3
   

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

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 08:32 am
@layman,
Quote:
Is that in and of itself, some kind of fraud, as Parados claims, ya think, Farmer?


It surely is . When you couple the self published BS about C14 dating , the phony conclusion about the supposed "Date of the fossil" , and "connect" that with the bare publication of only the fossil description , that is , at the minimum, a bit of "slight of hand" that has no place in science.

If you cannot see that, then I suggest youconsider the authors obvious "INTENT TO DECEIVE"
hardly good science. Any science reporting, no matter from what source, needs to be free of such crap if its to be relied upon.

Can the authors findings be relied upon?? HELL NO
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 08:34 am
@layman,
Quote:
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?
...AND Youre only guilty of making up your mind from newspaper accounts.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 08:35 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
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?


Where? That's basically his claim, did you read the story? Of course nobody (which includes me) used the word "crawling," whatever that is supposed to mean, so what makes you think I drew "that conclusion?"
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 08:40 am
@layman,
Quote:
Where? That's basically his claim, did you read the story?
You seem to be easily convinced when there is something sensational involved . Heres a guy who is claiming that the dept is running free with atheism?? Doesnt that alone suggest something about his intent to deceive ??

Im going to keep coming back to that theme till you give it the credit of "Weight of evidence" as readily as you accept some of the lines of the news accounts.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 08:43 am
@parados,
Quote:
There was no carbon dating of the horn in the paper


So? Are you claiming that this is required by this journal prior to publication? Apparently it isn't.

Quote:
The paper only deals with the fact that soft tissue was found and how it was similar to soft tissue found in other fossils.


I've only read the abstract, but even it (not something "buried" in the paper) clearly says this:

Quote:
"This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix."


Are you claiming that the journal's reviewers don't know what a "dinosaur specimen" is?


0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 08:46 am
@farmerman,
I asked:
Quote:
Is that in and of itself, some kind of fraud, as Parados claims, ya think, Farmer?


You answered:

Quote:
It surely is . When you couple...


You did not answer the question I asked.

Or maybe you did. You do if I just stop reading here: "It surely is." Should I have stopped there, in order to understand you correctly?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 08:50 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
AND Youre only guilty of making up your mind from newspaper accounts.


I haven't (your misinterpretations aside) indicated in any way that I have "made up my mind" about anything is his case. On the contrary, I have said quite a few things that indicate I haven't. Yet you have no trouble stating as a fact that I have. Why is that?

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 08:51 am
@layman,
are you doing a cross exam?
The entire actions must be seen as a single event (Cmon, youre not that obtuse to think that he later was really surprised at the implications of the C14 results are you?).
He has a pile of C14 BS dates that have ICR tracks al over.


Wanna buy a bridge?

layman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 09:01 am
@farmerman,
I added an another question to my post, Farmer, which you may not have seen.

Quote:
You did not answer the question I asked. Or maybe you did. You do if I just stop reading here: "It surely is." Should I have stopped there, in order to understand you correctly?


Here you seem to answer another question again:

Quote:
The entire actions must be seen as a single event


What IS your answer? Is it:
1. No, not in itself, but...(or is it what you said)..
2. "It certainly is" (in and of itself)
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 09:09 am
@layman,
It all comes down to whether you want to argue that his claim of the age of the horn is science or not.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 09:11 am
@parados,
Quote:
It all comes down to whether you want to argue that his claim of the age of the horn is science or not


What it "it?' What, exactly, "all comes down" to that?
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 09:21 am
@layman,
If the claim of the horn being about 40,000 years old is science then he needs to retract the references to millions of years ago eras in his paper because they would be scientifically wrong. If the claim of the horn being about 40,000 years old is not science then he would be subject to discipline for promoting non scientific conclusions to students in violation of the mission of the college.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 09:35 am
@parados,
This reply generates number of questions, all by itself, Parados, but let me start with this one:

What "references to millions of years ago eras" are you talking about. The link you gave only leads to an abstract, which contains no such references that I recall. Do you have a link to the full paper? Can you cut and paste the specific references you are talking about?

If you can say what they are, can you explain your reason for claiming that they need to be "retracted?"

As it stands, I find what you are saying to be virtually incomprehensible.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 09:38 am
@parados,
Quote:
If the claim of the horn being about 40,000 years old...


That claim was NOT made in his paper, was it? You're completely losing me here.

It does appear that you are quite confused about the distinction between what is "science" and what conclusions are "scientifically accurate" (which is often a matter of sharply contested differences among scientists, where any PARTICULAR conclusion is involved), though.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 09:48 am
@layman,
Simply click the "view" link next to where it says "FULL-TEXT".
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 09:50 am
@gungasnake,
http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2013/03/453-mark-armitage.html
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 09:54 am
@parados,
Quote:
Simply click the "view" link next to where it says "FULL-TEXT".


I don't get that option, and if I try to "join free" it won't let me without an "institutional" email address.

layman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 10:12 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".


How can you possibly make this claim, Farmer? As I have noted elsewhere his abstract clearly states that:

Quote:
"This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix."


The identification of the horn as one belonging to "Triceratops" says nothing about it's "potential age?"

Did you take this into account at all before saying "They only reported the fossils makeup and the existence of "Soft tissue".?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 10:14 am
@layman,
Don't join. Don't sign in. Simply close the pop up box. The link is there and doesn't cost anything. Or maybe I just have super secret status that you don't get, but I doubt that.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 May, 2015 10:20 am
@parados,
Quote:
Don't join. Don't sign in. Simply close the pop up box. The link is there and doesn't cost anything


Thanks for the suggestion, but it doesn't work for me. I have no option, and closing the "join" box just takes me back where I started (where there is still no link to the "full text").
 

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 0.04 seconds on 09/19/2020 at 04:47:06