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

@layman,

I guess I can't help you see what is in front of your face but I will try. Look to the right of the abstract and scroll down if you need to. Or do a text search for the word "full-text" which should take you to it, then click the button to the right of that.

(It works for me on 3 different computers with 3 different browsers and 2 different IP addresses.)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

C14 is a very robust application an NO other dinosaurs (except for the batch that were sent to Georgia TEch ) have ever been showing dumass dates like 20 and 40K ybp.

Did you read Dr. Wiles' blog entry before you asserted this Farmer? The cite to it, and quotes therefrom, had already been given, before you made it. He says:

Quote:

When you also consider the fact that many other dinosaur bones (and other things that are supposed to be millions of years old) are dated as only being 22,000-41,000 years old, you have to at least conclude that there is something wrong somewhere.

His blog also contains numerous links in support of that claim. Did you look at any of them?

3 Replies

@parados,

OK, let me try that...

OK, that worked, thanks (it was at the very bottom, on the left). At least we can look at the same thing.

0 Replies

@parados,

The paper says this:

Quote:

The Hell Creek Formation has been a well-characterized and
studied rock unit since first described in the early 1900s (Brown,
1907). It is exposed by the well-known Cedar Creek Anticline
at Glendive, MT and encompasses nearly 700 km (Johnson et al.,
2002). Many valuable fossils have been recovered from the Hell
Creek Formation exposed at Glendive, and Triceratops remains
(including brow horns) are frequently found at that location
(Horner, 2001).

Is that what you refer to when you say "the references to millions of years ago eras in his paper?" If so, why should that disclosure be "retracted?"

2 Replies

@layman,

Maybe you should read the entire paper a couple of times.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Maybe you should read the entire paper a couple of times.

More evasion? What should ANY reference to long past eras BE RETRACTED from his paper (assuming they are there)? Any REASON why you say that?

0 Replies

@layman,

I stated that , the HELL CREEK is a well known formation with dates and strat well documented (by everyone except Armitage apparently)> Did ARmitage purposely avoid any age data? Was he already , based upon his worldview, setting the readers up for his scamming?

The description of the HEll Creek has been purposely punctuated by ARmitage. Apparently he avoided anything about ages and deposition.
It is de rigueur for any geologic description to include a summary of what is known about the age and the stratigraphic sequence AND any data that supports same ( always with references). Even the UUSGS manual of stratigraphic nomenclature contains this type data. If you notice, Armitage does not include any summary of age determinations. That should make his plans suspect. As it turned out he was trying to make a point about HELL CREEK fossils being a scant tens of thousands of years old.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The description of the HEll Creek has been purposely punctuated by ARmitage. Apparently he avoided anything about ages and deposition.

Is the age of the Hell Creek dig some secret, known only to him, Farmer? Has he somehow "fooled" every other scientist who served as a peer reviewer, ya figure?

Quote:

It is de rigueur for any geologic description to include..

If the review panel thought that was necessary, then they certainly could have, and would have, insisted on it's inclusion.

You're shooting blanks, here, Farmer. You just said:

Quote:

the HELL CREEK is a well known formation with dates and strat well documented (by everyone except Armitage

If every one knows, how could Armitage possibly be accused of "fraud?" if he didn't (in your opinion) stress it enough? They ALREADY know it, right?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

His blog also contains numerous links in support of that claim. Did you look at any of them?

YEs Ive read it .

ONCE more(Ill try to be as clear as I am able ). IF WE HAVE A GEOLOGIC FORMATION THAT IS CLEARLY DATE AGED by numerous different methods and the age of the Formation lies within good methodological agreement among these many methods (That is 60 + to 70+ MILLION YEARS BP). HOW then do you explain the presence of any fossil contained within the Formation and known to be depositionally consistent with the Formation. HOW do you explain that fossil's"lab " age being almost 2000 times younger than the very rock that contains it ?
Mistakes can happen, but you seem to want to hang on to the possibility that his age date is not incorrect and is not the product of an effort to deceive.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

HOW then do you explain the presence of any fossil contained within the Formation and known to be depositionally consistent with the Formation. HOW do you explain that fossil's"lab " age being almost 2000 times younger than the very rock that contains it ?

