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

Farmer, I notice you didn't elaborate all the many, long-established, and universally accepted reasons why scientists had concluded that soft tissue could not POSSIBLY remain in fossils for more than about 100,000 years, eh? Why in the HELL should all scientists be "shocked" by these ongoing discoveries? Whatever the basis for these cherished beliefs just couldn't have been "science," eh?

The question posed was what is "science" not, as who is right (Ptolemy or Copernicus?). If you want to "define" science as only those theories which are currently held to be indisputable, help yourself. Join the hundreds of academics who always denounce those who propose any new explanation for observed phenonmena (such, just in biology, just in this century, Goldschmidt, McClintock, Margulis, Woose, in the area of evolutionary theory, to name just a few). As you should know well, all of those were widely denounced, black-balled, and shunned by many of the "mainstream" theorists.

I didn't for one second claim that Armitage is "right." "Being right" is not a prerequisite to discussing possible reasons for the FAILURE of current theory to explain anomalous phenomena. The very "finding" of soft tissue was, since 2005, widely scoffed at by a huge number of scientists (many of whom just continue to maintain) who argue(d) that it's preservation was "impossible." Were they "doing science" when they adamantly defended existing theory? Or were they "wrong." If they were wrong, it couldn't have been science, right?

Were Armitage's suggestions largely "informed by" his religious beliefs? Of course. No question about it. So were Kepler's and those of many others who hypotheses were utterly rejected at the time. Were they entirely outside the realm of "science?" Well, that's a completely separate issue. His legal representatives claim he was engaging in "scientific discourse." I have no doubt whatsoever that 95% of scentists will disagree with any conclusion that the earth is "young." But "wide acceptance" is not the criterion for deciding what "scientific discussion" is.

If you like defending known science so well, Farmer, why not tell me all about the many, well-established reasons why we "knew" it was/is "impossible" for soft tissue remants to remain in these fossils? You want to rail on about what scientific "knowledge" survives these discoveries. That's not even the topic I was addressing. Nor, according to what I read, has that even been determined at this point. There is no consensus about the real reason for this occurrence. Many reject Schweitzer's proposed answer, according to what I read.

I'm not going to try, like you, to pronounce what the best current scientific explanation for these anomalies MUST be. I don't in any way claim that you are wrong. I don't really care. But someone's wrong. And anyone who is wrong can't be doing "science" I suppose, because "true science' is always correct.

I read that 5% of people with degrees in science subscribe to a "young earth theory." Do I personally think they are correct? No, I don't. But that's not an issue I'm trying to settle here.

Mainstream science has long been "debating" and otherwise arguing against the scientific evidence advanced in favor of so-called "creation science." From what I gather (and I do NOT follow these debates at all) is that much of the "evidence" they rely on is quite valid, in itself. It's the conclusions that are drawn from that evidence that are contested, not it's "scientific basis."

Again, not my concern. The issues being raised about freedom of speech, academic freedom, discrimination, etc. are what interest me about this subject.

SIMPLE answer. Noone really thought it was valuable time spent to dissolve all the sedimentary rock out from the fossil in order to extract the soft tissue. Like most things, Mary Schweitaer had been given a hint 15 years earlier when a "mineralaogical "Thin section" had been presented to a microbiologist in order to confirm that what she saw was really striations in the fossil (indicating possible fossilized muscle). The microbiologist said, in a conversation with SChweitzer that, "It appears you hve some red blood cells in this slide) A thin sectiaon is a chance slab through rock that ismground to 30 microns and with which we can identify minerals through their optical properties (Optical analyses are based upon 30 microns because it is at that thickness, minerals lose most of theor multi spectral colros when vieed under cross polrized light.
Schweitzer had the good fortune of, 10 or so years later , to have a busted femur or patela (dont know which) available to her so she SOAKED it in Hydroflouric acid to remove the ilicat mtrix that surrounded anything she may find inside. IT WAS ALL A GUESS TO DO THIS.
Fortune smiled upon her nd she discovered the "soft tissue"

Thats how it started .
But as I said before, there was never any doubt that this material was not anything but 66 myo tissue. The real mystery to science WAS NOT its age but how it got this way. That has led to an ongoing tudy to determine the kinetics nd surfce chemistry of the preservation of this soft tissue.

The Cretionists are just a minor annoyance, like a moquito. There are many many articles about the BOGOSITY of using C14 on predetermined age fossils nd what the problems are.
(Of course, the Creationist "Science literature" is legion. They have overwhelmed the internet with their slickly presented "Scientistic" bullshit that is used only as a means of persuasion by "cartoons and slick drawings" and not any real science.

Now you seem to be engaging in a bit of "Gish Gallop"


I never said that it was impossible to have C14 present in the bone (it could have had lots from post depositional means), I do radioisotopic nalyses in my ork but Ive only used C14 to establish sources of ground water. I use many other radioisotopic analyses. WHAT I DID STATE (and youve continuously ignored me) . The fossil That Armitage had collected and submitted for C14, was well age dated by t least three seprate techniques on the underlying nd overlying volcanic ash lyers that enclosed the fossils. (The Hell Creek Formation has several layers of intercalated volcanic ashes (some younger and some older than the fossil containing layer).
These ashes are easily analyzed by doing Uranium -lead(206 AND 207), Potassium-calcium -argon, potassium-argon/argon, Thorium, and lead-lead. Several of these techniques hd ALREADY been done because there really is no way to get any uncontaminated or fresh isotope fom dinosaurbones unless some environmental interaction occured (like violent uplift so that Be10 could be used to measure the age that the fossil was pushed up).
In the case of ARmitage and the ICR, they knew quite well how the system worked (the ICR under the ork of a guy named MILLER had set their own policies to gther fosil bones from mueums nd do C14)

THE ARMITAGE and ICR crew hs ALWAYS been involved in prpetrating fraudulent conclusions. SO PLEAE dont start lecturing me about the religious beliefs of Galileo nd Kepler. May of these guys folloed the evidence and got themselves into trouble ith thir popes. Armitage and Miller and the CRI have been sent out to engage in fraudulently using science to PROVE their beief system.

YOU, have just been (I hope unwittingly) drawn into appearing totally objective in rriving in your support of Armitage. Ive tried to honestly scold you for being naive at what they really stand for.

Plleae name some of these data and conclusions. Remember that the C14 is an example of improper lab methods, basic assumptions of the methods used AS WELL AS CONCLUSIONS.
Actually if their methods were correct, their conclusions would actually deserve debate. The methods are bogus and Im here to try to convince your made up mind that C14 on dino bones is total bullshit.

Its like searching the fossil record for CAMBRIAN MONKEYS

Of course, and that always needs to be kept in mind. But Schweitzer and the scientists who doubt her results are NOT talking about C14 dating, which you keep bringing up out of the blue. The disputed claim is whether soft tissue, such as allegedly found by Schweitzer, Armitage, and many others, IS, in fact, "found" in these ancient fossils. THAT was considered to be impossible. Some (perhaps many) still adhere to that claim. And THAT is what Armitage's paper was about, not C14 dating to arrive at an age of 65 million years.

As Wile (and virtually everyone else) noted, something is wrong. It could, in theory, be C14 dating. But it could also be (and most likely is) mistaken assumptions about the nature of the fossilization process and the accepted implications of those assumptions on the destruction of soft tissue remants. Whatever, SOMETHING is wrong, and a (perhaps brand new) explanation is called for.

It seems like when I address one topic or issue, Farmer, you often come back with a "response" involving another issue entirely.

Lyman, you still are willing to collectively describe Armitage's work as "nomalous ". Thats garbage. An anomaly is something like an "outlyer" where , all things being prformed in good scientific methods, will yield a value or finding that is totally different than xpected.
If, hoever, the ARmitage's of the world, purposely set out to develop data whose very purpose of being is to support some myth basis. (In other words, he intended to deceive ), thats not deserving of the term "Anomaly". Thts pure fraud and to somehow enhgae in the Gish Gllop to mildly change your position or add some incorrect modifying terms that describe Armitage as anything but a shyster of science , is engaging in "continuing the ruse that hes began.

To compare Armitage to Kepler or Galileo is to compare Benjamin Franklin to Chas Arno Ponzi

I have "explained" it several times, in my own words, Farmer. But I don't really know **** about it. I'm no expert in this field. My "explanations" are merely re-wordings of what the real experts are saying. I have quoted those experts first, to show the real source of my comments.

There is, indeed, what is almost universally acknowledged to be an "outlier" involved here, as I read those experts. You have completely ignored what they are saying, so I don't know if you have even read those excerpts. If not, scroll back.

