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

@layman,

well thts comforting for your mind. (Its not true since ALL the followup by the ICR hs been how hes proved the age of the earth n hos Evolution is bunk)
I dont have extrat sensory powers, I have an understanding of the facts (you seem to ignore them). Armitage's own blogs and inerts in other pages are rife with how he "got it right"

He didnt, If you unerstood just a bit of the science involved , you wouldnt be seeing it so myopically .

1. He ignored the age determinations of the HELL CREEK in hos papare. (while he quoted others, he makes NO mention of how robust the age determintions were mde by lots pf other isotope and luminescence and geophys lbs)--Overlapping data about the age pf the Formation would be devastating to his ultimate point

2He merely published his paper and it is age determination-free.

3 He claimed a "mild acid soak" freed the soft tissue (We know that Ga TEch soaked theirs in ACETIC acid, what about ARmitage

4 He separated his electron scan paper from his conclusionary paper about how old C14 found the sample to be

5 He lied, cheated, and was perping a fraud.

"Keeping an open mind about his credibility would result in upholding his firing just for pure incompetence (That is if he wasnt a board member of the Institute of Creation Research even before he got his MAsters (Conferred by a REGIONALLY UNACCREDITED COLLEGE.

I guess Im glad gunga brought this up again

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

5 He lied, cheated, and was perping a fraud.

I can't see where anything you've brought up in your 4-part enumeration constitutes the establishment of

1. A lie, or
2. cheating, let alone
3. fraud.

Apparently you and I have completely different understandings of what constitutes sufficient proof of such serious allegations.

Not that I haven't seen that type of thing before. Ask a typical Republican, and he will tell you that all Democrats lie. Ask a typical Democrat, and he will tell you that all Republicans lie.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Put another way: if I ask a Republican if he thinks a guy was lying when a particular proposition (which he views as "suspect") was made, his first (and last) question might be: Did some Democrat say that? If I say yes, then he immediately tells me: "Then it's a lie."

Sufficient "proof" for him, but not for me. We differ on how to assess that.

1 Reply

@layman,

you have too be more familiar with the science to make such a claim re ARmitage

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

I can't see where anything you've brought up in your 4-part enumeration constitutes the establishment of

Am I that difficult to understand? If you dont understand the crap that ARmitage has posted then perhaps you should just

1 try to study up a bit mre

2 Go away unfulfilled

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Am I that difficult to understand?

I think I understand you Farmer. Do you understand me?

I take you to be saying something along these lines, ultimately:

"The guy is a creationist, so obviously he is lying."

I'm just saying that I don't see how you could make that determination. I can't make it, from what you've recited.

In your prior posts, some of it seemed to be based on two claims you made that weren't accurate, to wit:

1. That there had NEVER been any similar occurrences of this "soft tissue" being found in what were otherwise presumed to be ancient creatures. Wiles says otherwise (he says there have been many, and give links). Some of these are also mentioned in Armitage's paper directly.

2. That Armitage had NOT DISCLOSED where this "soft tissue" came from. That was wrong. It is clearly stated in his abstract. It came from a dinosaur horn found at Hell Creek.

So, it kinda appears that you mighta just said things that suited your pre-established conclusion when you said them, without any real basis. Same with your claim that he "defrauded" scientists by not telling them what they already knew---I can't see the fraud there, sorry. It fits your tale, but, other than that....

1 Reply

@layman,

The fact that hes a Creationist is separate from the fraud hes commited. Mere forensics (of course its circumstantial), but its quite compelling in my opinion.

Quote:

there had NEVER been any occurrences of this "soft tissue" being found

Ive recognized the occurence of "soft tissue" in dinos beginning with MAry SChweitzers work (also in Hell Creek).
Therefore one wrong

Quote:

2. That Armitage had NOT DISCLOSED where this "soft tissue

Stop it, youre making **** up now. DID YOU NOT READ the stuff I ssaid regarding the HEll Creek Formation where we all acknowledge that ARmitage dicovered the Triceratopsian horn. I said that the HELL CREEK hd been fully time dated by many many isotopic techniques.
Youre wrong here too.

Im really getting tired of you making crap up. Ive tried to be ptient in your many misrepresentations with me as well as others.
If you dont unerstan, say sso.

