Creationist scholar receives big settlement

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 5, 2016

Creationism, Culture, Intelligent Design, Legal}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Fired after discovering soft dino tissue.

From Jennifer Kabbany at College Fix:

A creationist scholar recently received a six-figure settlement from California State University Northridge, a payout that resolved a 2-year-old lawsuit that alleged the scholar had been fired after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops horn and publishing his findings.

…

Armitage, who has some 30 publications to his credit and is past-president of the Southern California Society for Microscopy, was hired by the university in early 2010 to manage a wide variety of oversight duties for the biology department’s array of state-of-the-art microscopes, court documents state. He also trained students on how to use the complicated equipment.

In the summer of 2012, while at the world-famous dinosaur dig at Hell Creek Formation in Montana, Armitage discovered the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site — complete with soft fiber and bone tissues that were stretchy.

He published his findings, first in the November 2012 issue of American Laboratory magazine, which published images of the soft tissue on its cover, and then online in February 2013 in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Histochemica, according to court documents.

The lawsuit contends that’s why Armitage’s employment at Cal State Northridge was terminated, with one professor allegedly storming into his office and shouting: “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!” More.

It seems that Armitage’s religion had come up with some evidence the U didn’t want to have to face, let alone rebut. Perhaps he can use the money wisely.

But science today is under pressure at the highest levels to turn away from evidence-based reasoning and falsifiability. When all you do is work for the Man, all you need to do is fill in the paperwork, right?

More from College Fix.

See also: Nature’s sneery summary of creationist fossil hunter Mark Armitage’s wrongful dismissal suit against California State U

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Triceratops: The star of the show (kind of goofy but maybe accurate)

Comments

As for your assertion that we've only been able to find "material consistent with DNA", good luck with the denial. And yes, "the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna." Mammoths! ;)Vy_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Here's an extensive list of soft tissue deniers in the past and present. Please provide such a list for "many of the claims turned out to be contamination".Vy_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Ah, you only meant in the past.
From [Ir]rationalwiki's article:
A claim that soft tissues in a Tyrannosaurus fossil had been recovered in 2005[14] has since been shown to be mistaken,[15] supporting the idea that dinosaur fossils are extremely old
So no, not in the past. More like no Darwinist worth his salt but then again there's really no difference between such a Darwinist and your average Darwinist.
So they now believe that dino tissue has been found. That sounds like there were skeptics (for good reason as many of the claims turned out to be contamination) and were won over through subsequent experimentation.
OK, you've made this claim quite a few times. Time to put up or shut up.
Kind of how things are supposed to work.
Really? Did you miss this:
“Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside,” announced National Geographic in an eye-catching title. Based on the work of Mary Schweitzer, who announced soft tissue in a T. rex bone last year (06/03/2005), a “phenomenon, which was once thought impossible,” the article suggests that many species may have DNA and proteins remaining available for analysis.
? Darwinists did not think soft tissue was contamination because "previous experiments" found it to be so, they thought so because it is impossible for soft tissue and DNA to last that long. Full stop. Carry on with your mental gymnastics.
Do you have any names or actual quotes in mind (I take it that the quotes you used were scare quotes).
Link above and below.Vy_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Querius,
Oh good. So what’s the difference between the effects of background radiation and cooking something in an oven?
For one the former causes ionization. Don't really have time so if you want more I'll give you a website.
Did I say a single large dose?
No, so maybe I misunderstoodgoodusername_{October 9, 2016
October
10
Oct
9
09
2016
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

I wasn’t implying that they are the same
Oh good. So what's the difference between the effects of background radiation and cooking something in an oven?
only that you couldn’t replicate the effect of radiation over long periods of time by simply giving a single large dose.
Did I say a single large dose? -QQuerius_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

Querius,
This brings us back to my asking you to explain the difference between background radiation and heat from an oven. Well?
I think the question was meant for me. I wasn't implying that they are the same, only that you couldn't replicate the effect of radiation over long periods of time by simply giving a single large dose. If that does work than I was wrong, I'll try to look that up when I have a chance. If you have a good source on that I'll take a look at it.goodusername_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

