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

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.

In reality, everyone in science familiar with the literature would know that soft tissue has been found in bones over 40 million years old and would also be familiar with the process used to extract that soft tissue.

Science is not always completely clear cut, and your subjective certainty in your own personal conclusions does not make it so.

It seems that Farmer wants to deny this.

I dont know whether your "Simple layman" is just schtick or if you really think that way.

“Education is that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.” (Ambrose Bierce)

“Education is that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.” (Ambrose Bierce

"Dinosaur Shocker: Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the ancient beasts."

by Helen Fields Smithsonian Magazine May 2006

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive....

Dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

As far as anyone can tell, Schweitzer was right: Bob the dinosaur really did have a store of medullary bone when she died. A paper published in Science last June presents microscope pictures of medullary bone from ostrich and emu side by side with dinosaur bone, showing near-identical features...

Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil.

Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens.

Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data.

She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. ....

their world view is not evidence of controversies

It only means those doing so aren't conducting science...

The controversies were old hat?

The way you, and perhaps Farmer, tell it, these findings should have been suppressed. The journal which published his paper should have asked one simple question first: ARE YOU A CREATIONIST? If his answer was "yes," then the paper should have been thrown in the trash. He was DEFRAUDING them by not disclosing his beliefs on a religious matter.

I don't buy that. Sorry. The paper was worthy of publication,

As usual, Parados, you miss the point completely. The way you, and perhaps Farmer, tell it, these findings should have been suppressed.

Which findings should have been suppressed?

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

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... His citation of any other work as a predecessor to his work would no longer be valid.

We are left again with the final conclusion that Armitage...was remiss in correcting his work that he now considers invalid because the age has changed so much.

The horn can't be both 40 million years old and 4,000 years old.

You continue to try to argue that both figures are correct at the same time

Since the horn can't be both 40 million years old and 4,000 years old, which number is correct? Why do you feel Armitage can present both numbers as being scientifically correct without consequence?