If my spelling problems are an issue, say so and Ill try harder to correct my errors.

You cant see the fraud because you have a predigested conclusion. Ivetried the forensic route by using seriatem listings of what he sorta did .
You dont buy it, OK, Ill live.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

The really big issue herein is that Noone would offer to do C14 from fossils contained in rocks that we already know are 60 Million years old. KNOW WHY??

Think about it--- Why would Armitage offer to run C14 on a Cretaceous age fossil?

chronostratigraphy based on unstable isotope ratios is a mature techniique. It doesnt need "testing to see whether it works or not"
ANy isotope analyses that finds otherwise has some error .

THATS WHAT WILE WAS SAYING. He is very familiar with the "error bar" associated with these methods and hes also very familiar with the limitations of the specific isotopes use.

I

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Quote:
there had NEVER been any occurrences of this "soft tissue" being found

Ive recognized the occurence of "soft tissue" in dinos beginning with MAry SChweitzers work (also in Hell Creek).
Therefore one wrong

Your exact words:

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.

http://able2know.org/topic/277406-1#post-5952839

Do you deny those words? You might have had to partially retract them after being contradicted, but that's irrelevant to the point of my post about what you said.

===========

Quote:

Quote:
2. That Armitage had NOT DISCLOSED where this "soft tissue

Stop it, youre making **** up now...Youre wrong here too.

Your exact words:

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".

http://able2know.org/topic/277406-2#post-5953130

Do you now deny these words? He clearly said, at the outset that this came from a dinosaur horn. That is obviously more than just "the fossils makeup" and it obviously tells you something very clearly about "the potential age of the horn." We ALL know that dinosaurs are "potentially ancient," don't we?

Of course the putative discovery of soft tissue in this horn is EXACTLY what makes the story worthy of publication. As the journal editors (and all other scientists in the field), knew (without being told) this, if accurate, would tend to contradict the assumptions about the age.

You act like this was Armitages PERSONAL SECRET. But it wasn't. Not even close. Such a possible interpretation was known to anyone. Again, that's WHY is was worthy of being published.

2 Replies

@layman,

WOW, Im being quote mined. What Ive said, I stand by because you need to display the context.
There was "never any dino soft tissue occurences" until Mary SChweiter first dicovered a T rex with soft tissue that had to be etched out of the mtrix with acid..

All the mass of C14 dumass age data from dino fossils had been submitted by the ICR which included Armitage as a flunky. HES A BOARD MEMBER OF ICR. What I was saying was that nO real scientists useC14 for dinosaur dating. (ITs a big waste of funding to prove an obvious point or to detect how C14 can be contaminated)

Quote:

Do you now deny these words? He clearly said, at the outset that this came from a dinosaur horn

Now youre just fuckin around. I clearly said that he didnt say anything about the age of the HELL CREEK FORMATION (that was where the fossil was found, NOT, as you seem to feel, from what part of the dino body the fossil originated. If youre just trying to be a clown , youre getting there.

Quote:

(and all other scientists in the field), knew (without being told) this, if accurate, would tend to contradict the assumptions about the age.

WOW, you really are the master of the bleedin obvious. Well, did he succeed? Why did he even have the stuff dated?

I think youve backed yourself into a corner and are looking for obfuscatory ways out.

Quote:

You act like this was Armitages PERSONAL SECRET

Youre fulla ****. He disclosed it, but where? IN A JURIED PUBLICATION??? No, in a self published brochure that came AFTER he submitted his papaer with Anderson to the microscopy journal. That papaer was accepted and it contained NOTHING about the fossils age or it geologic context . It mentions the HELL CREEK by poting Schweiter and Horner's names.

Youre arguments are a bit loosey goosey and you seem to be strongly attached to justifying Armitage's bullshit. (and, by inference, his reputation as a real scientist). Hes a hack and a perpe of a neat fraud. GOT you to buy it without question

You have assiduously avoided anwering the question that
"If a fossil is emplaced within a sedimentary bed that has really definitive age dates> SO that its clear that the fossil is contemporaneous with the sediments. WHY does a real scientist choose to do an age dating by using a method that wont work.(C14 for the Cretaceous). Does this mean that you believe the Cretaceous iis much younger than calculated and measured and that science is all wrong?

