By Chad Dou —
CSUN scientist Mark Armitage found soft tissue in a dinosaur bone, a discovery that throws significant doubt on evolution. Then, two weeks after publishing his findings, he was fired.
Now California State University at Northridge has paid Armitage a six-figure sum to settle his wrongful termination suit based on religious discrimination. While the university admits no wrongdoing, Armitage’s attorney said they feared losing a protracted lawsuit because of a “smoking gun” email that backed the plaintiff’s case.
The case of Armitage is the latest to show the mounting hostility Christians face in academics and other public arenas.
“Soft tissue in dinosaur bones destroys ‘deep time.’ Dinosaur bones cannot be old if they’re full of soft tissue,” Armitage said in a YouTube video. “Deep time is the linchpin of evolution. If you don’t have deep time, you don’t have evolution. The whole discussion of evolution ends if you show that the earth is young. You can just erase evolution off the whiteboard because of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.”
Armitage was hired as a microscopist to manage CSUN’s electron and confocal microscope suite in 2010. He had published some 30 articles in scientific journals about his specialty.
A graduate of Liberty University, Armitage adheres to the “young earth” view, against the majority of scientists who say our planet is 5 billion years old. He engaged students in his lab with Socratic dialogue over the issue of the earth’s age based on his and others’ research, he said.
In May 2012, Armitage went on a dinosaur dig at the famous fossil site of Hell Creek in Montana, where he unearthed the largest triceratops horn ever found there. Back at CSUN, he put the fossil under his microscope and made the startling discovery: unfossilized, undecayed tissue was present.
If the dinosaur were 65 million years old, the soft tissue could not have possibly remained, he says. His findings seconded groundbreaking discoveries by noted molecular paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, who triggered an earthquake in the world of paleontology when she published about soft tissue in dinosaur bones in 2005. (Schweitzer subsequently postulated that iron is responsible for preserving the soft tissue.)
Armitage’s February 2013 study was published in the peer-reviewed Acta Histochemica, a journal of cell and tissue research. Two week later, he found himself without a job.
A biology professor had come into his office and said, “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department.”
Armitage fought back. Professors and students alike had praised his work managing the microscope lab. His suit alleged he was excluded from a secret meetings of the microscopy committee. In a “smoking gun” email, university officials suggested they could ease Armitage out of his part-time position by making it full-time, Reinach said.
A colleague described the process as a “witch hunt,” according to Inside Higher Ed.
For two years, CSUN fought Armitage’s lawsuit. The university alleged his firing was simply a restructuring of their biology department and not a case of religious discrimination. But CSUN lost its bid to have the judge summarily throw the case out of court as groundless in July of last year.
So CSUN settled with Armitage for $399,500 in 2016, according to Inside Higher Ed.
Alan Reinach, Armitage’s attorney, hailed the settlement as precedent-setting.
“We are not aware of any other cases where a creationist received a favorable outcome,” said Reinach, executive director of the Church State Council, a nonprofit California public interest legal organization. “This was truly a historic case.”
CSUN has downplayed its decision to settle, saying in a statement that the university is committed to religious freedom and freedom of speech.
“The Superior Court did not rule on the merits of Mr. Armitage’s complaint, and this voluntary settlement is not an indication of wrong-doing,” according to a CSUN statement published in Retraction Watch. “The decision to settle was based on a desire to avoid the costs involved in a protracted legal battle, including manpower, time and state dollars.”
But Reinach countered: “They certainly would not have paid that kind of money if they did not recognize that we had them dead to rights. The state doesn’t put large, six-figure settlement money out unless they are really concerned they are going to lose.”
Prior to looking for soft tissue in dinosaur bones, Armitage studied diatoms, unicellular organisms that make up phytoplankton, which reveal a dizzying complexity and organization at the microscopic level.
According to Armitage, the beauty and complexity of diatoms lends credence to the idea they are a product of a Creator and not of spontaneous evolution.
“Evolution is structure supported by two pillars: one is chance, and the other is time. Chance is required because we obviously can’t say that a thinking force created life on earth. That is anathema for the materialists. If you kick out one of those two pillars the whole structure collapses,” Armitage noted. “If you kick out chance by showing incredible design, the structure of evolution starts to totter and it may crash. Because you cannot have design in a world that doesn’t have a Designer.
“The other pillar is time because you cannot get a man from a frog unless the princess kissed the frog. That’s a fairy tale. So in science you have to have deep time to get evolution.”
Subsequent to the controversy, Armitage has been on additional digs and found more soft tissue but is finding it difficult to get published. “I’m clearly being blackballed,” he said in The College Fix.
“Soft tissue in dinosaur bones destroys deep time.” Armitage said. “Dinosaur bones cannot be old if they’re full of soft tissue.”
Related: Soft tissue in dinosaur bones upends evolutionary timetable
Chad Dou studied at the Lighthouse Christian Academy in West Los Angeles.
So how old does he think the dinosaurs are?
Yeah, that’s what I want to know. What is old and is not old???
4000 years old according to this article. http://www.nature.com/news/university-sued-after-firing-creationist-fossil-hunter-1.16281
according to GOD the world that HE MADE Is approx 6000 years old and SCIENCE though they FIGHT IT just SO HAPPENS THEY keep on PROVING it rather THAN disproving IT AND THEN THEY HIDE IT AND TRY TO DESTROY THE PROOF AND THE BRINGING OF TRUTH!
If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, we would only be able to see stars that were 6,000 light years away or less.
As it stands the most distant stars we can see are over 14 BILLION light years away. Meaning that the light from those stars traveled 14 BILLION years to reach us.
I’d love to hear how you try and square that VERY SIMPLE FACT with a Young-Earth model.
Someone who can create a universe is obviously not limited by the laws in that universe. Don’t require God to abide by all the laws of the universe He created.
If He wants to create the stars with the appearance of age, that’s His choice, not ours. Don’t put God in a box.
I hope you do understand that a light year is a measure of distance not time. Please check definitions first prior to answering like this. It makes you sound wholly uneducated.
Um… Miguel, the way you just described how light travels and what stars and galaxies we can see in the universe is so incredibly wrong. If we could only see stars dating back to creation of the earth, then we would only be able to see about 4 billion years into the universe. The edge of our EXPANDING universe is nearly 40 billion light years across, with our visible universe being 14 billion light years. Your reasoning would dictate that we could only see 4 billion LYs into the past, not 14. So before posting like you are a scientist, read a book, then try to tell others like Jeremy to check definitions.
Wow, Jeremy…
With “logic” like that there’s nothing you can’t prove.
The question is WHY would there be any reason for god to fabricate the universe in such a way as to make it appear to direct, objective observation to be older than it actually is? ESPECIALLY when he demands worship. What reason would he have to fabricate evidence against his own existence?
Isn’t it far more likely that reality is as we observe it to be?
When debating creationists, I TRY to be as reasonable and respectful to different beliefs as possible. But this defies all sound reason.
In fact, I propose to you that the universe, Earth and everything that ever was was created this morning at 9:00 am.
You were created with all of the memories of your previous experiences already in your head.
Does this sound ridiculous? Does this seem to fly in the face of everything you’ve ever seen or heard?
It should.
But according to you, it’s every bit as logical as what you posted, according to your own reasoning.
Yes, Miguel.
I DO understand that a light year is a measure of distance, not time.
It is the distance that light travels in a year.
So light from the most distant observable stars took 14 billion years to travel the DISTANCE between those stars and the Earth.