I DO NOT "KEEP BRINGING IT UP OUT OF THE BLUE", you keep purposely ignoring it because youve backed yourself into a corner by somehow supporting Armitage's 'findings"

Ive only talked about C14 wrt Armitage and its the principal point regarding his fraud, ad his association with the CRI


I
ARMITAge had used C14 improperly on his Triceratopsian horn . HE then sewed it together with his juried paper and that resulted in his perpetrating a fraud when he self published and lectured about the AGE of the fossils of the HELL CREEK and the CRETACEOUS PERIOD itself.




Schweitzer would never have even considered the method because she lready understood the age of the fossil T rex she found >AGAIN YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE HELL CREEK FORMATION ITSELF HAD BEEN AGE DATED USING SOME OF THOSE RADIOISOTOPE I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY SEVERAL TIMES AND WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE [/quote]



I know youre dicking with me because Ive read some of your other posts elsewhere and you are quite capble of muddling the points up and misrepresenting what others say when you get close to the edge. My only interest is WHY DO THAT?

my only conclusin at the present time is that youre a closet IDer,
1you seem to only quote IDers and when they say something "scientistic" you like to hold it up with implied support (although you deny doing so--IM NOT CONVINCED AT ALL regarding your self proclaimed objectivity and dispassionate views. They conveniently seem to huddle around a world view or two.

And Mkole Mbembe still live in the deepest Congo. We

An anomaly or "outlyer" is usually reserved for data points or values that fall outside an expected range with all other things being equal.
When something is perpetrated as a fraud, e use the term fraudulemnt result, e dont dress up the pig and say that we have an outlyer of data. NO CREDIBILITY SHOULD BE GIVEN ARMITAGE by using terminology reserved for honest mistakes or honest ommissions. If you are not familiar with the terminology--dont attempt to use it. Im a professional geologist nd if you used such terminology to support and describe Armitage' work at a conference, you would be vocally eviscerated and would probably be booed off the stage.
Armitage published a nothing new paper. He reported soft tissue on a horn of a triceratops. He then added the fraudulent phase that made his whole exercise suspect when he had the C14 done. He, nd the CRI, knew that what they were doing was bogus, yet they proceeded . When the data came in, Armitage AND that Ohio douche bag "Dr Dino of the Creation Museum, all cme out loudly in the popular press and in the internet, proclaiming that fossil dinosaur ages are "IN THE THOUSANDS OF YEARS< NOT MILLIONS".

If you dont understand the implications of that fraudulent pronouncement, you should sit down and do more reading not make unconnected clips of wiki articles and claim that they are what you were talking of.
Parados and I started in with you because of your support of Armitage, now you hve reversed that "support" , I still dont think you re that objective and youre merely caving because you dont have any real ammo that you can download.

Heh.



Who that you have run across and who takes any position other than yours isn't, Farmer?



We've been through this many times, Farmer. The soft tissue "finding" is NOT Armitage's. Similar "findings" have both preceeded and succeeded his particular paper, and from what I can gather, are still coming in from all quarters.

The only thing you seem to want to PROVE is that Armitage, PERSONALLY, is a fraud. I don't care to speculate about that. I'm more interested in whether his published papers reveal some fraud. Nothing you bring up about his supposed "puppet masters" relates to that issue in any way. As I keep saying, your reason for being interested in this topic is NOT my interest. I am not out to prove that Armitage is a fraud. Are you trying to suggest that the numerous other scientists who have made similar findings are ALSO FRAUDS? Prove it, don't just assert or insinuate it.

Believe me, Ive read all that stuff when it was still fresh several years ago. The only thing that have changed are that , today in 2015, the view of soft tissue n mesozoic and cenozoic is that its lmost universally recognized as a new form of "fossilization" that, while always in force, had not been looked into because it involved so much HF acid etching of siliceous sediments. Paleontologits dont **** with HF a lot beccause of its toxicity and corrosivity

Mary SChweitzer is a Southern Methodist and shes not an IDEr, Ken Miller is a Catholic and is also a non IDer. Theres lots and lots of believing Christians who are scientists in evolution . There are also a few (usually those ho appear a lot on talking head shows) who are, (Mike Behe, etc).