That's a very good question, isn't it? That is, in fact, THE question, as far as Wiles is concerned. These things don't square up. Why not?

I don't pretend to even begin to know. Wiles says there are now MANY instances of this occurring. What's the explanation? Something to investigate, don't you think?

Well, maybe not for you. No investigation needed. You seem to a KNOW the answer without that, a priori.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

When you also consider the fact that many other dinosaur bones (and other things that are supposed to be millions of years old) are dated as only being 22,000-41,000 years old, you have to at least conclude that there is something wrong somewhere

TRY to think about what it is that he is really saying. Is the overall C14 method wrong (hint: the method is good and quite repeatable)

Has the method preparation been screwed up? (Hint: could be)

Has the reagent being used been contaminated with new carbon(Hint: could also be)

Has the sample type been incorrectly chosen ?(Also a could be)

I dont find anything suspect about the good Dr's summation. hes just being non critical of Armitage(perhaps hes already been signed up as a witness by the school)

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Did you look at any of them?

funny you should ask. Ever hear of SCience Citation Index?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I dont find anything suspect about the good Dr's summation. hes just being non critical of Armitage

He clearly says that it's not just that. It's not "just Armitage," as you had claimed. It's him and many other such discoveries. That makes it harder to explain.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Is the age of the Hell Creek dig some secret, known only to him, Farmer? Has he somehow "fooled" every other scientist who served as a peer reviewer, ya figure?

Exactly!!

Why would he purposely ignore something that is readily available in all literateure about the HELL CREEK?? DOESNT that make you think hes ignored it on purpose?

Whats the point of the Obtuseness streak that youre displaying now?

HEs a Creationist who hs always denied an OLD EARTH. Anything that supports an old earth is immediately suspect and denied by Armitage. Could it be thats why hes removed ANY references to the stratigraphy and chrono age of the Formation.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Why would he purposely ignore something that is readily available in all literateure about the HELL CREEK?? DOESNT that make you think hes ignored it on purpose?

I don't follow your reasoning at all here, Farmer. Would you accuse me of trying to "defraud" you if I didn't tell you that the sky is blue? Why should I?

1 Reply

Between you and Parados, the arguments are all over the lot here. You suggest that he is somehow guilty of fraud because he didn't say MUCH MORE about something that is obvious to all.

On the other hand, Parados says that any discussion indicating the geological era should be RETRACTED from the paper.

Sheesh.

0 Replies

@layman,

Im done with your ducking the facts. Here is a copy of a definative strat paper of the HELL CREEK. Armitage certainly had such literature available to him. He merely chose to ignore it all. Youre denying the facts because it doesnt support your positions.

[url] https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cHvcIeh2f84C&oi=fnd&pg=PA145&dq=Hell+Creek+Formation&ots=

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Youre denying the facts because it doesnt support your positions

These incessant instances of your mind-reading are becoming wearisome, Farmer. I don't have a "position" on the merits of this and I haven't denied a single "fact" that I'm aware of.

In your mind, am I denying the FACTS, if I don't immediately join you in screaming "THE GUY'S A GOD DAMN FRAUD?"

That seems to be your definition of "denying the facts."

You seem to be the one wanting it both ways. On the one hand, you assure me that "mistakes can be made." On the other, you claim to KNOW that no possible mistake could have been made in this case because THE GUY'S A GOD DAMN FRAUD!" One power of ESP gave you that indisputable information, I wonder?

1 Reply

@layman,

Analysis of data is apparently not your strong suite. Im done trying to make you understand the point when you have no idea of what you speak. Sorry, Im done, You win the osmium award for the week

Quote:

I don't have a "position" on the merits of this and I haven't denied a single "fact" that I'm aware of.

A key word is "AWARE"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im done trying to make you understand the point when you have no idea of what you speak.

Farmer, this story is about a guy allegedly (notice I didn't say factually) being fired because of his religious beliefs. The question the story raises is NOT

1. Is creationism true?
2. Is Armitage's scientific opinion the best possible conclusion, given the facts?

But to you that is NOT the story. Your story is about the fraudulent character of this guy. And you seem to believe that you have extra-sensory powers that serve to appoint you as judge, jury, and executioner on that charge.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know