Criticising an Atheist Horseman – Sam Harris is wrong about Israel and Palestine »« I Get Mail – Haterade/Jaclyn Glenn/Fake Muslim

Mark Armitage – Creationism and Bad Science

Mark H. Armitage earned a BS in Education from Liberty University and an MS in Biology (parasitology), under Richard Lumsden (Ph.D. Rice and Dean of Tulane University’s graduate program) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, CA. He later graduated Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University and is a doctoral candidate there.

This kind of puzzles me as to what a Liberty University BSc and MSc are worth because no such course in biology to my knowledge teaches a creationist world view.

Are these degrees BSc in name or is there a basic standard of attainment? To my knowledge it is impossible to become a doctor if you subscribe to Land’s Theory rather than Pasteur. The Four Humours are a quaint notion of the past rather than vital reading and any doctor adhering to them would quickly find himself drummed out.

So it puzzles me that Mark Armitage has a career in Biology, considering he doesn’t believe in it.

Mark managed a working electron microscopy laboratory (SEM and TEM) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego. In 2003 he moved his laboratory to the Creation Research Society Van Andel Creation Research Center in AZ. His lab is still vibrant and is still producing publications.

Wait? The ICR has a freaking electron microscope? What for? I mean what are they looking for that confirms the presence of a divine Jehovah (rather than Brahma) and that Ancient Hindus and Jews and Chinese and Egyptians lived alongside T-Rex?

Until recently, Mark served as the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge. Mark was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica.

He is currently seeking relief in a legal action for wrongful termination and religious discrimination by the University. But here is the thing? I don’t think that’s why he is being fired. Scientists are seldom terminated for discovering something.

Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.

That’s interesting.

See bone is alive it contains cells called osteoblasts and osteoclasts that build and tear down bone in constant remodelling allowing it to deal with the stresses and strains of normal life and indeed fractures. To find fossil evidence of them is kind of cool.

The prior notion was that millions of years should cause such soft tissue  to degrade, however newer theories think that in specific cases the soft tissue can be mummified and preserved particularly  if it is kept in an anaerobic state.

Not one of these ideas pushes fort the fact that the Triceratops in question is 4000 years old by the way.

A scientist has filed a lawsuit against the California State University, Northridge saying he was terminated from his job due to his religious views after he discovered soft tissue on a triceratops fossil which supported his creationist view.

Creationism is not a religious world view any more than believing in a flat earth is a religious world view. NASA is unlikely to hire a flat earther or a geocentricist. Mark was hired specifically to operate an electron microscope and do science and to make the 4000 year old claim on this soft tissue is frankly astoundingly bad science.

Armitage believes that these bones are 4000 years old at the most and allegedly give credence to the notion that these dinosaurs were around humans until relatively recently. The scientist’s findings, which indicate that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago, were published in July 2013 in a peer-reviewed scientific journal but don’t mention his personal views.

This is like me producing a pile of research and then claiming that since my research is valid that my completely invalid personal beliefs also hold true. All Mark Armitage has discovered is soft tissue. It does not support his 6000 year old universe where we all came from two separate incidents of colossal incest and genetic bottle necks that are normally fatal (Adam and Eve/ Noah). Nor does it square with the tonnes of archeological evidence for a human society older than 4000 BC or the evidence for 2.6 billion years of life.

This is not the termination of an employee because of his religious views but the termination of an employee who literally believes in fairy tales and who is utilising actual research in an intellectually dishonest manner. This is not a silencing of scientific speech but the literal claim that Triceratops lived alongside human beings. If this were true, Mark Armitage would be in line for a Nobel Prize.

And it shows, Mark’s planning to sue for his termination. I disagree. Mark took a normal paper that he wrote and spun it to his creationist friends and is utilising actual science with additions to spread nonsense. To point out how ridiculous this is? We also found soft tissue from a T-Rex that made the news a while back. So according to Mark (who seems to have forgotten that this isn’t the first discovery of soft tissue from a dinosaur) both T-Rex and Triceratops coexisted 4000 years ago.

Yet we see absolutely no evidence of any such bones being kept with pride. Considering we mount deer heads with grandiose horns and the skulls of elephants on our walls with equal pride? Considering neandrathal art was quite explicit in their hunting of mammoth but not of any triceratops. It puzzles me that humans with our fascination for trophies from hunts and our pride and value in the remains of large predators…  would not seek to prove ourselves by hunting a T-Rex. We see plenty of lions and tigers and bears and deer and buffalo and elephant but not one triceratops or stegosaurus or diplodocus or t-rex brought down by skill and artifice of mankind. Not one skeleton marked by the blades of our fore fathers. And yet Mark here is willing to claim that the mere existence of soft tissue is indicative of a triceratops surviving the Cretaceous and living in North America alongside other Dinosaurs and humanity.

This is not science but a fantastic leap of applied religion. See the bones date back to the cretaceous but the soft tissue flies in the face of everything we know. So you have two logical steps. Either the bones are 4000 years old or so. Or there is a process to preserve soft tissue. The fact is the discovery of the first soft tissue evidence was a happy coincidence and told us where to look for more. However the bones are still 70 to 80 million years old. There is no rational reason to think they are 4000 years old and think that there is simply a whopping great big gap between these handful of outliers and the bulk of dinosaurs.

Unless you think that all dinosaurs lived 4000 years ago and were all vegetarians.

Pictured…. the jaws of a vegetarian

I often joked that perhaps the real reason Christians were eaten by lions was because they couldn’t tell carnivore from herbivore?

Mark wasn’t fired because he discovered something that was challenging evolution.

He was fired because he showed a completely lack of intellectual honesty and was misrepresenting discoveries in order to make a personal profit as a speaker of creationism. And in this law suit? Mark has won no matter what.

Either Mark wins and so allows the usage of real science to make fallacious claims by protecting it as freedom of religion. Or Mark loses the cases and becomes a poster child for the expelled trope of creationists where he profits from travelling about claiming that he is the creationist science tried to silence.

Comments

  1. says

    So it puzzles me that Mark Armitage has a career in Biology, considering he doesn’t believe in it.

    I assume you mean you are puzzled as to why he wants a career in biology given that he doesn’t believe it. That is a sensible question and is indeed puzzling. But if you are saying “how can he be a biologist if he doesn’t believe it?” (or any other science) then you are displaying a profound misunderstanding of science. Science is a highly efficient yet agnostic method for studying the natural world. It is not a priesthood. I doesn’t care about your motivations. It doesn’t ask if you are going to use the results for good or evil. It doesn’t ask if you are an atheist or a Christian. It doesn’t care about anything except obeying the rules, which are primarily concerned with accurately reporting your procedures, not fucking with the data, and disseminating the results. At no point does it ask you to certify that you believe what you are doing. It simply doesn’t matter. You could be doing it simply because it is a job–and if you do it right nobody could discern from your results that you lacked belief.

    Of course I hope at all times it is in the hands of practitioners who are passionate in their love for science–but it simply is not a requirement for doing science.

    Anyone who has taught labs knows that some of the students who do best are not those who seem to love the science. A desire for a good grade can motivate some to do fantastic experimental work even though they don’t give a rat’s ass.

    The other example I always give is that a physicists might hate String Theory and think it is bullshit–and yet come across an outstanding problem in String Theory, publish it and become famous in the String Theory community–all the while not believing that it has any connection with reality.

  2. colnago80 says

    Re Heddle @ #1

    The strings hypothesis is a bad example. Strings is a branch of mathematics which may or may not have application to physics. As I understand it, the jury, despite the claims of Brian Greene, is still out on that subject. However, as with many branch of mathematics, there might be interesting problems in strings as mathematical exercises which have nothing to do with physics. There may even be interesting predictions that the hypothesis makes relative to physics (e.g. the multiverse hypothesis), which cannot be confirmed at present due to limitations of technology. By the way, the question of belief should not enter the discussion. Many EPPs are dubious about the strings hypothesis (e.g. Lawrence Krauss) but it’s not a question of belief or lack thereof, it’s a question of evidence.

    Given the well known bandwagon effect in elementary particle physics, it might be advisable to at least dabble in the area as strings has been a rather long lived bandwagon (as opposed to such previous bandwagons as Regge Poles, current algebra, bootstrap dynamics, dispersion theory, Veneziano Model, SU(6) etc., all of which were attempts to get a handle on strong interactions which, at the time, appeared intractable).

