RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   
  Topic: YEC Professor Claims Religious Discrimination< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10270
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,16:01   

Professor Claims California State University Fired Him Over His Creationists Belief

Quote
There is a controversy at the California State University where scientist Mark Armitage claims that he was fired for his creationist beliefs as an evangelical Christian. Armitage recently published a paper where he suggested that soft tissue that he found in a triceratops suggested that the animal died no more than 4000 years ago rather than the common view putting extinction at 65 million years ago. The school is investigating his claim of religious discrimination.

...

   
Cubist



Posts: 490
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,16:38   

Quote (stevestory @ July 31 2014,16:01)
Professor Claims California State University Fired Him Over His Creationists Belief

   
Quote
There is a controversy at the California State University where scientist Mark Armitage claims that he was fired for his creationist beliefs as an evangelical Christian. Armitage recently published a paper where he suggested that soft tissue that he found in a triceratops suggested that the animal died no more than 4000 years ago rather than the common view putting extinction at 65 million years ago. The school is investigating his claim of religious discrimination.

...

Mark Armitage, eh? Back when EvoWiki was an active thing (as opposed to the fossilized appendage of the RationalWiki Foundation that it's been for the past few years now), Armitage got bent out of shape because the EW page on him said, in part, "Armitage's publication 'The effect of thermal stress on radiohalos in biotites' has been extensively criticized by Kurt Hollocher [http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/mark.htm], who pointed out that Armitage made many errors and his experiments were poorly designed." Armitage whined about how Hollocher din't know nothin' about radiohaloes and Hollocher didn't publish his rebuttal in the same journal that published Armitage's paper in a boringly typical exhibition of Creationist rhetoric designed to impugn a critic without ever coming to grips with the substance of their criticism.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1182
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,16:39   

It's crappy if true. Sounds like they've lost a good scientist (YEC notwithstanding).

This though....

Quote
The lawsuit alleges that in the weeks leading up to his termination, Armitage's boss, Ernest Kwok, "stormed into" his lab and shouted, "'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!!"


....has the whiff of a Jack Chick tract.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1778
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,16:40   

There would be no reason in the world for CSUN to lay someone off just for publishing the paper he did.  This looks for all the world to be Coppedge, part 2.  YEC gets laid off for normal budget related reasons, screams religious discrimination.  You can bet CMI is bankrolling this golden publicity and propaganda opportunity.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
stevestory



Posts: 10270
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,16:48   

Quote (Woodbine @ July 31 2014,17:39)
It's crappy if true. Sounds like they've lost a good scientist (YEC notwithstanding).

This though....

Quote
The lawsuit alleges that in the weeks leading up to his termination, Armitage's boss, Ernest Kwok, "stormed into" his lab and shouted, "'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!!"


....has the whiff of a Jack Chick tract.

and that marine's name...

...was Albert Einstein

:p

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,18:54   

What professor?

Armitage is a techician.

His degree is from the ICR!

I say coppedge the bugger!

  
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 31 2014,19:23   

I don't know much about employment law, but with that said, this looks like a fairly weak complaint to me. Paragraph 19 says that Armitage "would engage in brief socratic dialog about the possible age of the horn," which reads to me like a carefully-worded admission that he was using his position to proselytize. I don't think FEHA protects preaching on the job.

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2014,11:48   

"Professor" is kinda grandiose for a part-time tech.

So, who funded this research? Him?

I looked at the methods in the paper. Platinum/Gold targets and the solutions you need for SEM work are not cheap. (not to mention the electric bill, equipment wear and tear, etc....microscopy cores charge often charge $100/hr after reagents to offset these costs). And if he re-purposed reagents bought with grant money for his own side project, that is quite serious.

Do any of you work for employers that would tolerate a technician diverting time and resources into a pet project?

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2014,21:42   

Quote (REC @ Aug. 01 2014,11:48)
"Professor" is kinda grandiose for a part-time tech.

So, who funded this research? Him?

I looked at the methods in the paper. Platinum/Gold targets and the solutions you need for SEM work are not cheap. (not to mention the electric bill, equipment wear and tear, etc....microscopy cores charge often charge $100/hr after reagents to offset these costs). And if he re-purposed reagents bought with grant money for his own side project, that is quite serious.

Do any of you work for employers that would tolerate a technician diverting time and resources into a pet project?

Pretty much him.

I found a story on a creationist site that said Armitage and his creationist buddy Kevin Anderson took a "three hour tour" at a private creationist dino dig site in Montana that charges $100 a day to dig in a bone bed.  There they, apparently, dug up a triceratops horn which they bought from the dig operator for $3000.

Then it was Keystone Cops science, dunking the thing in acid and probably chanting "Ooook!  Oooook!"  Who knows?

The entire episode should be embarrassing for CSUN.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2014,05:32   

Quote (REC @ Aug. 01 2014,11:48)
"Professor" is kinda grandiose for a part-time tech.

So, who funded this research? Him?

I looked at the methods in the paper. Platinum/Gold targets and the solutions you need for SEM work are not cheap. (not to mention the electric bill, equipment wear and tear, etc....microscopy cores charge often charge $100/hr after reagents to offset these costs). And if he re-purposed reagents bought with grant money for his own side project, that is quite serious.

Do any of you work for employers that would tolerate a technician diverting time and resources into a pet project?

I can't get access to the paper, but if someone can, it would be useful to check the acknowledgements to see who is thanked for funding.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2014,12:36   

The paper is up on researchgate:
http://www.researchgate.net/publica....5646829

No acknowledgements.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2014,14:31   

Quote (REC @ Aug. 04 2014,12:36)
The paper is up on researchgate:
http://www.researchgate.net/publica....5646829

No acknowledgements.

The paper is just as bad as I imagined.  What a bunch of idiots.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2014,05:17   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 04 2014,14:31)
Quote (REC @ Aug. 04 2014,12:36)
The paper is up on researchgate:
http://www.researchgate.net/publica....5646829

No acknowledgements.

The paper is just as bad as I imagined.  What a bunch of idiots.

Why? It's definitely not my area.

BTW, according to their webpage, CSUN has a Jeol scanning electron microscope, but te paper says they used a Hitachi S2500 SEM. This may mean nothing - the dept might have more than 1 SEM, or they might have replaced the old one. On the other hand, the Creation Research Society does have a Hitachi S2500. So I would guess the work wasn't carried out at CSUN.

(edited to fix link)

Edited by Bob O'H on Aug. 05 2014,08:29

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2014,19:37   

Armitage was a "permanent part time technician." That means he was never legally a full-time employee regardless of his hours, or years worked. It means that he would never be promoted. It means that he could be terminated from employment at any time for any reason- or none. The addition of "permanent" to the job title meant that he got benefits which is very generous.

This is a bottom rung job.

A part time technician does not get to do independent research using University facilities.

A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken.

I don't who of you have jumped through these hoops before. Suppose you have an idea without any funding. You face two options: A) beg from a funded colleague, or B) write a short proposal to circulate around the university.

Under option "A" you are inviting the funded colleague to basically take your idea on as a project. You will be their co-investigator, you will be their co-author, you will be their tool. Option "B" is a search for seed money to try enough of the idea to write a killer grant proposal, give a conference paper, and be able to promise that your quarterly progress reports will be on time because they are practically written. The acknowledgment section under option B will mention "faculty development grant," "XYZ university foundation," or "grant in aid from ABC lab/facility under NSF (DOE, NIH) Grant #######. You can see these in every issue of Science Magazine.

Reading the article, and ironically his lawyer prepared complaint, showed a huge glaring reason to fire him. It was the amount of equipment, staff time, and lab stockroom supplies that were used on the one hand, and the total lack of funding or authorization on the other. And, as this "research" is already published, there is no possible way that those costs can be recovered. Armitage potentially stole $thousands$ from the University, unless he paid out of pocket. (I'll take bets he didn't).

That will get you fired pronto.

Armitage just helped himself, and if he did it during hours he was paid, then he stole salary as well.

It is also obvious that few people actually read the "research" paper supposedly at the center of this little storm.

Mark Hollis Armitage, Kevin Lee Anderson
2013 "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" Acta Histochemica, Volume 115, Issue 6, Pages 603–608

I have. It is crap.

The age of dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered from and not the condition of the bone. There was no competent stratigraphic analysis of these fossils to associate any radiometric data and the recovered material. (Armitage also denies elsewhere the validity of all radiometric dates). The fact is that the fossil was found in a shallow secondary deposit. It was cracked and open to the environment. It was observed to have rootlets growing through it! None of the reasonable tests for the age of the material were performed (especially amino acid racemization analysis if as I suspect the "soft tissue" is recent plant and microorganisms). Armitage and Anderson soaked chunks from the horn core in Glutaraldehyde which is a cross-linking and tanning agent. In short, they made plastic out of any bacteria, fungi, or any other organic sludge on the bone. The attempted to demineralize other samples with sodium EDTA was incomplete. There are other problems as well.

