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

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs

I know right. Trippy isn't it?

I do agree.
I'll just bother you for one more piece of info
if I may? Just wondering about the focus we plunge thru
spacetime, with our most massive telescopes? Is that a game
changer as I might think? As per what our eye is capable
of viewing with such power. And a pre emptive thank you
to Krazyshot.

Not really. In fact, it actually helps us understand the universe better since when we look at objects further and further out, we are looking further and further back in time. This helps us understand how the universe behaved during all phases of its existence since the Big Bang happened.

It is believed that quasars function into the birth of galaxies since we can only find them extremely far away from our own galaxy. We don't generally see them in our neck of the woods. But they help us understand the life cycle of galaxies. Young ones are very energetic and shoot of tons of energy then eventually chill out as they get older. But because of the way light works, we know that this is something that is related to the age of the galaxy and not something that could just spontaneously happen to a neighboring galaxy like Andromeda.

Something kind of terrifying to think about, with all this being true, a death shot from a supernova of gamma ray burst could already be heading in our direction from a star or area in the universe we are still looking at where it hasn't exploded yet. But we won't see it until it is too late.

a reply to: Hanslune

Exactly. Anyone who thinks that the ancients didn't come across and weren't familiar with fossils is deluding themselves. It's not like humans first started discovering these things 100 or so years ago. That's silly talk.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: R_Clark



Nope, Armitage is being intellectually dishonest..

And the way I read it, it's not just him.

The guy is a technician, not a scientist. He was on contract and his contract ran out (wasn't renewed.)
So he was neither "fired," nor was he a "scientist."

Harte

a reply to: Krazysh0t

As an observation, we can't even look up at the night sky
without only seeing what once was. And incapable of seeing
what is. Damn right that's trppy!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dragoon01
a reply to: bbracken677
Look I do not completely discount strata dating. In fact I am comfortable with the principles of it and the idea behind it. What I have a problem with is the application of it. I just think the application of it assumes that geological processes are slow and consistant leading uniform local conditions. Dating the rocks really does not cause me any great frustration its dating the fossils within the layers and assumptions and conclusions that are drawn from that. I am more of the belief that catastrophic events and geological processes can happen very quickly that destroy local conditions and alter what is assumed to be evident from the layering and deposits. I just dont think the scientists give enough weight to the possibility that the Earth is way more dynamic than they assume. That even if you are looking at a layer that is composed of material that is millions of years old does not mean it has been in that location for millions of years. The entire local strata may have been picked up and laid down over and over again by catastrophic forces.

The thing about catastrophic forces is that we would see evidence of said catastrophic forces in the surrounding area. We can find evidence of campfires from thousands of years ago. There is a clear boundary designating the K/T extinction event (the one that killed the dinosaurs). So if what you said were to be true, we'd find evidence of it, and that usually isn't the case except for isolated places. But in those places we make note that an event caused things to lay down differently than usual.

As for cosmology....I dont want to derail this thread but the reply that detailed the Big bang theory rests on the assumptions that the visible matter in the universe is expanding...That assumption is based on observations that overlook other observations inconsistant with that theory. I am very much of the opinion that we have no way of knowing how old the universe is or accurately determining the distance to stars.

For the record I am not a young earth or young universe creationist.

We can see the universe expanding. Look up the cosmic microwave background as well as the cosmic neutrino background, they both help cosmologists trace the expansion of the universe back to right after the Big Bang happened. The CMB goes back to about 400,000 years after the Big Bang and the CvB goes back to about 2 seconds after the Big Bang happened.

Though I am curious, what observations are you referring to that are inconsistent with the Big Bang theory? Please cite some peer reviewed sources.

Again, the fact that catastrophic forces can happen locally is what throws a level of uncertainty into the equation.
I don’t want this to spin off into a detailed example spiral so I will avoid analogies and such.
The point is that geologist do not have the ability to strip away all the layers of a given area in all locations to see every detail. They drill core samples and do stratifications sections and make assumptions. Now that’s not all bad but my problem lies in the faith that everyone places in that. Even if a geologist develops a detailed analysis of a given area and writes a paper that includes the qualifications that it is his scientific opinion someone else is going to come along and state his results as fact and use them to validate results from a completely different field. We see this all the time. It may in fact be accurate but its also possible that he misunderstood or even misrepresented the data. Now you have a corruption of multiple positions. As these positions build over time the willingness to question them becomes less and less present because reputations are built on them.
If the Earth was a static environment and layer upon layer were laid down with no other forces acting on them then all of the principles would be self-evident, but its not….and since its not, we cant say with such sweeping claims that a position is fact. I do not come down on the side of the Creationists and young earth theories, I just get real hacked off when I hear the dogmatic Science defender pronounce with faith that his religion is right and the Creationists religion is wrong. The shoe was on the other foot a thousand years ago the self-evidence was there in plain view for the Church and the Scientists was a heretic for suggesting that the Earth revolved around the sun. I don’t doubt evolution or the geological age of the world. What I doubt is that science has even the most basic details of the timeline correct. I believe that the Earth is indeed ancient but I also believe that humans are much older than science has us pegged and that much of what the Paleontologist have classified as separate species are really just the same creatures at different stages of development. Particularly when entire species are defined by a single incomplete pile of bones. See the debate about Homo florinsis as an example. I am perfectly fine with the idea of a distinct small species of humans that survived into relatively recent times. I scoff at the assumption that it’s just a child with a small head. The established position is threatened and must be held at all costs!

As far as cosmological age……Halton Arp. That’s all I will say on that matter as again it will derail this thread.

a reply to: R_Clark
Atheism wins again. I guess the moral of the story is that God's power is weak, because god is weak.

a reply to: Dragoon01

You got me confused with someone else. I'm agnostic. I don't subscribe to any one position 100%, but I'm certainly allowed to lean heavily in one direction given enough evidence to support it. Sure there is a possibility that it is all wrong, but it is the best information we have to go on. I am certainly ready to change my opinion if better evidence comes along that contradicts everything. I just haven't found it yet.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: pyramid head

And yet nothing those loons said is actually wrong......wow....go figure!!

I mean if you agree with some random guy/gals rantings sure. That doesn't mean I am going to consider it an intelligent discussion. I'm pretty sure I gave a specific point to illustrate how delusional the blogger was, but that's OK, you agree with it, so the source is good. I usually don't rely on someones rantings to help my arguments/points, but we all have our standards I guess.

a reply to: pyramid head

I would agree with you that a blog isn't and shouldn't be considered a source of citation. At the same time, the info contained within it was pretty spot on.

If it were me, I probably would have used the blog as my starting point and then found more legit citations to support the argument and unfortunately the onus for providing quality citations is on the individual making the claim.

Keep in mind though that often in the "heat of debate" people will rush to get a reply in as opposed to taking the time to find a more credible source.

And in other instances, the opposing side is also a little quick to judge making presumptions and make statements such as-

its just a blog by some degenerate leftist loon labeling anything he/she disagrees with as looney. They also posted Dr. Savage on there who has a pretty prestigious education. The other was a blog by some Christian bashing atheists.

The reason I point out these specific statements is twofold. First is its a tad hypocritical and second it shows you didn't read any of the source material very thoroughly because there are actual citations involved such as this one critiquing papers that Armitage managed to get published- www.csun.edu...

Here is another paper by Armitage - www.icr.org...

Here is a rebuttal(note it is a blog as well but he has links for his citations) -

scienceblogs.com...

This is the same blogger pointing out that Armitage uses biblical citations for an alleged scientific paper - scienceblogs.com...

All of the above I obtained in about 10 minutes of clicking and reading and this was just off of the first source. Or as you called it the "degenerate leftist loon" source.

Now we can move on to the "Christian bashing Atheist" source, yay! Just out of curiosity, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was an atheist let alone one who was bashing Christians? The closest it comes to bashing Christians is disputing the pseudoscientific conclusions of young earth creation proponents based on the lack of science involved and explaining how the lawsuit has no actual basis and will probably get thrown out of court because YEC is not a religious world view which is absolutely correct as YEC represents a rather small percentage of Christians worldwide and is concentrated heavily in the American bible belt.

I found it to be rather incredulous myself, particularly when I read that Armitage was very upfront about his religious leanings when he interviewed for the position and they had no issues with it at that point and then proceeded to hire him. He isn't employed there anymore because he was intellectually dishonest and took legitimate research and then spun it to make it appear to support YEC hypothesis.

the damned dirty atheists linked you to the published data regarding the triceratops soft tissue- www.sciencedirect.com...