Mary Schweitzer's ostrich bone experiments were intended to show that the minuscule amounts of iron in hemoglobin could shield the tissue inside the bone from . . . background radiation. This brings us back to my asking you to explain the difference between background radiation and heat from an oven. Well? -QQuerius_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

Vy,
Of COURSE no Darwinist now would dare claim soft tissue and DNA from dinos are actually due to contamination, the evidence is overwhelming and can’t be logically hand-waved away like they did in the beginning. They do dance around it with ostrich experiments though ????
Ah, you only meant in the past. So they now believe that dino tissue has been found. That sounds like there were skeptics (for good reason as many of the claims turned out to be contamination) and were won over through subsequent experimentation. Kind of how things are supposed to work. Do you have any names or actual quotes in mind (I take it that the quotes you used were scare quotes).goodusername_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

Hoho, what fun! I love a good piñada party for volunteers from the Mighta Coulda Musta Darwinists in Denial(tm) or MCMDiDs. And I'm still waiting for goodusername to explain the difference between background radiation and heat from an oven. I'm not holding my breath. LOL -QQuerius_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

What about #6?
Should be #16.
No, that dino tissue has been found seems pretty well established. Who’s claiming that every reported case of such is from contamination? Even if such people exists, it’s certainly not the view of the vast majority.
Again, you're kidding right? My comment @18 in response to your assertion @14 that if you think of BBQable mammoths, dino soft tissue shouldn't be "too shocking. Maybe it is to others":
Considering the fact that the Darwinists were shouting that it was “biofilm, contamination, stuff, anything but actual soft tissue”, I doubt it.
Is it clear now? Sheesh! Of COURSE no Darwinist now would dare claim soft tissue and DNA from dinos are actually due to contamination, the evidence is overwhelming and can't be logically hand-waved away like they did in the beginning. They do dance around it with ostrich experiments though ;)Vy_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Vy,
Comment #6 and Mary Schweizer’s experiment and a whole lot of other still exist despite your denial.
What about #6?
You’re kidding right? :-/
No, that dino tissue has been found seems pretty well established. Who's claiming that every reported case of such is from contamination? Even if such people exists, it's certainly not the view of the vast majority.goodusername_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

So what’s the lesson here? Does this mean that this mammoth is magnitudes of order older than other remains of mammoths found? Maybe some died weeks while others died millions of years ago? Or maybe it means that the environment has effects on decay rates that we don’t understand yet?
*facepalm*
Maybe you know that. But I don’t, and Mary Schweizer doesn’t. Hopefully we’ll get to see who’s right.
Comment #6 and Mary Schweitzer's experiment and a whole lot of other still exist despite your denial.
Agreed, and? Is anyone doing that?
You're kidding right? :/Vy_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Vy,
Tell me, how BBQable is this mammoth?
So what's the lesson here? Does this mean that this mammoth is magnitudes of order older than other remains of mammoths found? Maybe some died weeks while others died millions of years ago? Or maybe it means that the environment has effects on decay rates that we don't understand yet?
So you claim but we KNOW it can’t last for 65 million years.
Maybe you know that. But I don't, and Mary Schweizer doesn't. Hopefully we'll get to see who's right.
There’s “concern” and then there’s outright denial.
Agreed, and? Is anyone doing that? Even if there are such folks they're a pretty small minority.goodusername_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

