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

originally posted by: helius


Oh my. A scientist that is fired when it turns out he is Christian and dares to claim things that threatens the political establishment and their holy evolution theory.

That only adds to what I already has claimed all along. The evolution theory has a political agenda, and it was introduced solely to get rid of the Christian creation theory and ban it from schools.

If it wasn’t for the fact that the heading on my calendar sais 2014 , I would have taught that we still live in the middle ages and that inquisition still existed.

Surely we are living in dark ages once again.

Did you even READ any of the responses in this thread? Just about every post on the first page is pointing out that this guy pushed fraudulent conclusions on his findings. This guy wasn't fired for being a Creationist. He was fired for being a lying twat.

originally posted by: helius
If it wasn’t for the fact that the heading on my calendar sais 2014 , I would have taught that we still live in the middle ages and that inquisition still existed.

Surely we are living in dark ages once again.

Er, you realise which way round the inquisition worked?

Seriously, complaining about living in the dark ages, and yet supporting somebody who is pushing unscientific twaddle based on a 2,000-year-old story book?

And the award for creationist irony goes to...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, the thread turned into something i don't wont to engage in .

I am not against a discovery of an animal skeleton meant to be dead millions of years ago, appearing only 4,000 years ago. The Coelacanth was meant to be extinct 66 million years ago, until someone caught one in the 1940s. And this animal does not really imbalance the creationist/evolution debate.

Please remember that the 6,000 year old creationist is not just stamping on the evolution theory, but also refusing to believe the theories of plate tectonics, radioactive decay (which at 6,000 years old can be partially corroborated by dendrochronology- tree rings).

a reply to: R_Clark
Sorry...any article that speaks of dinosaurs in terms of archaeology is gonna be rectally sourced from the git-go.

a reply to: templar knight

But he didn't find an animal that was supposed to have died out millions of years ago living 4000 years ago. He decalcified the minerals on a bone he found then made a conclusion that because there was still soft tissue it must only be a few thousand years old. Notice he didn't radiometric date anything?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: R_Clark

Very good thread, this show's that the theory is at fault, Sadly for the gentleman involved who may not even be a creationist himself, sticking his neck on the line for the truth of his find has shown the level of conceited and unscientific bias in the establishment, he is far from the first to have his reputation and career ruined for having scruples in a discipline in which honesty is supposedly a tenet.

No he is a Creationist and a lying one at that. He pushed fraudulent conclusions on his findings.

How may inconveniant find's have been destroyed, conveniently lost or locked away where the public and even most who think the science is irrefutable can not see the opposing evidence, it is like they keep moving the chess pieces of there opponent when his back is turned so that they can win a game but it is not a game and they are litterally manipulating the fact's to fit an erroneous agenda which twists the truth to there own end's, they indoctrinate kid's in school so that they think they are more intelligent than there parents, they control faculty's at major educational establishments and like the old addage the victor writes the history which sadly in this case sometimes mean's the actual truth is the victim.

Yea... Not in this case.

While this would not necessarily disprove standing ideological concepts about the history of the earth or even the theory of evolution it does possible suggest a species may have lived until the near present that was supposedly extinct over sixty five million years ago and therefore may rock the paleantological community if accepted as fact, it may however merely demonstrate a very unique condition that allowed preservation of material that should have decayed long ago with the former being far more likely.

No it suggests that this guy lied about his conclusions. You do realize that the original source is from natural news right? Pretty much everything they report is skewed and misrepresented.

It is also dynamite for the creationist side of the argument (of course every one is really a creationist regardless of religious opinion with there argument only really being time, cause and the nature of existance, of course they tend to avoid the word creation and use the world formation or coming into being).

There are two immovable camp's here on ATS and a silent third camp of watchers, the first are the Creationists given seniority not by there numbers but by there traditional faith based approach which by the way has nothing wrong with it but is often inflexible, the second is the devout faith based group whose firm beilef is in what they call established fact's, these fact's are actually theory's with fitting evidence that is interpreted in line with further theory's and established actually mean's unchallenged by the majority of that school of thought and accepted as is.