If the universe were any younger than that, that light would not have had the time to reach us.
Are we speaking the same language? I feel like I’m being quite clear.
If the universe is billions of years old, the light from other stars would have
Already been here when the earth was created
Dustin thanks for your input but I do have a scientific understanding of what a light year is.
“A light-year, also light year or lightyear (symbol: ly), is an astronomical unit of length equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (or about 6 trillion miles). As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.”
Also after performing cursory research on your hypothesis of the visible universe I have come across this.
“The word observable used in this sense does not refer to the capability of modern technology to detect light or other information from an object, or whether there is anything to be detected. It refers to the physical limit created by the speed of light itself. Because no signals can travel faster than light, any object further away from us than light could travel in the age of the universe (estimated as of 2015 around 13.799±0.021 billion years) simply cannot be detected, as they have not reached us yet. In practice, the limit on observation is not 13.799 billion light-years for two reasons. The first reason is that space itself is expanding, so we can actually detect light from objects that were once close, but are now up to around 45.7 billion light years away (rather than up to 13.799 billion light years away as might be expected). The second reason is that before the recombination epoch the Universe was filled with a plasma that was opaque to light, and photons were quickly re-absorbed by other particles, so we cannot see objects from before that time using light or any other electromagnetic radiation.”
Please before trying to insult me by inferring that I’m not a scientist please do your own research first. If you still plan to question the validity of my intelligence I have a double bachelors in mechanical engineering and aerospace engineering.
Andrew,
My comment of knowing the definition of light year wasn’t directed at you. Rather it was directed at Jeremy. Also if you look at my second response I would be inclined to say that we would agree on the point that are making.
Typical case of Cognitive dissonance.
Just address the evidence at hand and explain the soft tissue instead of shifting the argument to something else.
That is easy – the light was created in place between earth and stars.
An excellent and obvious objection but answerable! No, the light was NOT created between “in transit” – in the past, this was the standard response but it doesn’t work (and makes God out to be a “deceiver” – making things seem older than they are – this job is handled perfectly well – without Divine assistance – by most modern scientists!!). Very briefly, the answer is found through Einsteinian Relativity. Time is not a constant (bizarre but true) and is affected by gravity (eg a clock at sea level runs a different rate to a clock on top of a mountain – very very small difference in that case but much much more at a cosmological scale. Satellites have to make adjustments for this so that things like GPS navigation can work properly). So, in the early rapidly expanding universe, a theoretical “clock” on Earth would run many orders of magnitude slower than a theoretical “clock” on a distant (and rapidly receding) star. This is just the beginning of the explanation but as I am not an Astrophysicist or Cosmologist (just a medical doctor), you’ll need to research the fuller explanation yourself.
Google “time dilation” or save yourself some time and trouble and go to creation.com and there will be many articles and other resources/info there that will explain it better than I can at varying levels of complexity depending on your own scientific literacy level.
God simply brought the light to our solar system.
Everyone in this debate is ASSUMING that the Earth was created BEFORE anything else… doesn’t that make everyone wrong?
That doesn’t make sense. If a star 100,000,000 light years away and puts out light, (and earth doesn’t exist yet) It travels all that time through deep space. OK? Now much later, the earth is created, This “old” light hits a “new” earth. The argument is like saying a new baby can only wear clothes that were made after it was born.
Is the doctor had examined Adam 10 minutes after he was created that doctor would say Adam is a fully mature adult male. But we know God just created him. It’s the same with the Earth. If God had created an infant instead of an adult male how would that infant survive? God-created a mature planet for people to live on.
Andrew, if God is powerful enough to create trillions of stars, don’t you think he would be powerful enough to create the light in place over the span of space – especially if he did so to have the light of the stars to be visible on earth?
God can factor billions of years into 10 seconds of our reality. The bible tells us to God one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. He is NOT confined by time, rather time is in his hand. These are beautiful biblical truths of the spiritual type that most scientist will wrestle. 2 Peter 3:8
First, no offense to anyone! I only jumped in this post to kinda interject to many of the following posts.
The many old and new bibles were written so long ago, and as the people saw things at that time. and many re-written by those that interpreted the way they saw it?
Up till the last 50 years, people followed a faith or belief to give them moral’s and family life. it is not there today? Was supposed to give you something to believe in and look for after death, because you love and remember the dead, and so on. If you believe in something you should live a clean life, even without the bibles.
Should take some time and get into Theology, the pros and cons of everything said in these posts.
MY Take,,, after death that is it! You won’t know it! So, live a good happy life with family and friends, even during the bad trials and tribulations of life!
It’s quite simple. Discount the characteristics of God, as they are set forth in the Bible, and it’s a problem, but with God, what’s impossible with man, is possible. Out of the mouth of an Atheist came the idea that such an entity as the biblical God, could retroactively create as well, this would by necessity fall within His capabilities. That said, knowing what the Hubble would do and see, at a mere whim of His will, He spoke “all” things into existence, for His purposes, and His glory. Consider that Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster chronicled the background of Superman’s history in just 4 panels in Action Comics 1 in 1938. How many retroactive elements did they add to that in the decades to follow? These are just 2 men exercising the characteristic of creativity, which the biblical God sets the infinite benchmark for. Hope that helps.
Who created the measurement? Man, It is not definitive.
Do you even realize what you just stated? Light from stars 14 billion light years away would be traveling to our point in space whether the earth was here or no. Your argument is complete nonsense.
I don’t necessarily believe the earth is young or old, (dont care really) but it’s age can easily be independent of the rest of the universe or any given part of it. Many planets and stars are various ages. So, just because light may have been traveling for 14 billion years in earth’s direction, doesnt necessarily have anything to do with the age of the earth itself.
The “earth “ is only @ 6000 years old but not the universe.
That’s easy the light was here before the earth was created and I’m no scientist
Problem with these old earth people is that they’re assuming stars began exactly where they are and didn’t move, they’re confined in a tiny box of what they think rather than being open to other alternatives, unless you existed billions of imaginary years ago to see light traveling at a certain distance you can’t honestly claim it to be true. God created the universe in 7 literal days, God likely imparted that knowledge on Adam and Eve as well as other people because the word day along with many other words were designed to withstand the test of time and mean exactly what he meant, the 7th day was like taking a pizza out to sit and let it settle 🙂 So evo did not happen and evo-ists are left without a religion to follow, yes this may make them more dangerous than they already are but who really cares, this life isn’t forever and the worst thing that can happen to us is dying….. not very scary at all considering what lays ahead.
How do you know that their measurements are accurate. The science and the technology could be flawed. Or the data simply misinterpreted. It’s not because they state that they have the truth on the subject, that they actually do. Once, those same scientist types were adamant that the world was flat, and they ridiculed Columbus for thinking differently. But he proved them all wrong, didn’t he.
What about the fact the Universe is expanding on the edges at faster than the speed of light (Law of General Relativity).
That would cause a problem with the 15 Billion estimat based on speed of light
The light was on its way before the earth was created DUHHH
You obviously don’t know God. He created light before he created earth.
You won’t believe this and I have cognitive dissidence about it but it could be explained if you looked into the Flat Earth WEB Sites.
They give information that says the stars and even the sun are mathematically proven to be real close. They use the Sextant to prove it. And they show that a ship does not go over the horizon but can be seen fully with a powerful pair of binoculars. So why does no one challenge them if it isn’t true. or have they?
the answer to that is because God created the world and the heavens complete. He made the stars that we could see them and He does not have to wait for their light to travel because He invented light in the first place
That’s way to simple to explain. The earth was new not the stars. The light from those stars had been traveling all along. The earth was created and set in old space in the middle of those traveling light beams. If you have only been alive for 20 years then how could you see the stars if it was dependent on your theory?