You seem tom want to make the rest of the scientists sound like theyre openly accepting of Armitages bogus age dates. Actually, the real workers were merely pointing out whats wrong with doing C14 on dinosaur fossils .

1 Reply

The other famous case of an evoloser witch tribunal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

0 Replies

http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2011/11/03/caroline-crocker-aitse-interview/

Quote:

ICC: I came to the attention of the producers of the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed as a result of the 2005 publication of an article by Geoff Brumfield in Nature magazine. Briefly, soon after receiving my PhD in immunopharmacology, I began teaching cell biology at George Mason University (GMU). But when I gave students information on the scientific questions surrounding the theory of evolution, I found myself banned from lecturing, my three-year contract switched for a one-year, and my job over. Amazingly, it did not end there! GMU found a way to deprive me of legal representation by offering the law firm that was representing me a more lucrative contract.

That is, by offering them a better contract on condition that they drop Caroline Crocker.

0 Replies

http://creation.com/review-free-to-think-caroline-crocker

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You seem tom want to make the rest of the scientists sound like theyre openly accepting of Armitages bogus age dates. Actually, the real workers were merely pointing out whats wrong with doing C14 on dinosaur fossils

Not at all, Farmer. This is the very point that YOU are overlooking. Every scientist is free to give his opinon about the validity and/or implications of the data (including Armitage himself). Nothing has been fraudulently concealed. If he's wrong, as a matter of science, then he's wrong. He didn't have some "secret" way of fooling other scientists.

Also, you keep bring up C-14. His paper was NOT about that. If some tests were done, then they were. If there were irregularities in the procedure, then there were. Where's the evidence of fraud?

Your narrative is about what a fraud he is. Even if you just limited it to the likelihood that dinosaurs existed recently, that would not be what the news report was about and it wouldn't "prove" fraud. That's all a matter of scientific evidence and opinion. Has nothing to do with his suit for wrongful termination.

He could be an ax murderer, and that would not make his termination proper if it was based on improper grounds, so it's not really even an issue in that sense. If the school can show that's why they fired him, then great, they win. That's not what his lawsuit claims happened, but he hasn't had a chance to produce his evidence either. It's just a pending case at this point.

Could he have falsified data? Sure, he coulda. Anyone can. Does that prove he DID? No, fraid not. You need more than that.

2 Replies

@layman,

youre ignoring the entire issue arent you. He publisjhed his noncommital paper , then had C14 done . His conclusions about the bogus age of the dinosaur horn ere a meld of the two events .

Quote:

Even if you just limited it to the likelihood that dinosaurs existed recently, that would not be what the news report was about and it wouldn't "prove" fraud. That's all a matter of scientific evidence and opinion. Has nothing to do with his suit for wrongful termination.

Youre full of ****. ITS ONLY scientific evidence NOT OPINION. He has shown frud by coupling his paper with bogus C14 data. THEN he went abrod and "preached the bullshit" about young earth dinosaurs.

He gave his employer undue problems and was dismissable .

Quote:

He could be an ax murderer, and that would not make his termination proper if it was based on improper grounds

If being an ax murderer gave his employer undue problems , why not. California, I believe, is an AT WILL state.

Quote:

Could he have falsified data? Sure, he coulda. Anyone can. Does that prove he DID? No, fraid not. You need more than that

In another three pges youll find a way to turn your opinions around and youll be telling me that I shouldnt be defending this fraudster.

He submitted samples that were doctored with shellac and were soaked in a crbon containing solution FOR about 4 weeks. He probably added enough C14 to the matrix to affect the outcomes. The shellac trick was used on the previous specimens according to other sources.

The only one whose proposed that Armuitage kept a secret is you. He spent a lot of time trying to make people believe that these fossils were a few tens of thousands of years old.

You and gunga, get a room!. This aint going anywhere, youre getting circular and Im getting pissed at how much time Ive wasted on your crap.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Youre full of ****. ITS ONLY scientific evidence NOT OPINION.

If you believe that, Farmer (that there is no "opinion" involved in scientific conclusions), then you're much less sophisticated in your "scientific thought" than you like to think.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Do you now deny these words? He clearly said, at the outset that this came from a dinosaur horn. That is obviously more than just "the fossils makeup" and it obviously tells you something very clearly about "the potential age of the horn." We ALL know that dinosaurs are "potentially ancient," don't we?

Except Armitage was telling his students the horn was 4,000 years old.

We ALL know that dinosaurs are "potentially ancient" because WE ALL know they came from 40-100 million years ago. When one mentions dinosaurs in a scientific paper, that is the assumed age range. When one mentions specific periods like the Jurassic or Cretaceous periods we all tend to agree within a few million years of when those time periods were and certainly agree that they were millions of years ago. When in a science article you compare how a horn was fossilized to another bone from a dinosaur once again WE ALL know that dinosaurs are potentially ancient so the horn would also be of that same time period.

When reading Armitage's paper, every indication and every cite of other papers are such that WE ALL know that dinosaurs are ancient, in the order of tens of millions of years. To not specify a different time frame is to agree to something WE ALL know. There can be little doubt that Armitage was agreeing to something WE ALL know in his paper. To then disagree with something WE ALL know and he tacitly agreed with in his paper would make his paper fraudulent as to how he dealt with something WE ALL know. His paper should be retracted in major form because he clearly would now be saying that the horn from 4000 years ago was not fossilized in the same manner as a dinosaur bone from 40 million years ago. His citation of any other work as a predecessor to his work would no longer be valid.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Also, you keep bring up C-14. His paper was NOT about that. If some tests were done, then they were. If there were irregularities in the procedure, then there were. Where's the evidence of fraud?

and you seem to deny that he had C14 even done. This was the basis from which his "opinion" of a young earth descended. Much of his troubles in his employment stem from that entire connection. WHen your opinions arent clearly based on facts,( thats when I start accusing you of ID leanings
I still insist that, with all your misrepresentatons, denials, quotes and positions clearly from ICR's basket of BS, as well as your penchant to to ignore facts,(witness all your giving ARmitage a "pass" for his fraud, you serve up as a really good Creationist until one so proclaimmed shows up.

As far as your opinion of me, should I lose sleep over that? youve already opened the insult door several topics ago. SO I must shake up your worldview.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

If you believe that, Farmer (that there is no "opinion" involved in scientific conclusions), then you're much less sophisticated in your "scientific thought" than you like to think. [[//quote]

Coming from you, thats almost an endorsement . In science, opinions are like assholes. We have entire schools of "opinions" without fact or evidence claiming to be scientific but is really science fiction. SimpleConclusions based upon evidence, thats what we seek .
Opinions are what Armitage used to spread his fraud and connfuse students. (Fortunately they were almost unanimously unimpressed by the guy.

Im sure gunga will bring this and T rex up again and again.

Hope youre a little better informed next time he does.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

When reading Armitage's paper, every indication and every cite of other papers are such that WE ALL know that dinosaurs are ancient, in the order of tens of millions of years. To not specify a different time frame is to agree to something WE ALL know.

Yeah, exactly. That's what I've been saying all along. I been saying it to you because you said all indications of age in his paper should be retracted (which makes no sense). I have been saying it to Farmer, because he somehow thinks it was "fraud" by Armitage not to explicitly elaborate on the obvious at greater length in his paper. The journal was apparently satisfied that there was no doubt bout the nature of the creature or the geographical strata from which it had been retrieved. I am too, as far as that part goes.

Quote:

To then disagree with something WE ALL know and he tacitly agreed with in his paper would make his paper fraudulent as to how he dealt with something WE ALL know.

When you say, you are completely ignoring another point which I have already made:

Quote:

Of course the putative discovery of soft tissue in this horn is EXACTLY what makes the story worthy of publication. As the journal editors (and all other scientists in the field), knew (without being told) this, if accurate, would tend to contradict the assumptions about the age.

So there's something ELSE everyone knows, i.e., that if, indeed, soft tissue remnants were found in the horn, that would be inconsistent with an assumption of a 40 million year age. EVERYONE knows that too, not just Armitage. The journal KNEW that, when they accepted his paper. He is NOT making any "unscientific" if he notes that inconsistency. It is common knowledge which was apparent to all BEFORE he ever submitted his paper. It was NOT his "personal secret" that he "fraudulently" concealed. It was wide open knowledge.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know