Just to reiterate, I don't think you should have to do someone else's legwork to support their supposition but the info was definitely there if you had bothered to look instead of outright dismiss it based on your own predisposed biases.

the conclusion of the story that evolutionists lied about using the right tests, fabricated bones from different species . lied about where they really found the bones.
the new discovered dinosoures reveals without relying on radioactive testing that the soft tissue and skin could not be that old, you just need your eyes not radioactive isotope that is already based on hypothesis that their half life is very long by million of years.
your eyes and direct light rays from the bones to your eyes need no hypothesse.

evolution non existant.
evolutionist are freudelent magi athiest scientists with premeditated agenda, and hate humans and want to denigrate thewm on behest of their bosses of the reptilian race who want to eliminate us.
to live in our place.

the evolutionists are humans beying posessed by reptilians aka satan and crew

a reply to: reletomp

hey, whatever fairy tales help you sleep at night...go for it. It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong on every point. Good luck with all that.

Charles Darwin once said "when people discover etiology of mutations they will know the truth.

He meant to say, when you discover the dna you will find the truth that him and the crew decieved them into believing they are monkies for a hundred years , during which them rode on the backs of humans who percieved they are monkeys.satan overjoyed the ride

a reply to: reletomp

interesting, especially since nothing related to evolutionary science let alone human evolution has ever claimed modern man arose from monkeys. I'm willing to bet one of my kidneys that you cant provide a single legitimate citation to support any of the above statements you have made under the guise of fact when in reality its nothing more than your opinion and likely an opinion based entirely on fear.

they actually certify it that humans and chimps sprang from earlier monkey. it is certified by evolutionists (the people who claim evolution exist). Evolution does not exist, never existed and never will. it is a fada reply to: peter vlar

originally posted by: reletomp
they actually certify it that humans and chimps sprang from earlier monkey. it is certified by evolutionists (the people who claim evolution exist).

Absolutely false. please provide a citation to support you rambles, id love to see where you're getting this info from

Evolution does not exist, never existed and never will. it is a fad

It does exist, has always existed and will continue to occur long after your bones are dust

it only exist in the brain of god deniers to explain nature.
god exist and can create things like he created them the first time around, for a very god reason, because he is very expert in these things. he never used evolution. mutation only cause destruction. it degraded things to the point of death.that it why god recreate them again. he probably use dna as a paste/copy on creation board among other things needed for life other than dna that we dont know much of, nor we know or claim to know much of dna or paleontyology.

originally posted by: reletomp
it only exist in the brain of god deniers to explain nature.

that's a load of donkey poop. I studied anthropology and there were Christians matriculated into that program.

god exist and can create things like he created them the first time around, for a very god reason, because he is very expert in these things.

Oh... he's very expert at these things. Problem solved I guess...

he never used evolution. mutation only cause destruction. it degraded things to the point of death

you don't read much about biology do you? mutation does not only cause destruction, the vast majority of mutations are completely neutral with neither positive nor negative affects on the organism.

that it why god recreate them again. he probably use dna as a paste/copy on creation board among other things needed for life other than dna that we dont know much of, nor we know or claim to know much of dna or paleontyology.

Probably copy and paste? wait I thought he expert? me confusedededed We know quite a bit about DNA, especially since its only been what? 70 years since Watson and Crick were able to model the double helix? Do you actually know what paleontology is and what a paleontologist studies?

P.S. still waiting to see you support a single statement with a citation which is a little suspect. you wouldn't be trolling me would you?

you don't read much about biology do you? mutation does not only cause destruction, the vast majority of mutations are completely neutral with neither positive nor negative affects on the organism.

neutral mutations will combine in aletr times to do harm. harmful mutation were found . Beneficial mutations not found, not even one).

a reply to: reletomp

I'm sorry but you're just way off the mark on that. I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone else. I'm always open minded enough to admit to being wrong. All you have I do is provide citations from a legitimate peer reviewed source, an article published in an academic journal... Something with legs it can stand on. Just spitballing random claims though isn't going to get you very far because without supporting data all you're doing is giving your opinion.

good for you you are open minded but that wont change evolution does not exista reply to: peter vlar