What if the speed of light is not constant?
Where is it stated that the earth and stars were created at the same time? Your theory is dependent on the Earth being created before there was a universe in which to place it. The light from these distant celestial bodies may have been traveling toward Earth’s location long before the blue planet occupied said space.
When God created the universe, the light from distant stars were already shining on the earth.
Sharon, that is not true. Man has been on the Earth 6000 years. Who knows how long the Earth has been here. It is even possible there was a pre Adamic race.
Yeah, I used to believe that was possible too. But, I finally realized that chaos, violence and death prior to Adam’s fall contradicts God’s Word, not only confined to Genesis but most clearly with respect to it.
I’d appreciate you citing your source…
The bible never states how old the earth is, I don’t know where people get that information from.
I’m pretty sure the calculation is done using the genealogies given along with the people’s ages when they died.
Really? God says this?
That’s odd because the scripture you are about to quote was not written by god.
It was written by men and translated a bunch of times.
So on the first day god said let there be light. But without light there is no day.
And if earth wasn’t made before light how could a day exist? A day is the period of time the earth takes to rotate once. Without an earth what scale is a day in heaven?
Could it be that 7 “god days” is about 4 billion earth years?
God said let there be light. And the big bang happenes.
No reason god and science can’t coexist
Created with apparent age just like Adam and the trees were mature. Eve made from Adams rib also was formed mature. The rest history
I agree with you.
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/
In the beginning God….
Or in the beginning bang…
Or mixture of both…
7,000 years . Some dinosaurs will still walking this earth
It’s embarrassing that they act like creation and evolution are the only two possibilities. Neither side has enough intelligence to think outside their tiny little boxes.
What other option is there? Designer or no designer? Please enlighten.
Bingo!
Truth hurts sometimes, evos.
If you don’t have intelligent creation or chance evolution, what other option is there for consideration? Having found soft tissue, did they check the DNA?
They should try cloning it,
Perhaps intelligent design is behind evolution, perhaps when God made earth in seven days (not our concept of days) that included the big bang and ended when evolution resulted in Adam in his adult form. We dont truly know what ‘created’ means as far as the details if how God created the earth. I dont think science and religion have to be at odds.
What is embarrassing is that an opinion isn’t tolerated if it doesnt conform to an ideology.
OPINION is the key word. He was fired for not following the scientific method and being an idiot, there is no room for opinions…
Really??? What is a hypothesis? Isn’t that an opinion about what you expect to learn from your experiment??? Besides, he was fired for stating fact; that there was soft tissue in a dinosaur horn! How is that an opinion? How does stating a fact (that apparently you don’t like) make him an idiot? Besides, since you are giving your own opinion, by your own statement, what does that make you???
A hypothesis is a “guess” based on other evidence in the same category, not an opinion, what shouldn’t be an opinion is the results of a scientific experiment, stating that it proves an entire theory is like having hundreds of blue marbles in a bag finding a red one and saying it’s a bag of red marbles when in all reality it is still more logical to call the bag a bag of blue marbles
What’s more embarrassing is that you are so willing to publicly display your complete lack of understanding about how the scientific method works. It’s never about opinion. Opinions aren’t science.
What is a hypothesis then, pretty much an opinion in all reality. A hypothesis is the start of all scientific and engineering research.
Has anybody really proved that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Without soft tissue from the dinosaurs, the is no proof that this really happened. It is just an opinion as well.
Hypothesis means an educated guess.
THEORY means the most factually likely answer given an examination of all available evidence.
The real question is what proof of dinosaur to bird evolution would satisfy you?
Science is all opinion. The most popular opinion wins.
Nope, science is hard work, hence most people prefer to read stuff on the internet and believe it, like this joke of a page
In order to say both creation & evolution can’t see outside their tiny little boxes means that apparently, you can Rhonda.
Does anyone ever consider that creationism and evolution could be the same thing. Billions of years are a blink of an eye if God is eternal. So why can’t it be that evolution is the means by which life is created?
GPutt I’ve been saying this for a many years. If God is eternal, then a billion years is a split second in His realm. To us, eons pass, to Him, a blink. I liken it to the those old cartoon paper books that you fan out and the cartoon moves. What it to us evolution took millions upon millions of years from the waters to the land to standing upright, but to God, it was just as you say, a blink of an eye?
The problem with this thinking is that Genesis 1 says He created in six days. The word for “day” is a literal 24-hour period of time. It’s not an eternity, nor is it a thousand years. The word used in the verse “a day is as to the Lord as a thousand years” is a totally different word in the original language, and is not bound by time. I don’t know why it is such an issue, I would rather believe in a God who could do all we see in 6 days–He is much more powerful than a god that started a million year process.
AMEN
Tammy, Isaac Newton would disagree with your literal interpretation of how long a Day is. But he deeply respected The Bible.
GPutt I agree wholeheartedly
Do not forget that Newton was a numerologist and he used the Bible to predict the days of Revelation. His work says 2060 plus or minus and he feared publishing it in his time for being declared a witch. One of the greatest minds of all times but he was a God-fearing Christian.
Yes please explain.
So, what’s the other side, big-thinking Rhonda? We ‘smaller-minds’ would like to know!
When you think about it, those really are the only choices. But please share another possibility for us small minded people!
So, Rhonda, are you a Scientologist who believes aliens came down into s volcano or whatever BS was created to put money into L. Ron Hubbard’s pockets? SMH
what do you suggest. it’s obvious u have an audience waiting to hear your pearls of wisdom…..i would suggest that you probably didn’t think too deeply in your comment and you now are plainly defensive about your stance (which is probably a victim stance perpetually)
thx Rhonda for keeping the left wing liberal veiws alive.
Hey Rhonda, several people have called you out concerning your statement that there are other possibilities to how we all came to be, other than creation or evolution, but scanning down through the comments, I didn’t see your response !!!
Please, help, help me Rhonda, we are all awaiting your wisdom and insight !!!
However, I would advise against telling us that aliens are responsible, as that line of thinking just kicks the can further down the road, and doesn’t answer anything !!!
So please, lead on to enlightenment !!!
Sir, yes we do have intelligence db not only that we HAVE the Inspired Word of GOD to tell us exactly what HE DID to create this entire thing.. no matter how far out they see HE did that. no matter how small they figure out how to see HE DID THAT.. all of it. and of course DEEP TIME does not exist after all . HE did this approx 6000 years ago and you can easily work it all out.. just by reading WHAT HE GAVE YOU. its not hard and you don’t have to be A SCIENTIST! BUT Again AND AGAIN FOR THOSE WHO SEEK KNOWLEDGE the Bible proves out against the lies that Science has decided to deny HIM time and time again. So you can insult us but you better be careful insulting GOD. how SMART ARE YOU that you don’t even KNOW how very precisely GOD has provided information for you to know what HE DID FOR YOU and for ALL! The wise choose God’s words and commands over man’s. How wise are you Mr. Faulkner?
If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, we would only be able to see stars that were 6,000 light years away or less.
As it stands the most distant stars we can see are over 14 BILLION light years away. Meaning that the light from those stars traveled 14 BILLION years to reach us.
I’d love to hear how you try and square that VERY SIMPLE FACT with a Young-Earth model.
