Scientist fired from university after discovering dinosaur bones believed to be only 4,000 Years Old

A recent archaeological discovery that throws a wrench into the conventional theory of evolution has reportedly cost a California professor his job. Mark Armitage, a former scientist at California State University, Northridge (CSUN), was reportedly fired after claiming to have unearthed a dinosaur fossil that still contains soft, flexible tissue, suggesting that it can't be millions of years old.

A 30-year veteran in his field, Armitage has published many studies over the years in peer-reviewed journals. One of his most recent was published last July, pertaining to a discovery he made at the Hell Creek Formation excavation site in Montana. According to The Christian Post, Armitage was evaluating a triceratops horn fossil....

www.naturalnews.com...

Amidst all of the mucky muck of Ebola, WWIII, collapse, etc... comes a story which detours us away from all of that to a conspiracy? of a different type which started with Creationists using dinosaur fossils to prove Darwin partially wrong.... Nat News which sometimes covers other stories has put together a clear article (with a fantastical title) describing that there is more data that shows the current theory is likely not the whole story.. add that to the ancient texts which some have mentioned dinosaurs... and cave paintings from wrong historical periods which show dinosaurs.... Now, we have a back ground for a good story...

Simple Summary :
1. Armitage found soft tissue in a find from Hell Creek formation, Montana when researching a triceratops horn fossil and published.... thus getting fired for religious reasons as his lawyer states;
2. Molecular paleontologist Mary Schweitzer (NCSU) claims to have come up with a valid explanation in a story published by The Huffington Post, that iron in dinosaurs' blood may have a preservative effect on soft tissue; Schweitzer and her colleagues had discovered soft tissue in the fossilized leg of a Tyrannosaurus rex;
3. "Dinosaur bones with Carbon-14 dates in the range of 22,000 to 39,000 years before present, combined with the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, indicate that something is wrong with the conventional wisdom about dinosaurs," says New Geology.

Other sources
www.christianpost.com...
losangeles.cbslocal.com...
www.sciencedirect.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...
newgeology.us...
and
dinosaur painting medieval search on google images
www.google.com... rc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=cDx7uvW8POnD0M%253A%3BIVUKigEu0Qv6-M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.genesispark.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2011%252F11%252FH%252 5C3%2525B8jby-odsherred-church-dragon-fresco.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.genesispark.com%252Fexhibits%252Fevidence%252Fhistorical%252Fancient%252Fpte rosaur%252F%3B2848%3B2134

a reply to: R_Clark

Nope, Armitage is being intellectually dishonest..

Mark wasn’t fired because he discovered something that was challenging evolution.

He was fired because he showed a completely lack of intellectual honesty and was misrepresenting discoveries in order to make a personal profit as a speaker of creationism. And in this law suit? Mark has won no matter what.

Either Mark wins and so allows the usage of real science to make fallacious claims by protecting it as freedom of religion. Or Mark loses the cases and becomes a poster child for the expelled trope of creationists where he profits from travelling about claiming that he is the creationist science tried to silence.

freethoughtblogs.com...

a reply to: R_Clark

Howdy,

I don't know if this has been posted in it's own thread on ATS, but it has been shown in some threads with similar topics. It was certainly a nice fossil find. Here's the link to the triceratops article's abstract.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Allow me to quote somethings here from the above source. "Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone."

So, first the "soft" tissue in question is bone tissue, remarkably well preserved bone tissue I grant you. Second, the use of the word "post-decalcified" indicates to me some form of mineralization, permineralization being the likely scenario, but I cannot tell from only the abstract. What I can tell you is that this isn't really anything unexpected from a well preserved fossil bone.

Schweitzer's finds were assuredly mineralized samples that had been dipped in acid to remove the minerals, so that would likely be a similar scenario.

I've not seen these studies stating that anyone has carbon dated a dinosaur, but I would be thrilled if you could post a source with the methods section available. I am skeptical, but open to the idea, as long as contamination was minimized and proper protocols followed.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

There are areas where they find things that do not match the dating and normal fossilization that is found in most other places. These places are not well understood. It is like these areas traveled through time. Of course that is impossible but something is causing these places to exist. Maybe the dinosaurs could live in these areas and survived longer. Instead of Paleontology ignoring these and saying that these locations have some weird flaw, maybe they should try to figure out why it is that way. Now soft tissue, that seems to not fit into this either, I am talking hundreds of thousands of years instead of millions.

Maybe he found something like they described as dragons in the past, the Native Americans had a different name for these creatures. Some lived in the rivers and some flew. Maybe some sort of creature that was around up to a couple of thousand years ago. We will never find out if they keep denying their existence and call all these legends myths. There could have been something, and the people may have eaten these creatures when they killed them, thinking it would make them immortal or stronger. Who knows, maybe the flesh of one of these mythical creatures is what they found. I bet Dragon meat went for a good price, I bet it would go for a thousand bucks a pound today if someone shot one.

a reply to: rickymouse

Armitage is talking thousands of years here, like 4000 years.

He's a young earth creationist, as in he believes earth is only 6000 years old.

Soft tissue has been found in T-Rex bones too, it's not a completely new thing, despite what he wants you to believe.

And as for dragon/dinosaur meat...where are the fossils showing butchering marks on them?

oy. just read Genesis in Hebrew and with a good concordance and the young earth theory is destroyed by a single word; which is mistranslated in the English version. you cannot really be a fundamentalist if you cannot read the fundamentals properly in the first place. The Bible does not say the earth is any specific age and supports a vast geological age easier than a young age once you take that mistranslated word into account and correlate it to verses elsewhere in the bible such as in Isaiah and 2nd Peter; etc.

In all honesty...I could careless what year this thing dates to.

I believe in God, Jesus and read the Bible. No dinosaur finding is going to change that; even if the individual is of my belief.

Still do not care

a reply to: AlphaHawk

Well, I suppose some could have made into staffs and other bones could have been made into clubs. They could have ground them into a powder to make something like pottery or also used them to make jewelry. Would you be interested in buying a real Dragon bone ring to put around your neck? How about a baseball bat made of dragon bone. It could be ground into almost anything, All a person needed was imagination.

The six thousand year old earth belief does not fit the evidence. I won't even dispute the fact that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. I do dispute that they all died off millions of years ago though, maybe a bacteria wasn't around back then to eat the bones. Maybe it came along a few million years ago and ate everything after that.

There are a few possible reasons that newer dino bone isn't found. Stating that they died off two million years ago isn't right, after all we pretty well know that some Dinos shrunk and turned into chickens and turkeys and other birds. So saying they went extinct is completely wrong..

Mark Armitage seems to have earned himself a spot on the Encyclopedia of American Loons

We cannot pass over Mark H. Armitage, however. Armitage was an Adjunct Professor of Biology at Azusa Pacific University, a religious college, and received a “Masters Degree” from the regionally unaccredited Institute for Creation Research. Graduate School. Currently Armitage is affiliated with the Creation Research Society, and operates and maintains a working electron microscopy lab there (what a waste of resources), as well as serving on the Board of Directors.

See also: Mark Armitage – Creationism and Bad Science

He was fired because he showed a completely lack of intellectual honesty and was misrepresenting discoveries in order to make a personal profit as a speaker of creationism. And in this law suit? Mark has won no matter what.

Either Mark wins and so allows the usage of real science to make fallacious claims by protecting it as freedom of religion. Or Mark loses the cases and becomes a poster child for the expelled trope of creationists where he profits from travelling about claiming that he is the creationist science tried to silence.

It'll be interesting to see how the lawsuit plays out, if freedom of speech allows a university manager of a biology department electron microscope to publish pet nonsensical theories using falsely represented data under the guise of being a real university ordained paper.

a reply to: rickymouse

Well it's not just the age of the bone, it's where it's located in the layers of rock and sediment, newer stuff is at the top, if dinosaurs were around longer than said, their bones would be found in different, newer layers.

The guys degrees come from a non-accredited Creationist university. Make that "university." The guy pulled a scientific no-no, saying that this part of his theory was true (the part that was based on actual science), therefore these other parts of his theory that were based on his creationist beliefs must also be true.

I asked a creationist if he believed that scientists know the speed of light. He said sure. I said how can we see light from 200 million years ago if we've only been here 6,000?

He didn't have a rebuttal.

AAC.

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
I asked a creationist if he believed that scientists know the speed of light. He said sure. I said how can we see light from 200 million years ago if we've only been here 6,000?



He didn't have a rebuttal.



AAC.

Then he is dumb, it's quite a simple rebuttal, the Universe was created in motion, as in the light to view the star was already created. Why put stars in the sky if no one can see them? If a Creator was to put them there, they would make sure they were seen.

a reply to: R_Clark

Another OP full of dishonest BS.

Embrace ignorance..

The basis of his claim is this: He found a triceratops horn. There was still soft tissue in the horn. The horn is real, the find is real, the soft tissue is real. Next, he claims that no way could soft tissue survive millions of years. So that this horn must not be millions of years old, it must only be 4,000 years old. Thus, proving the Earth is only 6,000 years old. He used a couple of realisms to push a falsehood. You know what they say, the best lies have a bit of truth to them.

Technically he was wrong in a few areas, the "soft tissue" was covered with mineral deposits and had to be de-mineralized, leaving a spongy cell structure that looked like cells, but what's the big deal, as other dinosaur bones have been found with soft tissue. There is nothing that says everything inside a fossilized bone has to be replaced by minerals. Deep down inside it were bits made up of carbon making up a cell-like texture. Carbon does not change into anything else, not even after millions of years. This was carbonaceous material that has a spongy texture. It does not contradict evolution or defy the true age of dinosaurs millions of years ago.

He misled by claiming carbonaceous material could not possibly that old and thus could only be 4,000 years old, which is proof the earth is only 6,000 years old.

He's a creationist fraudster who got fired for intellectual dishonesty. He needs to go back to his fake university with his creationist degree and quit pretending to be a real scientist.

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
I asked a creationist if he believed that scientists know the speed of light. He said sure. I said how can we see light from 200 million years ago if we've only been here 6,000?

He didn't have a rebuttal.

AAC.

outstanding!

but don't be too hard on them. they think the bible was written in english and form their beliefs based on a faulty literal reading of that english which leads to this sort of thing for a number of reasons. lots of these problems could be avoided if they had studied it properly. the KJV source manuscripts are all still available. it is relatively easy to check translations when a passage does not make sense in english or appears to contradict science unambigously. not related to the young earth issue but equally important are misunderstandings of ancient figures of speech and hebraisms.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
oy. just read Genesis in Hebrew and with a good concordance and the young earth theory is destroyed by a single word; which is mistranslated in the English version. you cannot really be a fundamentalist if you cannot read the fundamentals properly in the first place. The Bible does not say the earth is any specific age and supports a vast geological age easier than a young age once you take that mistranslated word into account and correlate it to verses elsewhere in the bible such as in Isaiah and 2nd Peter; etc.

Which word? What verse?

a reply to:
AnAbsoluteCreation
OccamsRazor04

They do have a rebuttal: answersingenesis.org...

One of my favorite parts:

It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time. At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Howdy,

Do not be offended, but I find your source ironic for invoking Einstein's special relativity (nonrigid times)... and saying that special relativity is not real (non-constancy of the speed of light). If you wish to invoke the effects of special relativity on time, you cannot argue that special relativity is false with respects to the constancy of the speed of light.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sincere Regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to:

AnAbsoluteCreation

OccamsRazor04



They do have a rebuttal: answersingenesis.org...



One of my favorite parts:

It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time. At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

Stupid rebuttal really. If you assume an almight Creator why do you need to alter the speed of light? Kind of dumb.