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

[brycejones]

What the Deuce?

look around and figure it out

 

[norseamd]

I've heard countless stories of scientists let go 20 years ago because they were asking the wrong questions in light of new findings. people have an agenda, assume you're crazy, and say because you're crazy, you're wrong. very weak circular reasoning, very strong circular jerking

Look it is bad enough that scientists who study possible extraterrestrial life from meteorites, physics that is not conforming to popular science, rediscovers of Lamarckism mechanics interacting with Darwinism in biology, or metaphysics are trashed as it is. We do not need to consider some Creationist who wants to put his ignorance on the world just because his psychological deficiencies want to fuck around with science. There are far more deserving souls who we can note withstand contempt and disdain.

 

[soulcougher73]

Easy. Give the bones to random peers and see what date they come back with. Ill bet its not 4000 years. He has an agenda.

 

[werepossum]

You are a monkey dumbass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catarrhini

Um, no. Catarrhini is a subdivision which contains one superfamily of which we are part. You might as well call him a sea squirt as a monkey.

I would not be surprised if his employer has a requirement that lab technicians not independently publish. One can be extremely competent technically and still produce papers embarrassing to one's employer.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Are you kidding me? Only the past century the Dino name has been accepted in some small communitys and certain branches of science, there are well over 1,000 different shapes, names, land types, water types, sky (flying) types of dinosaurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dinosaur_genera

Do you know how long it would take for one to match the skeletons to every pictorial record before TV, and internet and then sniff through fact from folklore? Eons, its easier now with computers, but still to what extant, humans live in a world of fantasy anyway, toons, movies, theatricals from fictional novels, how much millions of evidence is being overuled by toons narrirating 65 million years.

Its beyound stupid to say one branch of science has the final truth, majority of the other scientific occupations not only disagree, but have their own tangible proof (historic records in text and sculpture) archaeology 101, the funniest fact is 80% of the ying yangs who go and debate lion vs tiger have the ignorance, the stupidity and the just hysterical lies that (exclusively) tigers are asian and lions are african, when still today lions exist in india, and covered not only africa, but asia, eruasia, europe, and even america once upn a time. If majority of science couldent even tell if lions were in asia, how is it suppose date somethig spanning billions of years against thousands?

Science once said the earth was flat, now they say its round (contradiction), science says alot of things, doesnt mean its the truth, nor can you prove its accepted of 1/10th in any culture, just because the info comes from way back when doesnt mean its automatically flawed, newtons law (science) is older than 300 years should we disregard it because its old? The wheel has been around since way before BC times, should we do away with it since its so out dated and stick to flying cars and space ships? No, because we dont have them, the same way science brands dinos, the technology is something we dont have as accurate.

Not to mention the abuseing the word science, why not say knowledge instead followed by its ology (the study of)??? Beacuse 99% of the people on the web dont know, its all just speculation and opinions, not to forget, its alot easier to parry away from something you dont know and just say science instead of actually showing evidence.

Holy crap you're a moron.

I'm curious, do you think the world is flat?

 

[moonbogg]

Planted by Satan, to test our faith, dinosaur bones were.

 

[alzan]

Is this coming from the guy who failed to explain science? The world is flat, flat, not flat, flat flat flat flat, not flat, not flat, maybe flat, oh okay not flat.

Ha hah ah ha, and theres your scieince in a nut shell. Science has useless fictional-scince things just the same as religon has mythological things as well. I dont see where you think you've proven...fucking anything. You're just being a condesending crybaby at this point.

Specifically the shape of the Earth is closer to an oblate spheroid. It's referred to as simply a sphere for topographical/hydrographical reasons due to the involved mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

 

[GoPackGo]

Where in the bible does it say the earth is only 6000 years old? Guess what! NO WHERE!

 

[Exophase]

Where in the bible does it say the earth is only 6000 years old? Guess what! NO WHERE!

Except for where it says the world was created in 6 days, and where genealogies are given with ages when fathers birthed their children up to a point that is indisputably no more than a few thousand years ago (and in the Gospels a couple more genealogies that go up to ~2000 years ago, although they're not totally consistent)

Even if you take the days of creation to refer to eras rather than literal days it's still hard to say that the Bible doesn't make an explicit and deliberate point that humans have been around no more than ~6000 years give or take several hundred, which is sharply contradicted by archaeology and even history.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The historical records of what?

Exactly who coined the name dinosaurs and their exact date? Im pretty sure some cultures still today re-discovering bones in other parts of the world still think they are dragons...and dragons are a part of every main stream culture in europe and asia, whats to say they wernt painting dinosaurs via british emblems, whats to say Vikings anecdotes werent fighting the last of the dinosaurs in there area, after all they live in sub-artic areas perfect for preserving a Cryogenic dino, or how about the chinese who plaster dragons (dinosaur looking creatures) from there own hieroglyphs of ancient, come to think of it, just seen (2 years ago) a PBS of a man with pottery of an ancient civilization in america and they had hudreds of dinosaur sculptures, all within a range of 5,000 - 20,000 years ago, 4,000 is not that far off from that documentary.


When you speak of such historic records, instead of being arogant, and patruding out mainstream popular belief like cartoons, why not aid us to what masters degree professors and universitys these alleged claims were promoted and solidified a world wide acceptance, since numerous univeristys go head to head each year in refuting and disproving the other.

People see big foot and aliens. Also, Sailors thought manatees were mermaids. Eye witness accounts are notoriously bad. Studies show again and again that even a dozen witnesses can witness an event and fail to get any important detail correct. And most contradict each others. Many are willing to stand behind their failed memory of events with utter assurance and conviction.

People have imaginations, and information mutates through retelling by others. A bad game of telephone is inevitable. An ancestor sees a Komodo dragon, makes it home alive to tell the tale. Some embellishments results whether intentional and/or due to the problems we have with processing what we see and did not see. The telephone game then ensues thereafter and you end up with dragons. Could be another animal that gets turned into one, short glimpse, fear, any number of factors alters what they saw, but they will adamantly swear to what they saw, and not be lying. It is what they think they witnessed.

As to the OP: If they fired or laid him off wrongfully, I hope he gets a favorable settlement. The issue however seems very unclear at this point. Reading this thread it is difficult to determine if he even sited the 4k year old hypothesis in his paper?

 

[Retro Rob]

Except for where it says the world was created in 6 days, and where genealogies are given with ages when fathers birthed their children up to a point that is indisputably no more than a few thousand years ago (and in the Gospels a couple more genealogies that go up to ~2000 years ago, although they're not totally consistent)

Even if you take the days of creation to refer to eras rather than literal days it's still hard to say that the Bible doesn't make an explicit and deliberate point that humans have been around no more than ~6000 years give or take several hundred, which is sharply contradicted by archaeology and even history.

He's right, though, as the Bible doesn't indicate the age of the Universe nor the earth.

 

[networkman]

I happen to believe the Earth is only about 10,000 to 12,000 years old, so for someone to find a fossil that dates back to only 4,000 years ago isn't a problem for me.

 

[Exophase]

He's right, though, as the Bible doesn't indicate the age of the Universe nor the earth.

So you like to say. Christians and Jews have been dating the start of creation to ~4000 BC (give or take a few hundred or occasionally a thousand or so years) for thousands of years, the day-age interpretation you think is obvious has really only gained momentum in an attempt at reconciliation with the obvious problems with many scientific fields. Yet somehow you're still okay with the glaring contradiction with claiming humans have only been around ~6000 years and that ~4000 years ago all non-oceanic life was herded onto a ship to weather a global flood. I say if you're going to throw out all evidence to the contrary you'd may as well go full throttle.

While I suppose there could be legitimate interpretation that the intention of the author of Genesis 1 was to describe ages, I definitely think that the context leans much more closely to meaning familiar 24-hour periods, along these arguments http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1

I happen to believe the Earth is only about 10,000 to 12,000 years old, so for someone to find a fossil that dates back to only 4,000 years ago isn't a problem for me.

How did you come up with 10,000 to 12,000 years old?

 

[Retro Rob]

So you like to say. Christians and Jews have been dating the start of creation to ~4000 BC (give or take a few hundred or occasionally a thousand or so years) for thousands of years, the day-age interpretation you think is obvious has really only gained momentum in an attempt at reconciliation with the obvious problems with many scientific fields. Yet somehow you're still okay with the glaring contradiction with claiming humans have only been around ~6000 years and that ~4000 years ago all non-oceanic life was herded onto a ship to weather a global flood. I say if you're going to throw out all evidence to the contrary you'd may as well go full throttle.

While I suppose there could be legitimate interpretation that the intention of the author of Genesis 1 was to describe ages, I definitely think that the context leans much more closely to meaning familiar 24-hour periods, along these arguments http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1

All that is unnecessary....all you have to do is read Gen 2:4, which says that the creative days are one collective "Day".

That basically kills your argument. The only reason why I take a more "day-age" view is because the Bible indicates such by reading Gen 2:4 -- my view has nothing to do with what science has discovered.

Six literal days cannot fit into one "day"...so "day" refers to the passage of time, an unspecified amount, in that particular context.

If science says the world is 14 billion years old, so be it -- if it says its 10,000 years old, so be it.

Neither of those contradict the Bible.

 

[Exophase]

All that is unnecessary....all you have to do is read Gen 2:4, which says that the creative days are one collective "Day".

That basically kills your argument. The only reason why I take a more "day-age" view is because the Bible indicates such by reading Gen 2:4 -- my view has nothing to do with what science has discovered.

Six literal days cannot fit into one "day"...so "day" refers to the passage of time, an unspecified amount, in that particular context.

But Gen 2:4 only refers to the day when "the earth and the heavens" were made, which according to Genesis 1:1 happened even before the first day:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

So while it was established that God made heaven and earth in both verses, in Genesis 1 this is not part of the 6-day creation event. Maybe this was day 0 for God? Maybe creation really was 7 days.

If science says the world is 14 billion years old, so be it -- if it says its 10,000 years old, so be it.

Neither of those contradict the Bible.

But if science says that a global flood couldn't have happened 4000 years ago or that humans have been around for far more than 6000 years then it's wtf do scientists really know, right?

 

[Retro Rob]

But Gen 2:4 only refers to the day when "the earth and the heavens" were made, which according to Genesis 1:1 happened even before the first day

Genesis 2:4 is just a brief summation of the "days" of creation. Nothing more, nothing less.

To your point, though, if the heavens and earth were in existence before the first "day", then who knows how long the Bible says the world is.

snip

The rest of your post is simply nonsense to get the focus off of you being wrong about the Bible showing the world to be "young".

 

[alzan]

All that is unnecessary....all you have to do is read Gen 2:4, which says that the creative days are one collective "Day".

That basically kills your argument. The only reason why I take a more "day-age" view is because the Bible indicates such by reading Gen 2:4 -- my view has nothing to do with what science has discovered.

Six literal days cannot fit into one "day"...so "day" refers to the passage of time, an unspecified amount, in that particular context.

If science says the world is 14 billion years old, so be it -- if it says its 10,000 years old, so be it.

Neither of those contradict the Bible.

To do that you have to lend a certain amount of credence to the Bible, for various reasons not all people (and certainly not all astronomers/cosmologists, etc) do.

It may kill his argument for you but that's all.

 

[Exophase]

Genesis 2:4 is just a brief summation of the "days" of creation. Nothing more, nothing less.

The rest of your post is simply nonsense to get the focus off of you being wrong.

Another brilliant rebuttal from Retro Rob. Genesis 2:4 literally only consists of:

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Maybe you actually meant to refer to a broader set of verses?

Of course I'm also "wrong" to show that Gen 2 clearly describes non-human animals as being created after humans when Gen 1 clearly states the opposite, but we've already been down that path... I admit I'm playing with fire trying to give coherence to those two chapters that are contradictory, I suppose it's hard to be anything but wrong in the process. That goes for you too though.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[Retro Rob]

Of course I'm also "wrong" to show that Gen 2 clearly describes non-human animals as being created after humans when Gen 1 clearly states the opposite, but we've already been down that path... I admit I'm playing with fire trying to give coherence to those two chapters that are contradictory, I suppose it's hard to be anything but wrong in the process. That goes for you too though.

Genesis 2 is simply a topical arrangement in order of importance.

You take an awfully fundamentalist view of the Bible...no wonder you're so wrong about it. This is easy stuff.

 

[smackababy]

I missed most of the thread, but I still feel the need to interject. I really do hope a scientist that "discovered a 4000 year old" dino fossil was fired. Anyone who believes in fairy tales has no business pretending to be a scientist.

 

[Retro Rob]

To do that you have to lend a certain amount of credence to the Bible, for various reasons not all people (and certainly not all astronomers/cosmologists, etc) do.

It may kill his argument for you but that's all.

The Bible, and by extension religion, isn't for everyone. At one point in time, it wasn't for me for nearly 10 years.

So what?

 

[Exophase]

Genesis 2 is simply a topical arrangement in order of importance.

Based on what exactly? Your desire for it to not be contradictory, stemming from your assumption of a coherent and divinely inspired authorship? What in the text itself actually suggests this? The language is clearly chronological, with descriptions like "had yet" and transitions like "then" and "now."

Not to mention, it even says that God made animals as a consequence of man's condition:

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.”

But no, that doesn't establish a causal relationship at all, I'm such an idiot, this is easy stuff.

You take an awfully fundamental view of the Bible...no wonder you're so wrong about it. This is easy stuff.

Realizing it's all nonsense anyway removes the need to play the reconciliation needed to desperately try to make sense of it, leaving you with a reading that actually makes sense in the context in which it was written.

 

[Retro Rob]

Based on what exactly? Your desire for it to not be contradictory, stemming from your assumption of a coherent and divinely inspired authorship? What in the text itself actually suggests this? The language is clearly chronological, with descriptions like "had yet" and transitions like "then" and "now."

Huh? Who said Genesis 1 isn't Chronological?

Realizing it's all nonsense anyway removes the need to play the reconciliation needed to desperately try to make sense of it, leaving you with a reading that actually makes sense in the context in which it was written.

Christian Fundamentalists view the Bible the exact same way you do, as strictly literal, which is why they're also wrong.

 

[alzan]

The Bible, and by extension religion, isn't for everyone. At one point in time, it wasn't for me for nearly 10 years.

So what?

My point is that a creationist such as the subject of the OP should learn how to suspend his beliefs when working as a "scientist" else he should find another line of work. The fact that he thinks he was fired because of his beliefs tells me that he should do one or the other.

So you had a crisis of faith and were shunned by your family/friends and decided to go back "into the fold"?