Andrew, to where light travels is independent of whether or not there is something waiting to receive it. Light does not predict where an object will be at any given point in time. Regardless of when and how the earth came to be, the light that reaches it would still reach that same location, barring interruption (or changes due to gravity/relativity effects). Your argument would require that stars be claimed to be 6,000 years old as well, to have any impact.
Also how could Adam possibly named all the animals he was only a day old he wouldn’t have been able to talk. Also plants were just created so they couldn’t have grown yet to feed him. And who cared for this infant. And Why make a wife for an infant. Or I guess God could have waited till Adam was older to make a wife from one of his ribs, but then she is an infant and suppose to be his wife, that is just nasty.
Its almost as if God was able to create things in full completeness to fit his purpose. So he made Adam a grown man placed him in a garden that was developed enough to support him. In a Universe to be of a age that it could support the existence of the earth and not be some cold black void.
But no Adam should have died an infant as he fell onto a molten freshly created planet. that should not have even existed yet because the universe is not even old enough to have anything but hydrogen.
Could not find Feb 2013 Acta Histochemica. Please check reference and reply.
Tim
The Study was released in February 2013, and was covered in the July Edition of Acta Histochemica. Volume 115 Issue 6.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
Nice information
Waiting for Jurassic Park…
If they could clone the DNA from the soft tissue and grow an embryo I think some Academics would certainly have to sit up and listen.
Having worked 36 years in
Higher education, I can tell you that some of the most closed-minded and those least open to new ideas are academics.
Amen!
Ben Stein movie “expelled.. no intelligence allowed” is very informative about the agenda of science and the protection of the #theoryofevolution and the actions of the Smithsonian institution.
You should also check out Is Genesis History? by Thomas Purifoy. It also shows the Creationist/Conventionist perspectives and provides some very interesting work that many scientists are now publishing and have been publishing for some time now.
Yeah the way it goes is stubborn resistance, then gradual conversion as facts come in, finally pretending agreement all along.
no offense to anyone…
The question? Evolution vs god???
Today we are cloning, trying to re-create fossil eggs etc, from DNA? Creating human and animal parts?
Evolution? Nothing to something, Prehistoric apes to sub humans very long ago. Even found in glaciers and other places, frozen in ice, the ice age?
So,,, God created all this past to today? Created in his likeness? He isn’t represented as a ape, and Adam and Eve were the beginning? And, why did he throw in dinosaurs, ice age, wars etc, to date? Before or after Adam?
Oh, I forgot, Adam ate the Apple! From a snake? Ya, I know, rhetoric, in writing a story,
Rhonda
I’m curious. I’d like to know what other possibility/ies exist besides creation and evolution.
Don’t think Rhonda is going to reply.
Pretty sure Ronda is a Scientologist who believes aliens came down to create humans, but even if that were true it’s still plays into intelligent creation so there really is only two options!
Dear author, could you update this article with docket info for the case? I would like to go read the pleadings and the court’s order denying the university’s motion to dismiss.
Why do they not include the option that evolution can be of intelligent design?
because its impossible, intelligent design and spontaneous materialization cannot co exist
I would say that it is possible that they can coexist. For example, creation puts forward that Adam was created, but he wasn’t created as a child that grew to adult hood. He was a “made” man (hahaha I crack myself up) It would be possible that intelligent design created a “mid-life” universe. In which case for comparison, Adam would likely have growth plates that had ceased to grow before he was created. They would be there even though an observer would think they wouldn’t exist. Or a belly button perhaps. Hopefully you get the idea. Likewise, since this is the same universe that was created at the time of Adam, that natural processes to get to humanity would all be in place even if they didn’t happen in the normal scale of time.
At the end of the day, science can not disprove or prove faith, same as ever. Creation scientists should work on something productive like curing cancer, since God keeps inflicting it on children.
Is it God who forces children to use cancer-causing products, or influences man to pollute the earth, water, and food supply with toxic carcinogens?
Time will tell how much our poor stewardship of the earth’s resources contribute to diminishing health and quality of life.
But to blame God for children coming down with cancer is both shortsided and lazy.
it’s like lazy is something you throw out in hopes to sound less pathetic. if your scholarly attitude was to visit the extremely complex and bipartisan word of God, you would see the totality of what God allows and what he controls.. there isn’t one aspect of existence the He is not in control of or aware of. I guess lacking of understanding this aspect of God one may call that person lazy.
God does not inflict cancer or any other disease on anyone. We live in a very broken world and we are reaping what we have sown.
Because god does not exist, simple as that…
Interesting remarks. I find it interesting that those who say that they do not believe in “GOD”, The Supreme Creator of Everything, but they are quick to blame GOD for things they don’t like!?
How can a sane person put Blame on Someone who they say does not exist?
I know right! That always cracks me up! Lol
(Thumbs Up) 🙂
Christopher – before you rubbish something, wouldn’t it be worth finding out about what you are rubbishing? The creation account doesn’t say that Adam was created as a fully grown man, it simply says that he was made by God. As scientists, we work by making observations and then attempting to link them together to find patterns. We also rely on the observations of others to determine if these patterns (scientific theories and laws) are robust. With the start of things, none of us were around to observe, which means that we have to collect other evidence. When this evidence doesn’t support a particular theory, it isn’t the evidence that needs to be reconsidered, but the theory. An account purporting to be given by someone who was around at the time should also be taken seriously, as that would mean that there was an observer present. While it may be that for various reasons you doubt the voracity of the account, it isn’t a very scientific approach to simply dismiss it on the basis of what other people have said without having examined it yourself!
more precise answer is that the Bible creation narrative does not allow for that. it is written as a straightforward eyewitness account by God himself. God says he created the universe and all it contains in six 24-hour days. the days of creation do not and cannot correspond with The evolutionary model, since God created the Earth before the sun and the rest of the universe, and plants before the sun, etcetera. mature plants cannot live for more than a day or so without sunlight for photosynthesis, but they can survive if the stated time frame of 24-hour day is literally true. The omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent god of the Bible would have no trouble designing the Earth living and geologic systems, and putting that design into being, without a need for any evolutionary process and long ages. The Narrative implies each system is brought into being and to maturity immediately on that day, so it is ready for the animal or human life that will depend on it functioning. It is not a random process, requiring blind chance and deep time as Evolution claims. See the book, the Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, for more on this and other reasons to accept the god hypothesis rather than The naturalistic, evolutionary View
2 Peter 3:8 ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Seems like there is more than 24 hours in the Lord’s Day.
it’s also true if I were to take out of context, let’s say your inheritance, that you might reconsider how you quote texts out of context to use as a benefit in construing a false testimony in order to feed your ideology
That’s some crazy s___ right there.
How old could the fossil be if it has soft tissue in it? It’s not like a Triceratops was just walking around a year ago.
There are ancient remains such as mummies and preserved mammoths who have soft tissue and are thousands of years old. Soft tissue just means not fossilized into stone. I think a related article said around 4000 years, but to be honest I think scientists can’t really know – most dating methods (including carbon dating) are pretty unreliable in determining dates.
That’s where you’re wrong.
We have only recently created technological and analytical means to discover the soft tissue preserved in dinosaur bones. And of all dinosaur bones we have discovered, soft tissue is extremely rare. This does not mean the length of time required for fossilization is shorter (as YECs claim), it sets a new record for how long soft tissue can be preserved in a fossil.
Also, radiometric dating is quite accurate, and multiple radioactive materials are used to cross reference and further narrow down the age of a fossil. If the science of radiometry was as poor and unreliable as YECs claim it to be, we would not have nuclear weapons or reactors.