  3. tiko says

    Unless you think that all dinosaurs lived 4000 years ago and were all vegetarians.

    Well Ken Ham does.He believes the T-Rex used it’s big sharp teeth to crack coconuts.

  4. smrnda says

    Scientific research institutions need to have credibility. If any aspect of their research gets misrepresented to the point where it seems people associated with the research institution are promoting falsehoods, it’s bad for their credibility.

    If I’m some low level lab employee, and I publicize information from the lab to back up false ideas that are *NOT* really substantiated by the evidence in question, this can damage the reputation of the lab and puts serious questions as to the integrity of the Lone Person Doing That.

    I’ve taken part in research where it would have been wrong for me to, independently, take some segment of it and then use it elsewhere.

  5. David A. Carlson says

    First, let me say that I don’t see how being a creationist means someone doesn’t believe in biology. Biology is a science. And, just like any other science, has nothing to do with someones religious beliefs. It is the study of something. (I really wish atheists could wrap their head around the idea that religious people can believe in science, since religious people use cars and the combustion engine is merely a matter of physics, we don’t believe that the car runs on “magic”)
    Second, as for cave drawings of dinosaurs, there have been cave drawings found of dinosaurs, but mainstream science refuses to accept them, even after scientific testing proving their legitimacy. Just do any search for “prehistoric art depicting dinosaurs” or anything similar. I did one and got a few hits right away. Here are two.
    http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/prehistoric-cave-art-depicting-humans-hunting-dinosaurs-discovered-in-kuwait/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ac%C3%A1mbaro_figures
    And there are many others. Personally, I don’t think that any of these disprove other scientific findings or popular scientific theories. In the same way, I don’t think that science disproves anything in the Bible either. Try to see how it is that someone could believe that the Bible is correct, and yet science is also. It isn’t that hard.

  6. William Holko says

    Sir,

    Your arrogance is astounding! Yet, it is typical of close-minded Darwinists. When it is all said and done, you will be proven wrong…Darwinism related to macro-evolution is the biggest “fairy tale” of all.

    Bill Holko

  7. says

    @6

    World News Daily Report are the ONLY people claimiing that painting is from Kuwait. The joke being that I am from Kuwait and one of the major problems with your statement is that Kuwait is a desert.

    No Caves

    And secondly? Considering the size of that creature I am going to go with “monitor lizards”.

    Desert Monitors are common in Kuwait and look precisely like that and are smaller than cows. I know this because I was born in Kuwait and have bloody seen monitors. The other is a fraud.

  8. ARB says

    At one point it was pretty difficult to be a chemist without accepting phlogiston as well. The fact that science is flexible enough to make some modifications in the unverifiable corners of theory to adapt to just about any set of new data — whether that be speculating that phlogiston has negative mass, or that a bit of iron can completely mummify tissues against millions of years of decay, faulty science can have a tremendous amount of inertia to it, and can often only be excised by sociological means; that is, replacement of the scientists themselves with younger, more open-minded scientists who haven’t been taught the same obvious and undeniable (but nonetheless incorrect) presuppositions of the previous generation.

    Mind you I don’t agree with his conclusion — frankly, I expect many of the puzzle pieces we find in this little box of observations we call “the universe” were put there as stumbling blocks; just as God has inverted the advantages of the wealthy over the poor who treasure Christ, and the powerful over the meek who rely on God for strength, so also are those who listen to his Word favored over those who would deafly presume to comprehend reality fully. (Which is not to say that evanescent gifts of worldly wealth, power, and knowledge are not useful tools — it is possible that interesting and very useful insights may be hidden even in a red herring — but in one’s own heart, one should not enshrine the earthly over the divine.)

    But I also have little background in biology (only some very basic study of knottedness in proteins which intersected with my math studies) so it’s rather hard for me to say where the science actually lies on the issue. I can say that I’m wholly unsatisfied with the standards of rigor which are common in the soft side of biology and in the “soft” sciences, but I doubt biologists care much to exercise rigor anywhere near that which any mathematics education would teach one to expect.

  9. George Jones says

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2014/07/28/mark-armitage-creationism-and-bad-science/

    This is like me producing a pile of research and then claiming that since my research is valid that my completely invalid personal beliefs also hold true.