The journal will be humiliated as soon as I find time to review it for publication.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
JohnW



Posts: 2808
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2014,00:04   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 09 2014,17:37)
Armitage was a "permanent part time technician." That means he was never legally a full-time employee regardless of his hours, or years worked. It means that he would never be promoted. It means that he could be terminated from employment at any time for any reason- or none. The addition of "permanent" to the job title meant that he got benefits which is very generous.

This is a bottom rung job.

Yeah, but creationists love to inflate credentials beyond all reason.  If DrDrDembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, this guy must be at least full professor.  I'm surprised no-one's claimed he has a fucking Nobel.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 11 2014,15:12   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 09 2014,19:37)
A part time technician does not get to do independent research using University facilities.

A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken.
...
Reading the article, and ironically his lawyer prepared complaint, showed a huge glaring reason to fire him. It was the amount of equipment, staff time, and lab stockroom supplies that were used on the one hand, and the total lack of funding or authorization on the other. And, as this "research" is already published, there is no possible way that those costs can be recovered. Armitage potentially stole $thousands$ from the University, unless he paid out of pocket. (I'll take bets he didn't).


I gather from some email contact I've had with a couple of people that the department were happy for Armitage to do the work using their machines. I assume that the costs are seen as fairly low, so they wouldn't be too worried.

 
Quote
It is also obvious that few people actually read the "research" paper supposedly at the center of this little storm.

Mark Hollis Armitage, Kevin Lee Anderson
2013 "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" Acta Histochemica, Volume 115, Issue 6, Pages 603–608

I have. It is crap.

The age of dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered from and not the condition of the bone. There was no competent stratigraphic analysis of these fossils to associate any radiometric data and the recovered material. (Armitage also denies elsewhere the validity of all radiometric dates). The fact is that the fossil was found in a shallow secondary deposit. It was cracked and open to the environment. It was observed to have rootlets growing through it! None of the reasonable tests for the age of the material were performed (especially amino acid racemization analysis if as I suspect the "soft tissue" is recent plant and microorganisms). Armitage and Anderson soaked chunks from the horn core in Glutaraldehyde which is a cross-linking and tanning agent. In short, they made plastic out of any bacteria, fungi, or any other organic sludge on the bone. The attempted to demineralize other samples with sodium EDTA was incomplete. There are other problems as well.

The journal will be humiliated as soon as I find time to review it for publication.

I'd suggest you write a (polite!) letter to the journal about this. My impression is that the editors aren't used to receiving manuscripts about field collected samples, so they may not have looked at that side of things.

I don't work in palaeontology, so I can't comment as an expert, but it did feel as if there was a lot of material missing, e.g. the precise location where the fossil was found, including surrounding strata, and what precautions were taken to prevent contamination. There was also nothing about the age of the fossil, but given the context that's not a surprise.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2014,15:07   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 11 2014,13:12)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 09 2014,19:37)
A part time technician does not get to do independent research using University facilities.

A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken.


I gather from some email contact I've had with a couple of people that the department were happy for Armitage to do the work using their machines. I assume that the costs are seen as fairly low, so they wouldn't be too worried.

I'd want to hear more about this "email contact."

Were they on the utilization committee?

Did they use the facility?

Do they support the idea that technicians get to do unfunded independent research published as if they were faculty?

Are they YECs?

Or, are they just repeating the CSUN official line that Armitage was dismissed due to a funding problem?

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2014,02:26   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 13 2014,15:07)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 11 2014,13:12)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 09 2014,19:37)
A part time technician does not get to do independent research using University facilities.

A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken.


I gather from some email contact I've had with a couple of people that the department were happy for Armitage to do the work using their machines. I assume that the costs are seen as fairly low, so they wouldn't be too worried.

I'd want to hear more about this "email contact."

Were they on the utilization committee?

I don't know if there was one.

 
Quote
Did they use the facility?

Yes.
 
Quote
Do they support the idea that technicians get to do unfunded independent research published as if they were faculty?

Evidently.

Quote
Are they YECs?

Not as far as I know.

 
Quote
Or, are they just repeating the CSUN official line that Armitage was dismissed due to a funding problem?

No.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Henry J



Posts: 4652
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2014,09:25   

Was the problem funding, or was it something more fundamental? ;)

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,02:59   

This was covered in Nature today. The author of the piece doesn't seem convinced he'll get far with the suit. The final 3 paragraphs suggest that he managed a well-aimed shot to his foot.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,11:26   

It turns out that I am banned from commenting at Nature.com.

I don't know my 'crime.'

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4836
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,13:24   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 06 2014,11:26)
It turns out that I am banned from commenting at Nature.com.

I don't know my 'crime.'

I posted something summarizing your statement earlier in the thread:

Quote

Archaeologist Dr. Gary Hurd raised a number of issues concerning Armitage's claim against CSUN. See it <a href="http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=9084;st=#entry236761">here</a>.

In summary:

- Armitage held a "permanent part-time technician" position at CSUN

- Armitage's article fails to document any funding source for the research undertaken by Armitage

- There are a number of technical issues in the published article

Hurd notes that Armitage's position is not one that is supposed to support independent research. Hurd concludes that Armitage at a minimum appears to have improperly used laboratory equipment and materials, and may well have misappropriated work time in conducting unauthorized research, as Hurd found no documentation of funding of the research in question via CSUN or that Armitage reimbursed CSUN for use of its facilities and materials. If any of those suspected failings is true, CSUN absolutely was within its rights to terminate for cause, and not simply allow his contract to terminate without renewal, as Kevin Brown elsewhere claims in comments here. The type of position Armitage held Hurd also says is definitely within the class of "at will" employment, meaning CSUN could terminate Armitage at any time for any reason, or no reason.

Here is Hurd's short evaluation of the claims made in the published paper:

"The age of dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered from and not the condition of the bone. There was no competent stratigraphic analysis of these fossils to associate any radiometric data and the recovered material. (Armitage also denies elsewhere the validity of all radiometric dates). The fact is that the fossil was found in a shallow secondary deposit. It was cracked and open to the environment. It was observed to have rootlets growing through it! None of the reasonable tests for the age of the material were performed (especially amino acid racemization analysis if as I suspect the "soft tissue" is recent plant and microorganisms). Armitage and Anderson soaked chunks from the horn core in Glutaraldehyde which is a cross-linking and tanning agent. In short, they made plastic out of any bacteria, fungi, or any other organic sludge on the bone. The attempted to demineralize other samples with sodium EDTA was incomplete. There are other problems as well."

Because Armitage used his CSUN affiliation for publication, any faults in the published work also reflect on his institution. Which if the problems are as basic and rife as Dr. Hurd indicates they are and if CSUN was not in the approval cycle for the manuscript, it would open a whole different set of reasons that Armitage could have been fired for cause. (If CSUN cleared the publication, then arguably none of those would apply... caveat emptor. It still wouldn't necessarily absolve Armitage concerning claims of improper or unauthorized use of time, materials, and equipment, but it would likely seal off any claims based on damage to institutional reputation if the institution had the opportunity to protect its reputation and muffed it.)


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,17:10   

Howdy Wes,

I just saw your comment in the Nature.com blog. Thanks.

I don't know what I did. The last time I posted was over a year ago. Then I copied publication data for "WIDF" and was accused by an IT tec of spamming advertising.

Gary

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4836
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,19:10   

Karl Priest turned up in the comment thread.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,21:58   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 06 2014,17:10)
Karl Priest turned up in the comment thread.

I found out today that I cannot even vote "up" your comment.

I think that Nature.com has a lowly paid IT tech who is a creationist.
:O

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2014,22:14   

Just sent:



Apparently Nature.com prefers the comments from creationists over mine. I have been published by Nature which I am sure has not been done by the creationists, or the IT tech managing this website. But, I am banned?

Why? I know this will not be seen in public. So, before you press "delete" tell me what has motivated you from blocking an internationally recognized expert in creationism and science. My email is garyhurd@cox.net

Dr. GS Hurd

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,03:19   

I've just added a bit more information about this. My suspicion is that Armitage didn't use CSUN equipment, but I've been told that even if he did the dept. didn't mind - he had the right to do so.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,15:14   

Do the secretaries at CSUN have the "right" to spend their days writing novels? Can the grounds keepers use university equipment for their own gardening business? Frankly, Bob a faculty member is not the authority about who has a "right" to use university facilities for their private benefit. If there was a faculty member that was an unacknowledged sponsor for this crappy work they should come forward immediately before the university is forced to spend more thousands in a legal defense.


If you read the photo captions there are hints about which equipment was used. The same as found in the CSUN facility. Reading the legal complaint also indicated that the work was done at CSUN.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,16:33   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 07 2014,15:14)
Do the secretaries at CSUN have the "right" to spend their days writing novels? Can the grounds keepers use university equipment for their own gardening business? Frankly, Bob a faculty member is not the authority about who has a "right" to use university facilities for their private benefit. If there was a faculty member that was an unacknowledged sponsor for this crappy work they should come forward immediately before the university is forced to spend more thousands in a legal defense.

The work was not just for private benefit - Armitage used his CSUN address on the paper. And if faculty members who were microscopists thought it was OK for Armitage to use their equipment, then frankly I think we should assume that the university thought it was OK.