I was responding to the usual contention that such findings aren’t possible, and were unanticipated ...
... by making a connection between the "freshness" of frozen mammoth fossils and dinos then claiming the existence of the former justifies the latter. Tell me, how BBQable is this mammoth?
In fact, we know very little about how tissue preservation works
So you claim but we KNOW it can't last for 65 million years. Not even close. For example, the collagen in some of these fossils are 18 times older than they are supposed to be.
and so don’t know what’s possible
Mary Schweitzer did an ostrich experiment for 2 years, the results in a LAB weren't impressive. I do know what's not possible though, carbon 14. But alas, it's in almost all of them. "It's contamination, stuff stuff ..", right?
and some not only anticipated that we’d find soft tissue but thought we’d find much more than we have so far.
Like DNA and soft tissue we're finding in fossils that were tucked away for years because their Darwinian ideology didn't let them think it was worth searching for soft tissue? Nice try.
It’s hand-waving to say that given the rate at which some mammoths are fossilizing I’d expect at least microscopic bits of protein left after millions of years?
BBQable mammoths! Therefore 65 million year old soft tissue. Why? BBQable mammoths ... Pretty clear. ;)
So concerns about contamination are quite warranted.
There's "concern" and then there's outright denial.Vy_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Here’s another scientific experiment. Cook a roast in 1/1000th the time by applying 1000x the heat.
Really? Do you believe that background radiation is the same thing as heat from an oven? Do you even know what the difference is? -QQuerius_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Querius,
The argument that “it must be due to contamination” is sacrificing scientific data on the altar of your ideology.
I haven't seen anyone make such an argument, and I have little doubt that dino tissue has been found.
Here’s a scientific experiment. Take a fresh cow femur. Subject it to the equivalent of 65 million years of radiation at the current level. See what you get. I bet you won’t get any stray bits of protein.
Here's another scientific experiment. Cook a roast in 1/1000th the time by applying 1000x the heat. ;-)goodusername_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Look up background radiation. Everything that old should either be stone or powder by now. The argument that "it must be due to contamination" is sacrificing scientific data on the altar of your ideology. Here's a scientific experiment. Take a fresh cow femur. Subject it to the equivalent of 65 million years of radiation at the current level. See what you get. I bet you won't get any stray bits of protein. Instead of fiddling the data, just cut to the chase. Close your eyes tightly to the mounting evidence, and admit that it doesn't matter what's discovered. Nothing can shake your faith in the current Darwinistic paradigm. -QQuerius_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Vy,
Read through the comments again and ask yourself what your comment in #11 was responding/referring to.
I was responding to the usual contention that such findings aren't possible, and were unanticipated. In fact, we know very little about how tissue preservation works, and so don't know what's possible, and some not only anticipated that we'd find soft tissue but thought we'd find much more than we have so far.
Again with the Dawkinian hand-waving.
It's hand-waving to say that given the rate at which some mammoths are fossilizing I'd expect at least microscopic bits of protein left after millions of years?
Maybe but so what?
So concerns about contamination are quite warranted.goodusername_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Um, ok. An explanation for what? You seem to be using the word in a way I haven’t seen before.
And you seem to be reading my post with a very strange interpretation. Read through the comments again and ask yourself what your comment in #11 was responding/referring to.
If you’re just referring to the dinos, and agree that the mammoths are thousands of years old, than why are the dinos so degraded compared to the mammoths when they should be roughly the same age by YEC timing? It’s merely replacing one mystery with another. We should be digging up dino carcasses, not breaking open bones hoping to find microscopic pieces of protein left. We should also be sequencing dino DNA. Where’s jurassic Park?
Frozen dinos?
at what point would you say there’d be nothing left but pieces of microscopic protein deep inside the bones? It seems to me, millions of years.
Again with the Dawkinian hand-waving.
And contamination is a major problem precisely because we have become so good at detecting tiny pieces of protein and DNA. The air is filled with the stuff, and new technology can detect it. Indeed, many cases of reports of found dino soft tissue and DNA have turned out to be contamination.
Maybe but so what?Vy_{October 8, 2016
October
10
Oct
8
08
2016
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Vy,
This is consistent with Dawkins-type hand-waving explanations:
Um, ok. An explanation for what? You seem to be using the word in a way I haven't seen before.
Is it being “not that old” part of the range of possibilities?
For both the dinos and mammoths? Maybe. But it doesn't seem likely that there are still mammoths walking around. Most likely they are thousands of years old (I think even most YECs agree with that). If you're just referring to the dinos, and agree that the mammoths are thousands of years old, than why are the dinos so degraded compared to the mammoths when they should be roughly the same age by YEC timing? It's merely replacing one mystery with another. We should be digging up dino carcasses, not breaking open bones hoping to find microscopic pieces of protein left. We should also be sequencing dino DNA. Where's jurassic Park? Those same mammoths carcasses that after thousands of years are so well preserved that we could practically hold a mammoth BBQ, at what point would you say there'd be nothing left but pieces of microscopic protein deep inside the bones? It seems to me, millions of years.
Considering the fact that the Darwinists were shouting that it was “biofilm, contamination, stuff, anything but actual soft tissue”, I doubt it.
Maybe some felt that way, others thought we'd be sequencing dino DNA by now. Kind of shows how little we know about tissue preservation. And contamination is a major problem precisely because we have become so good at detecting tiny pieces of protein and DNA. The air is filled with the stuff, and new technology can detect it. Indeed, many cases of reports of found dino soft tissue and DNA have turned out to be contamination.goodusername_{October 7, 2016
October
10
Oct
7
07
2016
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

