Scientist challenging dinosaur fossil aging - fired from post
Biological researcher at the State University of California, Mark Armitage, was fired from his post days after publishing a peer-reviewed paper online.
The reason for this sad state of affairs was his discovery of soft fibrillar bone tissue from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus found at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA, and stating “This is the first report of sheets of soft tissue 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.” The link to the paper is below; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
The bone of contention is that discoveries of soft tissues/proteins and DNA in dinosaur fossils in recent years have been attributed to be 65 million +years old, whereas Armitage challenges this assertion and concludes that his findings rather support the thousands of years old scenario, challenging the cherished Darwinian evolutionary theory. This discovery indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years ago in the past rather than becoming extinct 60 million years ago as explained by his legal team. Armitage, a published scientist of over 30 years, was dismissed when the University abruptly claimed his appointment of 38 months had been temporary and no funding was available for his position. He has hired a legal team to challenge the university regarding his unfair treatment at their hands. A member of his legal team said “it had become apparent that ‘diversity’ and ‘intellectual curiosity’ so often touted as hallmarks of a university education, do not apply to those with a religious point of view.”
His discovery of the soft tissue, which according to most scientific perspectives should have been completely decayed millions of years ago, sent a shockwave through the department in which
he worked. A ‘secret’ meeting was held by faculty members whom allegedly decided to get rid of him, the complaint states. The action against the institution alleges discrimination based on religion, wrongful termination, retaliation, violations of academic freedom and free speech.
CBS reported that other researchers noticed that soft tissue was also found on the bones of a Tyrannosaurus Rex, but they explained that away by saying iron in the dinosaur’s body preserved the tissue.
In a report found here: http://justpaste.it/2q1a it states that the C14 dates indicate dinosaur remains are only 22-40K years old, not tens of millions. 20 samples were C14 dated at the University of Arizona by researchers Jean De Pontcharra and Marie Claire van Oosterwych who have PHD’s in physics and physical chemistry, respectively. Their findings were presented as a talk at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics meeting in Singapore. Their paper was removed with the only explanation being “there is obviously an error in the data”
Aside from the issue of contamination with regards to C14, certain soft tissues shouldn’t be around for more than 125 000 years.
After Armitage’s discovery according to a friend’s blog site, a university official began shouting at him “We’re not going to tolerate your religion in this department.” http://lastresistance.com/6600/scientist-finds-dino-soft-tissue-fired-religious-views/
What is disconcerting however is the claim of harassment by the plaintiff against the defendant is not the first incident of its kind to be featured in the news.
Biologists like Caroline Crocker, evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (who was not even an ID proponent at the time of his firing from the NIH) Dean Kenyon (one of the tops in his field at the time) and the list goes on. Intimidation seems to be the order of the day when mainstream science is challenged. The poser to consider is; is evolutionary science objective or dictatorial by nature.
The latter conclusion seems to be more apparent by the day.
What incidents like these indicate is that some people’s world views are so completely dependent on their theories being correct so consequently have a lot at stake in maintaining their ‘preferred’ positions. I have an open mind on this issue and insist that whatever the correct explanation for the origins of life, evolution, creationism etc. to eventually be determined, in no way threatens my world view despite protestations to the contrary by those with preconceived agenda’s.