Science such as physics may have flaw's but works as you can see by the computer you are using, disciplines of engineering work perfectly, chemistry, biology (they are still learning day by day) but paleantology and archeology are not true science and are often more grounded in the disciplince (Indoctrinated or educated to a accepted framework) of interpretation, this interpretation is based on the interpretation of previous experts in these field's and there established criteria are heavily influenced by anti religious bias though often that is so hidden in the depth's of there discipline that they are actually not that aware of it in the way it has been introduced and integrated into there conscious perspective which actually schew's there perspective every bit as much as religion does and they are convinced they alone are correct.

The third camp are often content to watch an immovable force collide with an immovable object and often laugh at how right both camp's believe themselve's to be, could often pick apart both side's arguements and they include some genuine very intelligent and unbiased people of all profession's and disciplines.

As a christian myselt though perhaps not the best example of one I can say the only persion who know's is God, unless the atheists are correct (which I believe they are not) and then nobody know's.

This is a fine example of a man whom pull's the card out from under the wonky leg of a table that is not properly balanced and everything on top of that table including the houses of card's based on previous assumptions now called accepted fact's is shaken to the point it may partially or completely collapse so the crowd turn there back on that man for fear he may knock there houses of card's over and they would have to start again, actually willing to accept error over the work of remaking there discipline, rewriting there text book's and re educating the population that they were wrong after all.

No this is a fine example of a man who lied about something and got caught and fired for it. End of story.

originally posted by: johngrissom
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

and here in America you have every right to do that.....now, if you insist on teaching it in a public school, we have a problem....this is where Christians bring all the hatred and animosity on themselves, when they try and force others to live their lives according to their religious beliefs.

a reply to: jimmyx

Bingo. Everyone is free to be as ignorant as they like. They're not free to spread that ignorance by state-funded means.

Seems fair enough to me.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: R_Clark

Very good thread, this show's that the theory is at fault, Sadly for the gentleman involved who may not even be a creationist himself

You clearly didn't read the entire thread =)

I have to wonder whether people who post this sort of thread ever learned anything about the reliability of sources when they were at school.

Let's look at the OP. Even leaving aside the fact that the story was posted on a crank/scam site (naturalnews.com), the quote says "According to the Christian Post...".

Do you really expect the Christian Post to give an unbiased reportage of a story like this?

a reply to: miniatus

No you are right I did not, shame on me and I should have looked more into the voracity of the claim.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

You are wrong. The bible was written in Portuguese and Atlantis was close to the Azores islands. Everybody knows that.

P.S.
I do believe Atlantis existed but most of what we know today is just folklore.

a reply to: AlphaHawk
One problem with that, the bones would've needed to be buried where there is running water for them to become fossils, historically people used all of a creature that they killed and ate.

So, it would be rare for butchered fossils to be found of any creature, not just dinosaurs and it's relatively rare for fossils to be created anyways.

Jaden

Dinosaurs existed a long time ago, I think the evidence is sufficient to suggest that. However, this is why people are so easily misled, and this article actually did more harm than good for Creationism. For example,
the author posted a dubious fossil, then the evolutionists disprove it, giving the perception that creationism is false, when in fact, nothing in the Bible says that dinosaurs were created 4000-6000 years ago. The dinosaurs
could just easily be one of the animals created during those "7 yoms"(which to me should be most conveniently translated as aeon or eon, or 1 billion years).

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The word Yom in Genesis 1. As we can see with words like sars, ners, and sosses of the Sumerian language that have multiple meanings, yom in Hebrew can mean day, years, or a very long time(aeon). It is very important to look at the original Hebrew text and context, as it would rule out the Young Earth misconception altogether.

Mr. Armitage is confusing two issues here. "Creationism" IS NOT a religion. It is simply a factual position. His lawsuit will and must fail as a matter of law, plain and simple. I would not be surprised if a simple summary judgment motion kicks it and wins the opposition counsel fees for their trouble.

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.

Are you saying that light has a speed limit? Perhaps there is an answer in your post that you were unaware of that can prove both right.

After doing some research, if we were to assume that the Sumerian Kings list and the Bible are true, then the Sumerian Kings were in fact direct descendants of Adam. The location of the Garden of Eden is right where the Sumerian Civilization started(lower corner where the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers meet, the Gihon river is the Nile(running through the land of Cush), the last river mentioned in Genesis 1 is probably somewhere which runs through Yemen). Here's a good link to learn of the geography:

www.kjvbible.org...

However, the garden was probably destroyed by the flood, so I'm not sure if we can find anything there.

Just wanted to post this..