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

[Retro Rob]

Once again you have no clue what you are talking about

Don't like being called "close-minded"? Stop being "close-minded".

 

[Retro Rob]

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.

Guess you geniuses didn't read the article:

The discovery of soft tissue cells within dinosaur remains is controversial

He claimed the soft tissue supports his conclusion, though a physical explanation is simply "preferred".

 

[Paul98]

Don't like being called "close-minded"? Stop being "close-minded".

I am close minded to assertions without evidence, and proud of it

 

[Retro Rob]

I am close minded

We know you are.

 

[sandorski]

We know you are.

weak

 

[WelshBloke]

Guess you geniuses didn't read the article:

He claimed the soft tissue supports his conclusion, though a physical explanation is simply "preferred".

And a lot of other people said that the presence of soft tissue didn't.

 

[Retro Rob]

weak

Eh, but I think the argument questioning his credentials are valid, he was still hired despite them, though a "lab technician".

Could it be that his temporary statues expired about the same time his findings were published? That could very well be the case, because they also likely knew his religious views before hiring him as well.

That's why I'd reserve judgment until we have more facts.

 

[Retro Rob]

And a lot of other people said that the presence of soft tissue didn't.

Agree, but science isn't a popularity contest. If findings about the preservation of soft tissue aren't conclusive, then they should be open to other conclusions based on the evidence, (I admit that I don't know how soft tissue is preserved that long).

To summarily dismiss an unorthodox view, and perhaps cost a person his job, just shows how close-minded some in science are becoming.

 

[WelshBloke]

To summarily dismiss an unorthodox view, and perhaps cost a person his job, just shows how close-minded some in science are becoming.

So your sticking with the "closed minded" argument rather than they thought he was under qualified and a crap scientist who couldn't support his arguments that opposed all other mainstream opinions?

 

[Thebobo]

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.

Carbon dating is often used to describe all of radioactive dating.

 

[Retro Rob]

So your sticking with the "closed minded" argument rather than they thought he was under qualified

Again, why hire him to begin with if he was "under qualified"?

and a crap scientist who couldn't support his arguments that opposed all other mainstream opinions?

"Mainstream opinions" are still "opinions". Just because an opinion is widely-held doesn't make it true, or fact.

 

[Jhhnn]

Again, why hire him to begin with if he was "under qualified"?

Mistakes happen.

 

[Brainonska511]

Agree, but science isn't a popularity contest. If findings about the preservation of soft tissue aren't conclusive, then they should be open to other conclusions based on the evidence, (I admit that I don't know how soft tissue is preserved that long).

To summarily dismiss an unorthodox view, and perhaps cost a person his job, just shows how close-minded some in science are becoming.

And one guy putting up some hairbrained evidence that runs contradictory to the stacks of all other evidence, doesn't mean he's right.

When someone puts forward a new hypothesis in science, they also need it to fit with the existing evidence.

 

[Retro Rob]

And one guy putting up some hairbrained evidence that runs contradictory to the stacks of all other evidence, doesn't mean he's right.

Agree, as I never said I think he's right -- I still think he's wrong about the age of the fossil. But what I think should not influence how evidence is interpreted.

When someone puts forward a new hypothesis in science, they also need it to fit with the existing evidence.

What if the hypothesis runs against "existing evidence"? Should one force it to fit?

 

[Thebobo]

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

 

[Brainonska511]

Mistakes happen.

He was a lab tech. That could easily mean he was good at filling pipette tip boxes, handling ordering of supplies, and making starting materials the big boys and girls in the lab would use for their experiments. Nothing that requires large amounts of brain power...

 

[Iron Woode]

Agree, but science isn't a popularity contest. If findings about the preservation of soft tissue aren't conclusive, then they should be open to other conclusions based on the evidence, (I admit that I don't know how soft tissue is preserved that long).

To summarily dismiss an unorthodox view, and perhaps cost a person his job, just shows how close-minded some in science are becoming.

then maybe you should stop commenting on something you obviously know nothing about.

as to your last point: if he said he discovered a Nazi base on the moon would you embrace his unorthodox view? Or would you let commonsense prevail and say he is full of shit? Oh wait, since you don't understand how science works, you will probably be waiting for his "evidence".

 

[Retro Rob]

then maybe you should stop commenting on something you obviously know nothing about.

Exactly where have I commented on how soft tissue is preserved? Care to show me where?

as to your last point: if he said he discovered a Nazi base on the moon would you embrace his unorthodox view?

Explain how interpreting the age of a fossil containing soft tissue is the same as saying a Nazi base is on the moon?

 

[Paul98]

Exactly where have I commented on how soft tissue is preserved? Care to show me where?



Explain how interpreting the age of a fossil containing soft tissue is the same as saying a Nazi base is on the moon?

Both are assertions with no evidence.

 

[WelshBloke]

"Mainstream opinions" are still "opinions". Just because an opinion is widely-held doesn't make it true, or fact.

Being widely-held doesn't make it true, having a lot of evidence helps though.

What if the hypothesis runs against "existing evidence"? Should one force it to fit?

Then he gets to show how the existing evidence is wrong.

 

[Retro Rob]

Being widely-held doesn't make it true, having a lot of evidence helps though.

...but you didn't say "evidence" in the post I quoted you on...you specifically said "opinions".

Love the goalpost shift, though.

Then he gets to show how the existing evidence is wrong.

Can't do that if your conclusions are hand-waved, and you're fired from your job.

 

[Paul98]

...but you didn't say "evidence" in the post I quoted you on...you specifically said "opinions".

Love the goalpost shift, though.



Can't do that if your conclusions are hand-waved, and you're fired from your job.

That's why you stick with the actual findings, which simply where that you found soft tissue. You don't make an assertion that go against what is known, unless you can disprove what is already known, or have findings that go against what is known.

 

[Silver Prime]

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.

Ohhhhhhh

XD

 

[Retro Rob]

That's why you stick with the actual findings, which simply where that you found soft tissue.

No, you don't. I thought it was the job of science to explain things, not to just acknowledge they exist.

You don't make an assertion that go against what is known

Translation: You assert based on what's accepted...and don't dare try to contradict it.

unless you can disprove what is already known.

He tried, but was fired. Didn't you read the article, Einstein?

 

[Paul98]

No, you don't. I thought it was the job of science to explain things, not to just acknowledge they exist.



Translation: You asserts based what's accepted...and don't dare try to contradict it.



He tried, but was fired. Didn't you read the article, Einstein?

LMAO, way to cut what i wrote up to make it say what you want it to. I am done with you welcome to ignore