I usually judge em after an extensive period of time in voir dire. You sorta fit the mold by attempting to be so much a skeptic that you like to ignore what we DO KNOW.
.

Exactly. It wasn't new. But it was (and still is) unexplained in terms of previous, long-accepted, "well-established" scientific conclusions about the mere POSSIBILITY that such findings could be made. The accepted science said soft tissue preservation was "impossible" from what I read. Do you refuse to concede that?

Many "possible" explanations of why these anomalies have occurred have been proposed. As far as I know, there is no general consensus about the correct explanation..

There was, however, virtually universal acceptance of the premises that such findings were "impossible" prior to their discovery. That's what I take the experts to be saying. Again, do you deny that?

Do you consider the work he published on the eb and self published as part of his "published work". Where you are incorrect is that you seem to want to bifurcate his one juried pub as "The only thing e should consider regarding his credibility"
Thats where you fell off your own credibility wagon for me.
I consider his "Body of work" as relevant in his fraud . He knew what he was doing he did it and then he "came to his conclusion"
Where you fail to see the point is that his bogus methods were clearly sought out to assure that his opinion and conclusion would support his orldview.

ANYBODY can do that.

You mean he DID NOT submit a paper about the dsicovery of soft tissue in a Triceratops horn found in an expedition in which he was part?
Is that what you mean by NOT BEING ARMITAGE's


________
If youre trying to bollix up the converstaion by stating that it was Mary SCheitzer who first found the soft tissue, I agree. After all, it was I who foirst stated that in this thread and I hd taken prt on manyA2k threads about the subject in previous years.

I dmit to being one of the doubting Thoms's regarding "soft tissue" until I attended a paper delivered by Schwietzer and Arnas (sp) regarding their findings nd the reultant protein scans tht related the proteins to several classes of living species.

I dont think I even denied Scheizer her credit. If you read that I did, it was some typo on my behalf or another one of your mining of quotes out of context.

Ive gotta leave , gotta cut haylage

http://phys.org/news/2011-06-evidence-dinosaur-soft-tissue.html#jCp

Are finding like Armitage's "nonsense," or have they been "plausibly explained?" According to this article (from June, 2011, six years later) that question has remained unresolved (at least as of that time).

Introducing a false dichotamy doesn't make Armitage's claim about a Triceratops horn being 4,000 years old part of the controversy of how soft tissue survived millions of years.

For those who don't like reading, here is a short clip from "60 minutes" explaining the controvery in more detail (with, hooray, pictures):

The "controversy" is about whether it's even possible. Armitage, in essence, said, well, it ISN'T possible, as far as we know. Therefore it's possible that the cells found are not millions of years old.

That certainly doesn't prove he's right, but I have never argued that he is right. One possible question is HOW could it possibly survive? Another possible question is DID it actually survive?

Not having the "right answer" doesn't invalidate the question. It is not a "false dichotomy."

As I said before, I know virtually nothing about the technology being questioned here. What I "know" (not really the right term) has come from the little reading on the topic I have done after entering this thread.

Some have suggested (among many suggestions offered) exactly what Armitiage suggested, but with a different "explanation." They said it DID NOT survive for 65 millions years and maintain that it "couldn't have" (like Armitage). One suggestion I have seen is that it was not dinosaur tissue, but rather "pond scum." Others reject this proposition, and so it goes.

Calling a dichotomy "false" is merely to presuppose only one possible state of affairs (that it DID survive). The dichotomy, if you want to call it that, is certainly not a "false" one.

With respect to the question of "is it science," think about this:

1. There was a time (just say, 1850, for the hell of it) when the question "Is it possible for a man to go to the moon" would have been considered to be a ridiculous question, prima facie. Some at the time would have said it's not even a "scientific" question at all. Only a complete scientific idiot would even ask it.

2.Later, (say 1900) the question may have seemed dubious, in itself, but not totally "unscientific."

3. Later still (say 1930) the question may have been seriously considered by "scientists"

4. Later still (say 1950) it may have been a question which drew quite different answers from different scientists.

5. Later still (say 197o) it was no longer even a question (other than for "faked moon landing" theorists).

So, was the question "Is it possible for a man to go to the moon" a "scientific" one in 1850? 1900? 1930? 1950?

People might give different answers to these various questions.

I would tend to say, yeah, it was always a "scientific" question. That never changed. The only thing that changed was the answer any given scientist might be likely to give in response.