Why can’t there be a designer and evolution? Please don’t judge me . Is soft tissue not found in every dino bone? AND if not who’s to say when those dinosaurs died…. I mean why do we think every dinosaur died at the exact same time? Some didn’t live on in other areas of the world? Alligators and other creatures made it …….
Would anyone deny a great flood occurred. Land based creatures would not survive but perhaps amphibians could
I believe the answer to your questions is the Bible’s worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis chapters 6 through 9. The Narrative implies a event of Staggering violence otherwise unseen and unknown in Human Experience. Earth’s topography was likely less uneven than it is today . It can explain the presence of fossils in the Rock layers laid down By water all over the Earth. water erupting from under the continents as well as from clouds above the Earth for 40 days would gradually inundate all land and drown all air breathing land-dwelling plant, animal and human life. The flood can be the cause of present-day Mountain chains and ocean depths pushed up and down respectively by changing isostasis of the Earth crust. land masses would grind to a halt as the waters under the Earth depleted and friction increased, tending to pileup. as continents Rose and water drained off into lower ocean beds (which would continue to drop due to the weight of the water and changes due to the eruption of the waters under the Earth. most if not all the fossils seeing in in rock layers today, and indeed the layers themselves, likely formed during the year of the flood and shortly thereafter. a modern-day example of this type of Rapid geologic change can be seen at Mount Saint Helens, where layered Canyons have formed in a matter of hours days and weeks where there were none before May of 1980 eruption occurred. Mike, for these reasons and more, I do think that most every dinosaur and every other living thing in the fossil record did indeed die around the same time of the flood. There are fossils in the act of eating or fighting with each other or giving birth, which can be reasonably explained if the burial was rapid. It could also explain why mastodons are found at high latitudes Frozen with food in their mouths and in their stomachs if the biblical narratives idea of water’s coming up from under the Earth caused massive sudden snowfall that both killed and buried the animals suddenly
see the book and website In the Beginning by Walter Brown for more on these ideas.
the genesis flood by Henry Morris and John whitcomb
https://www.facebook.com/joshua.feuerstein.5/videos/1107086816060666/?hc_ref=ARRjaZhQmlkHknGsEALLzJorP8pK4RiLOrNg8ZPGoEGLP5r2duPldZwLOaqY7PfvVmk&pnref=story
Oh please.
Wait a minute. He was a SEM techie who taught labs… right? He isn’t qualified to make grand decisions, nor is he allowed to teach outside the scientific consensus. He was wrongfully fired (it seems). I would love to read what was said on either side. If his findings were/become supported, he will be a Nobel Laureate in no time. However, that isn’t likely to happen. Plus, K-Ar dating of nearly every old rock, both from Earth and from space, agree with a 4.65Ga hypothesis.
God people talking science without understanding a word of it is humorous. This article is sure to mislead many of you into making a false hypothesis with no intention of testing it and every intention of repeating it blindly. That seems to me to be the reason he was fired, not because of his religion (per se), but for the fact that he was misleading many of the students in his lab.
The problem is that KA-r dating is only theory. It is not true science. Where did the scientists obtain the controlled specimen from 65 million years ago (or one billion years ago) to carbon date? Every amateur scientist knows this as a fact of science in the experimental process. And mostly, carbon dating has been an embarrassing procedure when the scientists come back with one billion years old on a specimen, only to then discover it was only a few years old. Wow, that’s NOT science JAP.
So therefore, K-Ar dating is just an opinion. Yay.
JAP… are you not aware of the erroneous assumptions built-in to the K-Ar dating method? (and all other forms of radiometric decay dating as well) Simply put, it doesn’t work and can never work because key assumptions are made about the initial mother/daughter elements ratios, assumption of uniform decay rate, and assumption that nothing disturbed the sample and was meticulously preserved for supposed millions of years and in all that time, nothing contaminated the samples.
Are you saying that maybe something contaminated the bone/horn and mistakenly thought it was from the dinosaur? Jw. That makes sense to me.
the whole point is he was fired not because he was misleading students, but because he was telling them the truth, that soft tissue was found in dino bones. And this finding has implications. After that, its up to the students to figure out how that correlates to the old ages postulated for dinos, who are presumed to have died out 65 million years ago. Bringing up nobel laureate stuff is the old cannard, a false diversion from the issue, a false generalization from this specific instance. Typically, evolution believers start attacking the person, rather than the observation, because with their own blinders on, they do not have open minds to new and divergent observations and interpretations.
This sounds very similar to what we are seeing in this country right now:
Wikipedia on Russia
Under the doctrine of state atheism in the Soviet Union, there was a “government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism” conducted by Communists.[79][80][81] The communist regime targeted religions based on State interests, and while most organized religions were never outlawed, religious property was confiscated, believers were harassed, and religion was ridiculed while atheism was propagated in schools.[citation needed] In 1925 the government founded the League of Militant Atheists to intensify the persecution.[82] Accordingly, although personal expressions of religious faith were not explicitly banned, a strong sense of social stigma was imposed on them by the official structures and mass media and it was generally considered unacceptable for members of certain professions (teachers, state bureaucrats, soldiers) to be openly religious. As for the Russian Orthodox Church, Soviet authorities sought to control it and, in times of national crisis, to exploit it for the regime’s own purposes; but their ultimate goal was to eliminate it. During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled. Believers were harassed and persecuted. Most seminaries were closed, and the publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941 only 500 churches remained open out of about 54,000 in existence prior to World War I.
That was a very informative and enlightening history lesson TC. Thx.
I hope CSUN fired the HR employee who was daft enough to hire a creationist for a job in science.
You’re mostly daft yourself. You are for discrimination?
Yes, the scientists who prefer to radically proclaim their gospel of deep time will never tolerate a younger Earth theory because it would be massively embarrassing when their funds dry up and they’re without a job. What would they do then for employment?? It’s strange how much tax payer money is funneled into their hands and yet, not the hands of scientists who would also like to scientifically explain a different theory other than the popular one of the day, that being of macro-evolution. There is no equality amongst scientists today. The powers to be want one religion taught and force fed to the youth in schools vs being open to investigate further possible explanations other than their pseudo-science. God-forbid we learn more about the vast amount of evidence which points to a much younger Earth than predicted. Many cultures throughout the world have passed down stories within their people group for generations that speaks of a Great Flood, yet we don’t explore those findings nearly as much as what the evolutionists want us to believe. Very sad when they have become the ultimate hypocrites.
Your statements show a very broad lack of understanding of the scientific method, scientific theory, and what qualifies as evidence.
One could easily disprove evolutionary theory and the deep-time theory if one had actual legitimate evidence against it.
As it stands, all of the evidence we have collected is in favor of evolution and a 14 billion year old universe and all “evidence” that has been presented in favor of young-Earth creationism had failed to pass scientific scrutiny.
I’ll give you a simple example:
The vast majority of stars you can see at night are million or BILLIONS of light years away. That means the light cast off from those starts has taken millions or BILLIONS of years to reach Earth. (Most of those stars don’t even exist anymore and have long since burnt out or exploded as supernovae) Therefore, if the universe and the Earth were only 6-10 thousand years old, we would only be able to see stars that are 6-10 thousand light years from Earth.
The most distant stars we can perceive with our modern technology are up to 14.5 BILLION light years away. Therefore, the universe is at least 14.5 BILLION years old.
Science is NOT a religion. Science evaluates evidence, proposes experimentation, examines data and ONLY THEN does it form a conclusion (theory).
RELIGION takes a preconceived conclusion and attempts to cherry-pick ONLY the evidence that could be interpreted as supporting the foregone conclusion.
Science advocates peer review of demonstrable evidence, and requires objectivity and critical thinking.
Religion demands unquestioning adherence to a foregone conclusion DESPITE evidence to the contrary.
I’ll leave you with a pair of quotes that sum up my argument quite well.
“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of twisting theories to suit facts.”
-Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)
“Religion is a leftover from the time when man became smart enough to start asking big questions, but was not yet smart enough to start answering them.”
-Unknown
I’ll leave you with a pair of quotes as well:
“Often a cold shudder has run through me and I have asked myself whether I have devoted myself to a fantasy.” – Charles Darwin
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” – Soren Kierkegaard
First off, you are misquoting Darwin. This sentence is taken out of the context of correspondence to his mentor Charles Lyell. The full quote reads thus:
“I honour you most sincerely:—to have maintained, in the position of a master, one side of a question for 30 years & then deliberately give it up, is a fact, to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for think-ing of the many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often & often a cold shudder has run through me & I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth like you & Hooker can be wholly wrong; & therefore I feel that I may rest in peace.”
Darwin is not questioning the “fantasy” of his theory of evolution, he is expressing his gratitude that his mentor validated it. (And he could indeed rest in peace, since every shred of evidence still supports his theory.)
Your second quote is every bit as much an indictment of religion as anything else you would choose to ascribe it to.
Science doesn’t care what you “believe”. It’s true whether you choose to believe it or not.
As it stands NEITHER of this quotes are in any way a refutation of the evidence. They are simply an easy-out for the lazy or intellectually impaired.
If you want to make a point, present a testable claim.
Andrew seems like you lived 14.5 billion light years to prove your theory. Any lab results on this matter? Isn’t science a process of observation. The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[3] The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses”.[4] Experiments are a procedure designed to test hypotheses. Experiments are an important tool of the scientific method
This may be a completely stupid question, I am just not educated enough in any field of science to know. Is it possible, seeing that it was buried in MT, that because of our long winter’s and short summers it was frozen for most of it’s lifetime prolonging decay and finalization? Maybe it had the perfect storm to keep soft tissue for longer. Again I don’t really know if it works that way but maybe the fluctuation of extreme cold with bursts of summer where it never really thawed entirely could have been a factor. Just a thought?
***Fossilization not finalization***
It’s not a stupid question, fossilization is an extremely rare occurrence. The VAST majority of dead animals never became fossilized. It takes very specific circumstances for a fossil to be preserved.
The animal must have died in such a way that it avoided being fed upon by scavengers, it had to be buried relatively quickly in certain types of sediment in certain environments, and it had to have been exposed for discovery by geologic means.
There are a variety of fossils that are exceptionally well preserved. A mummified Hadrosaurus has been found that included skin, muscle and internal organs.
Many feathered dinosaurs have been found in a region of China where the environment and conditions allowed for highly detailed fossils to form.
And in two separate occasions in the last few years, dinosaur fossils have been discovered SO WELL PRESERVED that we were able to determine the color of the animal. Anchiornis and Psittacosaurus.
Your only misunderstanding is trying to apply modern climate to the Mesozoic Era, which had some major differences in climate and atmosphere.
Where’s the proof. I doubt this man would have been fired if he had actually found “soft tissue”.
I don’t think the soft tissue claim was the issue. Others have found ‘fossils’ with soft tissue. http://www.history.com/news/scientists-find-soft-tissue-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones
What I think may have caused the problem was the fact that he didn’t cling to the standard ‘millions of years old’ age of the fossil. He offered the idea that maybe 75-million-year-old fossils are, in fact, quite young.
That is a huge no-no in today’s politically-correct climate, as this report clearly points out.
I wish science wasn’t something that can be played with. It would be nice to know that it is objective and that we can actually trust a scientist when he tells us why we his conclusions should be accepted. Unfortunately, scientists are human, and humans all too often have a bottom line, especially when their conclusions hinge on whether they get a job or not.
The questions I have are
1. What makes him (Or anyone for that matter) so sure that the tissue belonged to the dinosaur?; that it wasn’t just resilient, time defiant bacteria or something of that nature?
2. You would think that with finding soft tissue, the very first and most important thing that has to be studied is the DNA. So why wasn’t that done/published?
3. Is it not possible that, while the Dinosaurs may have been wiped out 65 million ears ago, perhaps SOME did survive? That quite possibly, this one was one of the last few remaining before they finally went completely extinct 3,000-4,000 years ago? Sounds unlikely, but definitely not impossible.
This just stinks of deception, to be honest. Not because it doesn’t fit my narrative, but because there’s this feeling of knowing there’s got to be more to this situation than we are being told. DNA tests had to have been done. A historically altering find this incredible and of this magnitude would not have allowed any excuses for it not to be. This is way too big of a deal for a “Oops, we forgot”, or “Oops, we didn’t get around to it”.
We have a picture of red blood cells from a dinosaur taken from a geology lab specimen. It is commonly found, actually.
The number 1 question, is what I was thinking. Maybe… just maybe, it was contaminated by something else.
Recent technological developments and process of analysis have found multiple cases of soft-tissue preservation.
DNA itself cannot be preserved since the elements making up DNA have a half-life and will have decayed despite the preservation of bone marrow, blood vessels, blood cells, etc.
Some dinosaurs ABSOLUTELY survived the KT extinction. We call them birds.
Glad he got justice, but that is not the way taxpayer dollars are to be spent! That huge sum of $ could have helped many students stay in college. This habit of settling difficult conflicts for cash is very troublesome! He should have been given his job back with back pay instead of such a large sum (although I supposed the lawyers got 40-50%, even with a smoking gun). Public officials continue to do wrong over and over with no personal consequences while taxpayers are forced to pay huge cash settlements when public officials break the law, while they still retain their jobs. Shouldn’t they at least get demoted if they are responsible for an incident resulting in such a huge cost to taxpayers?
IF the earth is only some 6,000 years old, and IF the bible is the story of creation, why is there no mention of dinosaurs in it? My answer to this is, at the time the books of the bible were written, there was no evidence known of dinosaur fossils, so the creation story did not mention them. If the fossil remains were known about by Moses and other writers of ancient times, They would have been mentioned. The fact that there is no mention of them, to me, indicates that they were not known about- but it does not mean that fossils did not exist. I am curious as to what Christians say about all the dinosaur evidence. Regardless of the age of them, why is there no mention of such a huge creature being created? Do they just say- all these fossils are man made? Do they say they are just strange formations in the rock? Do they say they came from Mars?
Back to this particular article- The fact that soft tissue may have been found in dinosaur bone does not determine the age of it. There are many other processes that could have occurred to result in this find. While it may be extremely rare to find this, it is not enough evidence to say that all other evidence suggesting the age of dinosaurs as being millions of years. The “scientist” involved was not doing proper research in the sense that he was basing his conclusions on his religious beliefs and not on pure research
John, To better understand the Christian perspective, you may find it of interest to watch the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xdkONYsjZg
It is called “The Great Dinosaur Deception” presented by Dr Thomas Kindell, who was once an ardent evolutionist who has since become a creationist. In the presentation, he is speaking to a Christian audience.
