conclusion seemed "obvious." What conclusion(s) any other person(s) in the world might draw from the facts presented in his paper was strictly up to them. It was not "fraud" for him to not include his own, personal, conclusions and not attach them to the findings themselves. To suggest otherwise (as you did) makes no sense.

If he did, in fact, falsify his findings, as some here seem to believe, that would be a completely different matter. It would have nothing to do with whether or not he included his personal conclusions when presenting the "facts."
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 04:31 am
@layman,
Then, he cannot "mine" the claim that he is a "published author who is being punished for his Creationisst beliefs"
His publications (at least the juried ones) are all apparently silent on his "conclusions". WHY? because his data and methods would be scrutinized and would be reviewed for any questions of improprieties or poor science.
He would probably have to include the G Tech lab ork and include the Ga geochemist as an author.
I wonder whether the Ga Tech staff could support his claims when it became known that the samples had residues of modern carbon or were "cleaned up" with a method that didnt account for where any C14 may have come from?

His entire methodology , that which resulted in his claim that the horn contained soft tissue that measured 40000 years old, was at least flawed and he apparently failed to disconnect the methodology and the conclusions in his classrooms.
That provides for an annual review of his career performance that would conclude that, at best, he is incompetent, and at worst, has suborned indivuals to commit a fraud of the "piltdown" level.

Course that is all my opinion but my opinion has been developed over the past years when the information in this case gradually unfolded.


!. None of his juried papers contain anything about the potential age of the horn. They only reported the fossils makeup and the existence of "Soft tissue". Apparently, they were all "methods papers" (Other scientists whove reported "Soft tissue" from Hell Creek fossils have all recognized the great age that the bone beds represent).

2. Armitage's Creationist conclusions are separate from any papers he prepared for the juried literature. He had susbsequently self published a " Creation friendly" book on the "age implications" of soft tissue apparently after the samples were run by Ga TEch

3. I dont believe the Ga Tech isotope lab was a participant in any methodological fraud because they were apparently not given any QA data or facts involved . The shellac incidents were reported several years ago when the whole batches of data came forward through several Creationist "research Institutes", (like the ICR). Did they support the C14 lab work with ICR funding??

4. The subsequent scientific critique included in the Phryngula and SandWalk blogs, correctly stated the obvious about the C14
a. either the sample was incorrectly analyzed and results were suspect
or
b. . The C14 method itself needs scrapping (even Christian geochemist Roger Wiens has stated that C14 methodology is robust and allows for an error bar of about one to two prcent and the method has a window of useability that does NOT include stretching the methodology back to the Cretaceous

5. The Hell Creek formation bone beds have a well established and widely supported age range. The HELL CREEK has been measured extensively and ghas been found to be
NO OLDER THAN about 70 million years and NO YOUNGER than about 66 million years. Anything found within these beds would have to fit those ages (unless the samples were "doctored" or analyzed incorrectly or that the soft tissue really was of a younger apparent age either by natural C14 contamination or by C14 contamination that was entered with intent to deceive) .


IS he worth keeping as a dispassionate science teacher in a public institution?






farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 04:43 am
@layman,
Quote:

What extremely tolerant atheist wouldn't fire the "sneaky" bastard? How DARE he state the "obvious" conclusion to be drawn from a paper he published.


Among your opening shots. Your words seem to support Armitages conclusions as "obvious" when, indeed, he did not include any such conclusions till later.

In his role as a science instructor he was not teaching science. He was mixing his beliefs with whatever could be correctly concluded.

BTW, where did you draw the conclusion that the department in which Armitage was employed was crawling with Atheists?
Do you know all this for a fact?

Or are you just trying to blow some smoke around?


parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 07:26 am
@layman,
If it was "obvious" that the specimen was only a few thousands of years old then clearly he misrepresented it's age in the paper.

I'm sorry but if you compare the horn to other fossils 80 million years old and talk about a similar process, there is no "obvious" conclusion that the horn is only 40,000 to 68,000 years old. You want to have it both ways again layman. You want to consider it science and obvious but restrict it to only his opinion at the same time.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 07:32 am
@farmerman,
There was no carbon dating of the horn in the paper. The paper only deals with the fact that soft tissue was found and how it was similar to soft tissue found in other fossils.

The paper can be found here.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235646829_Soft_sheets_of_fibrillar_bone_from_a_fossil_of_the_supraorbital_horn_of_the_dinosaur_Triceratops_horridus


Layman seems to think that it's obvious that the Devonian, Triasic, and Cretacious periods were less than 100,000 years ago.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 08:16 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
His publications (at least the juried ones) are all apparently silent on his "conclusions". WHY? because his data and methods would be scrutinized and would be reviewed for any questions of improprieties or poor science.


I don't follow you here, Farmer. Are you suggesting that papers submitted ONLY have the "data and methods scrutinized and reviewed for any questions of improprieties or poor science" IF they believe the author is a creationist? That the "peer review" process is selective?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 08:24 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
None of his juried papers contain anything about the potential age of the horn. They only reported the fossils makeup and the existence of "Soft tissue".


Is that in and of itself, some kind of fraud, as Parados claims, ya think, Farmer?

Quote:
That provides for an annual review of his career performance that would conclude that, at best, he is incompetent, and at worst, has suborned indivuals to commit a fraud of the "piltdown" level.


If that's why he was fired then he will lose his suit, Farmer. It's not what his suit claims was the reason, so that is for a judge or jury to decide. It's why we have courts of law, ya know?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 08:31 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Among your opening shots. Your words seem to support Armitages conclusions as "obvious" when, indeed, he did not include any such conclusions till later.


Yeah, it was a "shot." But at whom, for what reason, and on what grounds? You appear to conclude that I am making a judgment about the scientific merit of his claims, but that's not the point at all. I put the word "obvious" in scare quotes, as you have accurately represented it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Two original basic human groups? - Discussion by gungasnake
Human origins on Jupiter's moon system? - Discussion by gungasnake
Wait a sec?! Coffee doesn't go there?! - Discussion by tsarstepan
Dinosaurs and carbon dating - Discussion by gungasnake
Don Scott: Plasma Cosmology - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 09/19/2020 at 03:45:58