3
   

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

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2015 03:22 pm
@layman,
Quote:
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.

That is complete bullshit. If you bothered to read his paper you would see where he cites a previous paper that found soft tissue in dinosaur bones. 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. What was different here was that it came from a different species and the structure of the soft tissue under microscope appears to show cell structure. Other than that everything in his paper points to the fossil being at least 40 million years old. To now change that time frame to only 4000 years old makes every reference to the earlier process of extracting soft tissue, every reference to the site where the horn was found, every reference to how the process of fossilization occurred no longer valid because all those previous papers dealt with an age that was tens of millions of years old. Because of the change in the age is so drastic, he can no longer use those other works to support his work on the horn.

We are left again with the final conclusion that Armitage lied in his paper knowingly, lied about the age of the horn later knowingly or was remiss in correcting his work that he now considers invalid because the age has changed so much.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2015 03:27 pm
@parados,
Either he doesnt get it or doesnt WANT to get it. Schweitzer has identified the mechanism that results in "mummification" (Its an iron reduzate reaction)

There exists many types of "soft tissue" from as far back as the Ordovician (waxes, keragen , petroleum, resins etc etc).
He still cannot react to the fact that the fossil "horn" was buried between two marker ash beds (sedimentary layers) that have been datedfrom the Cretaceous. He just ignores these facts.
WHY? Hes not interested in cience , hes interested in agendas.
Hes gonna apply te same bullshit techniques that gunga uses. Deny, Ignore, Repeat, deny,
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2015 03:44 pm
@parados,
Quote:
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.


Right, and wrong. Everyone knows that, for seemingly valid reasons, others have claimed to have found have soft tissue remnants in other dinosaurs. AND everyone ALSO agrees that such appearances are inconsistent with an assumed age of even 1/2 million years, not to mention 40 million years.

Everyone "knows" it has been "found," but THAT does NOT eliminate the apparent inconsistency. You and Farmer seem to want to act like no inconsistency exists. You can question whether it was, appearances aside, REALLY found, of course. And you should. But that does not eliminate the apparent conflict.

Science is not always completely clear cut, and your subjective certainty in your own personal conclusions does not make it so. Example: It is assumed that the speed of light cannot be exceeded, BUT, we are measuring the rate of speed at which some galaxies are receding from us to be greater than the speed of light.

This establishes conflicts between assumptions (maximum possible speed) and appearances (what we actually find). Something seems "wrong." What is it? There in no universal agreement on that by any means.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2015 03:45 pm
@layman,
I see. And your published scientific paper you are using to make this claim is where?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2015 03:56 pm
@layman,
Quote:
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. What HE believes MUST be right. His is the only possible interpretation. As with the role of natural selection in evolution, for example.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2015 04:53 pm
@layman,
Quote:
It seems that Farmer wants to deny this.
NO, it only means that, since you got it flat wrong again, you still have no idea of what you speak.
Objectivity is the realm of most physical science. If it cannot be backed with facts and evidence, IT AINT.

Armitage is a forensically evidenced fraud, sorry but you need to try some reality . It aint a philosophical point Theres a whole track of his lying cheating and bad LAB PRACTICE.
you are the one denying those simple facts.


I dont know whether your "Simple layman" is just schtick or if you really think that way.
I did get a laugh at your "He said that the "soft tissue was found in a triceratops horn".



layman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2015 08:19 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I dont know whether your "Simple layman" is just schtick or if you really think that way.


Quote:
“Education is that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.” (Ambrose Bierce)
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 05:23 am
@layman,
Quote:
“Education is that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.” (Ambrose Bierce


But a good teacher must at least introduce you to the class syllabus. Otherwise youll just keep posting insipid internet drivvle and believe that its profound.
-Farmer Man
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 05:26 am
@farmerman,
Heh, Farmer. You get so pissed of at me, but you don't even know what I'm "arguing" aganst. You think I am arguing that "dinosaurs roamed the earth just 4,000 years ago."
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 06:59 am
@layman,
Quote:
"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.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/#Rrphs0OWz0td51zk.99

More "obvious fraud, eh, Farmer? Not surprisingly, some creationists accuse Schweitzer of "fraud:"

Quote:
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.


This story was written in 2006. All of these "controversies" were old hat before Armitage came along. The "creationist interpretation" was long outstanding, and well-known. It was not something Armitage invented.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 07:59 am
@layman,
The controversies were old hat? That creationists existed in 2006 and tried to quote mine and warp science to support their world view is not evidence of controversies. It is evidence that people have always been against science but that doesn't make for a scientific controversy. It only means those doing so aren't conducting science which is what farmerman and I have been saying about Armitage.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 08:13 am
Quote:
She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. ....


More likely terrified that the "science" Nazis and evolosers are gonna blackball her the way they did Caroline Crocker if she ever mentions the obvious conclusions which her results lead to...
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 08:13 am
@parados,
Quote:
their world view is not evidence of controversies


I put "controversies" in scare quotes, in case you didn't notice.

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


You have your own idiosyncratic definition of what "doing science" is when it comes to this topic. Armitage, like Schwietzer, and like others who have made similar discoveries, are "doing science." They are reporting on what they have found. And what they have found is of "scientific" significance.

