Scientist proves Creationism then gets fired

Created on: 31st July 2014

Mark Armitage, a scientist from the California State University Campus discovered soft tissue on a triceratops fossil which indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years ago and did not go extinct 65 million years ago, as the scientific consensus believes.

Armitage published his findings after the discovery and subsequently fired by the University. Many argue that it was an attempt by the University to silence scientific speech at the public University.  Court documents reveal that shortly after the discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department.”

The Pacific Justice Institute has filed a law suit with the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the board of trustees of CSU citing discrimination for perceived religious views. Brad Dacus, president of the PJI stated:

“Terminating an employee because of their religious views is completely inappropriate and illegal.”

Armitage has been a published scientist for more than 30 years. The University claimed that his appointment had been temporary and said that his dismissal was due to lack of funding.  This is an argument Armitage opposes with prior statements and documents from the University saying otherwise.

Michael Peffer, staff attorney with PJI’s southern California office stated:

“It has become apparent that ‘diversity’ and ‘intellectual curiosity, so often touted as hallmarks of a university education, do not apply to those with a religious point of view.” “This suit was filed, in part, to vindicate those ideals.”

Posted by Amanda Hopkins

www.charismanews.com

 

Your Comments

posted by john on 01-08-14

Just another example of the tyrany of the intolerant tolerant. Believe what you like so long as its what we want you to believe.


posted by Peter Knight on 02-08-14

There are plenty of other scientist that share this view not only about dinosaurs but have provided quality evidence that creation is much younger that we have been programmed to believe.


posted by Jim Warrrington on 02-08-14

The problem with today`s science is that if you dont fall into the evolution time zone you are thought to be mad or bad! However Show me -- in today`s world -- one member of one species that shows signs of evolving into another species. There not one example of evolution acting among the existing billions of members of the millions of species currently alive on earth? The earth should be swarming with fresh missing links. Truly, evolution is the most elusive and mysterious of all conceived natural processes? It appears to have become completely extinct in the modern world. How could that happen to a presumably natural process?


posted by Charlie Underwood on 02-08-14

We are talking about a person who has brought a science department into disrepute. I see no option cut to sack him. What he has done was clever and cunning, but verging on fraudulent. I looked at the paper and it does not say the same as the skewed press releases suggest. It actually says very little and is just a note on a poorly constrained occurrence of a relatively common phenomenon. He has organic matter in bone cavities. This is suggested in the paper to be the remains of tissue but nowhere does it say that this is not degraded. In fact there is no meaningful discussion of separation of dinosaur tissue, carbon skeletons pseudomorphing tissue, carbon skeletons pseudomorphing ancient microbes or modern microbes. Carbon skeletons of organic matter, often with some degree of preservation of more robust other organic molecules, are common. Most fossil plants and graptolites, preserved traces of feathers and skin and of course all coal and oil. So whilst these are not common in bones, they are not unknown (as the abstract mentions).Even when most or all volatiles have gone, the carbon skeleton left can be incredible; I have seen graptolites from the Ordovician with carbon skeletons of collagen where the shape of the original nannostructure is still seen. This is NOT collagen, only the carbon chains left after decay and metamorphism. There is very clever use of the word 'soft'. Palaeontologists (such as the reviewers) use this term for pretty much any preserved tissue that rarely fossilises such as replaced muscle or gut and any fossil insect or worm. The releases give the impression that the material is actually squiggly and undecayed. This is dishonesty by use of words that have different meanings to scientific and untrained audiences. This is not the first time he has done this. There is a paper on halos in biotite that used incorrect methodology; any mineralogist doing honest work would make sure they used realistic P/T conditions. In using unrealistic ones, he managed to claim unrealistic results. For someone who appears to specialise in parasitology, these ventures into phyllosilicate mineralogy and organic geochemistry to obtain falsely interpreted results can only be seen as intentional deception. Irrespective of any religious connotations, no university can continue to employ someone of such dishonesty. If there were any colleague of mine whop did likewise, I would work tirelessly to have them removed before the reputation of the department was further blighted.


posted by Dr. GS Hurd on 03-08-14

@Jim Warrrington I have compiled a list of dozens of examples of directly observed speciation events. These are population that become reproductively isolated from the parent species. We have observed this in natural and experimental settings for over a century. I don't know if this website allows direct links so, Google "Stones and Bones: Emergence of New Species"


posted by Dr. GS Hurd on 03-08-14

@Peter Knight There are a tiny fraction of working scientists who are creationists- fewer who are young earthers. To believe young earth creationists you must reject all of physics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, and anthropology.


posted by Jane on 03-08-14

GS Hurd needs to have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=748eSmk0YL8 which provides substantial evidence of creation


posted by Chuck Anziulewicz on 03-08-14

Mark Armitage is not JUST a Creationist or some garden-variety "Intelligent Design" promoter. He is a "Young Earth" Creationist who insists that Life, the Universe, and Everything came into existence relatively recently (Quote: "I would be comfortable with 10,000 to 20,000 years.") despite the fact that this is simply incompatible with physics, mathematics, and astronomy. Unfortunately he used his minor position as an electron microscopy technician to promote "Young Earth" Creationism. As such he has ZERO credibility as any kind of legitimate scientist.


posted by john on 05-08-14

@dr Hurd and Chuck, Please get your facts right and do not repeatfalse information. Creationist do not reject all science, this blantent misinformation is a sad reflection on your integrety, that you make this statement. Creationist reject the assumptions involved in evolution. The science used by Mark Armitage is the same science you would used. He assumes creation you assume evolution.


posted by Dr. GS Hurd on 07-08-14

It is obvious that Armitage's supporters have not actually read the "research" paper at the center of this little storm. Mark Hollis Armitage, Kevin Lee Anderson 2013 "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" Acta Histochemica, Volume 115, Issue 6, Pages 603??608 I have. It is garbage. The journal will be humiliated as soon as I find time to review it for publication. But just some of the more obvious errors (for a 5 page paper): The age of dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered from and not the condition of the bone. There was no competent stratigraphic analysis of these fossils to associate any radiometric data and the recovered material. (Armitage also denies elsewhere the validity of all radiometric dates). The fact is that the fossil was found in a shallow secondary deposit. It was cracked and open to the environment. It was observed to have rootlets growing through it! This alone rendered the sample useless. None of the reasonable tests for the age of the material were performed (especially amino acid racemization analysis if as I suspect the "soft tissue" is recent plant and microorganisms). Armitage and Anderson soaked chunks from the horn core in Glutaraldehyde which is a cross-linking and tanning agent. In short, they made plastic out of any bacteria, fungi, or any other modern organic sludge on the bone. Their attempt to demineralize other samples with sodium EDTA was a failure, yet they proceeded anyway. There are other problems as well. This isn't the first time creationists have misrepresented ancient soft tissue. The hae done it for many years now. See (Google) "Dino Blood and the Young Earth."


posted by R. Fair on 18-01-16

Armitage is a disgrace and his paper is a joke, withdrawn by the publisher


You can add your comment here