NC State Univ settles lawsuit over dinosaur soft tissue

PSST, NORTH CAROLINA STATE had nothing to do with this suit. Mark Armitage was terminated by a state college of CALIFORNIA.

I went on record severql yer go that firing him was a dumb move. He should have been part of the growing discussions on what typ of fossilization allows fossilized soft tissue to exist trapped inside of fossilized(Completely chemically altered) bone. The discussion had ultimately reached a conclusion that is

1.falsifiable

2. demonstratable in the laboratory.

ven Mary SChweitzer , the founder and mpther of all this soft tissue research stated that firing Armitage because of his religious beliefes is not the way to move science long.
We will always have fringe elements and outfits like "Creation SCience" who will deny the existence of soft tissue inide fossil bone may be a "Special kind of chemical fossilization" not and overturning of age determination.
Seems that ARmitage got 360K for his firing roughly 2 yeqrs salary at his position (Lets say the agreed to a "golden parachute" for him. He also got some allowances for his retirement and hi mdical.

Id wished that he would hve been retined and required to promote his Creationist thinking as a convenient target where students can lern ho science relly works. AS Jck Horner said about ARmitage

""Science is about building hypotheses, testing them, and attempting to falsify them ,but Creation science, or any other pseudoscience is just the opposite. It comes up with notions and then only seeks evidence that supports the notion (meanwhile ignoring and denying all the rest)"

The soft tissue issue is fairly understood in 2017 as a chemical reaction of the haem Iron in the blood of the original living creature reacting with the surrounding tissue and "creating" a totally new means of fossilization.

Think about it, If the soft tissue is only a few thousand yers old(as claimed by Creationists),HOW does it become emplaced and sealed within fossilized bone which has been totally silicified and, on top of that howcome the sediment ages surrounding the fossil have been unequivocally dated at about 65 MILLION years old.??

Also, I see that you still carry around that debunked crap about C14 in Cretaceous aged fossils. You really ought to do some reading of how radiochemistry works.

You didnt mention that these "Paleontology Group" clowns had been severely criticized for submitting samples without any field QA or methods QA to the Georgia Tch labs where this original "Dating" was done. After they searched through their own sample descriptions they saw that the original samples were coated with SHELLAC (a compound of recent C14 vintge), and the Paleo group was asked not to submit any more samples. SO the Creationist "Fossil hunters" must have gone out and found some lab in Singapore that has no QA requirements. Why dont we look at the sediments that surround all these triceratops fossils. Did they find any 20K year old rock?


I wish you'd smarten up, there are kids reading your **** who dont recognize that you usually have your head fixed firmly up your ass when it comes to paleontology.

The entire working hypotheses of these guys hs been

"Dinosaur fossils that contain soft tissue cannot be millions of years old".
Thats a conclusion that entirely prima facie based, no evidence to even draw that conclusion is available. Yet its the basis from which these guys draw all that follows.
We alredy know of millions of year old fossils that arent petrified, instead they are indeed "SOFT"
(like waxes in swamp deposits in coal masures, petroleum tars (at last 45 million years old), insects in amber. Glossopteris leaves from Permian terrestrial formations (these babies are like 250 million years.

Your Creationist buds need to establish WHY their initial assumption from which they draw their ultimate conclusions are even worth a pinch of ****

gunga's probably out there hunting through Creationist web sites to do his talking.