How you interpret those findings is a different question, but it is still a "scientific" one. It is not a question of "fact," but rather a question of theory. One way to interpret the implications of the findings, is to conclude that, as the scientist in the story was saying "we really don’t understand decay.”

That's certainly more likely than Armitage's interpretation,which is basically that we do understand decay, and our understanding of that shows these dinosaurs can't be millions of years old. This of course "takes" a side" about "what" is wrong. In this interpretation, it is the other geological evidence (indicating a much older age) which is wrong, NOT our understanding of decay.

Is Artmitage's view "probable." Hell no, not if you ask me. Is it "possible?" Well, strictly speaking, I suppose it is.

IF our understanding of decay is correct, then that would imply that Armitage has "scientific grounds" for making the claims he does, and that those grounds are indeed "valid." Needless to say, there are also ("better") grounds for simply concluding that our understanding of decay is NOT correct. But that doesn't mean our current understanding of decay, even if mistaken, is not "science" or "not based upon scientifically accepted premises."

Either way, something is wrong. Things are not matching up in the way we would expect.

0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 08:40 am
@parados,
Quote:
The controversies were old hat?


As usual, Parados, you miss the point completely. 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, and should have been published, whatever his personal beliefs might have been (unless his "findings" were known to be fraudulent). You and Farmer appear to argue that they WERE known to be fraudulent, or at least WOULD have been known to be fraudulent, if only Armitage had said he was a creationist.

Sorry, I don't buy that. He could have made up his data, but there is no evidence of that. From the sounds of it, they were many witnesses (students, etc.) as to what he had found.

Another point you are missing I have already addressed in the last post. The definition of "science" is NOT "whatever scientific conclusions Parados would arrive at."

Yet another point is that, contrary to what has been suggested here, everyone, including those reviewers on the journal which published the paper knew that it's finding could be used by creationists in a way they didn't agree with. So what? You act like that makes a difference, and that the paper should be "retracted." That is exactly what a truly scientific thinker would NOT do (not for that reason, I mean).
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 10:00 am
@layman,
Quote:
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.


(face slap) NO , its you who aiint gettin it. If Armitage only had sought publication for his "juried" paper (sans any contextual references and geology as it was), It was a clearly a METHODS paper and entirely justified to be published. I dont think parados nor I were actioning against that.

The problem comes when he subsequently (AFTER the paper was published in a journal) he had the C14 run as a fraudulent methoodology and came to his worldviews only conclusion, that these dinosaurs did NOT live in what everyone else agrees are accurate dates for the Cretaceous.
How many times we need to go over this?

You keep misrepresenting what others say and you also like to engage in "mining ". Stop it please, you aint fooling many here.


Quote:

I don't buy that. Sorry. The paper was worthy of publication,
NOBODY said it wasnt. Hoever, when he "buncled" the innocuous methods paper with the bogus C14 data and then published THAT on his blog, ICR's blogs and began engaging students (not the geology department mind you), only thise who ere engaged in taking the intro microscopy.

He had it all plnned nd overseen by his own puppetmsters.
NOW, you seem to want to justify all the fraud when at the same time you want to laud Shapiro for seeking an "intermediate road" between Creationism nd evolution. And you do this with n apparent total lack of any skepticism.

I dont believe I can trust anything you say because youre really not(apparently) a seeker of knowledge but a huckster pf a worldview that is at the center of a contrived "controversy".


Maybe your agnostic ( about what Im not sure anymore), but maybe youre a big "Panspermia" fan.

You certainly are a "Young Earther" if you feel that Armitage os anywhere close to being accurate.




parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 10:15 am
@layman,
Quote:

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?
His paper as written contains nothing that is controversial. He finds structure and soft tissue in a horn that is assumed to be over 40 million years old based on several statements and citations in his paper. What is controversial is when he then starts saying the horn is only 4,000 years old. At that point, he is repudiating what he wrote in his paper about the age of the fossil. If he feels the 4,000 year old figure is accurate than he needs to retract his paper and rewrite it with the claim of the horn only being 4,000 years old included. His failure to do so makes his argument suspect. Both his claims can't be accurate. 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. That is impossible.


I stated this once before here http://able2know.org/topic/277406-6#post-5954107
and it appears you have purposely ignored it. Instead you simply make up an argument for me for you to attack.
layman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 10:44 am
@parados,
Quote:
Which findings should have been suppressed?

You tell me. Your story on that keeps changing:

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

=====

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

Of course not.
Quote:
You continue to try to argue that both figures are correct at the same time


I have NEVER argued that. Your conclusion that I have merely reveals your completely inability to understand a number of things.

parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 10:51 am
@layman,
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?
layman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 10:53 am
@parados,
Quote:
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?


Did you stop beating your wife yet, Parados? That's the kind of question you are asking here.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2015 11:22 am
@layman,
and its the one youve been ignoring..


 

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
What is Pseudoscience? - Discussion by TheCobbler
Dinosaurs and carbon dating - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/17/2024 at 07:21:23