    Isn’t that what you are doing in this article? And honestly isn’t that the whole point of the scientific method? You find a hypothesis which is always based on a personal belief or assumption, then you go though ways of testing your theories. You take all gathered data into account, if it proves the theory or not, before stating your conclusion.

    The problem most scientists have with this discovery is the fact that they cling to the millions of years old theory. To be a true scientist, you have to go into everything with an open mind. This can be hard for both evolutionists and creationists. Young earth creationists want to reject any evidence pointing to old earth, and evolutionists will reject anything pointing to young earth.

    What if this data was presented but there were no previous origin theories, and we had no presumed age of dino’s.

    Occam’s Razor would lead us to belief that the bones are not eon’s old. How old? The evidence doesn’t say for certain. This is were it is easy for a creationist to jump on the 4000 years theory. Yes, this brings that to be more possible but doesn’t prove anything.

    What this should point to anyone truly observing (true observing is letting the facts speak for themselves) the research is that there may indeed be a flaw in how we age something. Of course that should have been obvious a long time ago, all of our aging is based off of carbon dating. Carbon dating on a micro level has proven effective: with currently existing organisms with a known living carbon level, we can accurately tell the age of things several HUNDRED years old. Hundreds is the biggest we can prove for certain. Then someone decided to try to age extinct species with no known living carbon level, having the youngest possible age being 3500 years older than accurate carbon dating experiments, how is that infallible?
    Then of course someone would come back with: “but we know the age of the rocks and other things around the dinosaur therefore we know the age of the dinosaur”
    There are two flaws with this:
    1. The fact that the rocks were originally given ages based on ages of the dinosaurs found in them, so using the rocks to prove age is circular reasoning
    2. I live next the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, current theory is that those mountain ranges were formed several millions of years ago, therefore since they are millions of years old, and I live by them, I must be millions of years old?

    Before you throw out new theories, question your own. Look for holes in what you believe. Take no sides, true science has no sides.

  10. colnago80 says

    Re George Jones

    The age of the rocks in which dinosaur fossils have been found is known to a high degree of accuracy because of radioactive decay products (and no, C(14) is not one of them). The physics of radioactive decay is well understood because it is explained by quantum mechanics. If the decay rates are variable in time, then the only explanation could be that either the neutron/proton mass difference is variable in time, Planck’s Constant was variable in time, or the weak interaction coupling constant is variable in time. If any of these of these were true, and were as large as many orders of magnitude as would be required to explain a young earth, the consequences would be catastrophic. In particular, stars could not form and thus planetary nebula could not coalesce into planets; in other words, the universe as we know it would not exist. And if you want to dispute the findings of quantum mechanics, then you have to provide an alternative explanation as to why Quantum electrodynamics is able to provide calculations that agree with the measured value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to 10 significant digits. That’s one part in 10 billion. As Feynman put it, that’s equivalent to measuring the distance between the Empire State Building in New York City to City Hall in downtown Los Angeles to the nearest inch.

  11. colnago80 says

    This kind of puzzles me as to what a Liberty University BSc and MSc are worth because no such course in biology to my knowledge teaches a creationist world view.

    That’s very simple, they aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

  12. Dirga Ongkowidagdo says

    David A. Carlson: “Second, as for cave drawings of dinosaurs, there have been cave drawings found of dinosaurs, but mainstream science refuses to accept them, even after scientific testing proving their legitimacy. Just do any search for “prehistoric art depicting dinosaurs” or anything similar. I did one and got a few hits right away. Here are two.
    http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/prehistoric-cave-art-depicting-humans-hunting-dinosaurs-discovered-in-kuwait/

    Sir, you do realize World News Daily Report is a satire website, right? That the news posted there are jokes.

    Sorry, but this says a lot about your gullibility.

  13. says

    Watch this if you’d like to see the evidences for dinosaurs roaming with man. If you’d rather cling to your evolutionary belief (read: faith) then you may want to skip it.

  14. Marc Hurwitz says

    I’ve just read the original article. It appears to be good science (although my PhD isn’t in biology). Also, unlike the writer of the blog suggests, the authors are aware of previous soft-tissue findings. Indeed, they cite the references. All he says in the peer-reviewed paper is that this finding are problematic for theories of how soft-tissue survives.

    If Armitage decides to talk to his Creationist friends about this as proof of their beliefs (and there is no way to prove creationism!), that’s his business. But the scientific reporting seems appropriate and balanced. It is unlikely that this paper has anything to do with his dismissal.

  15. Jonathon von Tischner says

    I thought you might be interested in this, you’re of course free to delete it or ignore it as you see fit:
    Physical evidence of the Resurrection
    http://www.itbn.org/index/detail/lib/Networks/sublib/TBN/ec/VqcXByMzombYzTjXF9ZBeNMYfVAIJXEd
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyiZtagxX8
    Yeshua ha Mashiach, died on the cross for your sins as according to the Scriptures, on the 3rd day He raised again And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom are fallen asleep.After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of Paul also, as of one born out of due time. (Like when I saw Him) If you repent and trust him, you will have eternal life and reign w Him in His Kingdom.

  16. Steve-O says

    2. I live next the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, current theory is that those mountain ranges were formed several millions of years ago, therefore since they are millions of years old, and I live by them, I must be millions of years old?

    Please tell me this was a joke.

  17. the winter soldier says

    Yeah know thats alot of writing and effort coming from slagging , sock puppet piece of shit like yourself.

  18. says

    @17. You may be unaware of this but we have a modicum of politeness. Calling me a slagging, sock puppet piece of shit is rather amusing considering you have come here to comment.

    Consider this your first warning. You got one more before a ban. Don’t whinge, I am giving you a chance to be productive rather than insult me.

    Avicenna

  19. says

    I am polite. I did not bring science into your church. Mark Armitage tried to bring religion into science.

    I pointed out the logical and scientific error in his claim where he utilised genuine science to push a “frankly comical” hypothesis that the world is 6000 years old and that all humans came from a bunch of proto-Jewish faith people when my old religion predates Judaism and is the oldest continuous religion still in practice. I pointed out that his science was genuine on the paper but what he was doing was using the genuine science to come to faulty conclusions and promote himself as a valid scientist.

    Birds Fly. Penguins Cannot Fly. Fish Swim. All of these are verifiable facts.

    Therefore the Penguin is a Fish. This is a fallacious statement. If I toured the “penguin = Fish” circuit and profited, I would be a charlatan. Mark Armitage’s creationism pays more than science.

    Polite doesn’t mean let nonsense, whimsy, ignorance and fallacy be treated as science.

    It’s quite simple. Mark’s claiming the world’s around 6000 years old and that all of humanity descended from a genetic bottleneck at around 4000 years ago. My old religion has a history older than that and there are mighty empires and civilisations that stood around before that. It’s an allegory. It’s like Lord of the Rings or Aesop’s Fables. I don’t believe in a 4000 year old drive to civilisation of mankind any more than I believe rabbits can talk to tortoises about races.

    But I think you can learn from the imaginary talking rabbit and tortoise about the value of hard work over arrogant talent.

    Staying silent about faulty science being used to promote superstition to make children ignorant is not being polite. It’s being stupid.

  20. Michael McCabe, EdD says

    Armitage did not get fired for publishing his research in Acta Histochemica in July 2013. In that article, he stuck to the facts. However, last month Armitage summarized his findings and included this statement “the earth is young and evolution is a fairy tale for grownups” on the web site proof-of-evolution.com. Thereafter, his boss told him in no uncertain terms that the biology department would not keep someone around with his religious views. Armitage was fired for his religious views, not for his science fieldwork. If any readers think otherwise, submit proposals for carbon-14 testing of dinosaur bones to compare the data you get with data already in the literature (19-30,000 years old). See how far you get with that idea.

  21. says

    If my religious view suggested prayer instead of medical treatment then I would be fired as a doctor.

    Yes, I would be discriminated against because of my religious beliefs but frankly I have no business seeing patients.

    And no one carbon dates dinosaur bones… It’s faulty science.

  22. visitorsa says

    Well this is not the first time soft tissue was found and won’t be the last! No matter what religion you are, the facts speak louder than lies and unfortunately for Darwin and followers the truth will prevail soon! Sad that the whole world try to force evolution as a standard, and if they get that right, what will be the next big lie(tv hypnotics)? Who ever said people can’t coexist with dinosaurs? Is that totally impossible? Well I think today’s living conditions is more dangerous than then with dinosaurs! But then again, people destroy themselves with their lack of knowledge, as stated before!

  23. says

    While I agree that this is walking some weird, thin line/ gray area of legality for sacking Armitage….

    Good for Science. Good for Northridge. Good for people standing up to idiocy.
    I can respect that people have different beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I have to support them. Especially the beliefs that go to extremes in rejecting everything we’ve come to know as true about the natural world.

    The Scientific Method is a beautiful thing. The last part of the Method is to communicate results. Armitage put a stain on the work being done by jumping the gun and claiming — against all of chemistry, biology, geology, palentology, astronomy, genetics, etc. etc. — that the finding fits the Creation model? Give me a break!

    This man had an agenda and was bending facts to support his beliefs, not finding out how or why this tissue was preserved. REAL science has only one agenda: truth. Armitage seemed to forget that, and was punished accordingly. Again, GOOD for the university for standing their ground; Creationism pseudoscience has no place in a respected research facility. I support the university’s decision 100%!

    I’m hoping the courts shut him down. This can be done respectfully, of course. But Northridge needs to make the case that touting a scientific finding as “proof” is academically dishonest at best, and goes against nearly every other field of modern science. They need to say that they’re in the business of truth-finding, NOT in the business of cherry-picking singular, under-analyzed findings to draw bold conclusions and spread it as “fact.” For that reason alone is why they terminated Mr. Armitage.

    I’m sure AIG would love to add another “scientist” totheir payroll.

  24. Andromeda says

    “You find a hypothesis which is always based on a personal belief or assumption…”

    No. Just, no. This is a false statement and represents a misunderstanding of science. Hypotheses are based on grounded theory or observation, which is then subjected to testing. Hypotheses are not personal beliefs or assumptions.

  25. Stephen Polkowske says

    @26…i will disagree…hypothesis are used to try and prove or disprove theories. Theories are the Frame work we use to explain what we think on how something works…hypothesis are used to test the theory, to prove or disprove. What I find amusing though is someone brought up those that used to think the earth was flat. while that can seem ridiculous to us now…it wasn’t that long ago that people didn’t believe the earth’s crust moved or that the continents were at one time one large landmass either. remember this as well..the coelacanth was also supposed to have been extinct 65 million years ago too…while it’s unlikely that real dinosaurs exist now…it doesn’t take much to speculate that there could have been survivor strains of dinosaurs through the ages either.

  26. Chango says

    I grew up a huge fan of Leakey, with all the same evolutionist posters as the rest of the world. And oddly became a creationist at 14 while we were studying statistics in school, just north of Paris France. Math was my path to discovery of order in nature, but I did not do well in chemistry at first or biology. It was an awesome experience for me, beautiful and liberating. It was an epiphany that happened on the Rue de la Republique in Clermont de l’Oise while I was running through functional permutations in my mind as related to a woman walking down on the cobble as I sat in my mother’s car, waiting. I became a Christian 4 years later. For your market segmentation purposes… on second thought, do not cast your pearls… Take a break from your hate people, that seething hate of truth and different people, and enjoy your life and be happy. Discover Creation one day at a time and marvel at what you find, don’t fear it. And for you biologists, enjoy the nose on your next beer and all it’s living processes, and be grateful for the craftsman who brewed it. That’s love too, it’s everywhere.

  27. Gerald Apge says

    There is no grounds for asserting that a creationist doesn’t believe in biology. Saying that someone who points out something that appears to be concrete scientific evidence for dinosaurs having living in a radically different time period than the conventional scientific view “doesn’t believe in science” is the typical circular reasoning that is the foundation of evolution thinking.

    The idea that soft tissues may mummify is one of those many many ad hoc explanations that evolutionists come up with to explain things that shouldn’t be there. It was probably devised just because of these discoveries. The one Armitage talked about isn’t the first such discovery. So rather than question the conventional evolutionist framework – Shazam! – a soft tissue mummification theory is devised and labeled “scientific”. What is the hard evidence for the theory ( such as lab experiments)? Probably nothing. So then why is it “scientific”? Because it confirms the evolutionist framework. Which is of course, blatant circular reasoning, as usual.

    What’s absurd is how this circular reasoning is so embedded into the entire evolutionist framework.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>