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 >  
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: 4864
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: 1786
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: 3854
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: 1084
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: 2135
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: 1482
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: 2135
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: 4864
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: 4864
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: 493
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: 135
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: 2135
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: 2135
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: 2135
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: 2135
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: 2135
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: 2135
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: 2135
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: 4864
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: 1761
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

  
  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]