I don't get your point about the university spending more in legal expenses. Who would sue?

Overall, I think this is a poor line of argument to take. Whatever you may think of CSUN's attitude towards Armitage using their equipment, it's clear that the faculty who used the microscopes thought that this work would be OK for him to do with their equipment.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,18:32   

They, CSUN, are being sued. If your faculty friends think that it was just dandy that Armitage published crap, and used unfunded public resources (IE stole), they should step up and insist that he be reinstated. They can say that anybody in any position can do anything they like. They can say that they were the secret reviewers and sponsors of the "research" and then there will be no law suit.

Tell your pals to stop being such cowards. They should publicly affirm Armitage immediately.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 07 2014,16:54

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2014,23:25   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 07 2014,18:32)
They, CSUN, are being sued. If your faculty friends think that it was just dandy that Armitage published crap, and used unfunded public resources (IE stole), they should step up and insist that he be reinstated. They can say that anybody in any position can do anything they like. They can say that they were the secret reviewers and sponsors of the "research" and then there will be no law suit.

Tell your pals to stop being such cowards. They should publicly affirm Armitage immediately.


Am I missing a part of the story? I thought the university's stated reason for terminating him was that funding for his temporary position got cut.

Eventually they'll probably explain that they would have been justified firing him anyway (because that's good legal strategy regardless of their reason for firing him). That might get to the quality of his work/authorization to utilize resources, but I'd be surprised. This isn't my field, but assuming Nature's quick statement of the legal standard is accurate (I think it is) there's no reason to get into that. An employee lecturing students on absurd theories from a position of authority, using the institution as a soapbox, seems to be more than enough to satisfy the RFRA requirements.

(That does depend on the details of the claim and the state laws, which I know nothing about.)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4836
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2014,00:09   

I posted another reply to Karl Priest, this time taking apart the quote he featured from Mastropaolo.

Quote

I should note that Mastropaolo's particular quoted text about evolution not producing toothpicks is ridiculous on its face. On the one hand, Mastropaolo might simply be ignorant that there are plenty of natural approaches to toothpick-ness. The Desert Museum FAQ notes one as follows: "Even human beings have found uses for cactus spines. Native people have fashioned sewing needles from them, and used curved barrel cactus spines as fish hooks. A stout prickly pear spine (with the tip snapped off) makes a fine toothpick, and cactus spines were once sold as record playing needles for wind-up Victrolas!" On the other hand, Mastropaolo may be aiming for an exclusive functionality of "toothpick". But "toothpick" is a functional description of a human tool, not a designation of interest in natural history. As such, one would not expect evolutionary processes to have a plant produce (or be) something that only functions as a human toothpick, not without some link to enhanced benefit to the plant. The cactus that the Desert Museum describes does not produce spines for human dental hygiene; its spines have a primary function of defense of the plant. Humans defeat that function in exploiting the spines as toothpicks, sewing needles, or record-playing needles. In fact, Charles Darwin noted that natural selection would not favor the production of features in one species that <i>solely</i> benefit another species. So Mastropaolo in the quoted text might be trying to claim that the absence of something in the class of things Darwin said ought to be absent if natural selection were true is somehow evidence against evolution. Like I said at the outset, that's ridiculous either way one might interpret his claim.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Guest

UNREGISTERED

N/A

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2015,13:31   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 09 2014,19:37)
A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken.

Reading the article, and ironically his lawyer prepared complaint, showed a huge glaring reason to fire him. It was the amount of equipment, staff time, and lab stockroom supplies that were used on the one hand, and the total lack of funding or authorization on the other. And, as this "research" is already published, there is no possible way that those costs can be recovered. Armitage potentially stole $thousands$ from the University, unless he paid out of pocket. (I'll take bets he didn't).

That will get you fired pronto.

Armitage just helped himself, and if he did it during hours he was paid, then he stole salary as well.

It is also obvious that few people actually read the "research" paper supposedly at the center of this little storm.

Mark Hollis Armitage, Kevin Lee Anderson
2013 "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" Acta Histochemica, Volume 115, Issue 6, Pages 603–608

I have. It is crap.

The age of dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered from and not the condition of the bone. There was no competent stratigraphic analysis of these fossils to associate any radiometric data and the recovered material. (Armitage also denies elsewhere the validity of all radiometric dates). The fact is that the fossil was found in a shallow secondary deposit. It was cracked and open to the environment. It was observed to have rootlets growing through it! None of the reasonable tests for the age of the material were performed (especially amino acid racemization analysis if as I suspect the "soft tissue" is recent plant and microorganisms). Armitage and Anderson soaked chunks from the horn core in Glutaraldehyde which is a cross-linking and tanning agent. In short, they made plastic out of any bacteria, fungi, or any other organic sludge on the bone. The attempted to demineralize other samples with sodium EDTA was incomplete. There are other problems as well.

The journal will be humiliated as soon as I find time to review it for publication.

I usually pay no attention to comments on various posting boards, but this was recently brought to my attention and it is simply so ignorant …

No CSUN equipment, supplies, money, or time was used for the reported work. Wow, you just blindly jump off the deep end when it comes to criminal accusations ...

As for the methods and results of our paper:
Nowhere in the paper do we make any suggestion about the horn’s age or the need for a readjustment of that age. Thus, subjecting the horn to one or more “dating” methods is irrelevant to the focus of the paper.  As you say, “age of a dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered.”  It was a Triceratops horn recovered from the Hell Creek Formation.  Both Triceratops and the Formation already have standard assigned age ranges.  Attempting to reassign an age for the horn or for Hell Creek is a completely different paper in a completely different journal.  Your point is irrelevant and highly misleading.

Instead, the entire purpose of the paper was simply to describe the discovery of pliable, soft tissue within a Triceratops horn.  This had not been reported before, and it is also significant in that the horn was far from “pristinely” preserved prior to recovery. (The significance of other “non-pristinely” preserved specimens has recently been reported in Nature Communication.)  The methodology we used is standard extraction and preparation protocols employed by other labs doing similar investigations. These methods have proven appropriate for extraction of tissue containing a variety of cells and proteins.

As for this “plastic” that you suggest we mistakenly thought was dinosaur tissue:
1) it would not have the textile characteristics of the extracted tissue.
2) it would not contain the cellular structures that would be mistaken for osteocytes.  The osteocytes we observed were not fuzzy and obscure, they were large, clear, and very morphologically detailed.  
3) plant, fungi, and bacterial cells look nothing like the cells we reported (this was a huge weakness of the Kaye et al (2008) paper too – they seemed to just ignore this point).
4) vertebrate osteocytes are very unique in size and morphology, which is why they serve well for these types of studies.
5) what is your evidence that such a “plastic” was formed with all the textile and cellular characteristics of our extracted tissue?  It appears you’re just ‘making it up.’

You seem to be suggesting that we just fabricated untested protocols, and had no idea what we were doing or finding.  It is my understanding that you are an archaeologist.  Clearly, you are neither a biologist nor microscopist.

I suggest it is you, not the journal that will be "humiliated" by the submission of some form of review.  Actually, you have already done a wonderful job of humiliating yourself here.

K Anderson

Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1778
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2015,15:17   

Quote (K.Anderson @ Aug. 20 2015,13:31)
I usually pay no attention to comments on various posting boards, but this was recently brought to my attention and it is simply so ignorant …

My my.  Methinks the YEC doth protest too much.   :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
k.e..



Posts: 3838
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2015,19:41   

Quote (K.Anderson @ Aug. 20 2015,21:31)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 09 2014,19:37)
A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken.

Reading the article, and ironically his lawyer prepared complaint, showed a huge glaring reason to fire him. It was the amount of equipment, staff time, and lab stockroom supplies that were used on the one hand, and the total lack of funding or authorization on the other. And, as this "research" is already published, there is no possible way that those costs can be recovered. Armitage potentially stole $thousands$ from the University, unless he paid out of pocket. (I'll take bets he didn't).

That will get you fired pronto.

Armitage just helped himself, and if he did it during hours he was paid, then he stole salary as well.

It is also obvious that few people actually read the "research" paper supposedly at the center of this little storm.

Mark Hollis Armitage, Kevin Lee Anderson
2013 "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" Acta Histochemica, Volume 115, Issue 6, Pages 603–608

I have. It is crap.

The age of dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered from and not the condition of the bone. There was no competent stratigraphic analysis of these fossils to associate any radiometric data and the recovered material. (Armitage also denies elsewhere the validity of all radiometric dates). The fact is that the fossil was found in a shallow secondary deposit. It was cracked and open to the environment. It was observed to have rootlets growing through it! None of the reasonable tests for the age of the material were performed (especially amino acid racemization analysis if as I suspect the "soft tissue" is recent plant and microorganisms). Armitage and Anderson soaked chunks from the horn core in Glutaraldehyde which is a cross-linking and tanning agent. In short, they made plastic out of any bacteria, fungi, or any other organic sludge on the bone. The attempted to demineralize other samples with sodium EDTA was incomplete. There are other problems as well.

The journal will be humiliated as soon as I find time to review it for publication.

I usually pay no attention to comments on various posting boards, but this was recently brought to my attention and it is simply so ignorant …

No CSUN equipment, supplies, money, or time was used for the reported work. Wow, you just blindly jump off the deep end when it comes to criminal accusations ...

As for the methods and results of our paper:
Nowhere in the paper do we make any suggestion about the horn’s age or the need for a readjustment of that age. Thus, subjecting the horn to one or more “dating” methods is irrelevant to the focus of the paper.  As you say, “age of a dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered.”  It was a Triceratops horn recovered from the Hell Creek Formation.  Both Triceratops and the Formation already have standard assigned age ranges.  Attempting to reassign an age for the horn or for Hell Creek is a completely different paper in a completely different journal.  Your point is irrelevant and highly misleading.

Instead, the entire purpose of the paper was simply to describe the discovery of pliable, soft tissue within a Triceratops horn.  This had not been reported before, and it is also significant in that the horn was far from “pristinely” preserved prior to recovery. (The significance of other “non-pristinely” preserved specimens has recently been reported in Nature Communication.)  The methodology we used is standard extraction and preparation protocols employed by other labs doing similar investigations. These methods have proven appropriate for extraction of tissue containing a variety of cells and proteins.

As for this “plastic” that you suggest we mistakenly thought was dinosaur tissue:
1) it would not have the textile characteristics of the extracted tissue.
2) it would not contain the cellular structures that would be mistaken for osteocytes.  The osteocytes we observed were not fuzzy and obscure, they were large, clear, and very morphologically detailed.  
3) plant, fungi, and bacterial cells look nothing like the cells we reported (this was a huge weakness of the Kaye et al (2008) paper too – they seemed to just ignore this point).
4) vertebrate osteocytes are very unique in size and morphology, which is why they serve well for these types of studies.
5) what is your evidence that such a “plastic” was formed with all the textile and cellular characteristics of our extracted tissue?  It appears you’re just ‘making it up.’

You seem to be suggesting that we just fabricated untested protocols, and had no idea what we were doing or finding.  It is my understanding that you are an archaeologist.  Clearly, you are neither a biologist nor microscopist.

I suggest it is you, not the journal that will be "humiliated" by the submission of some form of review.  Actually, you have already done a wonderful job of humiliating yourself here.

K Anderson

No one is questioning your motivation. The methods and results speak for themselves.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Guest

UNREGISTERED

N/A

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2015,15:47   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 20 2015,15:17)
My my.  Methinks the YEC doth protest too much.   :p

So, you're suggesting it is completely acceptable for someone to make malicious false accusations and to make caustic criticisms of research they clearly know nothing about ...

Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1034
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2015,16:13   

Quote (K.Anderson @ Aug. 21 2015,15:47)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 20 2015,15:17)
My my.  Methinks the YEC doth protest too much.   :p

So, you're suggesting it is completely acceptable for someone to make malicious false accusations and to make caustic criticisms of research they clearly know nothing about ...

I see that you haven't addressed the reason why your co-author's contract was not renewed. Do you have an opinion?

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2015,17:15   

I saw this today. Very amusing.

Bob O'Hara in his comment to Nature, suggested that the "work" was done at the Creation Research Society Van Andel Creation Research Center which Kevin L. Anderson runs. If that is true, why did you not admit it in the paper, and avoid any confusion?

I'll dig out my notes on the technical problems of this paper.

Dr. Anderson backhanded my background. "It is my understanding that you are an archaeologist.  Clearly, you are neither a biologist nor microscopist."

I have winnowed my personal scopes down to two. A Swift "Stereo 80," and my Nikon Model S compound scope. My eyes are not very good these days, but I have camera trees for both that I keep saying I'll go digital. I never used an electron microscope, but I thought it would be fun. I'll offer a CV list for my personal application of microscopy in archaeology;

1991 "Patterned Incised Stone." in Ron Hedges (ed.) Proceedings of the 15th Annual Rock Art Symposia, San Diego: Museum of Man.

1991 "Utilitarian Grooved Stones." Society for Californian Archaeology, Southern Data Sharing Meeting, Los Angeles.

1992 "Some Further Orange County Examples of Native American Ceramics in the Historic Period, and a Guide to Their Recognition" G. S. Hurd, Paul E. Langenwalter. Society California Archaeology.

1994 "Ecological, and Seasonal Reconstruction From Archaeological Invertebrates." Technical report for California State University, Long Beach, Office of Physical Planning and Facilities Management.

1995  "Patterned Incised Stones" 20th Annual Rock Art Conference, San Diego Museum of Man.

1996  "Digestive Modification of Bone by Fish.” Southern California Academy of Science, Annual meeting

1996  "The Archaeological Recovery and Interpretation of Frass." Brian Stokes and G. S. Hurd. Southern California Academy of Science, Annual meeting

1996  "Environmental History Reconstruction from the Microscopic Analysis of Column Samples," Gary S. Hurd, Brian Stokes. Southern California Environment and History Conference, California State University Northridge

1996  "The Close Analysis of a Desert Varnish Incised Boulder" Gary S. Hurd, Melissa Pryor. 21th Annual Rock Art Conference, San Diego Museum of Man

1998  "Carnivore Modification of Deer Bone" Steve McCormick, G. S. Hurd. Society for Californian Archaeology.

1998  "Bone Modification and Deposition by Raptors" Mike Pyatt, Melissa Pryor, Gary Hurd.  Society for Californian Archaeology.

1998  "The Archaeological Recovery and Interpretation of Frass." Brian Stokes and G. S. Hurd.  Society for Californian Archaeology.

1998  "Digestive Modification of Bone by Fish.” Society for Californian Archaeology.

1998  "Primary and Secondary Predation Patterns of Avian Bone," Ken Reddell, G. S. Hurd, Society for Californian Archaeology

1998  "Plant Hosts of Lepidoptera Larva." Southern California Academy of Science Annual Meeting. Poster

1998  "Arthropod Succession on a Small Mammal Carcass" Southern California Academy of Science Annual Meeting. Poster

2000  “Lake Cahuilla Salinity Estimates from Snails and Ostracods”  G. S. Hurd, Christopher J. Greenwood, Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting

An alert reader will have noted that several of these papers are "biological." There are more, but these were just papers that required the microscopic analysis experience Dr. Anderson is so sure I lack.

Edited by Dr.GH on Aug. 21 2015,15:21

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1462
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2015,18:20   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 21 2015,17:15)
I saw this today. Very amusing.

Bob O'Hara in his comment to Nature, suggested that the "work" was done at the Creation Research Society Van Andel Creation Research Center which Kevin L. Anderson runs. If that is true, why did you not admit it in the paper, and avoid any confusion?

I'll dig out my notes on the technical problems of this paper.

Dr. Anderson backhanded my background. "It is my understanding that you are an archaeologist.  Clearly, you are neither a biologist nor microscopist."

I have winnowed my personal scopes down to two. A Swift "Stereo 80," and my Nikon Model S compound scope. My eyes are not very good these days, but I have camera trees for both that I keep saying I'll go digital. I never used an electron microscope, but I thought it would be fun. I'll offer a CV list for my personal application of microscopy in archaeology;

1991 "Patterned Incised Stone." in Ron Hedges (ed.) Proceedings of the 15th Annual Rock Art Symposia, San Diego: Museum of Man.

1991 "Utilitarian Grooved Stones." Society for Californian Archaeology, Southern Data Sharing Meeting, Los Angeles.

1992 "Some Further Orange County Examples of Native American Ceramics in the Historic Period, and a Guide to Their Recognition" G. S. Hurd, Paul E. Langenwalter. Society California Archaeology.

1994 "Ecological, and Seasonal Reconstruction From Archaeological Invertebrates." Technical report for California State University, Long Beach, Office of Physical Planning and Facilities Management.

1995  "Patterned Incised Stones" 20th Annual Rock Art Conference, San Diego Museum of Man.

1996  "Digestive Modification of Bone by Fish.” Southern California Academy of Science, Annual meeting

1996  "The Archaeological Recovery and Interpretation of Frass." Brian Stokes and G. S. Hurd. Southern California Academy of Science, Annual meeting

1996  "Environmental History Reconstruction from the Microscopic Analysis of Column Samples," Gary S. Hurd, Brian Stokes. Southern California Environment and History Conference, California State University Northridge

1996  "The Close Analysis of a Desert Varnish Incised Boulder" Gary S. Hurd, Melissa Pryor. 21th Annual Rock Art Conference, San Diego Museum of Man

1998  "Carnivore Modification of Deer Bone" Steve McCormick, G. S. Hurd. Society for Californian Archaeology.

1998  "Bone Modification and Deposition by Raptors" Mike Pyatt, Melissa Pryor, Gary Hurd.  Society for Californian Archaeology.

1998  "The Archaeological Recovery and Interpretation of Frass." Brian Stokes and G. S. Hurd.  Society for Californian Archaeology.

1998  "Digestive Modification of Bone by Fish.” Society for Californian Archaeology.

1998  "Primary and Secondary Predation Patterns of Avian Bone," Ken Reddell, G. S. Hurd, Society for Californian Archaeology

1998  "Plant Hosts of Lepidoptera Larva." Southern California Academy of Science Annual Meeting. Poster

1998  "Arthropod Succession on a Small Mammal Carcass" Southern California Academy of Science Annual Meeting. Poster

2000  “Lake Cahuilla Salinity Estimates from Snails and Ostracods”  G. S. Hurd, Christopher J. Greenwood, Society for California Archaeology Annual Meeting

An alert reader will have noted that several of these papers are "biological." There are more, but these were just papers that required the microscopic analysis experience Dr. Anderson is so sure I lack.

Dr. Anderson may want to talk to Dr. Behe about forming a support group for those buried under literature they should have looked up before spouting off.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2015,18:38   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 21 2015,16:20)
Dr. Anderson may want to talk to Dr. Behe about forming a support group for those buried under literature they should have looked up before spouting off.

Bawwahahahaahha

:D

Eric Rothschild: We're going to look at chapter 8 of that book, (Why Intelligent Design Fails) if you could pull up the chapter heading there? And it's titled The Explanatory Filter, Archaeology and Forensics, and it's written by somebody named Gary S. Hurd. Are you familiar with Dr. Hurd?

Mike Behe: No, I am not.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....12pm475

Edited by Dr.GH on Aug. 21 2015,16:47

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4836
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2015,23:06   

Kevin Anderson:

 
Quote

No CSUN equipment, supplies, money, or time was used for the reported work.


Interesting. The lead author's affiliation is given as CSUN. Anderson's affiliation is given as Arkansas State University, Beebe. Nowhere else in the paper do I see any indication that any other resources were used. Nor is there any reference to "grant", "fund", "money", or "support" that offers any insight into whose resources were used. In the absence of specific clarification that other sources of support were applied, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the support of the lead author's affiliation is the primary support behind the study.

Was it ASUB's support that was primary? Or was it the Van Andel Creation Research Center, who aren't mentioned at all in the text? Or what and who, precisely, provided the support? Why is it that this is even an issue, with support having to be inferred rather than it being specified in the text? There's at least four column inches blank at the end of the article; it isn't like that section for trimmed for space.

Denials aren't helpful. Anderson should pony up the positive information on where the support came from, as ought to have happened in the article itself. There's little point in excoriating others for having assumed a state of affairs that is both the reasonable default and one that the authors did not forthrightly exclude, though they easily could (and should) have done so.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4836
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2015,23:33   

Kevin Anderson disclaims any relevance to ascertaining a date for the specimen in the paper.

However, the tactic of leaving an age undetermined does have specific relevance to the usage the paper gets in religious antievolution circles. Fixing an age to the specimen would make the resulting paper less palatable for young-earth creationists to cite. Without the burden of fighting an acknowledged specimen age, YECs can be more enthusiastic in promoting the paper as an antievolutionary source.

Which has happened in places like this and this and this...

   
Quote

In 2012, while at a world-famous fossil dig in Montana called Hell Creek Formation, Armitage uncovered the largest triceratops horn ever found at the site. To his surprise, he discovered soft tissue in the horn when he examined it under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN. Armitage believes the fact that the soft tissue wasn’t completely fossilized indicates dinosaurs roamed in the United States only thousands of years ago. Evolutionists claim dinosaurs went extinct more than 60 million years ago.

As the manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the CSUN biology department, Armitage trained students to use the school’s high-powered microscopes. In the summer of 2012, while demonstrating one of the instruments, Armitage showed students the horn’s tissue samples and engaged them in “brief Socratic dialogue about the age of the horn,” according to the lawsuit. He believed the exchange was in keeping with leading students through the scientific method. A student reported the event to Armitage’s supervisor.


That article, written by an author sympathetic to Armitage's position, contradicts Anderson's denial of usage of CSUN equipment. And claims as his source Armitage's own legal filings. Though a reporter getting something wrong wouldn't be news, by the principle of indifference it is just as believable as any other unevidenced assertion floating about. In the absence of a positive accounting of what materials and facilities were part of the research, it seems to me that it is probably reasonable to weight more heavily the report of a party without quite so large a stake in the outcome.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Cubist



Posts: 490
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,03:18   

I am given to understand that there is a monotheistic Middle Eastern religion whose deity is, among other things, a god of truth; this religion's teachings include an injunction to refrain from all forms of deceit, on pain of eternal suffering in the afterlife. If the weaselly behavior he's displayed here is any indication, Mr. Anderson might benefit from increasing his familiarity with this religion.

This religion is called "Christianity".

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,05:21   

"this religion's teachings include an injunction to refrain from all forms of deceit"

Only when it's convenient, and when it's not teaching the exact opposite.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Lethean



Posts: 129
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,09:25   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 21 2015,23:33)
Kevin Anderson disclaims any relevance to ascertaining a date for the specimen in the paper.

However, the tactic of leaving an age undetermined does have specific relevance to the usage the paper gets in religious antievolution circles. Fixing an age to the specimen would make the resulting paper less palatable for young-earth creationists to cite. Without the burden of fighting an acknowledged specimen age, YECs can be more enthusiastic in promoting the paper as an antievolutionary source.

Which has happened in places like this and this and this...

           
Quote

In 2012, while at a world-famous fossil dig in Montana called Hell Creek Formation, Armitage uncovered the largest triceratops horn ever found at the site. To his surprise, he discovered soft tissue in the horn when he examined it under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN. Armitage believes the fact that the soft tissue wasn’t completely fossilized indicates dinosaurs roamed in the United States only thousands of years ago. Evolutionists claim dinosaurs went extinct more than 60 million years ago.

As the manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the CSUN biology department, Armitage trained students to use the school’s high-powered microscopes. In the summer of 2012, while demonstrating one of the instruments, Armitage showed students the horn’s tissue samples and engaged them in “brief Socratic dialogue about the age of the horn,” according to the lawsuit. He believed the exchange was in keeping with leading students through the scientific method. A student reported the event to Armitage’s supervisor.


That article, written by an author sympathetic to Armitage's position, contradicts Anderson's denial of usage of CSUN equipment. And claims as his source Armitage's own legal filings. Though a reporter getting something wrong wouldn't be news, by the principle of indifference it is just as believable as any other unevidenced assertion floating about. In the absence of a positive accounting of what materials and facilities were part of the research, it seems to me that it is probably reasonable to weight more heavily the report of a party without quite so large a stake in the outcome.


With respect to the part of the quote I have highlighted, it is true that a "Socratic dialog" can be a useful tool when engaging. On the other hand, depending on the bias, level of knowledge, and most importantly the intellectual honestly of the individual conducting it, one might arrive at a latrine rather than a rose garden.

It is not difficult to frame and ape the method, resulting in little more than rhetorical argument that leads down a trail of talking points if one desires. Typically it will play out in a series of questions that are given relatively quickly, one after the other without an actual exchange (ie: monologue) without giving the recipient time to evaluate and respond.

One only needs to visit Talk Rational and behold Doug Dobney, using the nick "Socrates," who attempts to engage in this way. He's spent year after year pretending in this manner whilst trying a thousand different ways to convince anyone that birds are descended from pterosaurs.

It would be near trivial to formulate a tailored series of questions that are seemingly "Socratic," but would have us smugly arrive at the question "then why are there still apes?" which potentially sways the less capable or informed.

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,13:10   

Between the poor field work, and dubious lab work, I formed the opinion that the "triceratops horn core" was not a dinosaur at all. I have suspected a Quaternary bison.

Regarding the age of the horn core, there is the interesting creationist buzz, eg. "Did Humans Walk the Earth with Dinosaurs?" that "The Triceratops brow horn was excavated by palaeontologist Otis Kline Jr, microscope scientist Mark Armitage, and microbiologist and avocational palaeontologist Kevin Anderson," obtained C14 dates from their "dinosaur." The radiocarbon dates were reportedly 33,570 ± 120, and 41,010 ± 220 RCY. That would conform with a secondary deposit of a bison.

As a side note, Otis Kline operates the young earth creationist Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum.

Edited by Dr.GH on Aug. 22 2015,11:11

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Learned Hand



Posts: 214
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,15:07   

"Between the poor field work, and dubious lab work, I formed the opinion that the "triceratops horn core" was not a dinosaur at all. I have suspected a Quaternary bison."

Why? Apologies if your reasoning is obvious; this is the first I'm hearing of this "quaternary" thing. Probably vile materialist garbage lies.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,15:37   

The location data given by Armitage&Anderson is in the 'old school" section-township-range style. It is useful to avoid giving away exact locations. E 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 Section 14, T. 15 N., R. 56 E., Dawson County, Glendive, MT, USA. The location is read backwards from the USGS quad map series.  

The creationist press identifying "paleontologist Otis Kline" and Hugh R. Miller, leads us to : Miller, H. R. DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONES AND OTHER FOSSILS-same radiocarbon age-range as that for megafauna.

Hugh R. Miller is the "Head of the Paleochronology Group" of Ohio that submits supposedly dinosaur bones for C14 dates. The "research article" also reveals that the "private ranch" where the Armitage&Anderson specimens were collected is owned by creationist Otis Kline. What a nice daisy chain.


I went looking for any published papers on intrusive fossils in the Hell Creek Formation:

First hits:

Aaron R. Wood, Mary J. Kraus, and Philip D. Gingerich
2008 "Downslope Fossil Contamination: Mammal-Bearing Fluvial Conglomerates and the Paleocene–Eocene Faunal Transition (Willwood Formation, Bighorn Basin, Wyoming)" PALAIOS

Lofgren, D. L., Hotton, C. L., & Runkel, A. C.
1990 "Reworking of Cretaceous dinosaurs into Paleocene channel, deposits, upper Hell Creek Formation, Montana." Geology, 18(9), 874-877.


(I made the "Hell Creek Formation" explicit).

Edited by Dr.GH on Aug. 22 2015,20:33

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,15:45   

Hmm, I wonder (not) why a creationist website posted a pdf of the Armitage/Anderson article:

http://www.creationmoments.com/sites......nal.pdf

Their home page, complete with a dinosaur image and "Eggs-ellent Examples of Design":

http://www.creationmoments.com/....nts....nts.com

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,16:30   

Quote (Learned Hand @ Aug. 22 2015,13:07)
"Between the poor field work, and dubious lab work, I formed the opinion that the "triceratops horn core" was not a dinosaur at all. I have suspected a Quaternary bison."

Why? Apologies if your reasoning is obvious; this is the first I'm hearing of this "quaternary" thing. Probably vile materialist garbage lies.

I was avoiding the idea that their results were actually faked.

Their ability to do field work is obviously poor, so I doubted they could tell what, or where they were excavating.

It takes a lot of practice to "read rocks."




--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,18:08   

I found it interesting that this story "broke" about a year ago. I was just after my first of 3 eye surgeries. I spent the better part of today looking at "new" material that I later discover I had made copies of a year ago.  :p

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,18:24   

I don't doubt the findings in the Wood/Kraus/Gingerich article regarding "downslope contamination" but something in the abstract made me go 'Huh?'

This:

"Dark-colored Wa-1 fossil teeth eroding from the conglomerates are now mixed in places with the lighter-colored teeth of Wa-0 mammals."

I only read the abstract so maybe I'm missing something but I've found a lot of Willwood Formation teeth and they range in color from pitch black to light brown regardless of whether they are from one layer or another (some are white-whitish or partially so if they have been recently exposed and weathered).  

On another note, I once found a bison skull (Bison bison) in the Jurassic Morrison Formation (Bighorn Basin, Wyoming) and a 'modern' horse (Equus) leg bone in Oligocene/Miocene marine sediments near the mouth of the Columbia River (Washington). Of course both had been worked into the sediments fairly recently (probably within the last 200-1,000 years for the bison skull and within the last 100 years for the horse bone). The bison skull is a dirty white color but has soaked up some minerals (it's noticeably heavier than a fresh skull). The horse leg bone is dark brown (the sediments it was in are dark gray) but about the same weight as a fresh bone. Sometimes interesting surprises occur when fossil hunting. If only I could find a saddle buried alongside a dinosaur skeleton. :)

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,19:05   

Well said, TW Truth.

What I liked about the two articles I mentioned is that they are about "old" Hell Creek Formation fossils eroding into "new" sediments, and "New" fossils eroding into "old" sediments.

Since there was no competent sedimentary analysis, or description in Armitage&Anderson their material could be from any time.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,20:52   

Crushing victory...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,21:54   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 22 2015,17:05)
Well said, TW Truth.

What I liked about the two articles I mentioned is that they are about "old" Hell Creek Formation fossils eroding into "new" sediments, and "New" fossils eroding into "old" sediments.

Since there was no competent sedimentary analysis, or description in Armitage&Anderson their material could be from any time.

Dr.GH, yeah, it's not all that uncommon to find some "old" fossils in "new" sediments and some "New" fossils in "old" sediments, and you're certainly right when you say that it takes practice to "read rocks". Reading them correctly can sometimes be quite a challenge, but it can be quite rewarding too, as I'm sure you know.

For anyone who is interested, in addition to the articles that Dr.GH pointed out, a couple of good phrases to use in a search are redeposition of fossils and reworked fossils.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,22:26   

Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 22 2015,19:54)
For anyone who is interested, in addition to the articles that Dr.GH pointed out, a couple of good phrases to use in a search are redeposition of fossils and reworked fossils.

Yep.

I bring a sack of beach pebbles to lectures. They have clasts from various kinds of rock, and some little fossil bone frags, or shells. I take the students through the steps - igneous, weathering, sedimentary, metamorphic, weathering, pebble.

My first slide in a historical geology lecture is always the tree slab below. We don't just count rings, or piles of strata. They all have a history to tell us.


Edited by Dr.GH on Aug. 22 2015,20:28

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,22:30   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 22 2015,18:52)
Crushing victory...

Yeah.

I wonder if Kevie will be back?

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2015,23:10   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 22 2015,22:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 22 2015,18:52)
Crushing victory...

Yeah.

I wonder if Kevie will be back?

It offends me that he shares my name.

But if he's too chicken to defend his work, then whatever.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4836
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,05:23   

Armitage boasts that the T.h. horn he found is the largest such known. When considering the possibility of misidentification, an extreme value for one distribution might well be a normal value for another distribution.

What are the relative sizes of T.h. horns and bison horns from the quaternary?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
N.Wells



Posts: 1749
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,07:05   

Justice moves slowly - expect results in about a year.

From http://www.lacourt.org/CivilCa....C552314
Quote

Case Calendar
Case Calendar for
Case Number: BC552314
MARK ARMITAGE VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CA STATE UNIVERSIT
Case filed on 7/22/2014

8/16/2016 at 8:30 AM in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference


Case Number: BC552314
MARK ARMITAGE VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CA STATE UNIVERSIT
Case filed on 7/22/2014

8/22/2016 at 9:30 AM in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial


Case Number: BC552314
MARK ARMITAGE VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CA STATE UNIVERSIT
Case filed on 7/22/2014

11/12/2015 at 8:30 AM in department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
STATUS CONFERENCE

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2164
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,07:19   

Quote (K.Anderson @ Aug. 20 2015,13:31)
Instead, the entire purpose of the paper was simply to describe the discovery of pliable, soft tissue within a Triceratops horn.  This had not been reported before, and it is also significant in that the horn was far from “pristinely” preserved prior to recovery. (The significance of other “non-pristinely” preserved specimens has recently been reported in Nature Communication.)  The methodology we used is standard extraction and preparation protocols employed by other labs doing similar investigations. These methods have proven appropriate for extraction of tissue containing a variety of cells and proteins.

this looks curious for a few reasons:
1. If the purpose of the paper was to report soft tissue in Triceratops horn, why didn't this appear in a palaeontology journal? Why chose a microscopy journal, which doesn't specialise in fossils? Isn't it totally the wrong audience for this?
2. If the horn "was far from “pristinely” preserved prior to recovery", doesn't this increase the chance of having contaminants?

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1778
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,09:50   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 22 2015,13:10)
Between the poor field work, and dubious lab work, I formed the opinion that the "triceratops horn core" was not a dinosaur at all. I have suspected a Quaternary bison.

Interesting hypothesis!

Here is their find



Here is a fossil bison horn circa 30,000 BC


Both are the same size, approx. 60 cm long x 25 cm diameter.

I wonder if Kevin will tell us how they did identify this as coming from a triceratops.  All the paper has is this
 
Quote
The length, girth and external morphology of the fossil was consistent with other Triceratops horns recovered from the Hell Creek Formation.  Disarticulated Triceratopsr ibs(HCTR-11) and vertebrae(HCTV 22) found within a mile of the horn were also recovered for analysis.

So it superficially looked like a triceratops horn and other pieces of triceratops were found within a mile.  I'd think they would need a much better method of identification than that.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,10:12   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 23 2015,09:50)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 22 2015,13:10)
Between the poor field work, and dubious lab work, I formed the opinion that the "triceratops horn core" was not a dinosaur at all. I have suspected a Quaternary bison.

Interesting hypothesis!

Here is their find



Here is a fossil bison horn circa 30,000 BC


Both are the same size, approx. 60 cm long x 25 cm diameter.

I wonder if Kevin will tell us how they did identify this as coming from a triceratops.  All the paper has is this
 
Quote
The length, girth and external morphology of the fossil was consistent with other Triceratops horns recovered from the Hell Creek Formation.  Disarticulated Triceratopsr ibs(HCTR-11) and vertebrae(HCTV 22) found within a mile of the horn were also recovered for analysis.

So it superficially looked like a triceratops horn and other pieces of triceratops were found within a mile.  I'd think they would need a much better method of identification than that.

If it looks designed, then it must be designed.

If it looks like a triceratops, then it must be a triceratops.

Because...

Geez, they're all alike.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,13:26   

I am thinking about writing a little comparison between the Armitage&Anderson bullshit and Mary Schwietzer's many publications that might seem similar.

I'll also work in the fact that she was one of the peer reviewers for A&A.

Edited by Dr.GH on Aug. 23 2015,11:26

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Henry J



Posts: 4652
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,17:02   

But was a saddle of appropriate size and shape also found in the area?

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,18:12   

Up to now I haven't paid much attention to this triceratops horn (or whatever it is), but I've done some searches for more info and have found that it is (or was) a popular topic, especially on some creationist websites, such as this one:

http://youngearth.com/soft-ti....eratops

Take a look at this site:

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=1317....p=13176

In one of his comments in that thread jlwile says that a guy named Hugh Miller "was the original discoverer of the fossil". Is that correct?

Here's an article on the creationmoments website that has a comment by Miller below it:

http://www.creationmoments.com/resourc....ionists

Here's an amusing story about meeting Miller at a conference:

https://boingboing.net/2014.......at.html

Here's a site that is apparently owned/operated by Miller and associates:

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbond....ing.htm

There are some comments here about Miller's claims:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio....als-dat

And here's all the proof you'll ever need to believe that humans rode and fought dinosaurs (Yabba Dabba Doo!):

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hugoc14....istence

I wasn't previously familiar with Miller (although I may have seen his name mentioned somewhere) but it appears that he's a fairly prominent soldier in the YEC war against science and sanity. Some of you are likely well aware of Miller and his claims.

And here's another picture of and article about the triceratops(?) horn:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-ev....-020159

Edited by The whole truth on Aug. 23 2015,16:17

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,18:38   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 22 2015,20:26)
Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 22 2015,19:54)
For anyone who is interested, in addition to the articles that Dr.GH pointed out, a couple of good phrases to use in a search are redeposition of fossils and reworked fossils.

Yep.

I bring a sack of beach pebbles to lectures. They have clasts from various kinds of rock, and some little fossil bone frags, or shells. I take the students through the steps - igneous, weathering, sedimentary, metamorphic, weathering, pebble.

My first slide in a historical geology lecture is always the tree slab below. We don't just count rings, or piles of strata. They all have a history to tell us.

That's an interesting slab. Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that heat from a fire has something to do with the way it looks.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,18:44   

Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 23 2015,16:38)
That's an interesting slab. Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that heat from a fire has something to do with the way it looks.

Nine fires. Drought. Beetle infestation. Finally cut down for a highway widening project.

:(

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,18:52   

Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 23 2015,16:12)
I wasn't previously familiar with Miller (although I may have seen his name mentioned somewhere) but it appears that he's a fairly prominent soldier in the YEC war against science and sanity. Some of you are likely well aware of Miller and his claims.

The creationists are all over the park about who found the "triceratops horn."

PS: Thanks for the links. They are great

Fred Williams was a "co-founder of the first site that you linked. He is a YEC with an engineering degree. He was ruthless at taking over creationist websites 15 years ago. He would be asked to be a moderator. Then he would start banning opposing posts, and ultimately ban the founding members leaving him in control.

Edited by Dr.GH on Aug. 23 2015,17:05

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,18:58   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 23 2015,08:12)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 23 2015,09:50)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 22 2015,13:10)
Between the poor field work, and dubious lab work, I formed the opinion that the "triceratops horn core" was not a dinosaur at all. I have suspected a Quaternary bison.

Interesting hypothesis!

Here is their find



Here is a fossil bison horn circa 30,000 BC


Both are the same size, approx. 60 cm long x 25 cm diameter.

I wonder if Kevin will tell us how they did identify this as coming from a triceratops.  All the paper has is this
   
Quote
The length, girth and external morphology of the fossil was consistent with other Triceratops horns recovered from the Hell Creek Formation.  Disarticulated Triceratopsr ibs(HCTR-11) and vertebrae(HCTV 22) found within a mile of the horn were also recovered for analysis.

So it superficially looked like a triceratops horn and other pieces of triceratops were found within a mile.  I'd think they would need a much better method of identification than that.

If it looks designed, then it must be designed.

If it looks like a triceratops, then it must be a triceratops.

Because...

Geez, they're all alike.

And even if it is a triceratops horn, there are some problems and unanswered questions in regard to the other claims about it.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,19:17   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 23 2015,16:44)
Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 23 2015,16:38)
That's an interesting slab. Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that heat from a fire has something to do with the way it looks.

Nine fires. Drought. Beetle infestation. Finally cut down for a highway widening project.

:(

If I stand on my head and squint real hard I think I can see an image of jesus in the damage caused by beetles. :p

Seriously though, it's a bummer that the tree was cut down. After all it had gone through, it only took minutes with a chainsaw to kill it. It's nice that you use a piece of it as an educational tool.

You're welcome for the links.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,19:19   

Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 23 2015,17:17)
Seriously though, it's a bummer that the tree was cut down. After all it had gone through, it only took minutes with a chainsaw to kill it. It's nice that you use a piece of it as an educational tool.

It lives on in powerpoint land.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,21:20   

I looked around the youngearth.com website a bit which led me to a couple of pages that some of you may want to check out (some of you may already know about them):

http://kgov.com/search.....deniers

http://kgov.com/tricera....rmitage

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1778
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,22:56   

Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 23 2015,18:12)
Up to now I haven't paid much attention to this triceratops horn (or whatever it is), but I've done some searches for more info and have found that it is (or was) a popular topic, especially on some creationist websites, such as this one:

http://youngearth.com/soft-ti....eratops

Take a look at this site:

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=1317....p=13176

In one of his comments in that thread jlwile says that a guy named Hugh Miller "was the original discoverer of the fossil". Is that correct?

Here's an article on the creationmoments website that has a comment by Miller below it:

http://www.creationmoments.com/resourc....ionists

Here's an amusing story about meeting Miller at a conference:

https://boingboing.net/2014.......at.html

Here's a site that is apparently owned/operated by Miller and associates:

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbond....ing.htm

There are some comments here about Miller's claims:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio....als-dat

And here's all the proof you'll ever need to believe that humans rode and fought dinosaurs (Yabba Dabba Doo!;):

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hugoc14....istence

I wasn't previously familiar with Miller (although I may have seen his name mentioned somewhere) but it appears that he's a fairly prominent soldier in the YEC war against science and sanity. Some of you are likely well aware of Miller and his claims.

And here's another picture of and article about the triceratops(?) horn:

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-ev....-020159

This is pretty funny from Miller's claim to have accurately C14 dated the latest A&A specimen.

   
Quote
The sample was divided at the lab into two fractions with the “bulk” or collagen break down products yielding an age of 33,570 ± 120 years and the carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite yielding an age of 41,010 ± 220 years [UGAMS-11752 & 11752a]


I wonder how the animal managed to have different sections of its same horn live 7500 years apart? :p

If you look at some of Miller's other C14 claims you can see the same pattern.  Different pieces of the same animal dating almost 10K years apart.  But there's no chance of contamination, no siree.

YECs aren't the sharpest crayons in the box.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2015,23:01   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 23 2015,22:56)
This is pretty funny from Miller's claim to have accurately C14 dated the latest A&A specimen.

   
Quote
The sample was divided at the lab into two fractions with the “bulk” or collagen break down products yielding an age of 33,570 ± 120 years and the carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite yielding an age of 41,010 ± 220 years [UGAMS-11752 & 11752a]


I wonder how the animal managed to have different sections of its same horn live 7500 years apart? :p

If you look at some of Miller's other C14 claims you can see the same pattern.  Different pieces of the same animal dating almost 10K years apart.  But there's no chance of contamination, no siree.

YECs aren't the sharpest crayons in the box.

Definitely within the timeframe for bison.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2015,05:50   

More YEC craziness that I came across:

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/printto....Id=1424

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.....ID=1068

http://creation.com/did-din....e-earth

http://creation.com/titanic....or-bird  ("Separating fact from fiction")


ETA: Oops, I see that Wesley Elsberry already linked to the godsaidmansaid site.

Edited by The whole truth on Aug. 24 2015,04:19

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2015,10:10   

Armitage: "It's about Jesus Christ. It's about the Bible. It's about winning people to Christ. That's what this is about.":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v...._MTQSxg

What a screwball.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2015,10:25   

By lying to them?

And what happens when they find out they've been lied to?

These people are not exactly the sharpest crayons in the box.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2015,11:35   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 23 2015,20:56)
I wonder how the animal managed to have different sections of its same horn live 7500 years apart? :p

If you look at some of Miller's other C14 claims you can see the same pattern.  Different pieces of the same animal dating almost 10K years apart.  But there's no chance of contamination, no siree.

YECs aren't the sharpest crayons in the box.

"collagen" 33,570 ± 120 years and the carbonate fraction of "bioapatite" 41,010 ± 220 years

The mineral apatite is only metastable, and while better than calcite for C14, they both are prone to absorb dissolved carbonate from groundwater. A difference of ~25% isn't that unusual. The carbonate from surrounding rock should have been tested.

One of the things that showed these men are amateurs is that they did not bother with soil samples. In the real world, any usable "collagen" at all indicates a non-dino fossil, or one that has had extensive recent organic modification/contamination. The perseverance of apatite also argues against a dinosaur.

At 30-40 ka there was extensive glacial ice down cutting, and melting.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
rossum



Posts: 233
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2015,14:49   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 24 2015,11:35)
"collagen" 33,570 ± 120 years and the carbonate fraction of "bioapatite" 41,010 ± 220 years

It often puzzles me how YECs can claim, with straight faces, that dates like this are accurate enough to disprove ancient dinosaurs, but are totally inaccurate when the age of the earth (and everything on it) is really 6,000 years or so and hence dates like 33,000 years old have to be completely ignored (except when convenient).

Cognitive dissonance?  No, can't be.  The words "cognitive dissonance" aren't in the Bible.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2015,16:19   

Quote (rossum @ Aug. 24 2015,12:49)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 24 2015,11:35)
"collagen" 33,570 ± 120 years and the carbonate fraction of "bioapatite" 41,010 ± 220 years

It often puzzles me how YECs can claim, with straight faces, that dates like this are accurate enough to disprove ancient dinosaurs, but are totally inaccurate when the age of the earth (and everything on it) is really 6,000 years or so and hence dates like 33,000 years old have to be completely ignored (except when convenient).

Cognitive dissonance?  No, can't be.  The words "cognitive dissonance" aren't in the Bible.

rossum

Lying sacks of shit?

That works for me.

The Hell Creek Formation is also reputed to have unusually high dissolved uranium levels. I have not personally researched this, but there is some C14 production from C13 absorbing neutrons. That could screw up dates. I would expect this to make the mineral fraction appear younger.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2015,17:53   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 24 2015,08:25)
By lying to them?

And what happens when they find out they've been lied to?

These people are not exactly the sharpest crayons in the box.

I think that you already know some answers to your questions but I'll offer some anyway:

"By lying to them?"

It's the 'Christian' (or religious) way.

"And what happens when they find out they've been lied to?"

Some people actually like to be lied to (including lying to themselves), and many or most people don't know enough and won't try to find out enough (especially about evolution and other scientific topics) to figure out if they're being lied to, and that especially applies to religious people (they're not called sheeple for nothin'). Many or most (if not all) religious people will not only tolerate lies from other religious people (at least of the same religion) but will even justify the lies, especially if the lying (or worse) is done to promote a particular god/religion (and sometimes even a generic god/religion) and to fight against the evil forces of Satan's evolutionist horde* (people like us).

"These people are not exactly the sharpest crayons in the box."

The sheeple who swallow their lies are even duller.  

*For some reason, typing out "Satan's evolutionist horde" made me laugh so hard that tears ran down my face.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
paragwinn



Posts: 512
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2015,19:21   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 24 2015,08:25)
By lying to them?

And what happens when they find out they've been lied to?

These people are not exactly the sharpest crayons in the box.

For someone like me, a fundamentalist Christian who had been wrestling with the "Creation vs Evolution" issue after starting college in the 1980s, I screwed up the courage to start reading Christian non-YEC and secular scientific sources. I came to understand the situation in a whole new light, gained a better appreciation for science done right, and eventually set aside my fundamentalist outlook. This led to undergoing the same process for areas like history, politics, lifestyle, etc, until I stopped depending on a notion of God in order to live my life.

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,16:01   

I've been looking around a bit and I found some things that may interest some of you:

https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/dinosau....-tissue  (Also click on his home page and read me page. He's obviously doing some very selective compartmentalization in his mind.)

http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzsch....huh.htm

http://eps.harvard.edu/files......013.pdf  (Also scroll down to the Supplemental Materials for this article.)

http://www.rae.org/pdf........ics.pdf  (Mark Armitage and Kevin Anderson are on this list.)

And this is a good indicator of how science has progressed on determining the cause(s) of the K-T (or K-P or K-Pg) boundary extinctions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......esearch


And another oops on my part: Wesley Elsberry had already provided a link to the Proslogion blog that I linked to in one of my other comments.


ETA this:

A phosphatic coprolite lacking diagenetic permineralization from the Upper Cretaceous Hell Creek Formation, northeastern Montana: Importance of dietary calcium phosphate in preservation

http://palaios.ku.edu/25....her.pdf  (I haven't found a free copy of the whole article.)

Edited by The whole truth on Aug. 25 2015,14:19

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2015,16:54   

I wonder if Kevin L. Anderson imagines that he has pulled off some "victory" with his brilliant 1-2 punch?

Pathetic.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2015,15:22   

Dr. Anderson is no longer listed in the faculty directory at Beebe, and is not teaching any courses this term.

I wonder if there will be a new lawsuit to be announced.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2015,13:10   

Kevin Anderson recently interjected on a Science News discussion that he could fully refute my ideas about his "dinosaur horn" if only he was not being "censored."

He added that, “1. The Triceratops horn was found on the Baisch Range. This is a very popular area for finding dinosaur fossils. In fact, the specific location where we found the horn is in the same area that has been excavated for years by Mary Schweitzer, Jack Horner, and many other paleontologists. The geological descriptions and analysis of this area has been reported in detail by others. All we needed to do in our paper was provide the specific geographic location. Everything else about the area is already known.”

I suggested he return here instead. Implied of course is that he can post what links, or photos he likes.

(I doubt we will see him, but hope spring eternal).

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4836
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2015,02:13   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 27 2015,13:10)
Kevin Anderson recently interjected on a Science News discussion that he could fully refute my ideas about his "dinosaur horn" if only he was not being "censored."

He added that, “1. The Triceratops horn was found on the Baisch Range. This is a very popular area for finding dinosaur fossils. In fact, the specific location where we found the horn is in the same area that has been excavated for years by Mary Schweitzer, Jack Horner, and many other paleontologists. The geological descriptions and analysis of this area has been reported in detail by others. All we needed to do in our paper was provide the specific geographic location. Everything else about the area is already known.”

I suggested he return here instead. Implied of course is that he can post what links, or photos he likes.

(I doubt we will see him, but hope spring eternal).

He corresponded with me to clear a glitch in his registration here at the outset. Is he claiming censorship has been applied at AtBC?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2015,13:47   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 28 2015,00:13)
He corresponded with me to clear a glitch in his registration here at the outset. Is he claiming censorship has been applied at AtBC?

No. He apparently sent t lot of comments to ScienceNews that he claims they "censored."

I suspect they had URLs which that site will not allow.

The site is now blocking my replies to Kevie as well.

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 28 2015,11:50

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
KevinB



Posts: 338
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2015,14:01   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 28 2015,13:47)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 28 2015,00:13)
He corresponded with me to clear a glitch in his registration here at the outset. Is he claiming censorship has been applied at AtBC?

No. He apparently sent t lot of comments to ScienceNews that he claims they "censored."

I suspect they had URLs which that site will not allow.

The site is now blocking my replies to Kevie as well.

This led me to the thought "filtered" and from there inexorably to DeNews' "Coffee"

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2015,18:36   

"Context, naming, and formal designation of the Cretaceous Hell Creek Formation lectostratotype, Garfield County, Montana" Geological Society of America Special Papers, 2014, 503, p. 89-121

“A stratigraphic survey of Triceratops localities in the Hell Creek Formation, northeastern Montana (2006–2010)” Geological Society of America Special Papers, 2014, 503, p. 313-332,


No such place as the “Baisch Range” in the Hell Creek geological literature.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Cubist



Posts: 490
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2015,00:46   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 28 2015,18:36)
No such place as the “Baisch Range” in the Hell Creek geological literature.

Googling for "baisch range hell creek", the first hit in the list of results is a link to Baisch's Montana Dinosaur Digs. From that site's "Welcome" page: "Take home dinosaur fossils, petrified wood, colorful rocks and precious memories from a day in the Eastern Montana badlands. Play paleontologist while you hunt for and excavate triceratops, edmontosaurus, and the elusive T-rex." The site does not appear to have any indication of YEC sympathies, for whatever that's worth.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2015,04:53   

Quote (Cubist @ Oct. 28 2015,22:46)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 28 2015,18:36)
No such place as the “Baisch Range” in the Hell Creek geological literature.

Googling for "baisch range hell creek", the first hit in the list of results is a link to Baisch's Montana Dinosaur Digs.

I especially liked "Play Paleontologist"

They are listed on the NatGeo travel recommendations.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,00:00   

So why didn't Kevie ever reply?

I think he is trying to deny he is a fraud.  ;)

   
Cubist



Posts: 490
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2016,16:45   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2015,07:05)
Justice moves slowly - expect results in about a year.

From http://www.lacourt.org/CivilCa....C552314

Just visited the URL that N. Wells provided, and—breaking news!—there's a couple items that don't appear in Wells' post (added after Wells' posting? Wells didn't elect to include them?).

There's a "STATUS CONFERENCE" scheduled for 22 April, and a "Motion" scheduled for 20 July. Looks like both the "Final Status Conference" (16 August) and "Jury Trial" (22 August) are still scheduled for the same dates Wells reported.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2016,11:36   

Without comment for now;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....e=share

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2133
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2016,10:16   

A second version of the Armitage settlement

https://www.insidehighered.com/news....tionist

   
k.e..



Posts: 3838
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2016,11:12   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 07 2016,18:16)
A second version of the Armitage settlement

https://www.insidehighered.com/news.......tionist

Creationism and victory are an oxymoron.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
  97 replies since July 31 2014,16:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]