A second documentary I highly recommend watching with an open mind is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aK_a-s0HI4#t=522.176588
which is titled “Stunning Ancient Discoveries that will make you question everything.” It is long but worth watching in it’s entirety to appreciate the ultimate logical conclusion regarding evolution.
Hope this helps.
Both videos were very informative and interesting. Thank you!
Yes stunning evidence well suppressed! Cracks me up actually to see how “scientists” refuse to believe what they see.
There actually is reference to dinosaurs in the Bible, just under a different name:
Job 40:15-24 “Behold Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold his strength is in his loins, & his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff as a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! For the mountains yield food for him where the wild beasts play. Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds & in the marsh.For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him. Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. Can one take him by his eyes or pierce his nose with a snare?”
Job 41:1-34
“Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook or press down his tongue with a cord? Can you put a rope in his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he make any pleas to you? Will he speak to you soft words? Will he a make a covenant with you to take him for your servant forever? Will you play with him as with a bird, or will you put him on a leash for your girls? Will traders bargain over him? Will they divide him among the merchants? Can you fill his skin with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? Lay your hands on him; remember the battle–you will not do it again! Behold, the hope of a man is false; he is laid low even at the sight of him. No one is so fierce that he dares to stir him up. Who then is he who can stand before me? Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine. I will not keep silence concerning his limbs, or his mighty strength, or his goodly frame. Who can strip off his outer garment? Who would come near him with a bridle? Who can open the doors of his face? Around his teeth is terror. His back is made of rows of shields, shut up closely with a seal. One is so near to another that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another; they clasp each other & cannot be separated. His sneezings flash forth light, & his eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn. Out of his mouth go flaming torches; sparks of fire leap forth. Out of his nostrils come forth smoke, as from a boiling pot & burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, & a flame comes forth from his mouth. In his neck abides strength, & terror dances before him. The folds of his flesh stick together, firmly cast on him & immovable. His heart is hard as a stone, hard as the lower millstone. When he raises himself up the mighty are afraid; at the crashing they are beside themselves. Though the sword reaches him it does not avail, nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin. He counts iron as straw, & bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; for him sling stones are turned to stubble. Clubs are counted as stubble; he laughs at the rattle of javelins. His underparts are like sharp potsherds; he spreads himself like a threshing sledge on the more. He makes the deep boil like a pot; he makes the sea like a pot of ointment. Behind him he leaves a shining wake; one would think the deep to be white-haired. On earth there is not his like, a creature without fear. He sees everything that is high; he is king over all the sins of pride.”
*threshing sledge on the mire
*sons of pride (typos on my previous reply)
Wrong. Once again, Christians take for granted the limited scope and understanding of the world within the Bible. We’re talking about a book of mythologized history of a relatively small area of the Middle East and Africa.
The Behemoth can easily be identified as an African elephant.
Thick legs, strong loins, a tail like a cedar (switch), his nose is a snare.
And the Leviathan is a clear reference to the Nile Crocodile.
Around his teeth is terror. His back is made of rows of shields, shut up closely with a seal.
Crocodiles are heavily armored, viscous beasts who do indeed make the water “boil” when they thrash and tumble with prey in their jaws.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5kckGxwJr4
People, Students I surely do not believe in evolution. This is what to think about if evolution did occur. Who do you think created the evolutionist…….
I’m not surprised scientists are finding soft tissue in dinosaurs. Watch the following documentary on “out of place discoveries” with an open mind. The only logical conclusion is that Evolution is incompatible with the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aK_a-s0HI4#t=522.176588
It is titled “Stunning Ancient Discoveries that will make you question everything”
I can only assume that by “keep and open mind” you mean “disregard all real science in favor of superstitious nonsense.”
Every supposed artifact he claims to be “evidence” of man coexisting with dinosaurs has long been proven to be hoaxes by actual scientific investigation.
The Ica Stones were carved by poor Peruvian villagers and sold to naive tourists as “ancient artifacts” when analysis revealed they were artificially aged with sandpaper and manure.
The Acambro figures were created by an artist and scattered around the desert to be “discovered” by a group of locals he had hired to help collect them.
In both cases all legitimate means of scientific analysis determined them to be recent fabrications, and NOT ancient artifacts.
It’s sad. Creationists try to use hoaxes like the “Piltdown man” or “Cardiff giant” to disprove all legitimate discoveries of man’s ancestors, when the same science that exposed these hoaxes invalidates discoveries such as the ones listed in this farce of a video.
I challenge YOU to watch this video debunking all of these “out of place artifacts” and draw your conclusion from actual evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5kckGxwJr4
This has already been dealt with. You can still find soft tissue in bones millions of years old depending on where and how they are preserved.
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmb0CSXF53w
Petrification is another probability.
Well even the “scientists” who are against creationism say no process can preserve DNA for long times suggested by evolution. Which is it? They cannot have it both ways. Actual scientists know so little about the universe and our planet. They’re all just guessing.
Scientists are limited in their knowledge of the universe and the planet.
The difference between scientists and creationists is that they are willing to admit when:
A. They don’t know something
B. When they are wrong about something
and C. They change their viewpoint based on the demonstrable evidence.
You are falsely equating “soft tissue” (bone marrow, blood vessels, etc.) with DNA.
These recent discoveries (made with recently created technology and examination processes) set a new precedent for how long such tissues can be preserved, they do NOT invalidate the deep time required for fossilization to take place.
I firmly believe in God.
But I also find no problem with Earth and the universe being billions of years old.
How?
Man wrote the Bible as inspired by God.
At the time it was written, man’s knowledge (the knowledge that God allowed us to have at the time) couldn’t understand billions of years. It was much easier to explain those billions of years as one week. It’s God, so why couldn’t it be that fast? But why couldn’t it also have taken a very long time? God’s ‘week’ doesn’t have to be as long as man’s week.
It was our lack of knowledge that had us making mistakes like the earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth, etc. As we have been able to use the brains God gave us we have learned more about how His universe works.
I see nothing blasphemous in believing God is the why, science is the how.
Rhonda needs some apologies for the nasty, typically human responses to her post.
What she said is absolutely correct. Our brains are getting smarter and our development thus far will not let us think, philosophise, imagine or hold as an absolute religious truth, anything beyond our current ‘thinking’. We discover and then we invent and then we combine the two and change history…think of the internal combustion engine which combines a fossil which was once a living thing and burning it to produce motion, power, energy, heat etc.
So Rhonda, thank you for highlighting this most important of phenomenon: humans being human and spectacularly displaying the progression of thought and brain activity and in some cases displaying the lack of growth in a group loosely described as ‘academics’
But not physicists and chemists…these guys insist on real-time experiments as proof.
Pip pip
Simon
ps are you ‘really’ surprised that Rhonda hasn’t posted since? There’s that human condition again.
I am wondering who confirmed his discovery. Usually, when one makes a significant discovery, s/he immediately has a qualified colleague to confirm, preferably one not of his religion. If that did not happen, then, yeah! This man was seeing the world through religious lenses. It was just religion, not science.
You’re a Reverend? Hahaha!
He signed his name as such…not necessarely a fact. It could be true… it could not.
such scientific discoveries IF they disagree with evolution are discarded. People digging up ancient fossils often can smell decaying flesh etc. Yet so many scientists do not like such things published. A true scientist would want to closely examine such photos of the Soft tissue — yes the little bit of electron microscopy that I did in the 1970s, during my Pathology Technicians certificate course, we photographed what we were looking at — modern biological material. So the photos should be published, so others can decide whether or not it really is Soft Tissue.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
This is absolute bull. Another Christian trying to change history to support their fake religion.christianity is proven to be false scientifically. Nothing in it makes any kind of logical sense. It was invented by oppressed people to declare more power over their government and free themselves. It turned into its own form of government and has killed massive amounts of innocent people. And it’s disgusting that the world can’t advance because of Christians refusing logic. I’m not saying that a God doesn’t exist and I believe personally there is but when your wrong your wrong. stop holding the world back. i can’t believe this piece of s____ was awarded money.
So what do secular scientists say about this soft tissue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
If not evolution, then please submit something else that explains things as well and as fully as ToE does. In other words, show how your Allah did whatever magic he did using what tools, skills and abilities on which material, until you can do that I would suggest that the Theory of Evolution provides sufficient evidence to support the fact of evolution.
Sorry, I agree he should have been fired. Suddenly, this ONE, TINY little “fact” gives him credence to toss away all of the REAL facts he’s been discovering? Let’s look at it another way. He’s in charge of a lab that discovers God in everything, everywhere, and suddenly one day, in ONE little thing, he sees a lack of God, and he thinks that’s PROOF that there is no God. How ridiculous would he be to himself? And then it turns out, oh, darn, it was my SUPPOSITION that was wrong. Really. Supposition and assumption. From a Christian. You’ve got to be kidding me.
I thought he was debunking evolution. It’s 2am. I’m going to have some wild dreams after reading all of these comments.
Or maybe he faked the whole thing and that is why he was fired. Imagine ALL Uni Profa conspiring to get the Christians. Spare me the lunacy.
Here’s ONE of the things that these young Earth creationists fail to realize… (There are many)
The discovery of soft-tissue in dinosaur bones does NOT reduce the time scale scale of the fossilization process, it sets a new record on what sort of preservation is POSSIBLE over such a vast length of time. The tools of analysis have only recently become sophisticated enough for us to see that there is soft tissue there to be found.
I would like to applaud the moderators for approving pro-science comments and encouraging reasonable discourse and debate.
Several pro-creationist forums I’ve commented on have censored all of my science-based counter-arguments, only allowing the scientifically-skeptical and misinformed comments to be posted.
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate the encouraging word. My aim is to encourage reasonable debate, as you have stated.
Clickbait rubbish. ‘Soft’ tissue finds are rare but accepted fact, he didn’t overturn anything.
Why can’t soft tissue be preserved for 65 million years?
What was the result of the DNA test?
Apparently it CAN. That’s what these recent discoveries of soft tissue show us.
Of course, it still must be a very small fraction of fossils that have been preserved in such a way as to allow for this.
The organic elements of DNA have radioactive half-lives that break down too quickly to be preserved.
So while we may recover bits of bone marrow, blood vessels, and blood cells, the DNA has long since degraded beyond the point of being recoverable.
lol
I just want to solve this “light from stars” issue that some continue to raise.
First, the assumption is that the star has to exist and then light starts traveling and eventually reaches Earth. This makes certain logical sense similar to turning on a flashlight.
But, if we read the documentation from the head scientist, the first claim is that light was established independently of a source (Genesis 1:1).
Remember, we are starting with nothing – absolute zero, no matter, no energy, notta, zilch. Then, light is brought into being independently.
So, on day one, we have light without a “source”.
Finally, we get to day three, and our lighting come into the design – stars, Moon, planets, sun (Genesis 1:14-19). The documentation states that these lights were fire mathematics, calendars, epochs, seasons, and “lights”. The closing “and it was so” identified that all addicts were accomplished in accordance with the design. This means that all lights from the stars were actively reaching Earth and continue to do so today.
In summary, there is no issue or conflict with the age of a young Earth and distant stars due to the capability of the designer.
Yes, but Genesis also claims that plants were created on Earth (Day three)…
Before the sun was created (day four).
Sorry, that’s not at all a convincing argument.
I find God to be the only logical option to explain all we are.
God’s time is not our time. I don’t know what a day is to God.
If God used evolution here or the here, it’s even better.
Evolution can never explain the spark of life. That’s because it was God.
Andrew, If I was created this day at 9am, my house is a mess, why would God do that to me? Just joking.
I’m no scientist and I’ve always believed evolution is a component of creation. They work together. However, what interests me is how man has designed and attached measurements to everything (time, distance, carbon dating, etc.). Then man uses those measurements to create theories using mans mathematical equations. This again is mans way of trying to grasp what he sees by creating a way to measure it. But like everything else over time, we realize we were wrong on some things so we evolve, hopefully. But mans design and measurement scheme isn’t necessarily fact. It’s mans perception based on his theories. I have a hard time believing that we can measure thousands or billions of years ago based on present day thinking. At the end of the day, I feel as though it’s still guessing. Life is too amazing.
Another thought…Is it possible that the soft tissue was another organism using the Dino as a host ? Is it Dino DNA matching the bone itself? Or some other critter?
Carbon dating…my understanding is they test things they already know the age of to confirm carbon dating works. So my question is…how do we know that science measurement elements acted exactly the same billions of years ago. We assume everything is constant through time, but we really don’t know.
God doesn’t reveal everything to us in his word, the most important thing is to live as he has instructed us for the time we are here, he created us to be with him for eternity.
There was no mention in article of DNA testing. If there was soft tissue wouldn’t it be very interesting to do DNA testing?
What no one here seems to account for in their understanding (or lack thereof…) of cosmology, is that a young earth/old(er) universe explanation is actually the most viable model (still consistent with the Biblical narrative)… due to gravitational time dilation and the rapid (and continued) expansion of the universe past the moment of its inception. Time is, in fact, relative. That truth has been proven. As the edges of the universe expanded outward, the planets and stars which remained closer to the center likely experienced a significantly slower passage of time due to their proximity to a gravitational well (possibly a “white hole”) strong enough to cause significant time dilation. The outer edges of the universe experienced faster and faster passage of “relative” time the farther away from the central gravity well they expanded. Check out Starlight and Time by D. Russell Humphries and/or Starlight, Time, and the New Physics by Dr. John Hartnett. If you can handle a model that accepts a young earth theory which allows for a universe that gets older and older the farther out we go… even millions and millions of years – relatively speaking… you need to check those books out. Tough to wade through because they’re smart, and there’s a lot of math and physics. But they are game changers and worth every minute. If you ever wanted to know how someone standing on a “young earth” can see the Andromeda galaxy as it existed approx. 2.5 million years ago, you need to read these books.
Is he the only scientist that has examined and written and published about soft tissues in dinasaur bones? Are there other sites besides this one that have found something similar?
I love when science illiterates think 1 paper in some low impact journal done by nobodies upends mountains of evidence to the contrary.
All ye shall chill.
More and more cynical I become about “scientits”. My new name for them (the pseudo ones).
The hypocrisy is that most Protestant Christian sects pick and choose the literality they want to believe from the Bible and then figuratively interpret what they don’t like from a literal interpretation. In effect, they make the Bible say what they already want it to say. And the existence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones does not mean a young Earth. We know relatively little about how the universe works in all it’s detail so if soft tissue exists in a 65 million year old dinosaur bone then science simply has yet to discover how it was preserved as such. It doesn’t disprove evolution in the slightest. Likewise, science has never disproved God or what’s taught in the Bible, it’s only ever disproved interpretations of the Bible which are man-made. Christians can believe in God, the proper relative interpretation of Scripture, and science all at the same time. And that includes evolution as well which, btw, does not disprove God either.
Comments are closed.