"Nature’s sneery summary..." No surprise there. The Nature journal has been in steady decline for quite some time. It is nothing but an atheist rag at this point.Truth Will Set You Free_{October 7, 2016
October
10
Oct
7
07
2016
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Why would you have taken it as an explanation?
This is consistent with Dawkins-type hand-waving explanations:
IMO it doesn’t seem far fetched to find microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils tens of millions of years old when we find mammoth carcasses tens of thousands of years old that look like they died last week.
---
I have no idea how such dino material lasts for so long, just as I have no explanation for how mammoth carcasses last for thousands of year. But considering the latter, the former isn’t too shocking IMO.
Is it being "not that old" part of the range of possibilities?
Maybe it is to others.
Considering the fact that the Darwinists were shouting that it was "biofilm, contamination, stuff, anything but actual soft tissue", I doubt it.Vy_{October 7, 2016
October
10
Oct
7
07
2016
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS,
That’s not true. Soft tissue in fossils has been known about since the 1970s.
Are we talking about DNA? If so, how does the research by Bunce et al fit in?
By comparing the specimens' ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on. The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal preservation temperature of ?5 ºC, effectively every bond would be destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful information. [Source: nature.com — 2012]
Origenes_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

This story takes me back to the story of Dr. Edward Hedin at Ball State a few years back: https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/ball-state-university-intelligent-design-my-7-disappointments/ayearningforpublius_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Vy,
When did hand-waving become an explanation?
Why would you have taken it as an explanation? I have no idea how such dino material lasts for so long, just as I have no explanation for how mammoth carcasses last for thousands of year. But considering the latter, the former isn't too shocking IMO. Maybe it is to others.
And oh, it IS DNA.
Yes, they have found "evidence for material consistent with DNA" but so far (AFAIK) haven't been able to identify any nucleotides or do any sequencing.goodusername_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Some more even in stuff older than dinos.Vy_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

And bear in mind that the “soft tissue” we’re finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna. IMO it doesn’t seem far fetched to find microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils tens of millions of years old when we find mammoth carcasses tens of thousands of years old that look like they died last week.
When did hand-waving become an explanation? "Oh, little protein bits. Meh, move along, nothing to see here" And oh, it IS DNA.Vy_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

I remember in the 1980s some scientists speculating that with new technology that was coming out that we may soon be able to find and sequence dino dna from fossils. This is what inspired Crichton to write Jurassic Park in 1990. Decades later we're still waiting for a single dino nucleotide. And bear in mind that the "soft tissue" we're finding are bits of protein that last much longer than dna. IMO it doesn't seem far fetched to find microscopic pieces of protein buried inside dino fossils tens of millions of years old when we find mammoth carcasses tens of thousands of years old that look like they died last week.goodusername_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

That’s not true. Soft tissue in fossils has been known about since the 1970s.
???Vy_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

tjguy @ 7
It’s like evolutionists saying “Well, what do you know. DNA and soft tissue CAN be preserved for millions of years.” That idea goes against everything we know about DNA and soft tissue ...
That's not true. Soft tissue in fossils has been known about since the 1970s.CLAVDIVS_{October 6, 2016
October
10
Oct
6
06
2016
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply