Was this scientist fired for finding a "4000 year-old" dinosaur fossil?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
A California university says it is investigating religious discrimination allegations made by a prominent scientist and former employee who claims he was fired for his creationist beliefs.
Mark Armitage, a scientist and evangelical Christian, claims he was fired from his job as a lab technician at California State University at Northridge because he published an academic paper which appeared to support his creationist views, according to a lawsuit filed last week.
Click to expand...

Armitage, a long-time microscope scientist who has some 30 published papers to his name, believes the bones are no more than 4,000 years old -- a hypothesis that supports his view that such dinosaurs roamed the Earth relatively recently and that the planet is young.
On Feb. 12, 2013, a science journal published Armitage's triceratops soft tissue findings. Days later, Armitage was fired from his position.
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/3...niversity-fired-him-over-creationist-beliefs/


Don't really know, to be honest, until more facts are released. But I don't think that he was let go simply because he was a "temporary employee" which so happened to take place days after his conclusions where published.

You decide.

What do you think?
 
theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
He is not a very good lab technician if his lab work "shows" dinosaurs are 4000 years old, now is he?
 
G

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
21,983
6,297
136
senseamp said:
He is not a very good lab technician if his lab work "shows" dinosaurs are 4000 years old, now is he?
Click to expand...

Why is that? What if he found one that was indeed 4000 years old? Should he suppress that work because it doesn't conform to accepted facts? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at his work and results and see if his results are accurate and reproducible?
 
WelshBloke

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
32,653
10,831
136
Greenman said:
Why is that? What if he found one that was indeed 4000 years old? Should he suppress that work because it doesn't conform to accepted facts? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at his work and results and see if his results are accurate and reproducible?
Click to expand...

And if they were looked at, found to be rubbish and he was fired?
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
Greenman said:
Why is that? What if he found one that was indeed 4000 years old? Should he suppress that work because it doesn't conform to accepted facts? Wouldn't it make more sense to look at his work and results and see if his results are accurate and reproducible?
Click to expand...

Completely agree. He makes a scientific conclusion, which can be verified as true, or proven wrong.

Just because it doesn't conform to accepted facts, then I guess that means his conclusion can be out-of-handedly dismissed.

To me, it sounds like he was fired because of his conclusions...but since he was only temporary, they have a full-proof defense, in my opinion.
 
theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
http://creation.com/mark-h-armitage
Mark H. Armitage
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.
Click to expand...

Looks like his employer finally inquired what the obscure schools listed on his resume actually were and realized this guy has no actual scientific education.
 
P

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
He is making wild speculation on the date, he has no support for it based on his beliefs. These beliefs are not based in reality.

If he really wanted to see if it was 4000 years old he would have needed to investigate his claims, look at evidence both for and against.

But he wants to believe it was 4000 years old so he didn't do that.
 
MongGrel

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Paul98 said:
He is making wild speculation on the date, he has no support for it based on his beliefs. These beliefs are not based in reality.

If he really wanted to see if it was 4000 years old he would have needed to investigate his claims, look at evidence both for and against.

But he wants to believe it was 4000 years old so he didn't do that.
Click to expand...

I had always thought carbon dating solved age issues long ago.
 
theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I love how Fox calls him "prominent scientist." The guy got a Ph.D. in B.S. and worked as a lab technician. This qualifies as a prominent scientist on Fox :D
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
ivwshane said:
What's your comment on this rob?
Click to expand...

lol - I asked a question, and secondly, I'm in agreement that dinos are tens of millions of years old.

I just think that his findings were summarily rejected, without investigation, "days" after he they were published...so no time was taken to falsify them.

To answer your question, they knew he had no "scientific education" before hiring him...only after they fired him does idiots attack his credentials to have an excuse to be close-minded.
 
P

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Retro Rob said:
lol - I asked a question, and secondly, I'm in agreement that dinos are tens of millions of years old.

I just think that his findings were summarily rejected, without investigation, "days" after he they were published...so no time was taken to falsify them.

To answer your question, they knew he had no "scientific education" before hiring him...only after they fired him does idiots attack his credentials to have an excuse to be close-minded.
Click to expand...

They don't need to take time to falsify a statement with no evidence.
 
Thebobo

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
Lab technician is not a scientist and it must be embarrassing to the school to have lunatics like him. In he wants to play "scientist" he can go back to the academic powerhouse liberty university and write papers there.
 
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,452
6,688
126
MongGrel said:
I had always thought carbon dating solved age issues long ago.
Click to expand...

Carbon dating is only good for dating stuff in the best of conditions at about 75 thousand years. Other isotopes are used for older dating.
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
Greenman said:
Should he suppress that work because it doesn't conform to accepted facts?
Click to expand...

Hmm... let us see:

Paul98 said:
They don't need to take time to falsify a statement with no evidence.
Click to expand...

Thebobo said:
Lab technician is not a scientist and it must be embarrassing to the school to have lunatics like him. In he wants to play "scientist" he can go back to the academic powerhouse liberty university and write papers there.
Click to expand...

WelshBloke said:
Did you read any supporting arguments for his statement in the article?
Click to expand...

Obviously, to keep a job in any field of science, you'd better just shut up, and fall in line.
 
MongGrel

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Thebobo said:
They believe that carbon dating is a big sneaky lie.
Click to expand...

Scarey, isn't it :p

98HqmfG.gif


I'll be keeping that one forever thebobo.

:)
 
Last edited:
WelshBloke

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
32,653
10,831
136
Retro Rob said:
Hmm... let us see:
Obviously, to keep a job in any field of science, you'd better just shut up, and fall in line.
Click to expand...

No, you dont need to shut up or fall in line. You need to make your point and present any evidence you have. Obviously if your evidence contradicts everyone elses you better make sure that its pretty solid.

Thats kinda the entire point.
 
MongGrel

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Moonbeam said:
Carbon dating is only good for dating stuff in the best of conditions at about 75 thousand years. Other isotopes are used for older dating.
Click to expand...


Yes I know it has been improved, but still 4000 ?

I guess I was pointing out the fact you could date things with isotopes better than what this guy seemed to be doing in the 1940's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom